This study deals with the determinants of prosodic phrasing in French schoolchildren’s narratives. Children (aged 7 to 11) told picture stories to a silent same-age peer. The establishment of temporal and/or causal relations between the events was more or less guided by the drawings (ordered vs. arbitrary sequences). The comprehension of the referential links was more or less supported by the way the frames were displayed (simultaneous vs. consecutive display mode). Four storytelling conditions that differed by the constraints imposed on inference-resolving and memory-searching were thus defined.
Naïve French listeners were asked to segment tape-recorded narrations using prosodic variation as a criterion, and to decide whether each prosodic segment was “conclusive” or “continuative.” The comparison of the listeners’ segmentation labels to those of an expert (functional and formal annotation) showed that more than 91% of the labels corresponded to prosodic boundaries and more than 78% of the non-terminal labels corresponded to non-terminal boundaries, but only 55% of the terminal labels corresponded to terminal boundaries. The storytellers’ boundaries were then analyzed as a function of age and storytelling conditions. Non-terminal and terminal boundaries varied with the picture-display mode. Terminal boundaries also depended on the type of event sequence, and non-terminal boundaries on the improvement of the linguistic and communicative skills of the narrators. Terminal judgments of non-terminal boundaries mainly occurred in texts where each event was told in a single proposition either without anaphoric references to the main character or with anaphoric pronouns.
Adam, J.M. ( 1992). Les textes: types et prototypes. Paris: Nathan.
2.
Auran, C., Colas, A., Portes, C., & Vion, M. ( 2005). Perception of breaks and discourse boundaries in spontaneous speech: developing an on-line technique. In C. Auran, R. Bertrand , C. Chanet, A. Colas, A. Di Cristo, C. Portes, A. Regnier, & M. Vion (Eds.), Proceedings of the IDP05 International SymposiumI (pp.1-7). Aix-en-Provence, France: Cederom.
3.
Auran, C., Portes, C., Rami, E., & Rigaud, N. ( 2001, October). La distinction entre frontières conclusives et continuatives est-elle pertinente dans le discours spontané?Paper presented at Journées Prosodie 2001 , Grenoble, France.
4.
Bamberg, M. ( 1987). The acquisition of narratives. Learning to use language . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter .
5.
Bamberg, M. ( 1997). Narrative development: Six approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Beckman, M., Hirschberg, J., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In S.-A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp.9-54). New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Berman, R., & Katzenberg, I. (1998). Cognitive and linguistic factors in the development of picture-series narrations. In M. Chini & A. Giacalone-Ramat (Eds.), Studi italiani di linguistica teorica ed applicata , 27, 21-46.
8.
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. ( 1994). Different ways of relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Bock, K. ( 1995). Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In J. L. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech Language and Communication (pp.181-216). London: Academic Press.
10.
Botinis, A., Granström, B., & Möbius, B. (2001). Developments and paradigms in intonation research. Speech Communication, 33, 263-296.
11.
Botvin, G., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1977). The development of structural complexity in children’s fantasy narratives. Developmental Psychology, 13, 377-378.
12.
Bronckart, J.P. ( 1985). Pour un modèle de production du discours . In J. P. Bronckart (Ed.), Le fonctionnement des discours (pp.3-58). Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé.
Chafe, W. ( 1986). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse. Typological studies in language, 11, 21-51.
15.
Clark, H.H. ( 1994). Discourse in production. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Hand book of Psycholinguistics (pp.985-1022). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16.
Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. ( 1993). An interactive graphical system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychological laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Methods, Research, Instruments and Computer , 25, 257-271.
17.
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & van DONSELAAR, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech , 40(2), 141-201.
18.
Danieli, M., Garrido, J.-M., Moneglia, M., Panizza, A., Quazza, S., & Swerts, M. ( 2004). Evaluation of consensus on the annotation of prosodic breaks in the Romance corpus of spontaneous speech C-ORAL-ROM. Paper presented at the LREC conference, ELRA , Paris, France.
19.
De Weck, G. ( 1991). La cohésion dans les textes d’enfants: étude du développement des processus anaphoriques. Neuchâtel : Delachaux & Niestlé.
20.
Degand, L., & Simon, A.-C. ( 2005). Minimal discourse units: Can we define them, and why should we?Paper presented at the SEM 05: Connectors, discourse framing and discourse structure: from corpus-based and experimental analyses to discourse theories, Biarritz, France.
21.
Delattre, P. ( 1966). Les dix intonations de base du français . The French Review, XL(1), 1-14.
22.
Di Cristo, A. ( 2000a). La problématique de la prosodie dans l’étude de la parole dite spontanée. Revue Parole (15-16), 149-250.
23.
Di Cristo, A. ( 2000b). Interpréter la prosodie. Paper presented at the XXIIIèmes Journées d’Etude sur la Parole, Aussois, France.
24.
Dodane, C., & Brunellière, A. (2006). Lecture silencieuse et oralisée des phrases relatives: le rôle de la prosodie. Paper presented at the XXVI Journées d’études sur la parole, Dinard, France.
25.
Fayol, M. ( 1985). Des idées au texte. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
26.
Fayol, M., & Abdi, H. ( 1988). Influence of script structure on punctuation. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 265-279.
27.
Esser, J. ( 2000). Medium-transferability and presentation structure in speech and writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1523-1538.
28.
Fine, J. ( 1985). Cohesion as an index of social cognitive factors: Oral language of reading disabled. Discourse Processes, 1, 247-266.
29.
Fodor, J. ( 1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319. Fodor, J. (2002a). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. Paper presented at the Speech Prosody International Conference, Aix-en Provence, France.
30.
Fodor, J. ( 2002b). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 32 (pp.113-132), GLSA, Amherst, MA, USA.
31.
Fon, Y.-J.J. ( 2002). A cross-linguistic study on syntactic and discourse boundary cues in spontaneous speech. Dissertation, Ohio State University , USA.
32.
Frazier, L., Carlson, K., & Clifton, C. ( 2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension . Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(6), 244-249.
33.
Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Carlson, K. ( 2004). Don’t break, or do: prosodic boundary preferences . Lingua, 114, 3-27.
34.
Grosz, B., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Banff, Canada, 1, 429-432.
35.
Grosz, B., Hirschberg, J., & Nakatani, C.H. (1994). A study of intonation and discourse structure in directions. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Integration of Natural Language and Speech Processing . American Association for Artificial Intelligence. AAA AI-94, August, 1.
36.
Hemphill, L., Picardi, N., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (1991). Narrative as an index of communicative competence in mildly mentally retarded children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 263-279.
37.
Hirschberg, J., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). The intonational structuring of discourse. Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistic, Columbia University, New York, USA, 136-144.
38.
Hirst, D.J. ( 2005). Form and function in the representation of speech prosody . Speech Communication, 46, 334-347.
39.
Hirst, D.J., & Di Cristo, A. ( 1998). A survey of intonation systems. In D. J. Hirst & A. Di Cristo (Eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages (pp.1-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Jisa, H. ( 2000). Increasing cohesion in narratives: A developmental study of maintaining and reintroducing subjects in French. Linguistics , 38, 591-620.
41.
Jisa, H., & Kern, S. ( 1998). Relative clauses in French children’s narrative text. Journal of Child Language, 25, 623-652.
42.
June, S. ( 2003). Prosodic phrasing and attachment preferences. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 32, 219-249.
43.
Kern, S. ( 1998). Comment les enfants jonglent avec les contraintes communicationnelles, discursives et linguistiques dans la production d’une narration. Lille, France: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion .
44.
Lacheret-Dujour, A., & Beaugendre, F. (1999). La prosodie du français . Paris: Editions du CNRS.
45.
Levelt, J.M. ( 1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. London: MIT Press.
46.
Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. ( 1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75.
47.
MacWhinney, B. ( 1991). The Childes project. Tool for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
Mandler, J. ( 1987). On the psychological validity of story structure . Discourse Processes, 10, 1-29.
49.
Mandler, J., & Johnson, N.S. ( 1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall . Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.
50.
Mertens, P. ( 1987). L’intonation du français: de la description linguistique à la reconnaissance automatique. Unpublished Ph.D., Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve , Belgium.
51.
Norris, J.A., Bruning, R.H. ( 1988). Cohesion in the narratives of good and poor readers . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 416-424.
52.
Peterson, C. ( 1993). Identifying referents and linking sentences cohesively in narration. Discourse Processes, 16, 507-524.
53.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. ( 1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: Three ways of looking at a child’s narrative. New York: Plenum.
54.
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In M. E. Pollack (Ed.), Intentions in communication (pp.271-323). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
Portes, C. ( 2000). Approche du rôle de la prosodie dans la structuration du discours oral en français. Unpublished manuscript, Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence , France.
56.
Portes, C. ( 2002). Approche instrumentale et cognitive de la prosodie du discours en français. Travaux Interdisciplinaires Parole et Langage, 21, 101-119.
57.
Pynte, J., & Colonna, S. ( 2000). Decoupling syntactic parsing from visual inspection: the case of relative clause attachment in French. In J. Pynte (Ed.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp.529-547). Oxford: Elsevier.
58.
Quinn, D., Fernandez, E., de ALMEIDA, S., Bradley, S., & Fodor, J. ( 2001). Prosodic phrasing predicts RC attachment in French and English silent reading. Paper presented at the AMLAP Annual Conference, Saarbrucken, Germany.
59.
Rossi, M. ( 1999). L’intonation, le système du français: description et modélisation. Gap: OPHRYS.
60.
Roth, F.P., & Spekman, N.J. ( 1989). Narrative discourse proficiency of learning disabled students; differences between elicitation procedures. Paper presented at the Symposium for Research on Child Language Disorders , Madison, WI, USA.
61.
Roth, F.P., Spekman, N.J., & Fye, E.C. ( 1995). Reference cohesion in the oral narratives of students with learning disabilities and normally achieving students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 25-39.
62.
Rotondo, J.A. ( 1984). Clustering analyses of subjective partitions of text . Discourse Processes, 7, 69-88.
63.
Schuetze-Coburn, S., Shapley, M., & Weber, E. ( 1991). Units of intonation in discourse: A comparison of acoustic and auditory analyses. Language and speech, 34(3), 207-234.
64.
Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C.M., Price, P., et al. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody . Second International Conference on Spoken Language Processing , 2, 867-870.
65.
Stein, N., & Albro, E. ( 1997). Building complexity and coherence: Children’s use of goal-structured knowledge in telling stories. In M. Bamberg (Ed.), Narrative development: Six approaches (pp.5-44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
Steinhauer, K. ( 2003). Electrophysiological correlates of prosody and punctuation . Brain and Language, 86(1), 142-164.
67.
Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A.D. (2001). Prosodic boundaries, comma rules, and brain responses: The closure positive shift in ERPs as a universal marker for prosodic phrasing in listeners and readers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(3), 267-295.
68.
Swerts, M. ( 1997). Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(1), 514-521.
69.
Swerts, M., & Geluykens, R. ( 1994). Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse . Language and Speech, 37(1), 21-43.
70.
Thorndike, P.W. ( 1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
71.
Trabasso, T., & Stein, N. ( 1997). Narrating, representing and remembering event sequences . In P. van den Broek, P. Bauer, & T. Bourg (Eds.), Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation. Bridging fictional and actual events (pp.237-270). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
72.
van den BROEK, P. ( 1997). Discovering the cement of the universe: the development of event comprehension from childhood to adulthood. In P. van den Broek, P. Bauer, & T. Bourg (Eds.), Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation. Bridging fictional and actual events (pp.321-342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
73.
van den BROEK, P., Bauer, P., & Bourg, T. ( 1997). Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation. Bridging fictional and actual events. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
74.
Vion, M., & Colas, A. ( 1998). L’introduction des référents dans le discours en français: contraintes cognitives et développement des compétences narratives. L’Année Psychologique , 98, 37-59.
75.
Vion, M., & Colas, A. ( 1999a). Expressing coreference in French: Cognitive constraints and development of narrative skills. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(3), 261-291.
76.
Vion, M., & Colas, A. ( 1999b). Maintaining and reintroducing referents in French: Cognitive constraints and development of narrative skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 32-50.
77.
Vion, M., & Colas, A. ( 2000). Mode de recueil et outil d’analyse d’un corpus de parole spontanée étudié d’un point de vue psycholinguistique . Travaux Interdisciplinaires Parole et Langage, 11, 155-167. Corpus available from the CHILDES database, http://www.childes.psy.cmu.edu/data/narrative/VionColas.zip
78.
Vion, M., & Colas, A. ( 2005). Using connectives in oral French narratives: Cognitive constraints and development of narrative skills. First Language , 25(1), 39-66.
