Focus,Accent,and Argument Structure: Effects on Language Comprehension

Abstract

Four experiments investigated the effect of syntactic argument structure on the evaluation and comprehension of utterances with different patterns of pitch accents. Linguistic analyses of the relation between focus and prosody note that it is possible for certain accented constituents within a broadly focused phrase to project focus to the entire phrase. We manipulated focus requirements and accent in recorded question-answer pairs and asked listeners to make linguistic judgments of prosodic appropriateness (Experiments 1 and 3) or to make judgments based on meaningful comprehension (Experiments 2 and 4). Naive judgments of prosodic appropriateness were generally consistent with the linguistic analyses, showing preferences for utterances in which contextually new noun phrases accent and old noun phrases did not, but suggested that an accented new argument NP was not fully effective in projecting broad focus to the entire VP. However, the comprehension experiments did demonstrate that comprehension of a sentence with broad VP focus was as efficient when only a lexical argument NP accent as when both NP and verb accent. Such focus projection did not occur when the argument NP was an “independent quantifier” such as nobody or everything. The results extend existing demonstrations that the ease of understanding spoken discourse depends on appropriate intonational marking of focus to cases where certain structurally-defined words can project focus-marking to an entire phrase.

Keywords

focus focus projection pitch accent question-answer dialogs sentence comprehension

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BEACH, C.M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 644–663.

BECKMAN, M.E. , & PIERREHUMBERT, J.B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255–309.

BECKMAN, M.E., & AYERS, G.M. (1994). Guidelines for ToBI labelling: ver 2.0. Manuscript, Ohio State University.

BOCK, J.K. , & MAZZELLA, J.R. (1983). Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 11, 64–76.

BOLINGER, D.L. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Language, 48, 633–644.

BOLINGER, D.L. (1986). Intonation and its parts. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

CHOMSKY, N. , & HALLE, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

CLARK, H.H. , & HAVILAND, S.E. (1977). Comprehension and the Given-New contract. In R. O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp 1–40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

COOPER, W.E. , & PACCIA-COOPER, J. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

CUTLER, A. (1990). Exploiting prosodic probabilities in speech segmentation. In G. Altmann (ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 105–121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11.

CUTLER, A. , & FODOR, J.A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49–59.

12.

CUTLER, A. , & NORRIS, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113–121.

13.

GROSJEAN, F. , & GEE, J.P. (1987). Prosodic structure and spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 135–155.

14.

GUSSENHOVEN, C.G. (1983a). Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 377–419.

15.

GUSSENHOVEN, C.G. (1983b). Testing the reality of focus domains. Language and Speech, 26, 61–80.

16.

GUSSENHOVEN, C.G. (1992). Sentence accents and argument structure. In I. M. Roca (ed.), Thematic structure. Its role in grammar (pp. 79–106). Berlin-New York: Foris.

17.

GUSSENHOVEN, C.G. (1994). Focus and sentence accents in English. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus and natural language processing, Vol. 3 (pp. 83–92). Heidelberg: IBM Deutschland.

18.

HALLIDAY, M.A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244.

19.

LADD, D.R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

20.

NOOTEBOOM, S.G. , & KRUYT, J.G. (1987). Accents, focus distribution, and the perceived distribution of given and new information: An experiment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 1512–1524.

21.

PIERREHUMBERT, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.

22.

PIERREHUMBERT, J. , & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P.R. Cohen , J. Morgan , & M. E. Pollock (eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

23.

PRICE, P.J. , OSTENDORF, M. , SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S. , & FONG, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 2956–2970.

24.

SELKIRK, E.O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

25.

SELKIRK, E.O. (1994). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). Oxford, U.K: Blackwell.

26.

SILVERMAN, K. , BECKMAN, M.E. , PITRELLI, J. , OSTENDORF, M. , WIGHTMAN, C. , PRICE, P. , PIERREHUMBERT, J. , & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, pp 867–870. Banff: Canada.

27.

SLOWIACZEK, M.L. (1981). Prosodic units as language processing units. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

28.

TERKEN, J. , & NOOTEBOOM, S.G. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for Given and New information. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 145–163.

29.

VALLDUVI, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.