Wokshop on Developing an International Prosodic Alphabet (Ipra) Within the AM Framework
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wokshop on developing an International Prosodic Alphabet (IPrA) within the AM framework SunSun----AhAh JunJun, UCLA JosJosJoséJos éééIgnacio HualdeHualde, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Pilar PrietoPrieto, ICREA – Universitat Pompeu Fabra Outline 1. Introduction & the motivations for developing the IPrA (Jun, Hualde, Prieto) 2. Proposals on labels of ---Pitch accents (Prieto) ---Phrasal/Boundary tones (Jun) ---NonNon- ---f0f0 features (Hualde) Part 1 Introduction & the motivations for developing the IPrA (by Sun-Ah Jun) Transcription system of intonation and prosodic structure in AM framework • ToBI (Tones and Break Indices) is a consensus system for labelling spoken utterances to mark phonologically contrastive intonational events and prosodic structure based on the Autosegmental-Metrical model of intonational phonology (e.g., Pierrehumbert 1980, Beckman & Pierrehumbert 1986, Ladd 1996/2008). • It was originally designed for English (1994), but has become a general framework for the development of prosodic annotation systems at the phonological level Various ToBI systems/AM models of intonation • Models of intonational phonology and ToBI annotation systems have been developed independently for dozens of typologically diverse languages (e.g., edited books by Jun 2005, 2014, Frota & Prieto 2015). ToBI is language-specific, not an IPA for prosody. •The ToBI system proposed for each language is assumed to be based on a well-established body of research on intonational phonology of that language. “ToBI is not an IPA for prosody. Each ToBI is specific to a language variety and the community of researchers working on the language variety” •Prosodic systems of various languages analyzed and described in the same framework allowed us to compare the systems across languages, i.e., prosodic typology Prosodic Typology • Classification of languages based on their prosody. Classify based on what? • Jun (2005, 2014) compared phonological categories (e.g., types of tones, the size of tonal inventory, the type of prosodic units) across languages whose prosodic system has been described in the AM phonology framework. • Some researchers have argued that prosodic typology can be performed on crosslinguistic comparisons of prosodic systems described at the underlying, phonological level (e.g., Gussenhoven 2007, 2011; Hyman 2012). Prosodic Typology • However, Ladd (2008b: 373-376), in his review of Jun’s (2005) 1 st edited volume of Prosodic Typology , highlighted the problems of proposing a typology based on the comparison of abstract categories only: “The heart of the issue is whether there is any basis for identifying SLPFP (sustained level phrase-final pitch, e.g., calling contour) as a cross-linguistically comparable phenomenon to be transcribed in comparable ways. ToBI can’t have it both ways. If the analyses on which the transcription systems are based are truly language-specific (or indeed, variety-specific), then they are strictly speaking incommensurate, and typological generalisations are at best difficult and at worst useless.” Ladd (2008; 376) “The problem is that in order to do typology, you have to have a set of agreed descriptions cast in comparable terms. And if we decide that they are crosslinguistically identifiable, then we need … ‘a set of agreed descriptions cast in comparable terms’. It won’t do in the long run if you call something an upstepped low boundary tone and I say there’s no boundary tone there at all.” (p.373) “That kind of consensus is still lacking in the description of prosody. The broad AM approach is certainly leading us toward such a consensus, but we’re not there yet – it’s only the practical and collegial cohesiveness of the ToBI movement that makes the progress seem greater than it is.”. Two levels of prosodic transcription: Broad/categorical phonetic vs. Phonological Antecedents •The idea of incorporating two levels of prosodic transcription is not new. •Korean ToBI system (Jun 2000, 2005) incorporated two levels of tonal transcription. •Phonetic tone tier : label 14 tonal patterns of an Accentual Phrase (basic patterns: LHLH or HHLH), which are not distinctive but discrete categories (some of them in free variation). •Phonological tone tier : label AP boundaries and IP boundary tones NOTIFICA Example of various AP tonal patterns in Korean : LH, HH, LLH, LHLH, LL I-TOP powerful family-POSS a tutor-ACC met Antecedents (cont.) • Beckman, Hirschberg, & Shattuck-Hufnagel (2005:39) supported having a phonetic tier in ToBI with temporary labels, which are hypotheses about discrete phonological categories, not an encoding of a downsampled f0 contour. • Jun & Fletcher (2014:518) proposed a list of tonal labels to “be used as “temporary” labels as a guideline for deciding tonal categories and symbols when analyzing F0 contours in the AM framework before finalizing distinctive categories of the target language” (when trying to develop an AM model of a language/dialect) Antecedents (cont.) • Finally, the French ToBI system (Delais-Roussarie et al. 2015) recognizes two levels of tonal representation by annotating allophonic variants of underlying tonal pattern of Accentual Phrase, (aL) (Hi) (L) H* • In IP-final final AP, the AP-final H* contrasts with L*, but in non-IP-final AP position, the AP-final H* can be realized as L* non-contrastively (probably due to dependency relations; Martin 1980, 2009), and this allophonic variant is annotated as L* in the F-ToBI system. French AP-final pitch accent is sometimes realized as L* (allophonic) - see the first 3 APs (Fig.3.4 in Delais-Roussarie et al. F-ToBI, 2015) “The children followed the grandfather of the girl that wore a long black dress.” Also, useful in labeling L2 prosody ex. Korean intonation by L2 Korean learners of L1 English Korean AP-initial “L” is produced as H*, followed by AP-second syllable H, creating H*+H, which is a hybrid of English and Korean intonation. Lee, H. (UCLA dissertation, in prog.) NOTIFICA Proposal: Develop an International Prosodic Alphabet (IPrA) Develop a set of discrete tonal labels and diacritics that are transparent and consistent at the categorical phonetic level . This will be used: 1. as a temporary label before establishing a phonological analysis of tones 2. as a way to represent allophonic realizations of an underlying tonal category 3. as a way to represent hybrid or exceptional tonal categories that are not part of the intonational model of any specific language. DO WE NEED A UNIVERSAL SET OF PROSODIC LABELS? (by Jose Hualde) Comparative work Difficult or impossible if labels have different interpretations in different languages or analyses Current situation The same contour may be given different labels The same label is used for different contours Examples: final sustained pitch and final rise Advantages of a common understanding of symbols Answering typological questions such as: How many stress languages have a contour with a fall from the pretonic to the stressed syllables? H+L* (or HL*?) What is the distribution/pragmatics of this contour in different languages? Different interpretations of same label: L*+H and L+H* in different ToBI systems L*+H L*+H ENGLISH SPANISH e.g. Veilleux et al. (2008) e.g. Beckman et al (2002) L+H* L+H* SPANISH GREEK e.g., Prieto and Roseano (2010) e.g., Arvaniti and Baltazani (2005) Another question: Why not use IPA tone diacritics? Syllable-by-syllable tonal transcription systems make generalizations across utterances difficult Autosegmental labels capture the relation between underlying/phonological and broad/categorical phonetic levels of description in a more conspicuous way. Autosegmental notation was introduced for the analysis of lexical tone in order to better account for the mapping between the broad phonetic level and the postulated phonological level, including phenomena such a contour formation from underlying sequences of tone, tone spreading, surfacing of tone on different syllables from their lexical sponsor, floating tones, etc. Bruce (1977) demonstrated the usefulness of the autosegmental approach in our understanding of the intonational contours of Swedish, by providing a uniform underlying representation for the two contrastive lexical pitch-accent, in spite of surface variation as lexical and postlexical tones interact. A clear advantage of the AM symbols is in indicating differences of alignment between segments and tonal events. Also: IPA symbols for “global rise” and “global fall” (in addition to lexical tone and word accent ) do not appear to be enough to capture all relevant facts in intonation. WHY DO WE NEED TWO LEVELS OF PROSODIC TRANSCRIPTION? (by Pilar Prieto) Main argument : Because it is very useful to represent the correspondence between underlying prosodic categories and surface patterns In this section, we provide a set of examples (and more arguments) to motivate the need for a two-level approach to prosodic annotation Broad phonetic transcriptions, segmental level • Broad phonetic transcriptions are very commonly used at the segmental level. • They include easily heard characteristics and ignore important phonetic detail.* Broad phonetic meter (EnglishEnglishEnglish) mira ‘s/he looks’ (CatalanCatalanCatalan) [ˈmi ɾə ] [ˈmi ɾə ] • Similar broad phonetic transcriptions, yet different phonological analyses : Phonological meter (EnglishEnglishEnglish) mira ‘s/he looks’ (CatalanCatalanCatalan) /ˈmittttər/ /ˈmi ɾ+aaaa/ * A narrow phonetic transcription would encode finer differences of phonetic detail. • Broad phonetic transcriptions are useful