IS SENTENCE VIABLE? The 3 rd International Conference on Cognitive Science Moscow, June 21, 2008
-
Upload
sopoline-tran -
Category
Documents
-
view
33 -
download
4
description
Transcript of IS SENTENCE VIABLE? The 3 rd International Conference on Cognitive Science Moscow, June 21, 2008
1
IS SENTENCE VIABLE?
The 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Science
Moscow, June 21, 2008
Andrej A. Kibrik ([email protected])
Vera I. Podlesskaya ([email protected] )
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
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
Night Dream Stories
Corpus of spoken Russian stories Speakers: children and adolescents Subject matter: retelling of night
dreamsDiscourse type: monologic narrative
(personal stories) Speech act type: declaratives
5
Two basic features of spoken discourse
Segmentation Transitional continuity
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
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 /тогда уже д= || ..(0.2) закрывались \двери,
..(0.4) A /togda uže d= || ..(0.2) zakryvalis’ \dveri,And then already d= were.closing doors
..(0.1) и /’Аня не –успела \сесть.
..(0.1) i /Anja ne –uspela \sest’. and Anja not managed 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
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
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
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) \маленькое такое,
\небольшое.)
....(1.0) ’и-иh ...(0.7)через /него
..(0.3) как-то \бревно какое-то,
типа \моста.
....(1.5) /\Ozero ...(0.5) kakoe-to,Lake some
..(0.3) (Ili /\rečka, Either river
ili /\ozero,or lake
no po-moemu \ozero,but I guess lake
potomu čto’ ..(0.2) kak-to-oWbecause somehow ...(0.6) \malen’koe takoe,
small such \nebol’šoe.)
minor ....(1.0) ’i-iH ...(0.7) čerez /nego
and across it ..(0.3) kak-to \brevno kakoe-to,
somehow log some tipa \mosta.
like bridge
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
Prosodic criteria of the final vs. non-final falling distinction
Primary criteria:1. Target frequency band2. Post-accent behavior
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
F0 graph for the “lake” example
\ozero, \malen’koe \nebol’ \brevno kakoe \mosta.
takoe, šoe.-to,
12 10 125
8
15
Non-final falling (210 Гц), final falling (170 Гц), rising, post-rising falling Z54: 4-5
..(0.4) А /тогда уже д= || ..(0.2) закрывались \двери,
..(0.4) A /togda uže d= || ..(0.2) zakryvalis’ \dveri,And then already d= were.closing doors
..(0.1) и /’Аня не –успела \сесть.
..(0.1) i /Anja ne –uspela \sest’. and Anja not managed 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 Hz170 Hz
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
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
Secondary criteria
3.Pausing pattern4.Reset vs. latching5.Steepness of falling6. Interval of falling
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
Contexts of non-final falling
Anticipatory mirror-image adaptation Inset Stepwise falling
21
Anticipatory mirror-image adaptation
....(1.8) Когда я \услышала,Kogda ja \uslyšala,when I heard
...(0.5) что-о /бомба гремит,čto-o /bomba
gremit,that bomb growls
22
Inset
/Входит это ...(0.5) /\ма-аль↑чик,/Vxodit èto ...(0.5) /\ma-al’↑čik,enters here boy
’ ’ ..(0.1) /\ну к \другому,’ ’ ..(0.1) /\nu k \drugomu,
well to another ..(0.1) и \говорит:
..(0.1) i \govorit:and says
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) \маленькое такое,
\небольшое.)
....(1.5) /\Ozero ...(0.5) kakoe-to,Lake some
..(0.3) (Ili /\rečka, Either river
ili /\ozero,or lake
no po-moemu \ozero,but I guess lake
potomu čto’ ..(0.2) kak-to-oWbecause somehow ...(0.6) \malen’koe takoe,
small such \nebol’šoe.)
minor
210 Hz
190 Hz
160 Hz
24
Representation of EDU continuity types in corpus
894
606
1188
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Finalfalling
Non-finalfalling
(Non-final)rising
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
Functions of sentences
Ease the processing by creating intermediate informational chunks
Chafe: superfoci of consciousness
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
EDUs vs. sentences: degree of variability
EDUs:distribution in terms of number of words
Sentences:distribution in terms of number of EDUs
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 290
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
53% – 3±180% – 3±2
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
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
Acknowledgement
Member of our project Nikolay Korotaev