The Interface of Intonation and Information Structure: The Representation of Degrees of Givenness in Persian Intonational Phonology

Author
V. Sadeghi
Associate Professor of English Language and Literature , Imam Khomeini International University, Imam Khomeini Boulevard, Qazvin
Abstract
In studies on the realization of information structure in West Germanic languages (notably English, German and Dutch), it is commonly assumed that new information is marked by a pitch accent, while given information is deaccented (i.e. there is no pitch accent where one would otherwise be expected, see Cruttenden, 2006). However, a number of investigations of the prosodic marking of given and new information have gone beyond this dichotomy, taking into account different types of accentuation. One such study is Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg’s (1990) chapter on the interpretation of intonational contours in American English. They claim that both given and new information can be accented, and that it is the type of pitch accent which is used to differentiate between them (low: given; high: new). Two others within the British School (and on British English) are Halliday (1967a) and Brazil et al. (1980). Both, like Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg, allow for given information to be accented. Halliday (1967: 28) claims that contour type and accompanying local pitch range distinguish between given and new (mid-low to low: given; mid to low: new; and additionally high to low: contrastive new). Brazil et al. (1980:13) also claim that the nuclear contour distinguishes given from new but list different tones (falling- rising: given; falling: new). Furthermore, much of the work done on prosodic marking of information structure has concentrated on the binary distinction between given and new information, rather than different degrees of givenness. One exception is Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg (1990) who claim that a particular type of pitch accent can indicate whether information should be inferable, i.e. neither completely givennor completely new. However, most studies which refer to degrees of givenness are predominantly concerned with the morphosyntactic form of referring expressions. Only few combine morphosyntax and intonation, notably Allerton (1978) who nonetheless concentrates on accent placement rather than accent or contour type.

The present research addressed the phonetic realization of degrees of givenness in Persian intonational grammar. The study particularly explored the question as to whether the F0 contour of a referring expression correlates with the degree of accessibility it is associated with in a discourse context. It was hypothesized that the F0 excursion size of a pitch accent correlates with the degree of givenness of the respective referring expression such that the more given a referring expression is, the less the F0 excursion size will be. The research methodology was the one used in laboratory phonology. A corpus of 10 small texts was designed to test the hypothesis. The speakers (12 male and 12 female) read the texts on a computer screen. They were instructed to read each text naturally, with no special emphasis on any part of the sentence. The target texts were recorded on DAT recorder using a high quality unidirectional head-mounted microphone (Shure SM58) in a sound proof booth. All the measurements were made on simultaneous visual displays of waveform, wideband spectrogram and f0 tracks.

The results suggested that there is a negative correlation between the degree of accessibility of an expression and the pitch range or F0 scaling of its pitch accent; thus, the less accessible a referring expression is in a discourse context, the more compressed the pitch range of its pitch accent. The results further suggested that the pitch register of a referring expression significantly decreases as the expression becomes less accessible since degrees of givenness in the discourse context affects not only the F0 scaling the H tone but also the scaling the F0 valley. However, the tonal structure of a pitch accent is not affected by degrees of accessibility.


Keywords

Subjects

• Abolhasanizadeh, V.; M. Bijankhan & C. Gussenhoven, (2012), “The Persian pitch accent and its retention after focus”. Lingua 122.Pp. 1380-1394.
• Arvaniti, A. (2009). “Intonational Primitives”. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume and Keren Rice (Eds.), Companion to Phonology, Wiley-Blackwell.
 Baumann, S. (2006). “The Intonation of Givenness. Evidence from German”. Tübingen. Niemeyer.
• Baumann, S. ; M. Grice & S. Steindamm, (2006), Prosodic marking of focus domains-categorical or gradient? Proceedings of the speech prosody 2006 (Pp. 301-304). Dresden, Germany.
• Boersma, P. & D. Weenink, (2010), “Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]”. Version 4.3.01, Retrived from http://www.praat.org/.
• Borràs-Comes, J.; M. Vanrell & P. Prieto, (2014), “The role of pitch range in establishing Intonational contrasts”. Journal of the International Phonetic Association.Pp. 44. 1-20.
o Braun, B. & D. R. Ladd, (2003), “Prosodic correlates of contrastive and non-contrastive themes in German”. 8th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, September 2003, Geneva.Pp. 789-792.
 Brazil, D.; M. Coulthard & C. Johns, (1980), Discourse Intonation and Language Teaching. Longman, London.
• Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness and Time. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Cruttenden, A. (2006). “The Deaccenting of Given Information: a Cognitive Universal? In The Pragmatic Organization of Discourse”, G. Bernini (ed.). The Hague: de Gruyter.
• Eslami, M. (2005). “Phonology: Analysis of the Persian Intonation System”. Tehran: SAMT Publication. [In Persian].
• Féry, C. & F. Kügler, (2008), “Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German”. Journal of Phonetics 36.Pp. 680-703.
• Gussenhoven, C. (2004). “The Phonology of Tone and Intonation”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hajicova, E. (1993). “Issues of sentence structure and discourse patterns, Theoretical and Computational Linguistics”. vol. 2. Charles University. Prague.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). “Notes on transitivity and theme in English”. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3.Pp. 199-244.
• Ladd, D. R. (2006). “Segmental anchoring of pitch movements: Autosegmental association or gestural coordination”? Rivista di Linguistica 18.1.Pp. 19-38.
 Ladd, D. R. (2008). “Intonational Phonology”, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Lambrecht, K. (1994). “Information Structure and Sentence form”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mahjani, B. (2003). An instrumental study of prosodic features and intonation in
• Modern Farsi (Persian)”. MS thesis, retrieved from: http://www.ling.ed. ac.uk/teaching/postgrad/mscslp/archive/dissertations/2002-3/behzad_mahjani.pdf
• Pierrehumbert, J. & J. Hirschberg, (1990), “The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse”. In: Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J., Pollack, M.E. (Eds.), Intentions in Communication. MIT Press.Cambridge. Mass. Pp. 271–311.
• Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). “The Phonetics and Phonology of English Intonation”. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Rasekh Mahand, M. & N. Mousavi, (2007), “Post-position in Persian”. The 7th Conference on Linguistics. Allameh Tabataba’i University. [In Persian].
o Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2007). The Intonational Grammar of Persian. PhD Dissertation. University of Manitoba.
• Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2009). “The alignment of L + H* pitch accents in Persian intonation”. Journal of the International Phonetic Association.39.Pp. 205-230.
• Sadeghi, V. & S. Mahmoudi, (2017), “Syntax-phonology interface: the study of the intonation of post-positioned relative clauses in Persian”. Language Related Research. 8(6). 75-101. [In Persian].
• Sadeghi, V. (2018). “Prosodic structure of the Persian language”. Tehran: SAMT publication.[In Persian].
o Sadeghi, V. (2019). “The timing of pre-nuclear pitch accents in Persian”. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 49(3).Pp. 305-329.
• Smiljanic, R. (2004). Lexical, Pragmatic, and Positional Effects on Prosody in Two Dialects of Croatian and Serbian. Ph.D. Dissertations in Linguistics. Routledge; New York
• Taheri-Ardali, M. & Y. Xu, (2012), “Phonetic Realization of Prosodic Focus in Persian”. In: Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012. (Pp. 326 - 329): Shanghai.
• Vanrell, M.; A., Stella; B. Gili Fivela & P. Prieto, (2013), “Prosodic manifestations of the Effort Code in Catalan, Italian and Spanish contrastive focus”. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43.Pp. 195-220.
• Wang, B. & Y. Xu, (2011), “Differential prosodic encoding of topic and focus in sentence-initial position in Mandarin Chinese”. Journal of Phonetics.39(4).Pp.595-611.
o Welby, P. (2003). “Effects of pitch accent position, type, and status on focus projection”. Language and Speech 46(1).Pp. 53-81.
• Xu, Y. & C. X. Xu, (2005), “Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation”. Journal of Phonetics 33.Pp. 159-197.
o Xu, Y. (2011). “Post-focus compression: Cross-linguistic distribution and historical origin”. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong (Pp. 152- 155).
Language Related Research
Volume 10, Issue 6 - Serial Number 54
January and February 2019
Pages 319-344