Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
Background/Aims: In French, the size of a focus constituent is not reliably marked through pitch accent assignment as in many stress accent languages. While it has been argued that the distribution of lower-level prosodic boundaries plays a role, this is at best a weak cue to focus, leaving open the question of whether other marking strategies are available. In this study, we assess whether the right edge of a contrastive focus constituent is marked by differences in prosodic boundary strength. Methods: We elicited utterances with target words in six combinations of focus and syntactic contexts using an interactive production task. Results: The results show that if a given location is realized as an accentual phrase boundary in an all-focus context, then it is realized as an intermediate phrase boundary when it coincides with the right edge of a narrow-focus constituent. A location that is an intermediate phrase boundary in an all-focus context, however, remains unchanged under narrow focus. Conclusion: These findings suggest that focus constituents are constrained to align with a minimum prosodic domain size in French (i.e., the intermediate phrase), and that French does not rely on a general strategy of prosodic enhancement for marking focus.
verified
References
1 Astésano, C., Bard, E. G., & Turk, A. (2007). Structural influences on initial accent placement in French.Language and Speech, 50(Pt 3), 423–446. 10.1177/002383090705000305010023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2 AvanziM (2011): L'interface prosodie/syntaxe en français: Dislocations, incises et asyndètes. Doctoral thesis, Paris 10.Search in Google Scholar
3 BeyssadeC, HemforthB, MarandinJ-M, PortesC (2009): Prosodic marking of information focus in French; in Yoo H-Y, Delais-Roussarie E (eds): Actes de Interfaces Discours et Prosodie 2009. Paris, Université Paris 7, pp 109-122.Search in Google Scholar
4 Beyssade, C., Hemforth, B., Marandin, J.-M., & Portes, C. (2015). Prosodic Realizations of Information Focus in French. In L.Frazier & T.Gibson (Eds.),Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing (pp. 39–61). Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-12961-7_3Search in Google Scholar
5 BoersmaP, WeeninkD (2015): Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Computer program). Version 5.4. 01, retrieved from http://www.praat.org/Search in Google Scholar
6 Bolinger, D. L. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress.Language, 37(1), 83–96. 10.2307/4112520097-8507Search in Google Scholar
7 Bolinger, D. L. (1986). Intonation and its parts. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
8 Chafe, W. L. (1974). Language and consciousness.Language, 50(1), 111–133. 10.2307/4120140097-8507Search in Google Scholar
9 Chen, A., & Destruel, E. (2010). Intonational encoding of focus in Toulousian French.Speech Prosody, 2010(100233), 1–4.Search in Google Scholar
10 Clech-Darbon, A., Rebuschi, G., & Rialland, A. (1999). Are there cleft sentences in French. In L.Tuller & G.Rebuschi (Eds.),The Grammar of Focus (pp. 83–118). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.24.04cleSearch in Google Scholar
11 Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Avon: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
12 Delais-Roussarie, E. (1996). Phonological Phrasing and Accentuation in French. In M.Nespor & N.Smith (Eds.),Dam Phonology: HIL Phonology Paper II (pp. 83–118). Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics.Search in Google Scholar
13 Delais-Roussarie, E., Post, B., Avanzi, M., Buthke, C., Di Cristo, A., Feldhausen, I., et al.Yoo, H.-Y. (2015). Intonational phonology of French: developing a ToBI system for French. In S.Frota & P.Prieto (Eds.),Intonation in Romance (pp. 63–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685332.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
14 Delais-RoussarieE, PostB (2008): Unités prosodiques et grammaire de l’intonation : vers une nouvelle approche. In Actes des XXVIIème Journées d'Études sur la Parole JEP-TALN 8.Search in Google Scholar
15 Delais-RoussarieE (2005): Vers une grammaire prosodique formelle: le cas des incidentes en français. In Actes Electroniques de la Conférence Interface Discours et Prosodie, vol. 5, pp 66-205.Search in Google Scholar
16 Di Cristo, A. (1996). Intonation in French. In D.Hirst & A.Di Cristo (Eds.),Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages (pp. 195–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
17 Di CristoA, HirstD (1993): Rythme syllabique, rythme mélodique et représentation hiérarchique de la prosodie du français. In Travaux de l’Institut de Phonétique d’Aix-en-Provence 15, pp 9-24.Search in Google Scholar
18 D’Imperio, M., German, J. S., & Michelas, A. (2012). A multi-level approach to focus, phrasing and intonation in French. In G.Elordieta & P.Prieto (Eds.),Prosody and Meaning (pp. 11–34). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261790.11Search in Google Scholar
19 D’Imperio, M., & Michelas, A. (2014). Scaling and the internal structuring of the intonation phrase in French.Phonology, 31(1), 95–122. 10.1017/S09526757140000490952-6757Search in Google Scholar
20 DohenM, LoevenbruckH (2004): Pre-focal rephrasing, focal enhancement and post-focal deaccentuation in French; in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, pp 785-788.10.21437/Interspeech.2004-296Search in Google Scholar
21 Féry, C. (2001). Intonation of focus in French. In C.Féry & W.Sternefeld (Eds.),Audiatur Vox Sapientes: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 153–181). Berlin: Akademi Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
22 Fougeron, C., & Jun, S.-A. (1998). Rate effects on French intonation: Prosodic organization and phonetic realization.Journal of Phonetics, 26(1), 45–69. 10.1006/jpho.1997.00620095-4470Search in Google Scholar
23 GermanJS, D'ImperioM (2010): Focus, phrase length, and the distribution of phrase-initial rises in French; in Speech Prosody 2010, 100207, pp 1-4Search in Google Scholar
24 German, J. S., & D’Imperio, M. (2016). The status of the initial rise as a marker of focus in French.Language and Speech, 59(Pt 2), 165–195. 10.1177/00238309155830820023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25 German, J. S., Sagi, E., Clark, B., & Kaufmann, S. (2011). The role of speaker beliefs in determining accent placement. In A.Benz, C.Ebert, & R.van Rooij (Eds.),Language, games, and evolution (pp. 92–116). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-18006-4_5Search in Google Scholar
26 GoldmanJ-P (2011): Easy Align: An automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat; in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. Red Hook, NY, Curran Associates, pp 3240-3243.Search in Google Scholar
27 Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511616983Search in Google Scholar
28 Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English.Journal of Linguistics, 3(02), 199–244. 10.1017/S00222267000166130022-2267Search in Google Scholar
29 Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag. 10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7Search in Google Scholar
30 Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.Biometrical Journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 50(3), 346–363. 10.1002/bimj.2008104250323-3847Search in Google Scholar PubMed
31 Jun, S.-A., & Fougeron, C. (2000). A phonological model of French intonation. In A.Botinis (Ed.),Intonation: Analysis, modelling and technology (pp. 209–242). Boston: Kluwer Academic. 10.1007/978-94-011-4317-2_10Search in Google Scholar
32 Jun, S.-A., & Fougeron, C. (2002). Realizations of accentual phrase in French intonation.Probus, 14(1), 147–172. 10.1515/prbs.2002.0020921-4771Search in Google Scholar
33 Kenesei, I. (1986). On the Logic of Word Order in Hungarian. In A.Werner & S.de Meij (Eds.),Topic, Focus, and Configurationality (pp. 143–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.4.08kenSearch in Google Scholar
34 Krifka, M. (1992). A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions. In J.Jacobs (Ed.),Informations struktur und Grammatik (pp. 17–53). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_2Search in Google Scholar
35 Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i131548-7660Search in Google Scholar
36 Martin, P. (2009). Intonation du français, mesures, théories, modèles. Paris: Armand Colin.Search in Google Scholar
37 McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978-94-017-3712-8_4Search in Google Scholar
38 MichelasA (2011): Caractérisation phonétique et phonologique du syntagme intermédiaire en français: de la production à la perception. Doctoral thesis, Université de Provence-Aix-Marseille I.Search in Google Scholar
39 Michelas, A., Champagne-Lavau, M. (2018). Does the addressee matter when producing French prosodic focus marking?Workshop on Prosody and Meaning: Information Structure and Beyond, Nov 2018, Aix-en-Provence, France.Search in Google Scholar
40 Michelas, A., & D’Imperio, M. (2012). When syntax meets prosody: Tonal and duration variability in French accentual phrases.Journal of Phonetics, 40(6), 816–829. 10.1016/j.wocn.2012.08.0040095-4470Search in Google Scholar
41 Michelas, A., & D’Imperio, M. (2015). Prosodic boundary strength guides syntactic parsing of French utterances.Laboratory Phonology, 6(1), 119–146. 10.1515/lp-2015-00031868-6346Search in Google Scholar
42 Michelas, A., Faget, C., Portes, C., Lienhart, A.-S., Boyer, L., Lançon, C., & Champagne-Lavau, M. (2014). Do patients with schizophrenia use prosody to encode contrastive discourse status?Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 755. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.007551664-1078Search in Google Scholar PubMed
43 PierrehumbertJB (1980): The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Search in Google Scholar
44 Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P.Cohen, J.Morgan, & M.Pollack (Eds.),Intentions in communication (pp. 342–365). Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
45 Post, B. (2000). Tonal and Phrasal Structures in French Intonation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Search in Google Scholar
46 Price, P. J., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90(6), 2956–2970. 10.1121/1.4017700001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed
47 R Core Team (2017): R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/Search in Google Scholar
48 Rialland, A., & Robert, S. (2001). The Intonational System of Wolof.Linguistics, 39(5), 893–940. 10.1515/ling.2001.0380024-3949Search in Google Scholar
49 RoothM (1985): Associations with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Search in Google Scholar
50 Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation.Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116. 10.1007/BF023426170925-854XSearch in Google Scholar
51 Rossi, M. (1985). L’intonation et l’organisation de l’énoncé.Phonetica, 42(2-3), 135–153. 10.1159/0002617440031-8388Search in Google Scholar PubMed
52 Selkirk, E. O. (1986). Phonology and syntax: the relationship between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT press.Search in Google Scholar
53 Selkirk, E. O. (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In J.Beckman, L.Walsh-Dickey, & S.Urbanczyk (Eds.),Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 439–470). GLSA Publications.Search in Google Scholar
54 Smith, C. L. (2002). Prosodic finality and sentence type in French.Language and Speech, 45(Pt 2), 141–178. 10.1177/002383090204500203010023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed
55 Streeter, L. A. (1978). Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary perception.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64(6), 1582–1592. 10.1121/1.3821420001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed
56 Touati, P. (1987). Structures Prosodiques du Suédois et du Français. Lund: Lund University Press.Search in Google Scholar
57 Welby, P. (2006). French intonational structure: Evidence from tonal alignment.Journal of Phonetics, 34(3), 343–371. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.09.0010095-4470Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
