The interface between syntax, prosody, and information structure: What we can learn from L2 speech

1
The interface between syntax, prosody, and
information structure What we can learn from L2
speech

• Maria Luisa Zubizarreta
• University of Southern California
• October 2009

2
The grammatical relevance of discourse-based
distinctions.

• The focus-presupposition divide
• Grammatically encoded in terms of a
  quantificational structure
• The new-given information divide
• Grammatically encoded in terms of anaphora
• The topic-comment divide e.g. categorical vs.
  thetic statements
• Grammatically encoded in terms of predication.

3
Grammatical identification of focus

• Scope of focus identified via
• Nuclear Stress --rhythmically most prominent word
  in sentence --e.g. Germanic and Romance.
• Prosodic phrasing --e.g. Bengali (Hayes Lahiri
  1991), Korean (Jun 1993), Chitumbuka (Downing
  2006) , French (Féry 2001).
• Morpho-syntax syntactic position and
  morpho-syntactic markers (e.g. Chinese,
  West-African languages).
• Combination of above mechanisms.

4
Nuclear Stress and Focus.

• The focused constituent must contain the word
  with NS (Chomsky 1971, Jackendoff 1972).
• NSR generates unmarked patterns, i.e. patterns
  compatible with wide focus.
• Q Whats new?
• A John broke his leg. vs.
• John broke his leg

5
Marked prominence patterns deaccenting
NS-Shift patterns.

• In English ( other lgs), NS aligns with the
  Nuclear Pitch Accent (NPA) the last PA in the
  Intonational Phrase
• In English, given information gets deaccented (PA
  deletion or reduction)
• If deacc constituent is contained within the
  focus, NS-Shift applies
• Words with no PA are less prominent than words
  with PA (in English)

6
Given within the assertion

• Givenness explicit mention.
• Q1 Why are you buying that old stamp?
• A1 Because I foc collect stamps.
• Givenness inferred from context (Ladd
  1980,1996)
• Q2 Why didnt you read the article I
• gave you?
• A2 I foc cant read German

7
Non-asserted Given Narrow focus cases

• Wide focus
• Q1 Whats new?
• A1 John broke his leg.
• Narrow focus
• Q2 Who broke his leg?
• A2 foc John broke his leg. (VP deacc)

8
Domain of Nuclear Stress. A Caveat

• Nuclear Pitch Accent aligns with NS.
• In core cases, domain of NS is the sentence (
  Intonational Phrase or InP)
• Symmetry Sentence InP can be distorted by
  phonological weight and length, giving rise to
  rephrasing restructuring of NS domain.
• Core cases primary linguistic data for
  acquisition.

9
Determining Nuclear Stress. Different Views.

• Syntactic approaches
• NSR applies directly to the syntactic structure
  Chomsky Halle 1968, Cinque 1993, Kahnemuyipour
  2004
• NSR applies to a metrically interpreted
  syntactic structure Halle Vergnaud 1984,
  Zubizarreta 1998, Zubizarreta Vergnaud 2003,
  Nava Zubizarreta 2009, to appear.

10
Determining Nuclear Stress. Different Views.

• The prosodic phrasing approach (Selkirk 1986,
  Nespor Vogel 1986)
• Phonological phrase derived from syntactic
  structure via mapping algorithms
• Phrasal stress assigned to (right or left) edge
  of phonological phrase.
• NS identified as the stress on the last
  phonological phrase.

11
Nuclear Stress the relevance of syntactic
structure

• Adjunct-argument distinction in Germanic
  sentences and compounds
• (1) a. Hans hat an seinem Papier gearbeitet.
• Hans has on his paper worked
• b. Hans hat in seinem Büro gearbeitet.
• Hans has in his office worked
  (Krifka 1984)
• (2)a. tree-eater someone who eats trees
• b. tree-eater someone who eats on a tree
• (3)a. toy-factory factory that makes toys
• b. toy-factory a toy that is a factory
  
• ( Fudge 1984, Selkirk 1984, Giegerich 2004,
  among others )

12
Non-Phrase final NS in Germanic

• Unmarked stress patterns with non-
• sentence final NS (esp. with unacc verbs)
• (1) Why are you so happy?
• My friend arrived. (100)
• (2) Why are the kids looking outside?
• A rabbit appeared. (100)
• (3) What was that crashing sound?
• A window broke. (100)
• (Schmerling 1976, Selkirk 1984, 1995,
  Gussenhoven 1984. Exs from Nava Zubizarretas
  experimental protocol (in press)).

13
Nuclear Stress final vs. non-final NS in
intransitives

• SV ? NS on the subject
• The pizza arrived.
• S Adv V ? NS rightmost (Gussenhoven
  1984)
• The pizza quickly arrived.

14
Nuclear Stress the relevance of
semantico-pragmatic factors Germanic

• Variability (esp. with unegartive verbs)
• (4) How did the party end?
• A guest sang. (57) A guest sang.
  (43)
• Pragmatics (predictability noteworthiness)
• (5) Why are those children screaming?
• Because a dog is barking.
  (71)
• (6) Why does everybody look so surprised?
• Because a dog is singing.
  (81)
• (Exs. from Nava Zubizarretas in press)

15
Categorical vs. thetic marking via
NS

• Categorical/thetic distinction can be marked via
  NS in Germanic (Sasse 1987).
• Unacc (due to their lexical semantics) tend to be
  construed as thetic (or eventive) SV
• Unergatives tend to be variable SV (thetic) or
  (SV) (categorical)
• Pragmatics (predictability or noteworthiness) can
  influence construal of statement as categorical
  or thetic

16
P-phrasing categorical vs. thetic

• No one-to-one correlation between NS placement
  and p-phrasing
• (S V) my friend arrived (unacc)
• (S) (V) a guest sang (uneg)
• (S V) a guest sang (unerg)
• Stress retraction (ANne Marie BYcicled)
• Cf. Inkelas Zec 1993

17
Nuclear Stress Germanic vs. Romance

• Germanic flexible NS
• sentence-final and non-sentence final NS
  patterns.
• variability in the positioning of NS in certain
  structures (SV intransitives)
• Romance rigid NS (e.g. Hualde 2006, 2009, Sosa
  1999, Zubizarreta 1998 for Spanish)
• phrase-final NS patterns
• no variability

18
Theticity marking Germanic vs. Romance

• Categorical / thetic distinction encoded
  syntactically in Romance, ie. via word in Span
• VS (thetic) vs. SV (categorical)
• Theticity can also be expressed syntactically in
  English (there-construction).
• Cross-linguistic difference remains (not
  explainable by discourse-considerations).
• Theres a dolphin swimming.
• Hay un delfin nadando.

19
The NSR our view.

• A grammatically encapsulated algorithm.
• Generates unmarked rhythmic patterns
  compatible with wide focus.
• In Germanic, NSR generates variable patterns in
  certain structures.
• Speaker chooses a particular NS pattern depending
  on
• Sentence thetic or categorical information
  highlighting

20
Cross-linguistic differences Prosody of
function words categories

• Prosodic nature of function words at the heart of
  the Romance/Germanic NSR parameter.
• Germanic function words may be
  unstressed/reduced ? functional categories may be
  metrically invisible.
• Spanish function words not reduced ? functional
  categories metrically visible.

21
The prosodic status of (semi)-function verbs.

• Non-lexical verbs are intrinsically
  unstressed/reduced (Inkelas Zec 1993)
• Becomes metrically strong (Altenberg p. 172-3)
• If clause final. Wherever she was, always a
  letter came through, asking how she was.
• If followed by deaccented anaphoric complement. I
  asked him how he was doing it.
• If emphatic. It had to be a well.

22
A two-layer NSR.

• NSR applies to a metrically interpreted syntactic
  tree assigns Strong vs. Weak to sister nodes
  (Liberman 1975).
• Given two metrical sister nodes A and B
• (i) If A is a head and B is its argument, assign
  S(trong) to B. (specific NSR)
• (ii) Otherwise, assign S(trong) to the rightmost
  constituent node (general NSR).
• (Zubizarreta 1998, Zubizarreta Vergnaud 2003)

23
Germanic NS patterns. A metrical analysis.

• Nw Tw Vs
• a dog is barking
• Ns T Vw
• a dog is barking

24
Germanic NS patterns. A metrical analysis.

• Nw (T) Advw Vs
• The pizza quickly arrived

25
Germanic NS patterns

• Nw Aspw Vs
• I saw a dolphin swimming
• NS Asp Vw
• I saw a dolphin swimming

26
Germanic NS Compositional Compounds

• NS NW
• mice hunt-ing the hunting of mice
• NW NS
• night hunt-ing hunting at night

27
Anaphoric Deaccenting

• A-deaccenting
• pitch-range reduction
• interacts directly with discourse
• not gramm constraint
• variable gradient
• Output of A-deacc (as well as Emphasis) affects
  metrical structure ? NS-Shift.
• non-pitch accented syllables always metrically
  weaker than pitch-accented ones

28
Model of Grammar (preliminary) proposal

• core syntax
• segmental p-syntax LF
• phonology (NSR other rhythmic
  rules,
• p-phrasing, PA assignment)
• discourse Intonational Phonetics
• (A- deacc, emphasis, etc)

29
Recapitulation

• 2 distinct types of phenomena
• Type 1 Phenomena to be described at an abstract
  grammatically-encapsulated level (e.g. NSR)
• Type 2 Phenomena to be described at the
  interface level between signal discourse (e.g.
  A-deaccenting, Emphasis)

30
A-deacc English vs. Spanish

• Spanish does not use A-deacc
• No grammatical reason
• Rather, stylistic reasons.
• Spanish uses other grammatical resources instead,
  such as cliticization and dislocation.

31
Implications.

• Typological differences
• Type 1 deeply rooted in the grammar of the
  language (e.g. type of NSR depends on the
  metrical status of functional categories)
• Type 2 merely stylistic it has no grammatical
  raison dêtre.
• Hypothesis Type 2 is more amenable to change
  than Type 1.

32
L2 Speech ideal testing grounds

• L1 Spanish/L2 English speech ideal testing
  grounds (Nava Zubizarreta 2009, 2010
  Zubizarreta Nava to appear)
• L1 L2 Grammars in competition (Yang 2003)
• Dominant L2 (L2 acquired)
• Dominant L1 or oscillation between L1 and L2
  grammar (L2 not acquired)

33
Our L2 study

• Production of target-like Germanic NS (as a
  measure of acquisition of Germanic NSR)
• Production of vowel reduction (as a measure of
  metrical invisibility)
• A-deaccenting NS-shift in wide focus and narrow
  focused contexts.

34
Studies on L2 rhythm

• Studies on L2 rhythm e.g. Carter 2005, White
  Mattys 2007, Carter 2005, Gut 2003
• Gut 2003 investigated L1 rhythmic influence on
  vowel duration across populations.
• Compared L1 Romance (French, Italian, Romanian)
  and L1 English learners of L2 German.
• English general vowel reduction in unstressed
  syllables.
• German vowel reduction in inflectional morphemes
  in syllables in final position in lexical words
• Romance no vowel reduction.

35
Gut 2003 L2 vowel duration

• Guts results
• L1 Romance native populations showed evidence of
  L1 transfer via their low level of vowel
  reduction in L2 German.
• L1 English natives reduced vowels in more
  contexts in German than German natives.

36
Acquisition of Germanic NS

• Acquisition of Germanic NS patterns involves two
  aspects the formal and the functional
• acquisition of metrical invisibility of
  functional categories (i.e.Tense)
• measured by production of reduced Aux
• Acquisition of NS as marker of theticity
• measured by distinction between unacc. (thetic)
  and unergatives (variable).

37
Timing of acquisition of Germanic NS
Aux-reduction

• Acquisition of metrical invisibility of Aux is a
  necessary (although not sufficient) condition for
  acquisition of Germanic NSR.
• Prediction acquisition of Aux-reduction should
  precede acquisition of Germanic NS.

38
Timing of acquisition of Germanic NS vs.
A-deaccenting

• Acquisition of Germanic NS requires
  restructuring of deep-rooted L1 grammatical
  properties
• Acquisition of A-deacc requires a stylistic
  change (no grammatical restructuring involved)
• Prediction Acquisition of A-deacc should precede
  acquisition of Germanic NS.

39
Participants
Participants 34 English Native Controls
(ENCs) 46 Spanish L1/English L2
speakers Proficiency determined with Cloze test
40
Question Answer (QA) Protocol.

• Scripted dialogue between experimenter and
  participant.
• Experimental test items
• wide variety of structures in different
  information structure contexts
• Latin-square design, with two QA sets
• Dialogue recorded analyzed with PitchWorks by
  two independent coders.

41
Coding

• Coded for presence/absence of pitch accents and
  position of Nuclear Pitch Accent (i.e. last
  pitch-accented word)
• 22 auxiliaries were identified within
  experimental test items coded for presence or
  absence of vowel reduction (contracted Aux and
  Aux with stressless, reduced vowel)

42
Test items part 1.

• 12 SV unaccusatives
• come (twice), enter, arrive (twice), appear,
  escape, vanish, broke, close, open, die.
• 12 SV unergatives
• bark, roar, swim (twice), talk, dance, sing
  (twice), smile, run, cry, sneeze.
• 4 OV compounds
• Each QA set 6 SV unaccusatives, 6 SV
  unergatives, and 2 OV-compounds.

43
Results for Cloze-based proficiency groups.

• Effect of L1 (esp. for intermediates)
• High Prof effect of L1 stronger for SV unacc
  than for compounds.

Unacc Sv OV-compound
ENC 97 (0.1) 96 (0.1)
L2 High 36 (0.2) 71 (0.4)
L2 Interm. 4 (0.0) 8 (0.0)
Unergative SV Unergative SV
ENC 42 (0.3) 58 (0.3)
L2 High 39 (0.3) 61 (0.4)
L2 Interm. 16 (0.0) 84 (0.2)
44
Results for Cloze-based proficiency
groups.

• Pair-wise group comparison for Germanic NS.
• All comparisons are significant (lt.05)

Unacc. SV OV-compound Unergative SV
ENC vs. L2 High ?2 124.84 (p lt.001) ?2 15.84 (p lt.001) ?2 4.72 (p .030)
ENC vs. L2 Interm. ?2 214.77 (p lt.001) ?2 78.93 (p lt.001) ?2 38.87 (p lt.001)
L2 High vs. L2 Interm. ?2 32.22 (p lt.001) ?2 33.63 (p lt.001) ?2 18.20 (p lt.001)
45
Results for prosodic-based proficiency groups.

• L2ers regrouped in terms of above-chance
  target-production of Germanic NS in unacc SV and
  OV-compounds (at least 5 out of 8)
• 9 L2ers above chance level of Germanic NS (NS
  group)
• 37 L2ers at chance, below chance, or no Germanic
  NS (-NS group)
• All L2ers in NS group tested native-like in
  cloze test (70-75).

46
Auxiliary Reduction

• All NS L2ers above 75 of Aux-reduction.
• Great variability in the NS group.

Mean percentage Range
ENC 98 96-100
NS 93 78-100
-NS 69 33-100
47
Germanic NS Aux-reduction. Individual
Analysis.
48
The function of Germanic NS. Unacc. vs.
Unergatives. Results.

• ENC and NS L2ers significantly more SV than SV
  for unacc, but not for unergatives.

Unergative SV Unergative SV Unacc. SV Unacc. SV
ENC 42 58 97 3
NS L2 58 42 65 35
ENC NS L2er
Unergative SV vs. SV ?2 1.088 (p .297) ?2 1.74 (p .186)
Unacc SV vs. SV ?2 107.28 (p lt .001) ?2 36.99 (p lt .001)
49
Summary conclusion.

• All NS L2ers produced more than 75 of Aux Red,
  but also significant number of NS L2ers have 75
  or more of Aux Red.
• Acquisition of Aux Red precedes acquisition of
  Germanic NS.
• NS L2ers produce signif. more SV than SV
  patterns with unacc. than with unergatives.
• NS L2ers have acquired the function of Germanic
  NS (as marker of theticity).

50
English Anaphoric-deaccenting NS-shift
(wide focus contexts)

• In English (but not in Spanish), givenness
  can trigger significant pitch-reduction at the
  grammar-discourse interface.
• If deaccented material includes NS-bearing word,
  NS-Shift applies (shifting NS onto metrical
  sister)
• Why are you buying that old stamp?
• Because I collect stamps. (75)
• Why are these notebooks missing their covers?
• Because Im drawing pictures on the covers.
  (88)

51
Anaphoric-deaccenting NS-shift (wide focus)

• QA protocol contained
• 4 transitives with given DO
• 4 ditransitives with given PP
• Above chance-level production of A-anaphoric
  deacc NS-shift
• 16 (out of 27) High Prof. learners
• 3 Intermediates
• Recall only 9 High Prof. learners produced
  unmarked Germanic NS.

52
English Anaphoric-deaccenting NS-Shift
(narrow focus).

• Aligning NS with narrow focus via A-deaccenting
  NS-Shift
• Who was crying?
• An actress was crying.
• Who arrived?
• My friend arrived.
• Who broke his leg?
• A boy broke his leg.

53
Anaphoric-deaccenting NS-Shift (narrow
focus).

• L1 Spanish-L2 English (Nava Zubizarretas
  study)
• Based on 4 SV intran (2 unacc and 2 unergatives)
• L2ers remarkably accurate.
• High Prof. are native-like.
• ENC vs. Interm stats signif. (at plt.05 value)

SV
ENC 98
Advanced L2 96
Interm L2 68
54
Summary Conclusion.

• A-deacc is acquired earlier than Germanic NSR
  (i.e. easier to acquire)
• Lers switch to A-deacc especially early when it
  is required for focus-identification
• Results support our expectations regarding
  ordering of acquisition.
• Anecdotal evidence English influence on deacc
  patterns in Eng-Span bilinguals.

55
Germanic NS in compounds vs. sentences. Future
research.

• Germanic NS at the phrasal level.
• Requires acquisition of metrical invisibility of
  functional categories
• Germanic NS in compounds.
• Metrical invisibility of functional categories
  irrelevant.
• Expectation Acquisition of Germanic NS in
  compounds precedes acquisition of Germanic NS in
  phrases.

56
Germanic NS in compounds vs. sentences. Future
research.

• Germanic NS should be acquired earlier in
  compounds than in sentences.
• No correlation between Aux reduction Germanic
  NS in compounds.
• Prosodic patterns in compounds serve as cue for
  acquisition of the formal part of Germanic NS
  i.e. trigger switch from L1 to L2 algorithm

57
Appendix. Vowel reduction content vs. function
words.

• North Wind and the Sun text (English Spanish
  version)
• Nava et al. 2009
• Extracted measured vowels using a forced
  alignment technique from ASR
• Compared vowels in content and function words in
  English across 4 groups ENCs, L2 NS, L2 NS,
  and Span natives.

58
Vowel reduction function vs. content words.

• 2-way ANOVA sig. diff. (lt.05) between
• 2 types of vowels for ENC and L2 NS.

59
References

• Altenberg, B. 1987. Prosodic Patterns in Spoken
  English. Lund University Press.
• Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation, Cambridge
  University Press.
• Chomsky, N. M. Halle. 1968. Sound Patterns of
  English. New York Harper Row.
• Chomsky, N. 1971. Deep structure, surface
  structure, and semantic interpretation. In D.
  Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, eds. Semantics An
  interdisciplinary reader in philosophy,
  linguistics, and psychology. Cambridge Cambridge
  University Press.
• Giegerich, H.J. 2004. Compound or phrase? English
  noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress
  criterion. English Language and Linguistics
  81-24.
• Gussenhoven, C. 1984. On the grammar and
  semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht, Foris.
• Gut, U. 2003. Prosody in second language speech
  production the role of the native language.
  Fremdsprachen Lehren
• und Lernen 32, 133-152.

60
References.

• Huald, J.I. 2006. Stress removal and stress
  addition in Spanish, Journal of Portuguese
  Linguistics 5(2), 59-89.
• Hualde, J.I. 2009. Unstressed Words in Spanish.
  Language Sciences. 31199-212.
• Inkelas, S. and D. Zec. Auxiliary reduction
  without empty categories a prosodic account.
  Working Papers of a the Cornell Phonetics
  Laboratory. Vol 8 205-253.
• Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in
  Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass MIT Press.
• Jun, S. 1993. The Phonetics and Phonology of
  Korean Prosody.
• Ph D. thesis, Ohio State University.
• Ladd. R. 1980. The structure of Intonational
  Meaning. Bloomington Indiana University Press.
• Ladd, R. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge
  University Press, Bloomington.
• Ladd. R. 1980. The structure of Intonational
  Meaning. Bloomington Indiana University Press.

61
References.

• Ladd, R. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge
  University Press, Bloomington.
• Nava, E. Zubizarreta, 2009. Order of L2
  Acquisition of Prosodic Prominence Patterns
  Evidence from L1Spanish/L2 English Speech. In
  Proceedings of Galana 3. Somerville, Ma
  Cascadilla Press.
• Nava, E. and ML. Zubizarreta. 2010.
  Deconstructing the Nuclear Stress Algorithm
  Evidence from Second Language Speech. In N.
  Erteschik-Shir L. Rochman, eds, The Sound
  Patterns of Syntax, Oxford University Press
• Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The phonology and
  phonetics of English Intonation. PhD doctoral
  dissertation, Department of Linguistics, MIT,
  Cambridge, Ma.
• Sasse, H.J. 1987. The thetic-categorical
  distinction revisited. Linguistics 25, 511-580.

62
References.

• Selkirk, E. 1984. Phonology and Syntax The
  relation between sound and Structure, MIT Press.
• Selkirk, E. 1995. Sentence prosody Intonation,
  stress, and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith., ed. The
  handbook of phonological theory. Oxford
  Blackwell.
• Sosa, J.M. 1999. La entoncaion del español.
  Madrid Cátedra
• Zubizarreta, ML and JR. Vergnaud. 2005. Phrasal
  Stress, Focus, and Syntax. In M.Everaert and H.
  van Riemsdijk, eds., The Syntax Companion.
  Cambridge Blackwell.
• Zubizarreta, ML. 1998. Focus, Prosody, and Word
  Order, Cambridge MIT Press

63
Acknowledgements

• NSF Grant BCS-0444088 (2005-2009).
• USC Provost Fellowship for Advancing Scholarship
  in the Humanities Social Sciences (2008-2009).
• USC Undergraduate Research Associates grant
  (2005-2009).