PaPI2007 Universidade do Minho
Worskshop on the Transcription of Intonation in Ibero-Romance
Towards 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
POCTI-SFA-17-745
0. Introduction: background
• A first 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 PIntonation 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 BP
Discuss the levels of phrasing in Pintonation
2. New insights from
spontaneous, non-scripted
speech
New accents
Differences 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
Three main nuclear accents
H+!H*
H*
L+H*
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
Three main nuclear accents
H+!H*
H*
L+H*
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)
Unsettled issues:
labelling of the initial
phrasal tone I[w[
Statements and questions
Frota 2003
2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral statement
the poet
sang
a
morning
angelic
2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral statement
the blond girl recorded a song wonderful from-the olive-pressman
H+L*, as in Italian varieties (Grice et al. 2005), or American Spanish (Sosa 1991)
2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral statement vs focus
What about John
and Mary? What
happened to them?
(they got) married
(they got) married
John and Mary
broke up ?
2. Basic tunes in SEP: narrow/contrastive focus
Was it an angelic
night that the poet
sang ?
focus
2. Basic tunes in SEP: narrow/contrastive focus
Who offered spices
to the journalists ?
focus
H*+L, as in Bari or Palermo Italian (Grice 1995, Grice et al. 2005)
2. Basic tunes in SEP: wh-question
who painted a
morning
amber ?
Same contour as in neutral declarative statements (like in e.g. Standard Italian, Avesani 1995)
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
the
girls
Angolans-FEM
read-to-us-it ?
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)
2. Basic tunes in SEP: contrastive yes-no question
I’ve seen that movie
but I don’t recall
who drives a
Porsche.
focus
the
hero
drives a
Porsche ?
2. Basic tunes in SEP: contrastive yes-no question
I would like to know
if they bought slides
and not something
different.
focus
the
boys
bought
slides (for the microscope) ?
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)
2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing
parenthetical
Major IP: domain for sandhi, e.g. Fricative voicing; final lengthening; wider boundary rise;
nuclear accent plus a H boundary (Frota 2000)
2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing
parenthetical
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)
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 > Compound
Inner 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
Long subject
the boyfriend megalomaniac of-the Brazilian looked (at the) dark-haired women’
Subjects more than 8 syllables long (Elordieta, Frota & Vigário 2005)
2. Basic tunes in NEP: neutral statement
the daughter-in-law of mother
L*
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
who
painted
a
morning
amber ?
Same nuclear contour as in NEP neutral declarative statements: L* L%
2. Basic tunes in NEP: neutral yes-no question
the
boys
bought
slides (for the microscope) ?
Interrogation is signalled by the tonal boundary: H(L)%
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
Who died in the lake ?
focus
the
girls
beautiful
died
in-the
lake
Two possibilities: main option is different from SEP (Fernandes 2007)
Who died in the lake ?
focus
the
girls
beautiful
died
in-the
lake
2. Basic tunes in SEP, NEP and BP: summary
SEP
NEP
BP
Neutral Decl
Focus in Decl
Wh-question
Neutral yes-no Q
Contrastive yes-no
H+L* L%
L* L%
H*+L
H+L* L%
L* L%
H+L* LH%
L* H(L)%
L*+H LH/HL%
H+L* L%
L*+H L- (or H*+L)
I-phrasing
Sparse/rich accent
distribution
long phrases
sparse
(accented I-phrase internal w) 27%
rich
74%
rich
80%
Accent on every
IP
PhP
PW (Hellmuth 2007)
short phrases
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 (highschool 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
25
Semitons
20
15
10
5
0
0 0,0,0,0, 11,1,1,1,2 2,2,2,2, 3 3,3,3,3, 44,4,4,4,5 5,5,5,5, 6 6,6,6,6, 77,7,7,7, 8 8,8,8,8, 9 9,9,9,9,101010101011111111111212121212131313131314141414141515151515161616161617
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 ,2,4,6,8 ,2,4,6,8 ,2,4,6,8 ,2,4,6,8 ,2,4,6,8 ,2,4,6,8 ,2,4,6,8
Tempo (s)
3. Higher level organization
(prepared & spont. speech)
20
Semitones
15
10
5
U19
U20
U23
U22
U21
U24
U26
U27
U25
0
2200
U28
U32
U30
U 33
U29
U31
2300
2400 2500
2600
2700
2800
2900 3000
3100 3200
Tim e (Cs)
3300 3400
3500
3600
3700
3800 3900
4000
4100
20
Semitones
15
10
U18
U19
5
U23
U20
U17
U16
U24
U22
U25
U21
0
1300
U26
U28
U30
U27
U29
1400 1500
1600
1700
1800 1900
2000
2100
2200 2300
Tim e (Cs)
2400
2500
2600 2700
2800
2900
3000 3100
3200
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 !