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