11/14/03 prosody&pragmatics, preston, 14-16 nov 2003 1 how to assert while questioning : the...

11/14/03 Prosody&Pragmatics, Preston, 14-16 nov 2003

1

How to assert while questioning : the pragmatic use of rising-falling

contours in French debates

Cristel PortesLaboratoire Parole et Langage

Aix-en-Provence

11/14/03Prosody&Pragmatics, Preston, 14-16 nov 2003 2

The issue of this talk

Intonational meaning (cf. the session title!)

The use French speakers make of a rising-falling contour in a radiophonic debate situation

The exhaustive analysis is presented in our PhD dissertation (in progress)


Progress of the talk

1. Scientific Background

2. A french rising-falling tune : Delattre’s intonation d’implication

3. Geneva School Discourse model

4. Results of the discursive analysis

5. Some conclusions and consequences


Intonation analysis’ position

A minimal pragmatic specification of prosodic objects and facts– See the inventory of different author’s

characterisation of tune meanings in section 4 of Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg (1990) The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M.E. (eds). Intentions in Communications. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, pp. 270-311.

– Expressing modality :• Assertive• Interrogative• Exclamative

– Connotations :• Obviousness• Insistence• Irony



For discourse analysis and pragmatics

Prosody has essentially a structural function– Notion of paratone in Brown G. & Yule G. (1983)

Discourse analysis. Cambridge : CUP.– Notion of période in Berrendonner A. (1993)

Périodes. In Parret, H. (ed.). Temps et discours. Louvain : PUL, 47-61.

– Notion of organisation périodique in Roulet E. et al. (2001) Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours. Bern : Peter Lang.

Conversation Analysis = no great interest for tunes– Couper-Kuhlen E. & Selting M. (1996) Prosody in

Conversation. Cambridge : CUP.– Local J. (2003) Phonetics and talk in interaction. 15th

ICPhS Barcelona, 115/118.



Our purpose is to show that :

A precise description of the use speakers make of a tune in an attested corpus of conversation is needed to know more about that tune’s real possible function.

An independent discourse model must be used to proceed to such a description.

Intonational tunes are as possible and interesting objects for pragmatics studies as, for instance, connectors.


P. Delattre’s intonation d’implication (PI)

The configuration is defined by the direction of the F0 curve and by the range levels where it takes place.Delattre, P. (1966). Les dix intonations de base du français. The French Review, 40 (1), 1-14.

B. Post’s autosegmental account:Post, B. (2000) Tonal and Phrasal Structures in French Intonation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics =

%L H* LH* L%

2. A french rising-falling tune

4

1

2

3

Tune’s last syllable


An attested example of PI2. A french rising-falling tune

ydt a~a~[ ]

1

3

2

F0 curve (1), oscillogram(2) and spectrogram(3)of the phrase « bien entendu » uttered with a PI


Data A 45 minutes long corpus consisting of a

radiophonic debate between 6 speakers 114 items of PI identified auditorily by 2

phoneticians– pi = identified by both (55%)– Api = identified by expert A (32%)– Cpi = identified by expert C (13%)

non consensual items:– Rising continuative countours (CT) = 76%– Falling conclusive contours (T) = 12%– Other contours = 12%

A notable auditory ambiguity between PI and CT

2. A french rising-falling tune


A modular model We use it as it is exposed in Roulet et al.

(2001) Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours, Bern: Peter Lang

A very synthetic, multi-dimensional model

Conceived from the analysis of attested corpora and for this kind of analysis

Analytical dissociation between the text structure and the praxeological structure, the association of which builds the discourse structure

Many usefull descriptive tools

3. Geneva School discourse model


As [32] mais prenons le problème dans cet ordre-là PI

Ap [33] et je n(e)comprends pas pourquoi CT

As [34] ayant cette inquiétude telle qu'il l'exprime CT

[33bis] euh Monsieur Lamassour a accepté dans d'autres situations l'élargiss(e)ment PI

Ap [35] déjà le problème était posé PI

As [36] déjà y avait avant le sommet d(e) Lisbonne CT un débat sur le fait que élargiss(e)ment et approfondiss(e)ment d(e) la construction européenne CT étaient contradictoires PI

Ap [37] néanmoins c'est la logique de l'élargiss(e)ment qui l'a emporté CT

As [38] et encore une fois ça n'inquiète pas ceux qui sont euh euh partisans euh fondamentalement d'une zone de libre échange et qui se soucient assez peu euh du projet politique T

Ip

Ip

Ip

Isarg

Iscom

pré

com

com

ref

3. Geneva School discourse modelThe hierarchical structure and the

interactional relations


conceptor interlocutors interlocutors reciever < radio station > <invited speakers> <journalists> <audience> 2* 4 2* indéfini oral and visual spacio-temporal co-presence reciprocity < SOCIO- POLITICAL DÉBATE > oral spacial and temporal distence no reciprocity < RADIOPHONIC PROGRAMM >

The notion of « cadre actionnel » (actional framework)

3. Geneva School discourse model


Distribution relative to hierarchical constituents


Analysis of the hierarchical structure

contour type

middel of a textual

act

end of a textual act

end of a paragraph

end of a turn

pi 7% 71% 17% 5%

ct 23% 76% 1% 0%

t 0% 54% 33% 13%

The hierarchical distribution of PI is intermediate between CT and TResults compatible with Mertens (1990)


Distribution of the interactive generic relations

4. Results of the discursive analysisAnalysis of the relational

organisation

PI has the greatest number of relations responsible for argumentative effects : arg, c-a, clar, ref (cf. the model’s notion of « organisation compositionnelle » = compositional organisation)

contour type

"relations interactives génériques« (interactive generic relations)

com

arg c-a clar pré suc ref top

pi18%

28% 11% 7% 26% 0% 9% 2%

ct22%

26% 5% 2% 17% 5% 9% 15%

t30%

30% 3% 2% 20% 2% 6% 8%


Interactional framework– Journalists : PI = a confirmation demand (question)– Invited speakers : PI = an emphatic assertion

PI as interpretation guide– Conclusions– Commentaries

PI in polemic episods• The opposing speakers is mentioned• Represented Q/RE structure• Contrastive structures « ce nest pas…/c’est… »

(it is not this/it is that)• False concessions


Other results


An interactive and argumentative tune

Interactive– PI often marks metadiscourse (commentaries,

conclusions) : it marks the formulations that the hearer has to pay attention to.

– PI when the interlocutor is named.– PI when a dialogue is represented.(related to the emphatic phonetic dimension of the

tune : see Gussenhoven’s effort code)

Argumentative– Associated with argumentative relations.– Occuring with rhetorical processes.


It can be used as an additional mark of the argumentative effect in Geneva School

discourse model


A compositional tune ? The pragmatic use of PI consists in,

simultaneously:– Strongly assert about the content of the utterance– Asking for the audience’s approval and the

interlocutor’s confirmation (an intonational « isn’t it? »)

This gives arguments in favor of a compositionnal theory of intonational meaning– Inspired by the one proposed by Pierrehumbert &

Hirschberg (1990)– A rising interrogative tone (metadiscursive level) =

H*– An falling assertive tone (content level) = L%



This presentation will soon be available online at the following

address:

http://www.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~prodige/

Thank you for your attention

11/14/03 prosody&pragmatics, preston, 14-16 nov 2003 1 how to assert while questioning : the...

Documents

tune slide

discourse analysis

progress slide

scientific background

discourse structure

intonation analysis

french intonation

items of pi