Towards a P_ToBI :

Towards a P_ToBITowards a P_ToBI::

Céu Viana* & Sónia Frota** (coordinators)*CLUL, **DLGR/Onset-CEL, FLUL

Participants: Isabel Falé, Flaviane Fernandes, Isabel Mascarenhas, Ana Isabel Mata, Helena Moniz & Marina Vigário

PaPI2007 Universidade do MinhoWorskshop on the Transcription of Intonation in Ibero-Romance

POCTI-SFA-17-745

0. Introduction: background

• A firstfirst attempt at a unified transcription of some aspects of Portuguese intonation

• Brings together studies conducted on lab speech and on speech technology-oriented corpora

• First joint-venture of two research groups in process of fusion

• Our proposals are grounded on the understanding of the intonational and prosodic grammar of Portuguese based on the body of research developped in the last 20 years

• Pioneering work within the AM approach: Viana (1987)

• Previous studies on P-Intonation almost inexistent

• Overview: Frota (2000)

0. Introduction: topics covered

• Pitch accents– Nuclear accents– Prenuclear accents– Post-nuclear accent

• Boundary Tones– Levels of prosodic structure

relevant to intonational phrasing

• Distribution of tonal events and phrasing– Sparse vs. rich distribution

• Sentence Types– Declaratives

• Neutral; late/early focus– Questions

• Wh-, yes-no• Yes-no: late/early focus• Queries, Checks

• Varieties– SEP ; NEP ; BP

• Speech style– Lab speech; professional

reading; non-scripted speech; spontaneous speech

0. Introduction: main goals

• In this talk:1. Basic tunes across sentence

types (Lab speech)Data from SEP, NEP and BPDiscuss the levels of phrasing in P-

intonation2. New insights from

spontaneous, non-scripted speech

New accentsDifferences in the structural position,

frequency of use and/or meaning of the same accents

Levels of phrasing revisited

• Research on P-intonation (and P-prosody) is fairly recent, and a ground for consensus is only now being achieved

• Present labelling proposals are seen as work in progress

• It is hoped that they can help formulate relevant directions for further research

• This workshop is a big push Towards a P-ToBI

2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents• Description

H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H* H* L+H*

Three main nuclear accents

2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents• Description

H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H* H* L+H*

Previous peak + fall within the accented syllable

Low target usually near the bottom of the speaker’s range

Nucleus in neutral/broad focus statements and questions

Frota 1993, 1997, 2000, 2002a; Falé 1995; Vigário1998

2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents• Description

H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H* H* L+H*

Peak within the accented syllable immediately followed by a fall; usually followed by compressed pitch range within the same IP

Nucleus in narrow/contrastive focus declaratives

Frota 1993, 1997, 2000, 2002a; Vigário1998; Fernandes 2007

2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents• Description

H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H* H* L+H*

Low target in the accented syllable followed by a rise, starting within this syllable and usually reaching its peak on the next syllable

Nucleus in initial/internal IPs within statements (continuation); nucleus in contrastive yes-no questions

Frota 2000, 2002b; Frota et al. 2007; Vigário 2003

2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents• Description

H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H* H* L+H*

Three main nuclear accents Pre-nuclear position

2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents• Description

H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H* H* L+H*

Accented syllable preceded by immediately previous peak

Accented syllable around mid range

Common prenuclear accent in statements

Frota 2002b

2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents• Description

H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H* H* L+H*

Accented syllable is high

F0 peak not after a (substantial) rise or fall

Frequent initial accent in statements and questions

Frota 2000, 2002b; 2003; Vigário1998

2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents• Description

H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H* H* L+H*

Accented syllable is high and immediately preceded by a low target leading to a rise in the accented syllable

Fairly infrequent accent in SEP

Frota, D’Imperio, Elordieta, Prieto & Vigário 2007

2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones• Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries

L% H% LH% HL% !H% %H

A low target on the boundary syllable

Pre-final and final IPs in statements; Wh-questions

Viana 1987; Vigário 1998; Frota 2000, 2002b

2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones• Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries

L% H% LH% HL% !H% %H

A high target on the boundary syllable

Initial and internal IPs in statements (continuation)

Viana 1987; Vigário 1998; Frota 2000, 2002b, Frota et al. 2007

2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones• Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries

L% H% LH% HL% !H% %H

Low and High targets (rise) on the boundary syllable

Neutral yes-no questions, Contrastive yes-no questions (early nucleus); ‘Polite’ wh-questions

Frota 2002b

2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones• Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries

L% H% LH% HL% !H% %H

High and low targets (fall) on the boundary syllable

Contrastive yes-no questions (late nucleus)

Frota 2002b

2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones• Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries

L% H% LH% HL% !H% %H

A downstepped high target on the boundary syllable (also responsible for sustained pitch)

Initial and internal IPs in statements

Frota, D’Imperio, Elordieta, Prieto & Vigário 2007

2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones• Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries

L% H% LH% HL% !H% %H

Initial high boundary (optional)

Statements and questions

Frota 2003

Unsettled issues: labelling of the initial phrasal tone I[w[

2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral statement

the poet sang a morning angelic

2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral statement

H+L*, as in Italian varieties (Grice et al. 2005), or American Spanish (Sosa 1991)

the blond girl recorded a song wonderful from-the olive-pressman

2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral statement vs focus

(they got) married (they got) married

What about John and Mary? What happened to them?

John and Mary broke up ?

2. Basic tunes in SEP: narrow/contrastive focus

focus

Was it an angelic night that the poet sang ?

2. Basic tunes in SEP: narrow/contrastive focus

focus

H*+L, as in Bari or Palermo Italian (Grice 1995, Grice et al. 2005)

Who offered spices to the journalists ?

2. Basic tunes in SEP: wh-question

Same contour as in neutral declarative statements (like in e.g. Standard Italian, Avesani 1995) who painted a morning amber ?

2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral yes-no question

the poet sang a morning angelic ?Interrogation is signalled by the tonal boundary (like in e.g. Standard Italian or French, Avesani 1995, Post 2000); unlike in Southern varieties of Italian or in Catalan, Grice 2005, Prieto 2000)

2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral yes-no question

An accentual fall plus a boundary rise placed enterily on the final syllable; the pitch in between not controlled by L but resulting instead from interpolation (as in e.g. Bengali)

the girls Angolans-FEM read-to-us-it ?

2. Basic tunes in SEP: contrastive yes-no question

focus the hero drives a Porsche ?

I’ve seen that movie but I don’t recall who drives a Porsche.

2. Basic tunes in SEP: contrastive yes-no question

focus

L*+H HL% acounts for the higher level of the H target (as in L*+HH%, Vigário 1998, Frota 2000); the end point of the rising pitch is always the pre-final syllable (Frota 2002b)

the boys bought slides (for the microscope) ?

I would like to know if they bought slides and not something different.

2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing

Major IP: domain for sandhi, e.g. Fricative voicing; final lengthening; wider boundary rise; nuclear accent plus a H boundary (Frota 2000)

parenthetical

2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing

Minor IP: smaller final lengthening; smaller boundary rise; but the same sequence nuclear accent plus a H boundary; phrasing into minor IPs depends on phrase length (Frota 2000)

parenthetical

2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing

• Compound IP (Ladd 1992, 1996, Frota 2000, Vigário 2003)

IPs: sandhi, final lengthening, nucleus plus a tonal boundary (H or L)

Relative length of IPs > CompoundInner IP boundary within a Compound

or Major IP is weaker than the outer IP boundary (degree of final lengthening and size of pitch excursion)

Proposal: Major IP > T%, level 4 Minor IP > T- , level 3

• Why not the intermediate phrase?

No evidence in terms of the distribution of categorical phonological markers, e.g. T-T% for the IP and just T- for the ip Frota 2000, 2002a,b

No evidence for an edge tone that determines the contour from the last pitch accent until the end of the phrase, as in the definition of the ip (B&P 1986, Ladd 1996, Beckman et al. 2005, Grice at al. 2005) Frota 2002a,b

2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing

Subjects more than 8 syllables long (Elordieta, Frota & Vigário 2005)

Long subject

the boyfriend megalomaniac of-the Brazilian looked (at the) dark-haired women’

2. Basic tunes in NEP: neutral statement L*

the daughter-in-law of mother talked about the boyfriend Rich distribution of pitch accents (Vigário & Frota 2003); more IPs by utterance

the daughter-in-law of mother talked about the boyfriend

2. Basic tunes in NEP: wh-question

Same nuclear contour as in NEP neutral declarative statements: L* L% who painted a morning amber ?

2. Basic tunes in NEP: neutral yes-no question

Interrogation is signalled by the tonal boundary: H(L)%

the boys bought slides (for the microscope) ?

2. Basic tunes in BP: neutral statement

the researcher already gave-back the money Same nuclear contour as in SEP, but rich distribution of pitch accents (Frota & Vigário 2000, Tenani 2002, Fernandes 2007)

the researcher already gave-back the money

2. Basic tunes in BP: narrow (informational) focus

Two possibilities: main option is different from SEP (Fernandes 2007) the girls beautiful died in-the lake

focus

Who died in the lake ?

the girls beautiful died in-the lake

focus

Who died in the lake ?

2. Basic tunes in SEP, NEP and BP: summary

SEP NEP BPNeutral Decl H+L* L% L* L% H+L* L%Focus in Decl H*+L L*+H L- (or H*+L)Wh-question H+L* L% L* L%Neutral yes-no Q H+L* LH% L* H(L)%Contrastive yes-no L*+H LH/HL%

I-phrasing long phrases short phrasesSparse/rich accentdistribution sparse rich rich(accented I-phrase internal w27% 74% 80%

Accent on every IP PhP PW (Hellmuth 2007)

3 – Professional & Spontaneous Speech• Independent evidence for:

– Tonal inventory– Main tunes

• What’s new (for SEP)– Nuclear H*, L*, L+H* and H+!H* – Pre-nuclear and nuclear ^H*

• Problematic issues– Boundary tones

• Final HL%, !H% and L%• Initial %H and %L

– How to deal with the equivalence of L*+H and %L H* ?– How many levels of phrasing? (a supplementary level for sentence-like chunks?)

3. Pre-nuclear and nuclear L+H* in SEP

Statement – New information (professional reading)

3. Nuclear L+H*

Statement – new information - list qualities (high-school presentation, non-scripted)  

3. Nuclear L* in SEP

Statement, given information, continuation (high school spontaneous presentation)

3. Nuclear L* in SEP

Given information (topicalization), new information, continuation: MapTask corpus (INSTRUCT, non-final)  

3. L* vs L*+H

Yes-no question versus agree-proceed   (Map Task)

3. Nuclear H*

Imperative - polite/exhortative (lab speech)

3. Nuclear H*

Question – confirmation seeking

3. Nuclear H*

Question – confirmation seeking

3. Nuclear H+L*

Question – information seeking (neutral)

3. Other contrasts: Nuclear H*

Emphatic statement - inferable information (prof. reading)

3. Nuclear ^H*

Statement- highlighted specification 2nd and final part (MapTask - EXPLAIN)

3. Nuclear ^H*+L

Statement- narrow focus, new information 1st part (MapTask - EXPLAIN)

3. L+H* and ^H*

Reactivation of given information + inferable information/ correction (high-school prepared presentation - teacher)

3. L+H* and ^H*

New information + given/ highlighted specification (high-school spontaneous presentation - teacher)

3. L+H* and ^H*

New information + given/highlighted specification (professional reading)

3. Higher level organization (professional reading)

Lg_T01_07_a

0

5

10

15

20

25

00,20,40,60,8

11,21,41,61,822,

22,42,62,8

33,23,43,63,8

44,24,44,64,855,

25,45,65,8

66,26,46,66,8

77,27,47,67,8

88,28,48,68,8

99,29,49,69,81010

,210,410,610,81111

,211,411,611,81212

,212,412,612,81313

,213,413,613,81414

,214,414,614,81515

,215,415,615,81616

,216,416,616,817

Tempo (s)

Sem

itons

3. Higher level organization (prepared & spont. speech)

U21

U23 U24

U27

U29

U18

U22 U26 U28U16

U19

U25

U30

U17 U20

0

5

10

15

20

1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200Time (Cs)

Sem

itone

s

U 33U30 U32U19 U20 U21 U22U24

U25 U29U31

U23

U27U26 U28

0

5

10

15

20

2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100Time (Cs)

Sem

itone

s

3 – Professional & Spontaneous Speech• Independent evidence for:

– Tonal inventory– Main tunes

• What’s new (for SEP)– Nuclear H*, L*, L+H* and H+!H* – Pre-nuclear and nuclear ^H*

• Problematic issues– Boundary tones

• Final HL%, !H% and L%• Initial %H and %L

– How to deal with the equivalence of L*+H and %L H* ?– How many levels of phrasing? (a supplementary level for sentence-like chunks?)

Obrigada !