Recent studies on a variety of languages have shown that a speaker’s commitment to the propositional content of his or her utterance can be encoded, among other strategies, by pitch accent types. Since prior research mainly relied on lexical-stress languages, our understanding of how speakers of a non-lexical-stress language encode speaker commitment is limited. This paper explores the contribution of the last pitch accent of an intonation phrase to convey speaker commitment in French, a language that has stress at the phrasal level as well as a restricted set of pitch accents. In a production experiment, participants had to produce sentences in two pragmatic contexts: unbiased questions (the speaker had no particular belief with respect to the expected answer) and negatively biased questions (the speaker believed the proposition to be false). Results revealed that negatively biased questions consistently exhibited an additional unaccented F0 peak in the preaccentual syllable (an H+!H* pitch accent) while unbiased questions were often realized with a rising pattern across the accented syllable (an H* pitch accent). These results provide evidence that pitch accent types in French can signal the speaker’s belief about the certainty of the proposition expressed in French. It also has implications for the phonological model of French intonation.
ArmstrongL.JonesD. (1967). The phonetics of French. London: Bell and Sons (first published in 1932).
3.
ArmstrongM. (2010). Puerto Rican Spanish intonation. In PrietoP.RoseanoP. (Eds.), Transcription of intonation of the Spanish language (pp. 155–189). Munchen, Germany: LINCOM Studies in Phonetics.
4.
AstésanoC.BardE.TurkA. (2007). Structural influences on Initial Accent placement in French. Language and Speech50(3), 423–446.
5.
BartelsC. (1999). The Intonation of English statements and questions. New York: Garland.
6.
BeyssadeC.MarandinJ.-M. (2007). French Intonation and attitude attribution. In DenisP.McCreadyE.PalmerA.ReeseB. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Texas Linguistics Society Conference: Issues at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface (pp. 1–12). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
7.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.52). Retrieved from /http://www.praat.org
8.
CarlettaJ.IsardA.IsardS.KowtkoJ.Doherty-SneddonG.AndersonA. (1997). The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 13–32.
9.
CoustenobleH.ArmstrongL. (1934). Studies in French intonation. Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons.
10.
DelaisE. (1994). Rythme et structure prosodique en français. In LycheC. (Eds.), French generative phonology: Retrospective and perspectives (pp. 131–150). Salford: AFLS/ESRI.
11.
DelaisE. (1995). Pour une approche parallèle de la structure prosodique. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.
12.
Delais-RoussarieE.PostB.AvanziM.ButhkeC.Di CristoC.FeldhausenI.… YooH. (to appear). Developing a ToBI system for French. In FrotaS.PrietroP. (Eds.), Intonational variation in Romance. Oxford: OUP.
13.
DelattreP. (1966). Les dix intonations de base du français. The French Review, 40(1), 1–14.
14.
Di CristoA.HirstD. (1993). Prosodic regularities in the surface structure of French questions. Proceedings of the ESCA Workshop on Prosody, Working papers 41. Lund: Department of Linguistics, pp. 268–271.
15.
Di CristoA. (1998). Intonation in French. In HirstD.Di CristoA. (Eds.), Intonation systems (pp. 195–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Di CristoA.HirstD. (1996). Vers unetypologie des unitésintonatives du français. In Actes des XXIèmes Journées d’Études sur la Parole (pp. 219–222). Avignon, France, June1996.
17.
Di CristoA. (2000). Versunemodélisation de l’accentuation du français: secondepartie. French Language Studies, 10, 27–44.
18.
D’ImperioM.GermanJ.MichelasA. (2012). Multi-level constraint interaction and phrasing in French. In ElordietaG.PrietoP. (Eds.), Prosody and meaning (pp. 11–34). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
D’ImperioM.MichelasA. (2014). Scaling and the internal structuring of the intonation phrase in French. Phonology31(1), 95–122.
21.
FonagyI.BréardE. (1973). Questions totales simples et implications en français parisien. StudiaPhonetica, 8, 53–97.
22.
FrotaS. (2002). Tonal association and target alignment in European Portuguese nuclear falls. In GussenhovenC.WarnerN. (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology VII (pp. 387–418). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
23.
GoldmanJ. P. (2007). EasyAlign: a semi-automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat. Retrieved from http://latcui.unige.ch/phonetique
24.
GriceM.SavinoM. (1997). Can pitch accent type convey information-status in yes–no questions? In KaiA.PirkerH.FinklerW. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACL 97 workshop on concept-to-speech generation systems (pp. 29–38). Madrid, Spain, July 11.
25.
HirschbergJ.WardG. (1992). The influence of pitch range, duration, amplitude and spectral features on the interpretation of the rise-fall-rise intonation contour in English. Journal of Phonetics, 20(2), 241–251.
26.
JunS. A.FougeronC. (1995).The accentual phrase and the prosodic structure of French. Proceedings of the XIIIth international congress of phonetic sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 722–725), Stockholm.
27.
JunS. A.FougeronC. (2000). A phonological model of French intonation. In BotinisA. (Eds.), Intonation: Analysis, modelling and technology (pp. 209–242). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28.
JunS. A.FougeronC. (2002). Realizations of accentual phrase in French. Probus, 14, 147–172.
29.
JunS.-A. (2005). Prosodic Typolog. In JunS.-A. (Eds.), Prosodic Typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 430–458). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
LaddD. R. (2008). Intonational phonology (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
LeachP. (1998). French intonation: Tone or tune?Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 18(2), 125–139.
32.
LibermanM. (1975). The intonational system of English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
33.
MertensP. (1987). L’intonation du français, de la description linguistique à al reconnaissance automatique. Doctoral dissertation. KU Leuven.
34.
MertensP. (1992). L’accentuation des syllables contiguës. I.T.L 95/96, 145–163.
35.
MichelasA.D’ImperioM. (2012). When syntax meets prosody: Tonal and duration variability in French Accentual Phrases. Journal of Phonetics, 40(6), 816–829.
36.
PasdeloupV. (1990). Modèle de règles rythmiques du français appliqué à la synthèse de la parole. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Provence.
37.
PierrehumbertJ. B.HirschbergJ. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In CohenP.MorganJ.PollackM. (Eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
38.
PierrehumbertJ. B.SteelS. (1987). How many rise-fall-rise contours? In Proceedings of the eleventh international congress of phonetic sciences, Vol. 3 (pp. 145–147). Tallinn: Estonian Academy of Sciences.
39.
PierrehumbertJ. B.BeckmanM. E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
PortesC. (2004). Prosodie et économie du discours: Spécificité phonétique, écologie discursive et portée pragmatique de l’intonation d’implication. Doctoral dissertation, Aix-Marseille Université.
41.
PortesC.D’ImperioM.LanciaL. (2012) Positional constraints on the initial rise in French. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on speech prosody. Shangaï, China, May 22–25.
42.
PortesC.BeyssadeC. (to appear). Is intonational meaning compositional?Verbum.
43.
PostB. (2000). Tonal and phrasal structures in French intonation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
44.
SavinoM.GriceM. (2011). The perception of negative bias in Bari Italian questions. In FrotaS.PrietoP.ElordietaG. (Eds.), Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension (pp. 187–206). London, UK: Springer Verlag.
45.
SavinoM.GriceM. (2007). The role of pitch range in realising pragmatic constrasts – The case of two questions types in Italian. In Proceedings of the XVI international conference of phonetic sciences, Saarbruecken6–10 August 2007, 1037–1040.
46.
SteedmanM. (2003). Information-structural semantics for English intonation. In LeeC.GordonM.BüringD. (Eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation (pp. 245–264). Dordrech: Springer.
47.
VanrellM. M.MascaróI.Torres-TamaritF.PrietoP. (2013). Intonation as an encoder of speaker’s certainty: information and confirmation yes–no questions in Catalan. Language and Speech56(3).
48.
VerluytenS. (1982). Recherches sur la prosodie et la métrique du français. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Antwerpen.
49.
WelbyP. (2002). The realization of early and late rises in French: A production study. In BelB.MarlienI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the speech prosody 2002 conference, Aix-en-Provence (pp. 695–698).
50.
WelbyP. (2003). The slaying of Lady Mondegreen, being a study of French tonal association and alignment and their role in speech segmentation. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Retrieved from http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/publications/dissertations.
51.
WelbyP. (2006). French intonational structure: Evidence from tonal alignment. Journal of Phonetics, 34(3), 343–371.
