1. Prosodic marking of appositive relative clause types in spoken discourse: pragmatic and phonetic analyses of a British English corpus Cyril Auran & Rudy Loock Laboratoire Savoirs, Textes, Langage Université Lille 3 - CNRS UMR 8163

2. Global project and methodology Aim: relate discourse functions/structure and prosody Study of Appositive Relative Clauses in English (ARCs, see 1) (1) The students, who like linguistics, also like translation. 2-step methodology:  Discourse annotation: discourse function, information status of ARC and MC, syntactic characteristics  Prosodic annotation: semi-automatic analysis of the corresponding recordings using original scripts with Praat (cf. Boersma & Weenink 2006) Corpora:  Aix-MARSEC (cf. Auran, Bouzon & Hirst 2004)  IViE (cf. Grabe & Post 2002)  ICE-GB (cf. Greenbaum 1996)

3. ARCs and their functions in discourse Starting point: Loock’s (2003, 2005, 2007) taxonomy of ARCs and their discourse functions:

4. ARCs and their functions in discourse

5. Examples : (2) he was convinced # the battle # for the hearts # and minds of the people # was being won # especially # among the Ovambo # who form the majority # of SWAPO's support (3) the first book he took from the library was Darwin's # Origin of Species # which inspired him with the dream of becoming a geologist (4) Israelis # have sympathy and liking for Americans # which is just as well # since the country is swarming # with transatlantic visitors

6. ARCs and their functions in discourse Differences in the hierarchisation of the informational contents (ARC vs. MC):  Relevance/subjectivity: MC = foreground vs. ARC = background  Continuative: informational contents on the same level (narrative dynamism traditionally restricted to independent clauses; cf. Depraetere 1996) => Are continuatives independent clauses? (cf. Ross 1967, Emonds 1979, McCawley 1982, Fabb 1990 among others, who express this idea for ARCs as a whole.) => Prosodic investigation: are ARCs realized with the intonation contour of independent clauses or parentheticals?

7. Prosodic analysis Prosody as a macro-system:  tonal aspects (tone and intonation, in relation with speech melody)  temporal aspects (unit durations and speech rate)  intensity (one of the major correlates of loudness)  voice quality (in relation with spectral characteristics of the speech signal)

8. Prosodic analysis Representation levels (Hirst et al. 2000):  acoustic level: physical characteristics of the speech signal (F0, raw durations, dB)  phonetic level: retains only linguistically significant elements (low-level physical constraints factored out: MoMel modelling, z- transformed durations)  phonological levels (surface and deep): discrete and abstract coding

9. Prosodic analysis

10. 2 prosodic dimensions:

11. Data extraction and analysis Number of items per ARC type:  Relevance37  Subjectivity8  Continuative1  Relevance/Subjectivity4  Ambiguous continuative2  Unidentified2

12. Data extraction and analysis Discourse parameters (5):  ARC type  Position (initial/medial/final)  Information status of antecedent  Information status of ARC  Phrastic status of antecedent

13. Data extraction and analysis Prosodic parameters (48):  Tonal domain (32): ARC mean F0 (Htz + semitones or ST), ARC minimum F0 (Htz + ST), ARC maximum F0 (Htz + ST), ARC register span (Htz + ST), ARC onset (Htz + ST), ARC offset (Htz + ST), previous IU mean F0 (Htz + ST), previous IU minimum F0 (Htz + ST), previous IU maximum F0 (Htz + ST), previous IU register span (Htz + ST), previous IU offset (Htz + ST), next IU mean F0 (Htz + ST), next IU minimum F0 (Htz + ST), next IU maximum F0 (Htz + ST), next IU register span (Htz + ST), next IU onset (Htz + ST), difference between previous IU offset and ARC onset (ST), difference between ARC offset and next IU onset (ST)  Temporal domain (10): ARC duration (raw and normalised), previous IU duration (raw and normalised), next IU duration (raw and normalised), difference between previous IU normalised duration and ARC normalised duration, difference between ARC normalised duration and next IU normalised duration, silence duration before ARC, silence duration after ARC  Intensity domain (6): mean of ARC global intensity, standard deviation of ARC global intensity, mean of previous IU global intensity, standard deviation of previous IU global intensity, mean of next IU global intensity, standard deviation of next IU global intensity

14. Results All ARC types:

15. Results Relevance vs. Subjectivity:

16. Results

18. Discussion All ARCS  both typical and atypical characteristics:  Register and intensity levels: lower than those of surrounding units  typical of prosodic parentheticals  Register and intensity spans + speech rate  classical IUs realizing independent clauses  to be linked with the possibility for ARCs to: have the syntactic behaviour and the semantic interpretation of independent clauses convey independent speech acts (cf. Emonds 1979, McCawley 1982 among others)

19. Discussion Relevance vs. Subjectivity ARCs:  Discourse discontinuity marking through high onset values for both types  Subjectivity ARCs display even stronger discontinuity ↔ more important rupture with the discourse topic (cf. shift between the referential and interpretative levels; see frame 1)  More peripheral information conveyed by subjectivity ARCs (non- topical comment or judgement)  Lower intensity level values for Subjectivity ARC: strategy used by the speaker to induce the perception of intermediate levels between otherwise discrete categories such as continuity/discontinuity, subjectivity/objectivity, etc. (conflicting prosodic characteristics for subjective episodes; cf. Di Cristo et al. 2004)  Speech rate differences need further investigation (the great majority of subjectivity ARCs qualifies sentential antecedents (cf. Loock 2007): parameters difficult to separate)

20. Conclusion Apparent correlation between discourse functions and prosody Some prosodic characteristics atypical of appositions in general Differences among ARC types: Subjectivity ARCs display prosodic rupture cues, on a par with the peripheral information which they convey Further investigation:  The respective roles of the syntactic status of the antecedent (nominal vs. sentential) and of the ARC type, particularly with relation to speech rate, need to be closely analysed.  Prosodic characteristics of Continuative ARCs: typical of subordinate or main clauses? Problem: availability of acoustically exploitable unscripted/spontaneous data