Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2022 / Nuclear accent placement in broad focus intransitives in native and non-native English: an investigation of syntactic and pragmatic factors

Nuclear accent placement in broad focus intransitives in native and non-native English: an investigation of syntactic and pragmatic factors

Paper · 2022 · Stephanie A Landblom and Tania Ionin

Summary

In English, intransitive sentences uttered under broad focus (all information new, e.g. answering What happened?) can carry the nuclear accent (NA) either on the subject or on the verb. Researchers disagree on what drives this choice. Some point to syntax, namely the unaccusative versus unergative status of the verb. Others point to pragmatics, such as how expected or topical the event is. The question matters for second-language learning because Spanish keeps the NA at the right edge and marks such contrasts through word order instead.

The authors ran an oral production task with native English speakers and L1 Spanish learners of English. Their stimuli crossed verb type with expectedness, which was established through a separate norming task. Native speakers put the NA on the subject mainly with expected unaccusatives and on the verb elsewhere, so both factors play a role. Learners overwhelmingly preferred the sentence-final verb accent, which suggests L1 transfer. More proficient learners moved toward the native pattern. The study clarifies how syntax and pragmatics jointly shape English prosody.

Key points

  • The design is 2×2: verb type (unaccusative vs. unergative) × expectedness (expected vs. unexpected). Expectedness was normed separately, and the norming data and verb list (Verb_List.csv) are posted on OSF.
  • Native speakers placed the NA on the subject most often for expected unaccusatives such as An ACTRESS arrived. In the other three cells they mostly accented the verb.
  • The L2 group (23 L1 Spanish speakers, partly recruited in Costa Rica) strongly favoured final NA on the verb. This matches the invariant rightmost accent of Spanish broad-focus intransitives.
  • Non-final NA rates rose with proficiency.
  • The perceptual annotation hinted that learners may pick up the verb-type cue before the pragmatic cue, but the acoustic data did not confirm this.
  • Expectedness in the stimuli correlates with word frequency. Some L2 effects could therefore reflect unfamiliar words rather than pragmatics.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Cross a structural factor with a pragmatic one in the same stimuli, so their separate and joint effects can be measured instead of confounded; this works for any "syntax or discourse?" question.
  • I2. Measure "expectedness" with an independent norming task rather than by the researchers' intuition, then reuse those ratings as a controlled variable.
  • I3. Verb class (unaccusative vs. unergative) helps predict which element is the informative one; appearance verbs tend to introduce their subject as new.
  • I4. The authors flag that expectedness co-varies with lexical frequency, a confound that could fake a pragmatic effect.
  • I5. Two measurement routes, perceptual annotation and acoustic analysis, partly disagreed, and the authors trust only effects that both support.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (learn): Build evaluation sets that vary verb class and event plausibility independently, to check whether a component reacts to structure, to world knowledge, or to both.
  • I2 (world): A graded event-plausibility score per verb–subject pair could be added to compiled knowledge and used to flag surprising events in a story world.
  • I3 (frames): VerbNet-based classes could mark subjects of appearance or arrival verbs as newly introduced entities, which helps information-structure and coreference decisions.
  • I4 (learn): Add frequency-matched negative controls when evaluating "semantic" behaviour, so rare-word errors are not mistaken for pragmatic sensitivity.
  • I5 (learn): This mirrors witness-parser agreement; silver labels should count as reliable only when independent witnesses converge.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignUrbana · United States108 works · 67,432 citations

Also on the byline: College of Western Idaho.

📚 Shelves 4 Arts and Humanities · 9,296 works Language and Linguistics · 9,206 works Psychology · 798 works Experimental and Cognitive Psychology · 463 works

🧭 Topics 1 English · 1,373 works

Cite

Cite as Stephanie A Landblom and Tania Ionin. 2022. Nuclear accent placement in broad focus intransitives in native and non-native English: an investigation of syntactic and pragmatic factors. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.16995/glossa.5810

@article{landblom2022nuclear,
  title = {{Nuclear accent placement in broad focus intransitives in native and non-native English: an investigation of syntactic and pragmatic factors}},
  author = {Stephanie A Landblom and Tania Ionin},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.5810},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5810}
}

References

67 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Akaike, Hirotugo. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19(6). 716–723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 ↗
  2. Albin, Aaron Lee. 2015. Typologizing native language influence on intonation in a second language: Three transfer phenomena in Japanese EFL learners. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University dissertation. ↗
  3. Allerton, David John & Cruttenden, Allen. 1979. Three reasons for accenting a definite subject. Journal of Linguistics 15(1). 49–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700013104 ↗
  4. Aston, John A.D. & Chiou, Jeng-Min & Evans, Jonathan P. 2010. Linguistic pitch analysis using functional principal component mixed effect models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 59(2). 297–317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2009.00689.x ↗
  5. Bates, Douglas & Mӓchler, Martin & Bolker, Benjamin M. & Walker, Steven C. 2015. Fitting linear mixed effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 ↗ our card
  6. Bell, Alan & Brenier, Jason M. & Gregory, Michelle & Girand, Cynthia & Jurafsky, Dan. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1). 92–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003 ↗
  7. Best, Catherine T. 1994. The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In Nussbaum, Howard C. (ed.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words, 167–244. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  8. Best, Catherine T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Strange, Winifred (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues in cross-language speech research, 171–204. Timonium, MD: York Press. find
  9. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1954. English prosodic stress and Spanish sentence order. Hispania 37(2). 152–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/335628 ↗
  10. Bro, Rasmus & Smilde, Age K. 2014. Principal component analysis. Analytical Methods, 6(9). 2812–2831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C3AY41907J ↗
  11. Burdin, Rachel Steindel & Phillips-Bourass, Sara & Turnbull, Rory & Yasavul, Murat & Clopper, Cynthia G. & Tonhauser, Judith. 2015. Variation in the prosody of focus in head-and head/edge prominence languages. Lingua 165. 254–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.10.001 ↗
  12. Calhoun, Sasha & La Cruz, Erwin & Olssen, Ana. 2018. The interplay of information structure, semantics, prosody, and word ordering in Spanish intransitives. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 9(1). 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.65 ↗
  13. Carlisle, Robert S. 1998. The acquisition of onsets in a markedness relationship: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 245–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S027226319800206X Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row New York. ↗
  14. Cole, Jennifer & Hualde, José I. & Smith, Caroline L. & Eager, Christopher & Mahrt, Timothy & Napoleão de Souza, Ricardo. 2019. Sound, structure and meaning: The bases of prominence ratings in English, French and Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 75. 113–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.05.002 ↗
  15. Cooper, William E. & Eady, Stephen J. & Mueller, Pamela R. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77(6). 2142–2156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372 ↗
  16. Dupoux, Emmanuel & Pallier, Christophe & Sebastian, Nuria & Mehler, Jacques. 1997. A destressing ‘deafness’ in French? Journal of Memory and Language 36. 406–421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2500 ↗
  17. Eckman, Fred. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27(2). 315–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00124.x ↗
  18. Escudero, Paola. 2005. Linguistic perception and second language acquisition: Explaining the attainment of optimal phonological categorization. Utrecht, Holland: Utrecht University dissertation. find
  19. Escudero, Paola. 2009. Linguistic perception of “similar” L2 sounds. Phonology in Perception 15. 152–190. find
  20. Flege, James Emil. 1987. The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics 15(1). 47–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30537-6 ↗
  21. Flege, James Emil. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research 92. 233–277. find
  22. Flege, James Emil. 2003. Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and Similarities 6. 319–355. ↗
  23. Flege, James Emil & MacKay, Ian R.A. 2004. Perceiving vowels in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26. 1–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261010 ↗
  24. Gabriel, Cristoph. 2010. On focus, prosody, and word order in Argentinean Spanish: A minimalist OT account. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem 4. 183–222. find
  25. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19(2). 377–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007799 ↗
  26. Hertel, Tammy Jandrey. 2003. Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research 19(4). 273–304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658303sr224oa Hirsch, Aron & Wagner, Michael. 2011. Patterns of prosodic prominence in English intransitive sentences. GLOW (34). ↗
  27. Hoot, Bradley & Leal, Tania. 2020. Processing subject focus across two Spanish varieties. Probus 32(1). 93–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2019-0004 ↗
  28. Hualde, José Ignacio. 2005. The sounds of Spanish with audio CD. Cambridge University Press. find
  29. Huang, Yuan & Guo, Diansheng & Kasakoff, Alice & Grieve, Jack. 2016. Understanding US regional linguistic variation with Twitter data analysis. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 59. 244–255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.12.003 ↗
  30. Ionin, Tania & Montrul, Silvina. 2010. The role of L1 transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2 English. Language Learning 60(4). 877–925. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-9922.2010.00577.x Irwin, Patricia. 2011. Intransitive sentences, argument structure, and the syntax-prosody interface. In Washburn, Mary Byram & McKinney-Bock, Katherine & Varis, Erika & Sawyer, Ann & Tomaszewicz, Barbara (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th west coast conference on formal Linguistics, 275–284. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. ↗
  31. Irwin, Patricia. 2012. Unaccusativity at the interfaces. New York University dissertation. find
  32. Josse, Julie & Husson, François. 2016. MissMDA: A package for handling missing values in multivariate data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 70(1). 1–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v070.i01 ↗
  33. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The syntax of sentential stress. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199219230.001.0001 ↗
  34. Kim, Ji Young. 2016. The perception and production of prominence in Spanish by heritage speakers and L2 learners. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois dissertation. find
  35. Krahmer, Emiel & Swerts, Marc. 2001. On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication 34. 391–405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00058-3 ↗
  36. Kuznetsova, Alexandra & Brockhoff, Per Bruun & Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen. 2015. Package ‘lmertest’. R Package Version 2(0). find
  37. Ladd, Robert D. 2008. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808814 ↗
  38. Landblom, Stephanie. 2020. L2 acquisition of nuclear accent. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois dissertation. https://osf.io/549sb/?view_only=868fff7c08a04485836c5b9a37a66825 ↗
  39. Lê, Sébastien & Josse, Julie & Husson, François. 2008. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25(1). 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01 ↗
  40. Lenth, Russell & Singmann, Henrik & Love, Jonathon & Buerkner, Paul & Herve, Maxime. 2018. Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R Package Version 1(1). find
  41. Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface, vol. 26. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. find
  42. Li, Xiaoqing & Chen, Yiya & Yang, Yufang. 2011. Immediate integration of different types of prosodic information during on-line spoken language comprehension: An ERP study. Brain Research 1386. 139–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2011.02.051 ↗
  43. McGory, Julia Tevis. 1997. Acquisition of intonational prominence in English by Seoul Korean and Mandarin Chinese speakers. The Ohio State University dissertation. find
  44. Mennen, Ineke. 2004. Bi-directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speakers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics 32(4). 543–563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.02.002 ↗
  45. Mennen, Ineke. 2015. Beyond segments: Towards a L2 intonation learning theory. In Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth & Avanzi, Mathieu & Herment, Sophie (eds.), Prosody and Language in Contact, 171–188. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45168-7_9 ↗
  46. Morrill, Tuuli. 2011. Acoustic correlates of stress in English adjective-noun compounds. Language and Speech 55(2). 167–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911417251 ↗
  47. Munro, Murray J. & Derwing, Tracey M. 2008. Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning 58(3). 479–502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00448.x Nguyễn, T. Anh-Thư & Ingram, CL John & Pensalfini, J. Rob. 2008. Prosodic transfer in Vietnamese acquisition of English contrastive stress patterns. Journal of Phonetics 36(1). 158– 190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2007.09.001 ↗
  48. O’Neill, Robert & Cornelius, Edward T. & Washburn, Gay N. 1981. American kernel lessons: Advanced: Student’s book. United Kingdom: Longman Publishing Group. find
  49. Peirce, Jonathan W. 2007. PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162(1–2). 8–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 ↗
  50. Peirce, Jonathan W. 2009. Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008 ↗
  51. Rasier, Laurent & Hiligsmann, Philippe. 2009. Exploring the L1-L2 relationship in the L2 acquisition of prosody, In Online Proceedings of First and Second Languages: Exploring the Relationship in Pedagogy-Related Contexts. Oxford, UK. find
  52. Riggenbach, H. 1991. Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes 14(4). 423–441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544795 ↗
  53. Schmerling, Susan F. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. University of Texas Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7560/703124 ↗
  54. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory 1, 550–569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ b.9780631201267.1996.00018.x Sorace, A. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language. 859–890. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/417202 ↗
  55. Steele, Jeffrey. 2002. Representation and phonological licensing in the L2 acquisition of prosodic structure. Montreal, Quebec: McGill University dissertation. ↗
  56. Tremblay, Annie. 2011. Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research: “Clozing” the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 339–372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000015 ↗
  57. Vallduví, Enric. 1991. The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence, In No, Yongkyoon & Libucha, Mark (eds.), Proceedings of the Eastern States conference on Linguistics, 295–306. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. find
  58. van Maastricht, Lieke & Krahmer, Emiel & Swerts, Marc. 2016. Prominence patterns in a second language: Intonational transfer from Dutch to Spanish and vice versa. Language Learning 66(1). 124–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12141 ↗
  59. van Maastricht, Lieke & Zee, Tim & Krahmer, Emiel & Swerts, Marc. 2020. The interplay of prosodic cues in the L2: how intonation, rhythm, and speech rate in speech by Spanish learners of Dutch contribute to L1 Dutch perceptions of accentedness and comprehensibility. Speech Communication 133. 81–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2020.04.003 ↗
  60. Vanrell Bosch, Maria del Mar & Fernández Soriano, Olga. 2013. Variation at the interfaces in Ibero Romance. Catalan and Spanish prosody and word order. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 12. 253–282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.63 ↗
  61. Watson, Duane G. & Arnold, Jennifer E. & Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2008. Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition 106(3). 1548–1557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.009 ↗
  62. Xu, Yi. 2013. ProsodyPro—A tool for large-scale systematic prosody analysis. Tools and Resources for the Analysis of Speech Prosody (TRASP 2013), Aix-en-Provence. 7–10. find
  63. Xu, Yi & Xu, Ching X. 2005. Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics 33(2). 159–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001 ↗
  64. Yang, Charles D. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford University Press on Demand. ↗
  65. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  66. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Nava, Emily. 2011. Encoding discourse-based meaning: Prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua 121(4). 652–669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.013 ↗
  67. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2006. Phrasal stress and syntax. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 1, 522–568. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch49 ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/landblom-2022-nuclear-accent-placement-broad-focus/