Languages vary in the type of contexts that affect prosodic prominence. This paper reports on a production study investigating how different types of foci influence prosody in Polish and Czech noun phrases. The results show that in both languages, focus and givenness are marked prosodically, with pitch and intensity as the main acoustic correlates. Like Germanic languages, Polish and Czech patterns show prosodic focus marking in a broad range of contexts and differ in this regard from other fixed-word-stress languages such as French. This suggests that (a) Polish and Czech are similar to Germanic languages and are unlike Romance languages in marking a variety of types of focus prosodically; (b) there is no close correlation between fixed word stress and lack of prosodic focus marking because Polish, which has fixed stress on the penult, shows prosodic focus marking for all types of focus; and (c) there is no straightforward relationship between flexible word order and whether focus and givenness are prosodically marked, contrary to earlier claims, because both Czech and Polish, with their relatively flexible word order, are more similar to English than Romance languages.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1): 1–48.
3.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2015). PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
4.
BreenM.FedorenkoE.WagnerM.GibsonE. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes25: 1044–1098.
5.
BüringD. (2016). Intonation and Meaning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
ChenS.-W.WangB.XuY. (2009). Closely related languages, different ways of realizing focus. Proceedings of Interspeech 2009Brighton.Brighton, UK: International Speech Communication Association (ISCA).
7.
CruttendenA. (1993). The de-accenting and re-accenting of repeated lexical items. ESCA Workshop on Prosody Lund, Sweden. In: HouseD.TouatiP. (eds.), Working Papers 41, ESCA Workshop on Prosody (pp. 16–19). Lund, Sweden: Dept. of Linguistics and Phonetics and the European Speech Communication Association.
8.
CruttendenA. (1997). Intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CruttendenA. (2006). The de-accenting of given information: A cognitive universal? In: BerniniG.SchwartzM. L. (eds.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the languages of Europe (pp. 311–355). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
10.
CrystalD. (1975). Prosodic features and linguistic theory. In The English Tone of Voice: Essays in Intonation, Prosody and Paralanguage. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
11.
DanešF. (1957). Intonace a vĕta ve spisovné češtinĕ [Intonation and sentence in Standard Czech]. Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie vĕd.
12.
DłuskaM. (1976). Prozodia języka polskiego [Prosody of the Polish language]. Warsaw, Poland: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
13.
DogilG. (1980). Focus marking in Polish. Linguistic Analysis, 6, 221–245.
14.
DogilG.WilliamsB. (1999). The phonetic manifestation of word stress. In: van der HulstHarry, (ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp. 273–334). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
15.
DohenM.LoevenbruckH. (2004). Pre-focal rephrasing, focal enhancement and postfocal deaccentuation in French. Proceedings of Interspeech2004, 785–788. Jeju, Korea: Sunjin Printing Co.
16.
EadyS. J.CooperW. E.KloudaG. V.MuellerP. R.LottsD. W. (1986). Acoustical characteristics of sentential focus: Narrow vs. broad and single vs. dual focus environments. Language and Speech, 29(3), 233–251.
17.
EschenbergA. (2006). Polish narrow focus constructions. In ChungminL.MatthewG. (eds.), Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation (pp. 23–40). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
18.
FéryC. (2013). Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory31: 683–734.
19.
FéryC.IshiharaS. (2009). How focus and givenness shape prosody. In: ZimmermannM.FéryC. (eds.), Information Structure from Different Perspectives (pp. 36–63). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
FéryC.KüglerF. (2008). Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics, 3, 680–703.
21.
GormanK.HowellJ.WagnerM. (2011). Prosodylab-aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech. Canadian Acoustics, 39(3), 192–193.
22.
GuW.TanL. (2007). Effects of tonal context and focus on Cantonese F0. In: TrouvainJ.BarryW. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) in Saarbrücken (pp. 1033–1036). Dudweiler, Germany: Pirrot.
23.
HamlaouiF.CoridunS.FéryC. (2012). Expression prosodique du focus et du donné au sein des groupes nominaux [N A] du français. 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française SHS Web of Conferences (1): 1505–1518.
24.
HamlaouiF.ŻygisM.EngelmannJ.WagnerM. (2015). Acoustic correlates of focus in Polish. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPHS) in Glasgow.
25.
JunS.-A.FougeronC. (2000). A phonological model of French intonation. In BotinisA. (ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modeling and technology (pp. 209–252). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
26.
KatzJ.SelkirkE. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87(4), 771–816.
27.
KlassenJ.WagnerM.TremblayA.GoadH. (2016). Prominence shifts in English and Spanish parallel constructions. In HunterJ.SimonsM.StoneM. (eds.), Proceedings of JerSem: The 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (pp. 76–85). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
28.
KochanskiG.GrabeE.ColemanJ.RosnerB. (2005). Loudness predicts prominence: Fundamental frequency lends little. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(2): 1038–1054.
29.
Kraska-SzlenkI. (2003). The phonology of stress in Polish. LINCOM Studies in Slavic Linguistics, 23.
30.
KrifkaM. (2007). Basic notions of information structure. In FéryC.FanselowG.KrifkaM. (eds.), Working Papers of the SFB632 (Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure 6), 13–56. Potsdam, Germany: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
31.
KüglerF.GenzelS. (2012). On the prosodic expression of pragmatic prominence: The case of pitch register lowering in Akan. Language and Speech, 55(3): 331–359.
32.
KučerováI. (2007). The syntax of givenness. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
33.
KučerováI. (2012). Grammatical marking of givenness. Natural Language Semantics, 20(1): 1–30.
34.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2013). lmertest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0–25.
35.
LaddD. R. (1990). Intonation: Emotion vs. grammar. In: Review of: Intonation and its uses, Bolinger, D. Language66: 806–816.
36.
LaddD. R. (2008). Intonational phonology, 2nd ed.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
LambrechtK. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
LeeY.-C.YiX. (2010). Phonetic realization of contrastive focus in Korean. Proceedings of Speech Prosody2010, 100033:1–4.
39.
Newlin-ŁukowiczL. (2012). Polish stress: Looking for phonetic evidence of a bidirectional system. Phonology, 29(2), 271–329.
40.
NooteboomS. G.TerkenJ. M. B. (1982). What makes speakers omit pitch accents? An experiment. Phonetica, 39(4–5): 317–336.
41.
R Core Team, (2013). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Version 3.1.1. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
42.
RoothM. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1:75–116.
43.
RoothM. (1996). Focus. In LappinS. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
44.
RubachJ.BooijG. (1985). A grid theory of stress in Polish. Lingua, 66: 281–319.
45.
ŠimíkR.WierzbaM. (2015). The role of givenness, presupposition, and prosody in Czech word order: An experimental study. Semantics & Pragmatics, 8:3.
46.
ŠimíkR.WierzbaM. (2017). Expression of information structure in West Slavic: Modeling the impact of prosodic and word order factors. Language, 93(3): 671–709.
47.
SkopeteasS.FanselowG. (2008). Focus types and argument asymmetries: A cross-linguistic study in language production. In BreulC. (ed.), Contrastive information structure analysis. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.
48.
SwertsM.KrahmerE.AvesaniC. (2002). Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics, 30:629–654.
49.
SwertsM.TaniguchiM.KatagariY. (2000). Prosodic marking of information status in Tokyo Japanese. Proceedings of the 6th International conference on spoken language processing, ICSLP 2000, Beijing, China, October 16–20, 2000 / YuanB.HuangT.Tang.X. (eds.) S.l.: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, pp. 78–81.
50.
SchwarzschildR. (1999). Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accents. Natural Language Semantics, 7(2): 141–177.
51.
TerkenJ. M. B. (1984). The distribution of pitch accents in instructions as a function of discourse structure. Language and Speech, 27(3): 269–289.
52.
TerkenJ. M. B.HirschbergJ. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing ‘given’ information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech, 37(2): 125–145.
53.
TerkenJ. M. BNooteboomS. G. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2(3–4), 145–163.
54.
VallduvíE. (1991). The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence. Proceedings of ESCOLvolume 7, pp 295–306.
55.
VallduvíE. (1992). The Informational Component, PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
56.
VallduvíE.ZacharskiR. (1994). Accenting phenomena, association with focus, and the recursiveness of focus-ground. In DekkerP.StokhofM. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 683–702. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ILLC.
57.
vander KlokJ.GoadH.WagnerM. (2018). Prosodic focus in English vs. French: A scope account. Glossa, 3: 71. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.172
58.
WagnerM. (2006). Givenness and Locality. In GibsonM.HowellJ. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XVI (pp. 295–312). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
59.
WagnerM. (2012). Focus and Givenness: A Unified Approach. In KučerováI.NeelemanN. (eds.), Contrasts and positions in information structure (pp 102–147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60.
WagnerM.McAuliffeM. (2017). Three dimensions of sentence prosody and their (non-) interactions. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2017. Stockholm, Sweden: International Speech Communication Association (ISCA).
61.
XuY. (1997). Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 61–83.
62.
XuYXuC. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33(2): 159–197.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
