730 F26 Week 8: 10/29/26. Towards melodic universals

Announcements

No meeting next Tuesday, prep Wightman et al. (2002) by We 11/4 5pm
Send me thoughts about final project by 11/2

Exercise: French tonotactic grammar

Write up French tonotactic grammar.

Gussenhoven (2004) Section 13.3, treatment of Post's (2000) French analysis (I use % diactric instead of iota subscript)
- Optional final intonational phrase boundary tones
- (Obligatory) left-edge IP boundary tones: %L or %H
- Pitch accents
  - Nuclear: H*, H+H* (*cliché mélodique, less common)
  - Prenuclear: H*, H*L (both common)
- H* nuclear configurations:
  - H* L% fall 'declarative'
  - H* H% high rise 'interrogative'
  - H* % (plain) rise 'continuative'
- Floating tones get deleted
- Downstep rule: H* gets downstepped if preceded by H and final IP tone is not H%
On-ramp vs. off-ramp analyses: why H*+L (off-ramp), not L+H* (on-ramp)?
- On-ramp (leading-L) analysis makes incorrect predictions:
  - %L L+H* vs. %L H* expected to result in distinct phonetic realizations, but this is not observed. Instead we have %L H*+L, which we do not expect to result in a distinct phonetic realization.
  - After initial %H, you could get an f0 fall before H* if you have %H L+H*, but no such contour observed
  - Rules out a contour that is attested, with unaccented 2-syllable LH sequence before mid-pitched accented syllable. You would need something like L+H+H*, but with H*+L, you can have %L H*L H+H*

IPrA (International Prosodic Alphabet)

See Hualde and Prieto (2016) on "portability" problem of ToBI labels across languages/language varieties

“From the start of the development of the system, it was made clear that ToBI was not an International Phonetic Alphabet for prosody, and since intonation and prosodic organization differ from language to language (and even from dialect to dialect within a language), the ToBI system developed for a given language variety cannot be directly used for another language variety (see Jun, 2005, p. 2). In our view, one of the reasons for the present difficulties in cross-linguistic comparison is precisely the lack of a definition within the ToBI framework of a set of universally accepted transcription units that researchers can use. Thus, in Jun (2014) tonal patterns for each language are described by taking the ToBI inventory used for each language directly, which takes for granted a high degree of comparability across labels. However, since the ToBI labels represent abstract phonological units, they might not be comparable at the surface phonetic level. Sometimes, in fact, very different notations have been proposed for what looks like essentially the same pitch contour. A good example is the use of the L+H* vs the H*+L label for the same surface pitch contour, the much discussed on-ramp and off-ramp analyses (Gussenhoven, 2004; Ladd, 2008a, p. 99). Other times the same label is used for phonetically rather different contours, a fact to which we will return below.” (Hualde and Prieto, 2016, p. 4)

Portability problem examples from Hualde and Prieto (2016)

Variation in transcription labels chosen for sustained level IP phrase-final pitch vs. final rise (recall vocative discussion)

Hualde and Prieto (2016) Table 1 comparing lables for sustained level phrase-final pitch vs. final rise

Variation in description of temporal alignment of f0 contour for rising accent categories

Hualde and Prieto (2016) Figure 1 comparing alignment descriptions for L*+H

Hualde and Prieto (2016) Figure 2 comparing alignment descriptions for L+H*

Solutions: two levels of transcriptions and agreement on broad phonetic transcription labels

Solutions: towards two levels of transcriptions: phonological and "broad" phonetic transcription (compare to [t] without diacrtics for dental, or alveolar, or postalveolar, just a broad coronal)
- Past examples where researchers work together and agree on common transcription labels, which may abstract away from alignment differences: (Frota and Prieto 2015 Romance volume; Prieto and Roseano (2010) Spanish volume), see for instance agreed on conventions for Frota and Prieto (2015) for bitonal rising accents:

Hualde and Prieto (2016) Figure 3 showing agreed on conventions for rising bitonal accents

Compare Table 2 below, summarizing vocative chant transcriptions in Frota and Prieto (2015), to Table 1 above

Hualde and Prieto (2016) Table 2 comparing labels for vocative chant in Frota and Prieto (2015)

Phonological level could help with confusion in variation in phonetic realization due to truncation, compression; phrase-initial L+H* which may not show L target, etc.
- Note that two levels already used in K-ToBI
Proposed IPrA broad phonetic transcription labels example for bitonal accents

Hualde and Prieto (2016) Figure 6 showing proposed IPrA symbols for bitonal accents

Secondary association differences as the source of alignment differences

Prieto, Imperio, and Fivela 2005 make some explicit proposals about secondary association to constituents (see dashed lines), in a kind of two level transcription proposal: basic tone sequence of LH is same across Romance varieties, with differences in anchoring points to prosodic constituents (cf. Torreira and Grice (2018))
The idea is to also allow secondary association of pitch accent tones, not just boundary tones.
Example: Catalan pitch accents: L*+H for wh-questions, L+H* for polar questions; delayed vs. not-delayed peak (and right alignment to syllable) contrast in prenuclear accents in broad focus for statements vs. imperatives. All of have an LH accent shape, and first three are perceived as high (and last one as low). "Obligatory alignment at an edge" for b and c. Accent (c) is an allophonic variant of rise with delayed peak (a).

a three-way alignment contrast can be found in prenuclear position in Catalan, as follows: (i) a rise with a delayed peak is found in prenuclear accents in statements; (ii) a rise with a peak aligned with the end of the syllable is found in prenuclear accents in imperative sentences; (iii) a posttonic rise is found in prenuclear accents in yes-no questions.” (Prieto et al., 2005, p. 371)

Figure 16, Prieto et al. 2005, schematics for Catalan accents

Figure 17, Prieto et al. 2005, autosegmental metrical representations for Catalan accents

Tritonal accents

Idea for Pisa Italian:
- Both pitch accents have high tone associated to accented syllable
- Difference in peak alignment is due to differing secondary association: to right edge of syllable vs. to right edge of first mora
Prieto et al. (2005) also includes a tritonal accent proposal for Pisa Italian, for an accent that has an early peak and low trailing tone in narrow focus (see Figures 23, 24 below)

Figure 23, Prieto et al. 2005 for Pisa Italian accents, schematics

Figure 24, Prieto et al. 2005 for Pisa Italian accents, phonological representation

Gabriel et al. on Argentinian Spanish in Prieto and Roseano (2010) volume: tritonal L+H*+L nuclear accent, followed by a low final boundary tone, in bnarrow focus and exclamatives

the shape of some porteño accents requires the introduction of such a tritonal unit, involving two low (L) tonal targets besides a H* target in order to account for the fact that the contour rises and falls within the limits of the metrically strong syllable. (p. 288)

See page 298 for pitch accent inventory (not including monotonal accents):