Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Local and Global Cues in the Prosodic Realization of Broad and Narrow Focus in Bulgarian

Andreeva B.a · Barry W.J.a · Koreman J.b

Author affiliations

aComputational Linguistics and Phonetics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany; bDepartment of Language and Literature, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

Related Articles for ""

Phonetica 2016;73:256-278

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: May 04, 2015
Accepted: June 27, 2016
Published online: February 23, 2017
Issue release date: February 2017

Number of Print Pages: 23
Number of Figures: 5
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 0031-8388 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0321 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHO

Abstract

In this study, local and global prosodic cues for information structure are examined in the elicited production of six Bulgarian sentences. The sentences were produced in response to different questions, devised to prompt different focus realizations (broad focus and non-contrastive and contrastive narrow focus). Results show that speakers consistently differentiate broad and narrow focus by means of both local and global acoustic cues, by producing different pitch accent types on the nuclear syllable and reducing the ‘phonetic strength' of the default pre-nuclear accent in the narrow focus condition. Thus, the difference between the acoustic properties of the nuclear and the pre-nuclear accented syllables is smaller in the broad focus condition and greater in the narrow focus condition. Contrastive and non-contrastive narrow-focus accents are differentiated by local cues, i.e., by longer duration when the focus is early in the sentence and by global cues, i.e., by enhancing the tonal contrast between the nuclear prominence of CW2 and the pre-nuclear prominence of CW1 when the focus is late in the sentence.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Alte r K, Mleinek I, Richter N (2001): Prosodic phrasing and accentuation in Russian; in Zybatow G, Junghanns U, Mehlhorn G, Szucsich L (eds): Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics (= Linguistik International; 5). Frankfurt/Main, Peter Lang, pp 317-328.
  2. Andreeva B, Avgustinova T, Barry WJ (2001): Link-associated and focus-associated accent patterns in Bulgarian; in Zybatow G, Junghanns U, Mehlhorn G, Szucsich L (eds): Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics (= Linguistik International; 5). Frankfurt/Main, Peter Lang, pp 353-364.
  3. Andreeva B (2007): Zur Phonetik und Phonologie der Intonation der Sofioter-Varietät des Bulgarischen, PHONUS 12, Institute of Phonetics, University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken, PhD theses.
  4. Andreeva B, Koreman J (2008): The status of vowel devoicing in Bulgarian: phonetic or phonological; in Zybatow G, Junghanns U, Mehlhorn G, Szucsich L (eds): Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference. Frankfurt/Main, Peter Lang, pp 81-91.
  5. Andreeva B, Barry W, Koreman J (2014): A Cross-Language Corpus for Studying the Phonetics and Phonology of Prominence. Reykjavik, The 9th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2014), pp 26-31.
  6. Arvaniti A, Garding G (2007): Dialectal variation in the rising accents of American English; in Cole J, Hualde JI (eds): Papers in Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp 547-576.
  7. Avgustinova T (1997): Word Order and Clitics in Bulgarian. Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology. Vol 5.
  8. Avgustinova T, Andreeva B (1999): Thematic intonation patterns in Bulgarian Clitic Replication. Proceedings of the14th ICPhS, San Francisco, pp 1501-1504.
  9. Barry W, Andreeva B, Russo M, Dimitrova S, Kostadinova T (2003): Do rhythm measures tell us anything about language type; in Recasens D, Solé MJ, Romero J (eds): Proceedings of the 15th ICPhS, Barcelona, pp 2693-2696.
  10. Bartels C, Kingston J (1994): Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus; in Boach P, van der Sandt R (eds): Focus and Natural Language Processing. Proceedings of J Sem Conference on Focus. IBM Working Papers. TR-80, pp 94-106.
  11. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015): Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1-48.
  12. Baumann S, Grice M, Steindamm S (2006): Prosodic marking of focus domains - categorical or gradient? Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Dresden, Germany, pp 301-304.
  13. Baumann S, Becker J, Grice M, Mücke D (2007): Tonal and articulatory marking of Focus in German; in Tourvain J, Barry WJ (eds): Proceedings of the 15Ith ICPhS, Pirrot GmbH, Dudweiler, pp 1029-1032.
  14. Baumann S, Röhr CT, Grice M (2015): Prosodische (De-)kodierung des informationsstatus im deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 34:1-42.
  15. Beckman ME (1986): Stress and Non-Stress Accent. Netherlands Phonetic Archives, Series No. 7. Foris.
  16. Bertinetto PM (1981): Strutture prosodiche dell'italiano. Firenze, Accademia della Crusca.
  17. Birch S, Clifton C Jr (1995): Focus, accent, and argument structure: effects on language comprehension. Lang Speech 38:365-391.
  18. Bojadžiev T, Kutsarov I, Penčev J (1999): Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. IK Petăr Beron, Sofija.
  19. Bolinger D (1961): Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37:83-96.
  20. Braun B (2005): Production and perception of thematic contrast in German. Oxford, Peter Lang.
  21. Breen M, Fedorenko E, Wagner M, Gibson E (2010): Acoustic correlates of information structure. Lang Cogn Process 25:1044-1098.
  22. Braun B (2015): What causes the activation of contrastive alternatives, the size of focus domain or pitch accent type? Proceedings of the 18th ICPhS. Glasgow, UK.
  23. Bruce G (1977): Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. CWK Gleerup, Lund.
  24. Büring D (2007): Intonation, semantics and information structure; in Ramchand G, Reiss C (eds): The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  25. Calhoun S (2006): Information Structure and the Prosodic Structure of English: A Probabilistic Relationship. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
  26. Calhoun S (2010): How does informativeness affect prosodic prominence? Lang Cogn Process 25:1099-1140.
  27. Chafe W (1976): Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view; in Li CN (ed): Subject and Topic. Academic Press, pp 27-55.
  28. Cho T (2005): Prosodic strengthening and featural enhancement: evidence from acoustic and articulatory realizations of /ɑ, i/ in English. J Acoust Soc Am 117:3867-3878.
  29. Cooper WE, Eady SJ, Mueller PR (1985): Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. J Acoust Soc Am 77:2142-2156.
  30. Cruttenden A (2006): The de-accenting of given information: a cognitive Universal; in Bernini G, Schwartz ML (eds): Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Language of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter, The Hague, pp 311-355.
  31. Cutler A (1977): The Context-Independence of ‘Intonational Meaning'. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 13), pp 104-115.
  32. Dauer R (1987): Phonetic and phonological components of language rhythm. Proceedings of the 11th ICPhS. Tallinn, Estonian Academy of Sciences, vol 5, pp 447-450.
  33. Dimitrova S (1998): Bulgarian speech rhythm: stress-timed or syllable-timed? J Int Phonet Assoc 27:27-33.
  34. D'Imperio M (1997): Narrow focus and focal accent in the Neapolitan variety of Italian; in Botinis A, Kouroupetroglou G, Carayiannis G (eds): Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications. Proceedings of an ESCA Workshop, Athens, Greece, pp 87-90.
  35. Dyer D (1992): Word Order in the Bulgarian Simple Sentence: A Study in Grammar, Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam, Rodopi.
  36. Eady SJ, Cooper WE (1986): Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. J Acoust Soc Am 80:402-415.
  37. Féry C, Krifka M (2008): Information structure - notional distinctions, ways of expression; in Sterkenburg PV (ed): Unity and Diversity of Languages. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp 123-136.
  38. Féry C, Kügler F (2008): Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. J Phon 36:680-703.
  39. Frota S (2000): Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese. Phonological Phrasing and Intonation. New York, Garland Publishing.
  40. Fry DB (1955): Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. J Acoust Soc Am 27:765-768.
  41. Georgieva E (1974): Slovored na prostoto izrečenie v bălgraskija knižoven ezik. Sofia, BAN.
  42. Grice M (1995): The intonation of Interrogation in Palermo Italian; implications for intonation theory. Tübingen, Niemeyer.
  43. Grice M, Baumann S, Jagdfeld N (2009): Tonal association and derived nuclear accents: the case of downstepping contours in German. Lingua 119:881-905.
  44. Gussenhoven C (1983): Testing the reality of focus domains. Lang Speech 26:61-80.
  45. Halliday M (1967): Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague, Mouton.
  46. Hamlaoui F, Żygis M, Engelmann J, Wagner M (2015): Acoustic correlates of focus marking in Polish. Proceedings of the 18th ICPhS.
  47. Hanssen J, Peters J, Gussenhoven C (2008): Prosodic effects of focus in Dutch declaratives. Proc Speech Prosody 2008:609-612.
  48. Hualde JI (2002): Intonation in romance: introduction to the special issue. Probus 14:1-7.
  49. Ito K, Speer SR, Beckman ME (2004): Informational status and pitch accent distribution in spontaneous dialogues in English. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Nara, Japan, pp 279-282.
  50. Ivančhev S (1957/1978): Nabljudenija vărxu upotrebata na chlena v bălgarskija ezik; in Pašov P (ed): Pomagalo po Bălgarska Morfologija. Imena. Sofia, Nauka i Izkustvo, pp 186-211.
  51. Jackendoff R (1972): Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MIT Press.
  52. Katz J, Selkirk E (2011): Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87:771-816.
  53. Kochanski G, Grabe E, Coleman J, Rosner B (2005): Loudness predicts prominence: fundamental frequency lends little. J Acoust Soc Am 118:1038-1054.
  54. Koreman J, Andreeva B, Barry W (2008): Accentuation cues in French and German; in Barbosa PA, Madureira S, Reis C (eds): Proceedings of the 4th International Conferences on Speech Prosody. Campinas, Editora RG/CNPq, pp 613-616.
  55. Koreman J, Andreeva B, Barry WJ, van Dommelen W, Sikveland RO (2009): Cross-language differences in the production of phrasal prominence in Norwegian and German; in Vainio M, Aulanko R, Aaltonen·(eds): Nordic Prosody. Proceedings of the Xth Conference, Helsinki 2008. Frankfurt/Main, Peter Lang, pp 139-150.
  56. Krahmer E, Swerts M (2001): On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Commun 34:391-405.
  57. Kratzer A (2004): Interpreting focus: presupposed or expressive meanings? Theoretical Linguistics (30(1), special issue on Interpreting Focus, pp 123-136.
  58. Kügler F (2008): The role of duration as a phonetic correlate of focus; in Barbosa PA, Madureira S, Reis C (eds): Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2008 Conference. Campinas, Editora RG/CNPq, pp 591-594.
  59. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2014): lmertest: tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package): R package version 2.0-25.
  60. Ladd RD (2008): Intonational Phonology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  61. Leafgren J (2002): Degrees of Explicitness: Information Structure and the Packaging of Bulgarian Subjects and Objects. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 102. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
  62. Lieberman P (1960): Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. J Acoust Soc Am 32:451-454.
  63. Manolescu A, Olson D, Ortega-Llebaria M (2009): Cues to contrastive focus in Romanian; in Vigário M, Frota S, Freitas MJ (eds): Interactions in Phonetics and Phonology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
  64. Mathesius V (1907): Studie k dějinám anglického slovosledu. Věstník České Akademie 16:261-274, 17:195-214, 299-311.
  65. Mathesius V (1939):·tak zvaném aktuálním členění větném. Slovo Slovesnost 5:171-174.
  66. Mathesius V (1947): Podstata aposice a její druhy; in Mathesius V (ed): Čeština a Obecný Jazykozpyt. Praha, pp 302-318.
  67. Mehlhorn G (2002): Kontrastierte Konstituenten im Russischen. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Informationsstruktur. Frankfurt/Main, Peter Lang.
  68. Meyer R, Mleinek I (2008): How prosody signals force and focus a study of rise-fall accents in Russian yes-no questions; in Zybatow G, Junghanns U, Mehlhorn G, Szucsich L (eds): Proceedings of the Conference FDSL-5, Leipzig 2003. Frankfurt/Main, Peter Lang.
  69. Miševa A (1991): Intonacionna Sistema na Bălgarskija Ezik. Sofija, Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite.
  70. Miševa A, Nikov M (1998): Intonation in Bulgarian; in Hirst D, Di Cristo A (eds): Intonation Systems: A Survey of 20 Languages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 275-287.
  71. Molnár V (2002): Contrast - from a contrastive perspective; in Hasselgård H, et al (eds): Information Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi, pp 147-161.
  72. Nikolaeva TM (1977): Frazovaja intonacija slavjanskix jazykov. Moscow, Nauka.
  73. Paul H (1937): Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. [Reprint of ed 5. Niemeyer, Halle.].
  74. Penčev J (1980): Osnovni intonacionni konturi v bălgarskoto izrečenie. Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, Sofija.
  75. R Core Team (2012): R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org/.
  76. Rochemont MS (1986): Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
  77. Rooth M (1992): A theory of focus interpretation. Nat Lang Seman 1:75-116.
  78. Rudin C (1985): Aspects of Bulgarian syntax: complementizers and wh-constructions. Columbus, Slavica Publishers.
  79. Rump HH, Collier R (1996): Focus conditions and the prominence of pitch accented syllables. Lang Speech 39:1-17.
  80. Selkirk E (2002): Contrastive focus vs. presentational focus: prosodic evidence from right node raising in English; in Bel B, Isabelle M (eds): Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody. France, Aixen-Provence, pp 643-646.
  81. Sityaev D, House J (2003): Phonetic and phonological correlates of broad, narrow and contrastive focus in English. Proceedings of the 15th ICPhS, pp 1819-1822.
  82. Szober S (1933): Edin osnoven tip nareždane dumite v bălgarskoto izrečenie; Reprinted in Popov K (1979): Pomagalo na bălgarski sintaksis. Sofia, Nauka i Izkustvo, pp 275-285.
  83. Sluijter AM, van Heuven VJ (1996): Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. J Acoust Soc Am 100(4 pt 1):2471-2485.
  84. Smiljanić R (2004): Lexical, Pragmatic, and Positional Effects on Prosody in Two Dialects of Croatian and Serbian: An Acoustic Study. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York, Routledge.
  85. Stojkov St (1966): Uvod văv Fonetikata na Bălgarskija Ezik. Sofija, Nauka i Izkustvo.
  86. ‘t Hart J, Collier R, Cohen A (1990): A Perceptual Study of Intonation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  87. Tilkov D (1981): Intonacijata v Bălgarskija Ezik. Sofija, Narodna Prosveta.
  88. Tilkov D, Bojadžiev T (1990): Bălgarska Fonetika, ed 3. Sofija, Nauka i Izkustvo.
  89. Trávniček F (1962):·tak zvanem aktualnim cleneni vetnem. Slovo Slovesnost 22:163-171.
  90. Turk AE, Sawusch JR (1996): The processing of duration and intensity cues to prominence. J Acoust Soc Am 99:3782-3790.
  91. Vainio M, Järvikivi J (2007): Focus in production: tonal shape, intensity and word order. J Acoust Soc Am 121:EL55-EL61.
  92. Vallduví E, Vilkuna M (1998): On rheme and contrast; in Culicover PW, McNally L (eds): The limits of Syntax (Syntax & Semantics 29). San Diego, Academic Press, pp 79-108.
  93. Welby P (2003): Effects of pitch accent position, type, and status on focus projection. Lang Speech 46(pt 1):53-81.
  94. Xu Y, Xu CX (2005): Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. J Phon 33:159-197.
  95. Zybatow G, Mehlhorn G (2000): Experimental evidence for focus structure in Russian; in King TH, Sekerina IA (eds): Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Philadelphia Meeting 1999. Ann Arbor, pp 414-434.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: May 04, 2015
Accepted: June 27, 2016
Published online: February 23, 2017
Issue release date: February 2017

Number of Print Pages: 23
Number of Figures: 5
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 0031-8388 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0321 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHO


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.