morphological focus marking and pitch prominence in tundra yukaghir dejan matic & cecilia odé...
TRANSCRIPT
Morphological focus marking and pitch prominence
in Tundra Yukaghir
Dejan Matic & Cecilia Odé
Focus and Stress
• Universality of focus-stress correspondence– Basic Focus Rule: An accented word is F(ocus)-marked
(Selkirk 1995: 555)
– Stress-Focus Correspondence Principle: The focus of a clause is a(ny) constituent containing the main stress of the intonational phrase, as determined by the stress rule (Reinhart 1995:62)
– Focus: A Focus-marked phrase contains an accent (Schwarzschild 1999:173)
– Stress-Focus: A focused phrase has the highest prosodic prominence in its focus domain (Féry & Samek-Lodovici 2006:135-6)
Focus and Stress (cont.)
• Counterexamples– Tone languages using local changes of pitch range instead
of stress/pitch accents (cf. e.g. Xu 1999 for Mandarin)
– Languages which use prosodic phrasing to mark focus instead of stress/pitch (cf. e.g. Pierrehumbert & Bekman 1988 for Japanese, Kanerva 1990, Downing et al. 2004 for Chichewa, Koch 2008 for Thompson River Salish)
– Languages without any correlation between focus and prosody (cf. e.g. Rialland & Robert 2001 for Wolof, Lindström & Remijsen 2005 for Kuot, Zerbian 2007 for Sotho, Hartmann & Zimmermann 2007 for Hausa)
Focus and Stress (cont.)
• No correlation between focus and prosody: languages with morphological focus marking (Wolof, Kuot, Hausa)
• Does morphological focus marking imply lack of prosodic marking of focus?
• The purpose of the talk: Describe the interaction of prosody and focus in a non-tonal language with (partial) morphological focus marking
Yukaghir
• Tundra Yukaghir and Kolyma Yukaghir: a small language family of north-eastern Siberia, perhaps distantly related to Uralic (cf. Fortescue 1998, Nikolaeva 2000: 25ff., 2006)
• Tundra Yukaghir: 50-55 mostly elderly speakers (as of summer 2010):– villages of Andrjushkino and Kolymskoe in the Lower
Kolyma Tundra (35-40 speakers)
– the village of Cherksy (13 speakers)
– Yakutsk (5 speakers)
Tundra Yukaghir
Maria N. Tokhtosova, Il’ja I. Kurilov, Vasilij N. Tret’jakov, Maria N. Kurilova
Anna E. Tret’jakova, Fedosija I. Kurilova, Ala:ji
Olera Tundra, village of Andrjushkino, yurt in Toghoj near Andrjushkino
Focus Marking in Tundra Yukaghir
• Focused core arguments (S and O)– focus case -le(ŋ) or -(e)k– S- or O-focus agreement on the verb
(1) – Neme-leŋ iŋeː-meŋ?
what-FOC fear-OF.1/2SG
– Labunmə-leŋ iŋeː-meŋ.
ptarmigan-FOC fear-OF.1/2SG
“ – What do you fear? – I fear ptarmigans.” (K05: 240)
Focus Marking in Tundra Yukaghir (cont.)
• Focus on the verb– no focus case– particle me(r)= + ‘neutral’ verb agreement
(2) Tada:t me=kew-eč. Taŋ l'eml'e-pul-ŋin
then VFOC=go-PF.INTR(3SG) that chief-PL-DAT nime-γe me=segu-j
house-LOC VFOC=enter-INTR(3SG)
“Then he left. He entered the house of their chief.” (K05: 150)
Focus Marking in Tundra Yukaghir(cont.)
• Focus on oblique arguments/adjuncts– no focus case, no particle mə(r)= – ‘neutral’ verb agreement
(3) – Qaduŋudeŋ kew-ej?
whither go-PF(3SG)
– Moskva-ŋiń keweč.
Moscow-DAT go-PF.INTR(3SG)
“ – Where did he go? – He went to Moscow.” (fd_DM08)
Focus Marking in Tundra Yukaghir: Summary
Focus case + Focus agreement
Neutral agreement
Particle mə(r)=
Focus on S/O
Focus on oblique
Focus on verb
Experiment
• Purpose:– presence of pitch prominence on focus-
marked S’s and O’s;– similarities in F0 prominence patterns of
focus-marked S/O’s, non-focus-marked focused obliques, and mə(r)=-marked verbs;
– differences in F0 prominence patterns between broad and narrow focus construals
Experiment (cont.)
• Setup– 4 speakers (Andrjushkino and Chersky)– question-answer pairs (Xu 1999)
• with explicit contrast (Is it X? It is Y, not X)
• without contrast (What is it? It is X)
– five focus constellations (SFoc, OFoc, OblFoc, VFoc, BroadFoc)
– 33 q-a pairs X 4 speakers = 132 pairs– Reading intonation avoided via multiple repetition
(Zerbian 2007)
Results 1: Focused Subjects and Objects
• In all instances: pitch prominence on S/O with morphological focus marking
• Pitch movement: falling pitch on focused S/O, followed by low pitch (no perceptually relevant pitch movements after focused S/O)
• Morphological focus marking AND pitch prominence
Results 1: Focused Subjects and Objects
Time (s)0 5.824
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300
eguojiekinek jaqtetel
apanala:le’ŋjaqtetel
(4) Eguojie kin-ek jaqte-te-l? Apanala:-leŋ jaqte-te-l. tomorrow who-FOC sing-FUT-SUB.FOC old.woman-FOC sing-FUT-S.FOC “Who is going to sing tomorrow?” “The/an old woman will sing.”
(5) Ivan kin-ek juo-mele? Tudel apanala:-leŋ juo-mele. I. who-FOC see-OBJ.FOC.3sg He old.woman-FOC see-OBJ.FOC.3sg “Who did Ivan see?” “He saw the/an old woman.”
Time (s)0 5.035
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300
tudel adileŋ uba:mele el-adileŋ
metek uba:mele
Time (s)0 6.102
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300
Ivan kinekjuomele
tudel apanala:leŋjuomele
Results 2:Focused Obliques
• In all instances: pitch prominence on focused obliques without morphological focus marking
• Pitch movement: falling pitch on focused elements, followed by low pitch (no perceptually relevant pitch movements after focused oblique)
• The same type of pitch prominence as with morphologically focus-marked S/O’s
Results 2:Focused Obliques
Time (s)0 5.454
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300tet ama:
qan’inkelu
tudelawja: keluj
(6) Tet ama: qańin kelu-Ø?you father when arrive-INTERR.3sgTudel awja: kelu-j.he yesterday arrive-INTR.3sg“When did your father arrive?” “He arrived yesterday.”
Results 3:Focused Verbs
• In most instances (2 exceptions): pitch prominence on focused verbs marked with particle me(r)=
• Pitch movement: falling pitch on mə(r)=, followed by a rise and a fall on the last syllable.
• The first pitch movement identical to other focus-triggered pitch movements
• Unclear status of the final rise and fall (end of the intonational phrase)
Results 3: Focused Verbs
Time (s)0 6.379
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300tuŋ adil
qa:lid’ele
mejewligim
elen’
adil qa:lid’elemeriŋiem
(7) Tu-ŋ adil qa:lid'e-le me=jewligi-m?DEM-ATTR young.man wolf-ACC VFOC=like-TR.3sgEle:ń, adil qa:lid'e-le mer=iŋie-m.no young.man wolf-ACC VFOC=fear-TR.3sg
“Does that young man like wolves?” “No, the young man is afraid of wolves”
Results 4:Narrow Focus & Broad Focus
• Broad focus (answer to questions “What happened?” “What does X do?”) expressed with the same morphological means as narrow focus on S – focus case (-le(ŋ) or -(e)k) + S/O focus agreement
• No detectable prosodic differences: falling pitch on S/O followed by low pitch level
Results 4: Narrow Focus and Broad Focus
Time (s)0 5.035
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300
tudel adileŋ uba:mele el-adileŋ
metek uba:mele
Time (s)0 3.99
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300
tudelnemele
wiemelemetek
uba:mele
(8) Tudel adi-leŋ uba:-mele? he young.man-FOC kiss-OBJ.FOC.3sg El=adi-leŋ, met-ek uba:-mele. NEG=young.man-FOC me-FOC kiss-OBJ.FOC.3sg “Did she kiss the young man?” “Not the young man - she kissed me.” (narrow)
(9) Tudel neme-le wie-mele? Met-ek uba:-mele. he what-FOC do-OBJ.FOC.3sg me-FOC kiss-OBJ.FOC.3sg “What did she do?” “She kissed me.” (broad)
Results 5: The Role of Contrast
• Are there differences in pitch movement with contrastive foci in comparison to those which do not stand in immediate contrast to salient alternatives?
• No detectable prosodic differences: falling pitch on S/O followed by low pitch level
Results 5:The Role of Contrast
Time (s)0 5.824
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300
eguojiekinek jaqtetel
apanala:le’ŋjaqtetel
(4) Eguojie kin-ek jaqte-te-l? Apanala:-leŋ jaqte-te-l. tomorrow who-FOC sing-FUT-SUB.FOC old.woman-FOC sing-FUT-S.FOC “Who is going to sing tomorrow?” “The/an old woman will sing.” (no contrast)
Time (s)0 5.824
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300
S-typeeguojie
kinek jaqtetelapanala:le’ŋ
jaqtetel
Time (s)0 8.13
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
200
300
eguojie pa:d’eduoleŋ jaqtetelel-pa:d’eduoleŋ
apanala:leŋ jaqtetel
(10) Eguojie pa:d'eduo-leŋ jaqte-te-l? tomorrow girl-FOC sing-FUT.SUB-FOC El=pa:d'eduo-leŋ, apanala:-leŋ jaqte-te-l. NEG=girl-FOC old.woman-FOC sing-FUT-SUB.FOC “Will the girl sing tomorrow?” “Not the girl, the old woman will sing.” (contrast)
Retrospects• Morphologically marked focus on S/O is
redundantly prosodically marked.
• The same type of pitch prominence is found on foci which are not morphologically marked and (to a certain extent) on morphologically marked verbs.
• Contrast and focus scope play no role in pitch prominence asignment.
⇨ Falling pitch followed by low pitch level is a marker of focus in TY across different types of focus marking
Retrospects (cont.)
Prosodic marking of focus and morphological focus systems are typologically not mutually exclusive
Prospects
• Deepening the analysis: duration and intensity in addition to F0; more comparison across sentences
• Enhancing the data set:– further variabales (positional, etc.)– corpus data
• Perception experiments (matching questions to answers and vice versa)