Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byRoland Booker Modified over 10 years ago
1
1 IS SENTENCE VIABLE? The 3 rd International Conference on Cognitive Science Moscow, June 21, 2008 Andrej A. Kibrik (kibrik@comtv.ru)kibrik@comtv.ru Vera I. Podlesskaya (podlesskaya@ocrus.ru )podlesskaya@ocrus.ru
2
2 Does spoken language consist of sentences? Sheer facts: Spoken language is the primary form of language Spoken language does not contain periods, question marks and other explicit signals of sentence boundaries Research question: Is sentence, as a theoretical construct, as identifiable and as basic for the primary form of language as it is (or as it is thought to be) for written language?
3
3 Sentence in spoken language Position 1: sentence is a universal and basic unit of language Assumption typically held by not only by linguists but also by other cognitive scientists “With no more than 50 to 100 K words humans can create and understand an infinite number of sentences” (Bernstein et al. 1994: 349-350) Psycholinguistics: “Sentence processing” But sentence is very far from being obvious in spoken language Position 2: avoidance of the issue, typical of discourse- oriented linguists If so, how could sentences become so much entrenched in written language?
4
4 Night Dream Stories Corpus of spoken Russian stories Speakers: children and adolescents Subject matter: retelling of night dreams Discourse type: monologic narrative (personal stories) Speech act type: declaratives
5
5 Two basic features of spoken discourse Segmentation Transitional continuity
6
6 Segmentation Elementary discourse units (EDUs) Identified on the basis of a conjunction of prosodic criteria: Tempo pattern Loudness pattern Integral tonal contour Presence of an accentual center Pausing pattern Speakers tend to organize EDUs as clausal units
7
7 Example of segmentation Z54 /мы с= || ехали на \автобусеw. /my s= || exali na \avtobusew. We rode on bus...(0.6) /Я /первая села в \автобус....(0.6) /Ja /pervaja sela v \avtobus. I first got on bus..(0.4)А/тогдаужед= ||..(0.2)закрывались\двери,..(0.4)A/togdaužed= ||..(0.2)zakryvalis’\dveri, And then alreadyd= were.closing doors..(0.1)и/’Аняне–успела\сесть...(0.1)i/Anjane–uspela\sest’. and Anjanotmanaged get.in...(0.7) Иw мм(0.4) /\когда-а..(0.2) ’’(0.3)..(0.4) {ЧМОКАНЬЕ 0.2}..(0.4) когда я приехала на нашу /остановку’,...(0.7) IW mm(0.4) /\kogda-a..(0.2) ’’(0.3)..(0.4) {SMACKING 0.2}..(0.4) kogda ja priexala na našu /ostanovku’, And when when I arrived to our station Discourse transcription
8
8 Transitional continuity Term by J. DuBois et al. 1992 Alternative term by Sandro V. Kodzasov: phase Discourse semantic category: ‘end’ vs. ‘non-end’ (=expectation of a forthcoming end) Hierarchical nature of phase End of tentative sentence – falling tonal accent Non-end – rising tonal accent
9
9 A canonical example of the transitional continuity distinction z57:15-16 ..(0.4) /\Мы-ы’..(0.4) \как бы за них /взя-ались,..(0.4) /\My-y’..(0.4) \kak by za nix /vzja-alis’, We sort of at them got.hold ...(0.5) и-и ввь= ||..(0.2) полетели \вве-ерх. ...(0.5) i-i vv’= ||..(0.2) poleteli \vve-erx. and flew upward Rising (“comma”) Non-end Falling (“period”) End If things were that easy, sentence would be uncontroversial
10
10 Uncanonical situation: Non-end with a falling tonal accent ....(1.5)/\Озеро...(0.5)какое-то, ..(0.3) (Или /\речка, или /\озеро, но по-моему \озеро, потому что’..(0.2)как-то-оw...(0.6)\маленькоетакое, \небольшое.) ....(1.0)’и-иh...(0.7)через/него..(0.3)как-то\бревнокакое-то, типа\моста. ....(1.5)/\Ozero...(0.5)kakoe-to, Lakesome ..(0.3) (Ili /\rečka, Eitherriver ili /\ozero, orlake no po-moemu \ozero, butI guesslake potomu čto’..(0.2) kak-to-oW becausesomehow...(0.6) \malen’koe takoe, smallsuch \nebol’šoe.) minor ....(1.0) ’i-iH...(0.7) čerez /nego andacrossit..(0.3) kak-to \brevno kakoe-to, somehowlogsome tipa \mosta. likebridge
11
11 The problem of two kinds of falling The existence of non-final falling may call relevance of sentence into question However, the distinction between two kinds of falling is very systematic The two kinds of falling: are prosodically distinct have distinct discourse functions
12
12 Prosodic criteria of the final vs. non-final falling distinction Primary criteria: 1.Target frequency band 2.Post-accent behavior
13
13 Criterion 1: Target frequency band Final falling (“period”): targets at the bottom of the speaker’s F0 range Non-final falling (“faling comma”): targets at level several dozen Hz (several semitones) higher
14
14 F0 graph for the “lake” example \ozero, \malen’koe \nebol’ \brevno kakoe \mosta. takoe, šoe.-to, 12 10 12 5 8
15
15 Non-final falling (210 Гц), final falling (170 Гц), rising, post-rising falling Z54: 4-5..(0.4)А/тогдаужед= ||..(0.2)закрывались\двери,..(0.4)A/togdaužed= ||..(0.2)zakryvalis’\dveri, And then alreadyd= were.closing doors..(0.1)и/’Аняне–успела\сесть...(0.1)i/Anjane–uspela\sest’. and Anjanotmanaged get.in...(0.7) Иw мм(0.4) /\когда-а..(0.2) ’’(0.3)..(0.4) {ЧМОКАНЬЕ 0.2}..(0.4) когда я приехала на нашу /остановку’,...(0.7) IW mm(0.4) /\kogda-a..(0.2) ’’(0.3)..(0.4) {SMACKING 0.2}..(0.4) kogda ja priexala na našu /ostanovku’, And when when I arrived to our station 210 Hz 170 Hz
16
16 Criterion 2: Post-accent behavior Final falling (“period”): steady falling on the post-accent syllables Non-final falling (“comma”): lack of falling on post-accent syllables, often rise of tone (V-curve)
17
17 V-curve z26....(5.7) /Домик...(0.6) был /около \реч ↑ ки,....(5.7) /Domik...(0.6) byl /okolo \reč ↑ ki, Little.house was near creek....(3.3) /рядом были \–родник-ки,....(3.3) /rjadom byli \–rodnik-ki, nearby were springs..(0.4) и \–ле-ес...(0.4) i \–le-es. and forest 260 Hz 235 Hz 240 Hz
18
18 Secondary criteria 3.Pausing pattern 4.Reset vs. latching 5.Steepness of falling 6.Interval of falling
19
19 The final vs. non-final falling distinction A speaker’s prosodic pattern must be identified On its basis the difference between final and non-final falling distinction can be identified with a high degree of robustness
20
20 Contexts of non-final falling Anticipatory mirror-image adaptation Inset Stepwise falling
21
21 Anticipatory mirror-image adaptation ....(1.8)Когдая\услышала, Kogdaja\uslyšala, whenIheard ...(0.5)что-о/бомбагремит, čto-o/bombagremit, thatbombgrowls
22
22 Inset /Входитэто...(0.5)/\ма-аль ↑ чик, /Vxodit èto...(0.5) /\ma-al’ ↑ čik, entershereboy ’ ’..(0.1)/\нук\другому, ’ ’..(0.1)/\nuk\drugomu, welltoanother ..(0.1)и\говорит:..(0.1)i\govorit: andsays
23
23 Stepwise falling ....(1.5)/\Озеро...(0.5)какое-то, ..(0.3) (Или /\речка, или /\озеро, но по-моему \озеро, потому что’..(0.2)как-то-оw...(0.6)\маленькоетакое, \небольшое.) ....(1.5)/\Ozero...(0.5)kakoe-to, Lakesome ..(0.3) (Ili /\rečka, Eitherriver ili /\ozero, orlake no po-moemu \ozero, butI guesslake potomu čto’..(0.2) kak-to-oW becausesomehow...(0.6) \malen’koe takoe, smallsuch \nebol’šoe.) minor 210 Hz 190 Hz 160 Hz
24
24 Representation of EDU continuity types in corpus
25
25 The status of sentence In the speech of most speakers final falling is clearly distinct from non-final patterns Final intonation, expressly distinct from non-final intonation (both rising and falling), makes the notion of sentence valid for spoken discourse Speakers “know” when they complete a sentence and when they do not Apparently, spoken sentences are the prototype of written sentences
26
26 Functions of sentences Ease the processing by creating intermediate informational chunks Chafe: superfoci of consciousness
27
27 However Identification of sentences is possible only on the basis of a complex analytic procedure It is dependent on prior understanding of a speaker’s prosodic “portrait” There are prototypes of final and non-final fallings, but there are intermediate instances, therefore sentencehood may be a matter of degree A significant tune-up is necessary to apply the procedure to a different discourse type or a different language Therefore, sentence is an elusive, intermediate, non- basic unit of language
28
28 EDUs vs. sentences: degree of variability EDUs: distribution in terms of number of words Sentences: distribution in terms of number of EDUs 53% – 3±1 80% – 3±2
29
29 EDUs vs. sentences: degree of variability Unlike EDUs, sentences are highly variable Speakers with short sentences Speakers with long sentences equaling stories Clause chaining
30
30 Conclusions Sentence is an intermediate hierarchical grouping between a whole discourse and an EDU (roughly, clause) Sentence is very far away from being a basic unit of spoken language
31
31 Acknowledgement Member of our project Nikolay Korotaev
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.