TIE_ItoSpeer.ppt

236 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
236
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Unusual experience
  • Donkey, deck, dolphin, Toast, taco, tooth, tickle
  • TIE_ItoSpeer.ppt

    1. 1. Semantically-independent but contextually-dependent interpretation of contrastive accent Kiwako Ito & Shari R. Speer Ohio State University
    2. 2. Contrast <ul><li>Similarities and differences  comparisons </li></ul><ul><li>Bolinger (1961) </li></ul><ul><li>“… cases where one or more individual items are singled out from a larger (but limited) set as being true regards some relationship whereas others in the same set are untrue…” </li></ul><ul><li>Zeevat (2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Contrastors (alternatives)… “must be obtainable from the actual utterance by substituting something else for the intonationally prominent constituent.” </li></ul>
    3. 3. Contrast <ul><li>Discourse coherence </li></ul><ul><li>prerequisite for anaphorization </li></ul><ul><li>Must be in focus domain </li></ul><ul><li>Often accompanied by structural parallelism </li></ul><ul><li>Matter of degree? </li></ul>
    4. 4. Accentuation for expressing contrast <ul><li>B (vs. A) accent (Bolinger, 1961; Jackendoff, 1972) </li></ul><ul><li>L+H* (vs. H*) (Pierrehumbert, 1980; ToBI) </li></ul><ul><li>Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg (1990) </li></ul><ul><li>“ the accented item -and not some alternative related item- should be mutually believed (p296.)” </li></ul><ul><li>L+H*: +AGREED, theme accent (Steedman, 2003) </li></ul>
    5. 5. Effect of contrastive accent on sentence/discourse processing <ul><li>Faster comprehension of short discourse when contrastive accent was placed in appropriate than in inappropriate locations in a previous negation. (Bock & Mazella, 1983) </li></ul><ul><li>Faster phoneme monitoring when the contrastive entity was negated with prominent accent in the context than it was not. (Davidson, 2001). </li></ul><ul><li>Faster comprehension and higher acceptance of Q-A pairs (Birch & Clifton, 1995; Ito, 2002). </li></ul>
    6. 6. Effect of contrastive accent: past eye-tracking studies <ul><li>Non-anaphoric interpretation of prominent accent vs. anaphoric interpretation of lack of accent: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Click on the candle. </li></ul><ul><li>Now, click on the CAN/can… ” </li></ul><ul><li>CAN…  looks to candy </li></ul><ul><li>can…  looks to candle </li></ul><ul><li>(Dahan et al. 2002) </li></ul>
    7. 7. Past studies cont’d: Evidence from 3 languages <ul><li>Facilitative anticipatory fixations due to prosodic prominence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>German: lila SHERE  ROTE shere </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> ‘ purple scissors’ ‘RED scissors’ (Weber et al.2006) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>English: blue drum  GREEN drum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Ito & Speer, 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Japanese: pinku-no neko  MIDORI-no neko </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> ‘ pink cat’ ‘GREEN cat’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> (Ito et al., under review) </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Eye tracking studies: cont’d <ul><li>Prosodic garden-path effect </li></ul><ul><ul><li>German: lila SHERE  ROTE vase </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> ‘ purple scissors’ ‘red vase’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>English: red onion  GREEN drum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Japanese: murasaki-no usagi  ORENJI-no saru </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> ‘ purple bunny’ ‘orange monkey’ </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Contrast in discourse environment <ul><li>Intersective adjectives : e.g., colors </li></ul><ul><li>context/comparison-independent attributes of referents </li></ul><ul><li>e.g., orange chair, blue car, red cap, green jacket </li></ul><ul><li>Subsective adjectives : e.g., sizes </li></ul><ul><li>context/comparison-dependent attributes of referents </li></ul><ul><li>e.g., high table, big ball, small bag, long string </li></ul>
    10. 10. Effect of contrast-evoking accentual prominence: Additive or Complementary? <ul><li>Are the context-dependent size adjectives interpreted with stronger notion of contrast than the context-independent color adjectives? </li></ul><ul><li>If so, does prominent accent lead to additive/facilitative effect (i.e., faster fixations to the contrastive referent) for size adjectives or does it complementarily assist the detection of contrastive referent for color adjectives? </li></ul>
    11. 11. EXPERIMENTS <ul><li>Holiday tree decoration task </li></ul><ul><li>Experiment 1: Color-sorted ornaments </li></ul><ul><li>Experiment 2: Size-sorted ornaments </li></ul>
    12. 12. EXPERIMENTS: Procedures <ul><li>ASL Eye-Trac 6000 </li></ul><ul><li>Sampling rate: 60Hz </li></ul>
    13. 13. Conditions <ul><li>Contrastive sequence: </li></ul><ul><li>Exp 1: Hang a red star . </li></ul><ul><li> Hang a YELLOW/yellow star . </li></ul><ul><li> L+H* H* </li></ul><ul><li>Exp 2: Hang a medium star . </li></ul><ul><li> Hang a LARGE/large star . </li></ul><ul><li> L+H* H* </li></ul>
    14. 14. Conditions <ul><li>Non-contrastive sequence: </li></ul><ul><li>Exp 1: Hang a yellow tree . </li></ul><ul><li>  Hang a GREEN/green ball . </li></ul><ul><li> L+H* H* </li></ul><ul><li>Exp 2: Hang a medium tree . </li></ul><ul><li>  Hang a LARGE/large ball . </li></ul><ul><li> L+H* H* </li></ul>
    15. 15. Auditory Stimuli: H* vs. L+H*
    16. 16. Auditory stimuli: Duration & F0 (Exp 1) F0 Dur(ms) F0 Dur(ms) 163 (4) 558 208 (6) 316 Non-cont [H* !H*] 150 (5) 491 300 (22) 320 Non-cont [ L+H* no-acc] 164 (7) 549 207 (7) 332 Cont [H* !H*] 148 (6) 489 299 (21) 330 Cont [ L+H* no-acc] Noun Adj Conditions
    17. 17. Auditory stimuli: Duration & F0 (Exp 2) F0 Dur(ms) F0 Dur(ms) 166 (3) 578 214 (8) 480 Non-cont [H* !H*] 148 (3) 512 283 (30) 480 Non-cont [ L+H* no-acc] 167 (4) 570 213 (8) 484 Cont [H* !H*] 145 (4) 493 289 (31) 483 Cont [ L+H* no-acc] Noun Adj Conditions
    18. 18. Results: Facilitative effect of L+H* Exp1:red star  YELLOW star Exp2: medium tree  LARGE tree
    19. 19. Results: misleading effect of L+H* Exp1: red tree  GREEN ball . Exp2: medium tree  LARGE ball .
    20. 20. Results: with H* Exp1: red tree  green ball . Exp2: medium tree  large ball .
    21. 21. Garden path Effect: L+H* vs. H* fixations to green tree fixations to large tree
    22. 23. Summary: Fixation proportion <ul><li>L+H* facilitates eyemovements to the targets for both color and size adjectives in contrastive sequences. </li></ul><ul><li>Visually more complex size-sorted boards led to slower eye movements to the target than color-sorted boards. </li></ul><ul><li>L+H* led to more frequent fixations to the incorrect targets for both color and size adjectives in non-contrastive sequences. </li></ul><ul><li>Non-prominent size adjective (with H*) did not lead to looks to contrastive cells, i.e., size adjectives are not automatically interpreted contrastively. </li></ul>
    23. 24. Issue on categorical distinction: Is L+H* a kind of H*? <ul><li>Color adj with H*  weaker interpretation of contrast? </li></ul><ul><li>Categorical interpretation but non-categorical perception (Ladd & Morton, 1997) </li></ul><ul><li>Great overlap between H* and L+H* in pitch scale, shape & alignment (Tayler, 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Frequent uncertainty between H* and L+H* in expert-ToBI labeling (Brugos et al. 2008). </li></ul><ul><li>More frequent use of H* than L+H* to mention contrastive discourse entities in story continuation (Metusalem & Ito, 2008; TIE3 poster). </li></ul><ul><li>How can we define categories of prosodic prominence? </li></ul><ul><li>What factors contribute to recognition & processing of contrastiveness ? </li></ul>
    24. 25. Gradient phonetics and intermediate responses <ul><li>English: /t/ vs. /d/ (Kong, in progress/2008) </li></ul>
    25. 26. Kong (2008) cont’d: intermediate productions
    26. 27. Kong (2008): intermediate perception
    27. 28. Multiple phonetic/non-phonetic factors predicting 1st fixation latency? <ul><li>Absolute F0 peak height for Adj </li></ul><ul><li>F0 peak latency (from stressed syllable onset) </li></ul><ul><li>Adj Duration </li></ul><ul><li>Difference in F0 peak height </li></ul><ul><li>green tree  YELLOW/yellow tree. </li></ul><ul><li>********************************* </li></ul><ul><li>Subject, color, size </li></ul>
    28. 29. Step-wise Multiple Linear Regressions: Predicting First fixation latency: L+H* Total R 2 : .051 F(2,256) = 7.96, p<.001 Total R 2 : .245 F(2,296) = 25.38, p<.0001 EXP1: Color-sorted EXP2: Size-sorted <.01 -2.76 F0 diff 2 <.01 -2.91 subject 1 p t Var Step <.05 2.53 size 4 <.05 -2.57 color 3 <.001 4.44 F0 peak 2 <.001 -5.66 F0 diff 1 p t Var Step
    29. 30. Step-wise Multiple Regressions: Predicting First fixation latency: H* Total R 2 : .108 F(3,257) = 11.59, p<.0001 Total R 2 : .088 F(3,293) = 10.57, p<.0001 EXP1: Color-sorted EXP2: Size-sorted <.0001 4.03 color 2 <.01 -2.97 subject 3 <.0001 -4.78 size 1 p t Var Step <.01 -2.64 color 3 <.01 -3.21 F0 diff 2 <.05 -2.44 size 1 p t Var Step
    30. 31. Further exploration needed: <ul><li>Different dependent variable? </li></ul><ul><li>Normalized F0 scaling </li></ul><ul><li>Peak alignment from vowel onset </li></ul><ul><li>Word/syllable intensity </li></ul><ul><li>Vowel quality (F1, F2, breathiness, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Following noun’s phonetic status </li></ul><ul><ul><li>F0 prominence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>intensity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>vowel quality, etc. </li></ul></ul>
    31. 32. Acknowledgments: <ul><li>Laurie Maynell </li></ul><ul><li>Ping Bai </li></ul><ul><li>Ross Metusalem </li></ul><ul><li>NSF: BCS-0617609 </li></ul><ul><li>NIH: R01 DC007090-01A2 </li></ul>

    ×