2. Towards a P_ToBI: Céu Viana* & Sónia Frota** (coordinators) *CLUL, **DLGR/Onset-CEL, FLUL Participants: Isabel Falé, Flaviane Fernandes, Isabel Mascarenhas, Ana Isabel Mata, Helena Moniz & Marina Vigário PaPI2007 Universidade do Minho Worskshop on the Transcription of Intonation in Ibero-Romance POCTI-SFA-17-745

3. 0. Introduction: background firstA first attempt at a unified transcription of some aspects of Portuguese intonation Brings together studies conducted on lab speech and on speech technology-oriented corpora First joint-venture of two research groups in process of fusion Our proposals are grounded on the understanding of the intonational and prosodic grammar of Portuguese based on the body of research developped in the last 20 years Pioneering work within the AM approach: Viana (1987) Previous studies on P- Intonation almost inexistent Overview: Frota (2000)

4. 0. Introduction: topics covered Pitch accents –Nuclear accents –Prenuclear accents –Post-nuclear accent Boundary Tones –Levels of prosodic structure relevant to intonational phrasing Distribution of tonal events and phrasing –Sparse vs. rich distribution Sentence Types –Declaratives Neutral; late/early focus –Questions Wh-, yes-no Yes-no: late/early focus Queries, Checks Varieties –SEP ; NEP ; BP Speech style –Lab speech; professional reading; non-scripted speech; spontaneous speech

5. 0. Introduction: main goals In this talk: 1.Basic tunes across sentence types (Lab speech) Data from SEP, NEP and BP Discuss the levels of phrasing in P- intonation 2.New insights from spontaneous, non-scripted speech New accents Differences in the structural position, frequency of use and/or meaning of the same accents Levels of phrasing revisited Research on P-intonation (and P-prosody) is fairly recent, and a ground for consensus is only now being achieved Present labelling proposals are seen as work in progress It is hoped that they can help formulate relevant directions for further research This workshop is a big push Towards a P-ToBI

6. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents Description H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H*H* L+H* Three main nuclear accents

7. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents Description H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H*H* L+H* Previous peak + fall within the accented syllable Low target usually near the bottom of the speaker’s range Nucleus in neutral/broad focus statements and questions Frota 1993, 1997, 2000, 2002a; Falé 1995; Vigário1998

8. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents Description H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H*H* L+H* Peak within the accented syllable immediately followed by a fall; usually followed by compressed pitch range within the same IP Nucleus in narrow/contrastive focus declaratives Frota 1993, 1997, 2000, 2002a; Vigário1998; Fernandes 2007

9. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents Description H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H*H* L+H* Low target in the accented syllable followed by a rise, starting within this syllable and usually reaching its peak on the next syllable Nucleus in initial/internal IPs within statements (continuation); nucleus in contrastive yes-no questions Frota 2000, 2002b; Frota et al. 2007; Vigário 2003

10. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents Description H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H*H* L+H* Three main nuclear accentsPre-nuclear position

11. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents Description H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H*H* L+H* Accented syllable preceded by immediately previous peak Accented syllable around mid range Common prenuclear accent in statements Frota 2002b

12. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents Description H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H*H* L+H* Accented syllable is high F0 peak not after a (substantial) rise or fall Frequent initial accent in statements and questions Frota 2000, 2002b; 2003; Vigário1998

13. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: pitch accents Description H+L* H*+L L*+H H+!H*H* L+H* Accented syllable is high and immediately preceded by a low target leading to a rise in the accented syllable Fairly infrequent accent in SEP Frota, D’Imperio, Elordieta, Prieto & Vigário 2007

14. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries L% H% LH% HL%!H% %H A low target on the boundary syllable Pre-final and final IPs in statements; Wh-questions Viana 1987; Vigário 1998; Frota 2000, 2002b

15. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries L% H% LH% HL%!H% %H A high target on the boundary syllable Initial and internal IPs in statements (continuation) Viana 1987; Vigário 1998; Frota 2000, 2002b, Frota et al. 2007

16. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries L% H% LH% HL%!H% %H Low and High targets (rise) on the boundary syllable Neutral yes-no questions, Contrastive yes-no questions (early nucleus); ‘Polite’ wh-questions Frota 2002b

17. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries L% H% LH% HL%!H% %H High and low targets (fall) on the boundary syllable Contrastive yes-no questions (late nucleus) Frota 2002b

18. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries L% H% LH% HL%!H% %H A downstepped high target on the boundary syllable (also responsible for sustained pitch) Initial and internal IPs in statements Frota, D’Imperio, Elordieta, Prieto & Vigário 2007

19. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: boundary tones Simple and complex intonational phrase-final boundaries L% H% LH% HL%!H% %H Initial high boundary (optional) Statements and questions Frota 2003 Unsettled issues: labelling of the initial phrasal tone I[w[

20. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral statement the poet sang a morning angelic

21. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral statement H+L*, as in Italian varieties (Grice et al. 2005), or American Spanish (Sosa 1991) the blond girl recorded a song wonderful from-the olive-pressman

22. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral statement vs focus (they got) married What about John and Mary? What happened to them? John and Mary broke up ?

23. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: narrow/contrastive focus focus Was it an angelic night that the poet sang ?

24. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: narrow/contrastive focus focus H*+L, as in Bari or Palermo Italian (Grice 1995, Grice et al. 2005) Who offered spices to the journalists ?

25. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: wh-question Same contour as in neutral declarative statements (like in e.g. Standard Italian, Avesani 1995) who painted a morning amber ?

26. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral yes-no question the poet sang a morning angelic ? Interrogation is signalled by the tonal boundary (like in e.g. Standard Italian or French, Avesani 1995, Post 2000); unlike in Southern varieties of Italian or in Catalan, Grice 2005, Prieto 2000)

27. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: neutral yes-no question An accentual fall plus a boundary rise placed enterily on the final syllable; the pitch in between not controlled by L but resulting instead from interpolation (as in e.g. Bengali) the girls Angolans-FEM read-to-us-it ?

28. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: contrastive yes-no question focus the hero drives a Porsche ? I’ve seen that movie but I don’t recall who drives a Porsche.

29. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: contrastive yes-no question focus L*+H HL% acounts for the higher level of the H target (as in L*+HH%, Vigário 1998, Frota 2000); the end point of the rising pitch is always the pre-final syllable (Frota 2002b) the boys bought slides (for the microscope) ? I would like to know if they bought slides and not something different.

30. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing Major IP: domain for sandhi, e.g. Fricative voicing; final lengthening; wider boundary rise; nuclear accent plus a H boundary (Frota 2000) parenthetical

31. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing Minor IP: smaller final lengthening; smaller boundary rise; but the same sequence nuclear accent plus a H boundary; phrasing into minor IPs depends on phrase length (Frota 2000) parenthetical

32. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing Compound IP (Ladd 1992, 1996, Frota 2000, Vigário 2003) IPs: sandhi, final lengthening, nucleus plus a tonal boundary (H or L) Relative length of IPs > Compound Inner IP boundary within a Compound or Major IP is weaker than the outer IP boundary (degree of final lengthening and size of pitch excursion) Proposal: Major IP > T%, level 4 Minor IP > T-, level 3 Why not the intermediate phrase? No evidence in terms of the distribution of categorical phonological markers, e.g. T-T% for the IP and just T- for the ip Frota 2000, 2002a,b No evidence for an edge tone that determines the contour from the last pitch accent until the end of the phrase, as in the definition of the ip (B&P 1986, Ladd 1996, Beckman et al. 2005, Grice at al. 2005) Frota 2002a,b

33. 2. Basic tunes in SEP: intonational phrasing Subjects more than 8 syllables long (Elordieta, Frota & Vigário 2005) Long subject the boyfriend megalomaniac of-the Brazilian looked (at the) dark-haired women’

34. 2. Basic tunes in NEP: neutral statement L* the daughter-in-law of mother talked about the boyfriend Rich distribution of pitch accents (Vigário & Frota 2003); more IPs by utterance

35. the daughter-in-law of mother talked about the boyfriend

36. 2. Basic tunes in NEP: wh-question Same nuclear contour as in NEP neutral declarative statements: L* L% who painted a morning amber ?

37. 2. Basic tunes in NEP: neutral yes-no question Interrogation is signalled by the tonal boundary: H(L)% the boys bought slides (for the microscope) ?

38. 2. Basic tunes in BP: neutral statement the researcher already gave-back the money Same nuclear contour as in SEP, but rich distribution of pitch accents (Frota & Vigário 2000, Tenani 2002, Fernandes 2007)

39. the researcher already gave-back the money

40. 2. Basic tunes in BP: narrow (informational) focus Two possibilities: main option is different from SEP (Fernandes 2007) the girls beautiful died in-the lake focus Who died in the lake ?

41. the girls beautiful died in-the lake focus Who died in the lake ?

42. 2. Basic tunes in SEP, NEP and BP: summary SEP NEPBP Neutral Decl H+L* L%L* L%H+L* L% Focus in DeclH*+LL*+H L- (or H*+L) Wh-questionH+L* L%L* L% Neutral yes-no QH+L* LH%L* H(L)% Contrastive yes-noL*+H LH/HL% I-phrasinglong phrasesshort phrases Sparse/rich accent distributionsparserichrich (accentedI-phrase internal w  27%74%80% Accent on everyIPPhPPW (Hellmuth 2007)

43. 3 – Professional & Spontaneous Speech Independent evidence for: –Tonal inventory –Main tunes What’s new (for SEP) –Nuclear H*, L*, L+H* and H+!H* –Pre-nuclear and nuclear ^H* Problematic issues –Boundary tones Final HL%, !H% and L% Initial %H and %L –How to deal with the equivalence of L*+H and %L H* ? –How many levels of phrasing? (a supplementary level for sentence-like chunks?)

44. 3. Pre-nuclear and nuclear L+H* in SEP Statement – New information (professional reading)

45. 3. Nuclear L+H* Statement – new information - list qualities (high-school presentation, non-scripted)

46. 3. Nuclear L* in SEP Statement, given information, continuation (high school spontaneous presentation)

47. 3. Nuclear L* in SEP Given information (topicalization), new information, continuation: MapTask corpus (INSTRUCT, non-final)

48. 3. L* vs L*+H Yes-no question versus agree-proceed (Map Task)

49. 3. Nuclear H* Imperative - polite/exhortative (lab speech)

50. 3. Nuclear H* Question – confirmation seeking

51. 3. Nuclear H* Question – confirmation seeking

52. 3. Nuclear H+L* Question – information seeking (neutral)

53. 3. Other contrasts: Nuclear H* Emphatic statement - inferable information (prof. reading)

54. 3. Nuclear ^H* Statement- highlighted specification 2nd and final part (MapTask - EXPLAIN)

55. 3. Nuclear ^H*+L Statement- narrow focus, new information 1st part (MapTask - EXPLAIN)

56. 3. L+H* and ^H* Reactivation of given information + inferable information/ correction (high-school prepared presentation - teacher)

57. 3. L+H* and ^H* New information + given/ highlighted specification (high- school spontaneous presentation - teacher)

58. 3. L+H* and ^H* New information + given/highlighted specification (professional reading)

59. 3. Higher level organization (professional reading)

60. 3. Higher level organization (prepared & spont. speech)

61. 3 – Professional & Spontaneous Speech Independent evidence for: –Tonal inventory –Main tunes What’s new (for SEP) –Nuclear H*, L*, L+H* and H+!H* –Pre-nuclear and nuclear ^H* Problematic issues –Boundary tones Final HL%, !H% and L% Initial %H and %L –How to deal with the equivalence of L*+H and %L H* ? –How many levels of phrasing? (a supplementary level for sentence-like chunks?)

62. Obrigada !