This paper investigates how French signals prominence in prosody in the post-verbal domain of sentences with two objects or two adjuncts that vary in information status and prosodic length. The information status of particular interest here is dual focus, defined as the presence of two foci in a mono-clausal sentence, but other information states are investigated as well. The controlled production experiment we report on allows for a detailed examination of prosodic prominence. High boundary tones at the end of non-final prosodic phrases are pervasive, as has been documented in many studies before the present one. An important but less documented result is the variation in different prosodic curs, in particular in the number and position of high tones, as well as the particular scaling relationship between them, providing a powerful tool for the expression of (dual) focus. We also report on a perception experiment with our data, showing a clear tendency for French listeners to select the intended context question, recognizing dual focus better than other information states. Overall, this article provides elements of answers as to why French prosody is so difficult to pin down, and why contradictory results and analyses have been proposed for this language.
AstésanoC.BardE. G.TurkA. (2007). Structural influences on initial accent placement in French. Language and Speech, 50, 423–446.
2.
BeyssadeC.MarandinJ-M.RiallandA. (2003). Ground/Focus revisited: A perspective from French. In Nuñez-CedenoR.LópezL.CameronR. (Eds.), A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use: Selected papers of LSRL 2001 (pp. 83–98). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
3.
Clech-DarbonA.RebuschiG.RiallandA. (1999). “Are there cleft sentences in French?” In RebuschiG.TullerL (Eds.), The grammar of focus (pp. 83–118). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
4.
Delais-RoussarieE. (1995). Pour une approche parallèle de la structure prosodique: Etude de l’organisation prosodique et rhythmique de la phrase française [For a parallel approach of prosodic structure: A study of the prosodic organization and rythm of French sentences] (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Université de Toulouse, Le Mirail.
DestruelE. (2013). An empirical investigation of the meaning and use of the French c’est-cleft (Unpublished doctoral thesis) University of Texas at Austin.
DestruelE.FéryC. (2019) Compression in French: Effect of length and information status on the prosody of post-verbal sequences. In ElsigM.FeldhausenI.KuchenbrandtI.NeuhausM. (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2016: Selected papers from “Going Romance” Frankfurt 2016 (pp. 157–176). London, UK: John Benjamins.
9.
Di CristoA. (1998). Intonation in French. In: HirstD.Di CristoA. (Eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages (pp. 195–218). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
D’ImperioM.MichelasA. (2010). Embedded register levels and prosodic phrasing in French. In Hasegawa-JohnsonM. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody 2010 (pp. 1–4). Chicago, USA. http://speechprosody2010.illinois.edu/program.php
11.
DohenM.LoevenbruckH. (2004). Pre-focal rephrasing, focal enhancement and post-focal deaccentuation in French. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 785–788). Jeju Island, Korea. Retrieved from http://www.iscaspeech.org/archive/interspeech_2004
12.
EadyS. J.CooperW. E.KloudaG. V.MuellerP. R.LottsD. W. (1986). Acoustical characterization of sentential focus: Narrow vs. broad and single vs. dual focus environments. Language and Speech, 29, 233–250.
13.
FanselowG. (2016). Syntactic and prosodic reflexes of information structure in Germanic. In FéryC.IshiharaS. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of information structure (pp. 621–641). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
14.
FéryC. (2014). Final compression in French as a phrasal phenomenon. In Katz BournsS.MyerL. L. (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht (pp. 133–156). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
15.
FéryC.KüglerF. (2008). Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 680–703.
16.
FónagyI. (1979). L’accent français: accent probabilitaire [The French accent: probabilistic accent]. Studia Phonetica, 15, 123–133.
17.
FranichK. (this issue). Uncovering tonal and temporal correlates of phrasal prominence in Medʉmba. Language and Speech, 64, 291–318.
18.
GermanJ. S.D’ImperioM. (2016). The status of the initial rise as a marker of focus in French. Language and Speech, 59, 165–195.
19.
GoldmanJ.-P. (2011). EasyAlign: An automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Interspeech. 3233–3236.
20.
GussenhovenC. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HamlaouiF. (2009). Focus, contrast and the syntax–phonology interface: The case of French cleft sentences. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Current issues in unity and diversity of languages. Collection of papers selected from the 18th International Congress of Linguistics (CIL18). Seoul, Republic of Korea: Dongam.
22.
HirstD.Di CristoA. (1996). Ya-t-il des unités tonales en français? [Are there tonal units in French?]. In Actes des XXIèmes journées d’étude sur la parole, 223–226.
23.
HymanL. M. (2006). Word-prosodic typology. Phonology, 23, 225–257.
24.
JackendoffR. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
JunS.-A.FougeronC. (2000). A phonological model of French intonation. In BotinisA. (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modeling and technology (pp. 209–242). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
26.
Kabagema-BilanE.Lopez-JimenezB.TruckenbrodtH. (2011). Multiple focus in Mandarin Chinese. Lingua, 121, 1890–1913.
27.
KrifkaM. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55, 243–276.
28.
KüglerF.FéryC. (2017). Postfocal downstep in German. Language and Speech, 60, 260–288.
29.
LaddD. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
30.
LaddD. R. (2008). Intonational phonology (2nd ed.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
LambrechtK. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
O’BrienM. G. (2019). Intonation in Germanic. In PutnamM.PageR. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of Germanic linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
OuS.GuoZ. (this issue). The language-specific use of F0 rise in segmentation of an artificial language: Evidence from listeners of Taiwanese Southern Min. Language and Speech, 64, 437–466.
34.
PasdeloupV. (1990). Modèle de règles rythmiques du français appliqué à la synthèse de la parole [Model of rythmic rules in French applied to speech synthesis.]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Institut de Phonétique d’Aix-en-Provence, Université de Provence.
35.
PortesC.BeyssadeC.MichelasA.MarandinJ.-M.Champagne-LavauM. (2014). The dialogical dimension of intonational meaning: Evidence from French. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 15–29.
36.
PostB. (2000). Tonal and phrasal structures in French intonation. The Hague, The Netherlands: Holland Academic Graphics.
37.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
RoothM. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.
40.
RossiM. (1980). Le français, langue sans accent? [French, a language without accent?]. In FónagyI.LéonP. (Eds.), L’accent en français contemporain (pp. 13–51). Studia Phonetica 15. Montréal, Canada: Didier.
41.
SchwarzschildR. (1999). GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141–177.
42.
SelkirkE. O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In GoldsmithJ. A. (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
43.
TruckenbrodtH. (1995). Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
44.
VaissièreJ. (1980). La structuration acoustique de la phrase française. In Pacini-Mariotti (Eds.), Annali della scuola ormale superiore di Pisa (pp. 530–560). Pisa: Tipografia.
45.
Vander KlokJ.GoadH.WagnerM. (2018). Prosodic focus in English vs. French: A scope account. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3, 71.
46.
WangB.FéryC. (2015, October). Dual-focus intonation in Standard Chinese. Paper presented at the 18th Oriental COCOSDA/CASLRE Conference, Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
47.
WangB.FéryC. (2017). Prosody of dual-focus in German: Interaction between focus and phrasing. Language and Speech, 61, 303–333.
48.
WelbyP. (2006). French intonational structure: Evidence from tonal alignment. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 343–371.
49.
XuY. (1999). Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of f0 contours. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 55–105.
