Cover not available
Part of
Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages: Studies in prosody and syntax
Edited by Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude and Martine Vanhove
[Studies in Language Companion Series 199] 2018
► pp. 85–118

Chapter 4
On being first

 | The University of the South Pacific, Fiji
This paper reconsiders first position (Baker & Mushin 2008) in the Australian language Ngarinyman, concentrating on prosody. Making use of a prosodic unit of reference helps clarify its ordering patterns, according to the given-before-new (Gundel 1988) and more-newsworthy-first (Mithun 1987) typology. Based on natural data, it examines the phrasing patterns of Noun Phrases (nps) in the same position but of different Information Structure (IS) categories: topics, including Framesetting (establishing time and place), Aboutness (the referent which the proposition is about) and Contrastive (selecting among a set of alternatives), or Argument Focus. An instrumental analysis of the durational cue reveals that Framesetting topics form a unique Intonation Unit; and gradience in the phrasing of nps according to their IS category.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Unit of reference
    • 1.2Instrumental analysis
    • 1.3Boundary markers
  • 2.Intonation units and PENTA
    • 2.1Reviewing ius
      • 2.1.1 ius in previous studies
      • 2.1.2Other prosodic units
      • 2.1.3Identifying prosodic units boundaries
    • 2.2Theoretical model
  • 3.Ngarinyman and information structure categories
    • 3.1Ngarinyman
    • 3.2Information structure categories
    • 3.3Examples of IS categories in Ngarinyman
  • 4.Methodology and analyses
    • 4.1Datasets and methodology
    • 4.2Step 1: Analysis by measurements
      • 4.2.1Test 1 Aboutness topics vs first word in predicate focus/comment
      • 4.2.2Test 2: Aboutness topics vs np argument focus
      • 4.2.3Test 3 subtypes of topics
    • 4.3Step 2: From measurements to resynthesis: PENTAtrainer2
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.04sim
References (90)
References
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2016. Intonation Units Revisited. Ccesuras in Talk-in-interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 29]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Edwards, Jan. 1990. Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology, I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, John Kingston & Mary E. Beckman (eds), 152–178. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain. 1990. Pour une macro-syntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique 21: 25–36.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2000. Le français parlé: Un regard sur sa syntaxe. In Histoire de la langue française 1945–2000, Gérald Antoine & Bernard Cerquiglini (eds), 195–197. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2015. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. Version 5.4.09. [Computer Program]. <[URL]>
Brazil, David. 1997. The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caron, Bernard, Lux, Cécile, Manfredi, Stefano & Pereira, Christophe. 2015. The intonation of topic and focus: Zaar (Nigeria), Tripoli Arabic (Lybia), Juba Arabic (South Sudan) and Tamasheq (Niger). In Corpus-based Studies of Lesser-described Languages: The CorpAfroAs Corpus of Spoken AfroAsiatic Languages [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 68], Amina Mettouchi, Martine Vanhove & Dominique Caubet (eds), 63–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1980. The deployment of consciousness in the production of narrative. In The Pear Stories. Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, Wallace Chafe (ed.), 9–50. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, William E., Eady, Stephen J. & Mueller, Pamela R. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77: 2142–2156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela. 2000. Corpus di italiano parlato, Vol. I-II, CD-ROM. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela & Moneglia, Massimo. 2010. Informational patterning theory and the corpus based description of spoken language. The compositionality issue in the topic comment pattern. In Bootstrapping Information from Corpora in a Cross Linguistic Perspective, Massimo Moneglia & Alessandro Panunzi (eds), 13–46. Firenze: FUP.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 1969. Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2003. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 5th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, 2nd edn [Functional Grammar Series 20], Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Downing, Pamela & Noonan, Michael (eds). 1995. Word Order in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 30]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1991. Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics 1: 71–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace, Thompson, Sandra A. & Meyers, Charles. 2000. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part I. DVD. Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Ewing, Michael. 2005. Hierarchical constituency in conversational language: The case of Cirebon Javanese. Studies in Language 29(1): 89–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1964. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–280.Google Scholar
Fletcher, Janet. 2014. Intonation and prosody in Dalabon. In Prosodic Typology II, Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), 252–272. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Antony. 2000. Prosodic Features and Prosodic Structure: The Phonology of Suprasegmentals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalisations Across Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2007. A Reference Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L. & Michaelis, Laura A. 2001. Topicalization and left dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and he form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1985. Shared knowledge and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83–107 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Studies in Syntactic Typology [Typologial Studies in Language 17], Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds), 209–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Parts 1 and 2. Journal of Linguistics 3: 37–81, 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey G. 1984. Functional Grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
1985. Discourse in the field: Clause structure in Ngandi. In Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause: Some Approaches to Theory from the Field, Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds), 89–110. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Sandler, Meytal, Strunk, Jan & Volker Unterladstetter. Submitted. On the robustness of intonational phrases in spontaneous speech – a cross-linguistic interrater study. <[URL]> (21 December 2017)
Hirst, Daniel & Di Cristo, Albert (eds). 1998. Intonation Systems. A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Holzgrefe-Lang, Julia, Wellmann, Caroline, Petrone, Caterina, Räling, Romy, Truckenbrodt, Hubert, Höhle, Barbara, & Wartenburger, Isabell. 2016. How pitch change and final lengthening cue boundary perception in German: Converging evidence from ERPs and prosodic judgments. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31: 904–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Shunichi. 2004. An Acoustic Phonetic Descriptive Analysis of Kagoshima Japanese Tonal Phenomena. PhD dissertation, the Australian National University.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 1993. The structure of the intonation unit in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3: 39–53.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39(4): 641–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Caroline. 1995. Draft sketch grammar of Ngarinyman [Ngarinyman], ms. [URL]. (14 May 2018)
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6: 13–55.Google Scholar
Ladd Jr., D. Robert. 1980. The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1986. Some of the sounds of the world’s languages: Preliminary version. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 64.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laughren, Mary. 2002. Syntactic constraints in a “free word order” language. In Language Universals and Variation, Mengistu Amberber & Peter Collins (eds), 83–130. Westport CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Warlpiri and the theory of second position clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(1): 3–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1965. The function of quantity in Finnish and Estonian. Language 41: 447–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 1967. Intonation, Perception, and Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y. & Sag, Ivan A. 1974. Prosodic form and discourse function. Chicago Linguistics Society 10: 416–427.Google Scholar
Liu, Fang, Xu, Yi, Prom-on, Santitham & Yu, Alan C. L. 2013. Morpheme like prosodic functions: Evidence from acoustic analysis and computational modelling. Journal of Speech Sciences, 3(1), 85–140.Google Scholar
Martin, Philippe. 2015. The Structure of Spoken Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maslova, Elena & Bernini, Giuliano. 2006. Sentence topics in the languages of Europe and beyond. In Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe: EUROTYP, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds), 67–120. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConvell, Patrick & Laughren, Mary. 2004. Ngumpin-Yapa Languages. In Australian Languages: Reconstruction and Subgrouping [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 249], Harold Koch & Claire Bowern (eds), 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 1980. Hierarchical variation in pronominal clitic attachment in the Eastern Ngumpin languages. In Papers in Australian Linguistics No. 13, Bruce Rigsby & Peter Sutton (eds), 31–117. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1996. The functions of split-Wackernagel clitic systems: Pronominal clitics in the Ngumpin languages (Pama-Nyungan family, Northern Australia). In Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena [CSLI Lecture Notes 61], Aaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 299–331. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Meakins, Felicity & Nordlinger, Rachel. 2013. A Grammar of Bilinarra, an Australian Aboriginal Language of the Victoria River District (NT). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mertens, Piet. 2006. A predictive approach to the analysis of intonation in discourse in French. In Prosody and Syntax. Cross-linguistic Perspectives [Usage-Based Linguistic Informatics 3], Yuji Kawaguchi, Ivan Fónagy & Tsunekazu Moriguchi (eds), 64–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mettouchi, Amina, Lacheret-Dujour, Anne, Silber-Varod, Vered & Izre’el, Shlomo. 2008. Only prosody? Perception of speech segmentation in Kabyle and Hebrew. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 28: 207–218.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], Russel S. Tomlin (ed.), 281–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reprinted 1995 in Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility [Typological Studies in Language 11], Doris Payne (ed.), 15–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim & Weinert, Regina. 1998/2009. Spontaneous Spoken Language. Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valeria. 2006. On different kinds of contrast. In The Architecture of Focus, Valeria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds), 197–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2006. Motivations for second position: Evidence from North-Central Australia. Linguistic Typology 10: 287–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana & Baker, Brett (eds). 2008. Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 104], 25–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed 1988, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1946. The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Raso, Tommaso & Mello, Heliana (eds). 2014. Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2002. Constructions in language description. Functions of Language 9: 267–308.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siebenhaar, Beat & Leemann, Adrian. 2012: Methodological reflections on the phonetic – phonological continuum, illustrated on the prosody of Swiss German dialects. In Methods in Contemporary Linguistics [Trends in Linguistics 247], Andrea Ender, Adrian Leemann & Bernhard Wälchli (eds), 21–44. Berlin: De Gruyter DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simard, Candide. 2010. The Prosodic Contours of Jaminjung, a Language of Northern Australia. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 2007. Expressing pragmatic constraints on word order in Warlpiri. In Architectures, Rules, and Preferences. Variations on Themes by Joan W. Bresnan, Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw & Joan Maling (eds), 403–427. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane & Mushin, Ilana. 2008. Clause-initial position in four Australian languages. In Mushin & Baker (eds), 25–58.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 649–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice. 2010. Prosody, syntax and action formation: Intonation phrases and action components. In Prosody and Visual Signals. Approaches Towards Usage-based Grammar Theories, Pia Bergmann, Jana Brenning, Martin Pfeiffer & Elisabeth Reber (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice, Satsuki, Nakai & Sugahara, Mariko. 2006. Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: A practical guide. In Methods in Empirical Prosody Research, Stefan Sudhoff, Denisa Lenertová, Roland Meyer, Sandra Pappert, Petra Augurzky, Ina Mleinek, Nicole Richter & Johannes Schließer (eds), 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaissière, Jacqueline. 1983. Language-independent prosodic features. In Prosody: Models and Measurements, Anne Cutler & D. Robert Ladd Jr. (eds), 53–66. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaissière, Jacqueline & Michaud, Alexis. 2006. Prosodic constituents in French: A data-driven approach. In Prosody and Syntax. Cross-linguistic Perspectives [Usage-Based Linguistic Informatics 3], Yuji Kawaguchi, Ivan Fónagy & Tsunekazu Moriguchi (eds), 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Engdahl, Elisabet. 1996. The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 34: 459–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeulen, R. 2013. On the position of topics in Japanese. Linguistic Review 30(1): 117–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael & Crivellaro, Serena. 2010. Relative prosodic boundary strength and prior bias in disambiguation. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2000. Intonation in Text and Discourse. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Xu, Yi. 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of f0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 27: 55–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Speech melody as articulatorily implemented communicative functions. Speech Communication 46: 220–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. ProsodyPro: A tool for large scale systematic prosody analysis. In Proceedings of Tools and Resources for the Analysis of Speech Prosody (TRASP 2013), Brigitte Bigl & Daniel Hirst (eds), 7–10. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoise Parole et Langue.Google Scholar
Xu, Yi & Prom-on, Santitham. 2014. Toward invariant functional representations of variable surface fundamental frequency contours: Synthesizing speech melody via model-based stochastic learning. Speech Communication 57: 181–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ma, Giovanni Chun Long & John Mansfield
2024. Managing expectations. Studies in Language DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.