Focus in Corrective Exchanges: Effects of Pitch Accent and Syntactic Form

A dialog consisting of an utterance by one speaker and another speaker’s correction of its content seems intuitively to be made more acceptable when the new information is pitch accented or otherwise focused, and when the utterance and correction have the same syntactic form. Three acceptability judgment studies, one written and two auditory, investigated the interaction of focus (manipulated by sentence position and, in Experiments 2 and 3, pitch accent) and syntactic parallelism. Experiment 1 indicated that syntactic parallelism interacted with position of the new (contrastive) term: nonparallel forms were relatively acceptable when the new term appeared in object position, a position that commonly contains new information (a ‘default focus’ position). Experiments 2 and 3 indicated that presence of a pitch accent and placement in a default focus position had additive effects on acceptability. Surprisingly, spoken dialogs in which the new term appeared in object position were acceptable even when given information carried the most prominent pitch accent. The present studies, and earlier work, suggest that corrected information can be focused either by prosody or position even in spoken English–a language often thought to express focus through pitch accent, not syntactic position.

[1]  Markus Bader,et al.  Prosodic Influences on Reading Syntactically Ambiguous Sentences , 1998 .

[2]  H. H. Clark,et al.  What's new? Acquiring New information as a process in comprehension , 1974 .

[3]  E. Engdahl,et al.  The linguistic realization of information packaging , 2013 .

[4]  M. Horne Prosody, theory and experiment : studies presented to Gösta Bruce , 2000 .

[5]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Deaccentuation of Words Representing ‘Given’ Information: Effects of Persistence of Grammatical Function and Surface Position , 1994 .

[6]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[7]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[8]  Frank Keller,et al.  Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and without coordination , 2010 .

[9]  Matthew J. Traxler,et al.  Priming Prepositional Phrase Attachment: Evidence from Eye-Tracking and Event-Related Potentials , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  Enric Vallduví,et al.  Information packaging: A survey , 1993 .

[11]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Comprehension of Sluiced Sentences. , 1998 .

[12]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The Role of Contrast in the Local Licensing of Scrambling in German: Evidence from Online Comprehension , 2006, Journal of Germanic Linguistics.

[13]  D. Crystal,et al.  Intonation and Grammar in British English , 1967 .

[14]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Information structure expectations in sentence comprehension , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  C. Clifton,et al.  Newness, Givenness and Discourse Updating: Evidence from Eye Movements. , 2014, Journal of memory and language.

[16]  Association Focus , 1999 .

[17]  Iranga Samindani Weerakkody චත්තාරික සමය හා බැඳි සාම්ප්රධායික පසන් ගායන ශෛලිය පිළිබඳ අධ්යයනයක් (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) , 2017 .

[18]  Mariapaola D'Imperio,et al.  Reconsidering a Focal Typology: Evidence from Spanish and Italian , 2005 .

[19]  P. Gordon,et al.  Pronouns, Passives, and Discourse Coherence , 1995 .

[20]  Jonathan W. Peirce,et al.  PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[21]  Roger Schwarzschild,et al.  GIVENNESS, AVOIDF AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON THE PLACEMENT OF ACCENT* , 1999 .

[22]  Jonathan Ginzburg,et al.  The interactive stance : meaning for conversation , 2012 .

[23]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[24]  Stephanie Kelter,et al.  Surface form and memory in question answering , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Discourse integration guided by the ‘Question under Discussion’ , 2012, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  Andrew J. Stewart,et al.  Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language , 1995 .

[27]  L Frazier,et al.  Processing Coordinate Structures , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[28]  J. Fodor,et al.  Semantic focus and sentence comprehension , 1979, Cognition.

[29]  G. Cinque A null theory of phrase and compound stress , 1993 .

[30]  C. Clifton,et al.  Focus, Accent, and Argument Structure: Effects on Language Comprehension , 1995, Language and speech.

[31]  J. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Synthesizing intonation , 2004 .

[32]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  Learning To Parse? , 1998 .

[33]  W. Chafe Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view , 1976 .

[34]  J. K. Bock,et al.  Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[35]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  The Interaction of Constraints on Prosodic Phrasing , 2000 .

[36]  M. Halliday A course in spoken English : intonation , 1970 .

[37]  Mark Hasegawa-Johnson,et al.  Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence , 2010 .

[38]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[39]  Betty J. Birner,et al.  Information status and noncanonical word order in English , 1998 .

[40]  P. Healey,et al.  Divergence in Dialogue , 2014, PloS one.

[41]  C. Clifton,et al.  Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[42]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure , 1984 .

[43]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension , 2014, Cognition.

[44]  Mats Rooth A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[45]  C. L. Hamblin QUESTIONS IN MONTAGUE ENGLISH , 1976 .

[46]  Katalin É. Kiss,et al.  Discourse configurational languages , 1995 .

[47]  Daniel Büring,et al.  Semantics, Intonation and Information Structure , 2007 .

[48]  Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel,et al.  Stress shift and early pitch accent placement in lexical items in American English , 1994 .

[49]  E. Selkirk,et al.  Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English , 2012 .

[50]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: the role of inter- versus intrasentential predictions. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[51]  John W. Du Bois Argument structure: Grammar in use , 2003 .