Article published in:
Dependency Linguistics: Recent advances in linguistic theory using dependency structures
Edited by Kim Gerdes, Eva Hajičová and Leo Wanner
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 215] 2014
► pp. 207–228

Dependencies over prosodic boundary tones in spontaneous spoken Hebrew

| The Research Center for Innovation in Learning Technologies, The Open University of Israel
The aim of the present study is to investigate two aspects of speech: suprasegmental characteristics and syntagmatic relations. More specifically, it focused on the segmentation role of prosody and its interface with the syntagmatic sequence. While certain prosodic boundary tones seem to break speech with correlation to syntactic phrasing, it was found that excessive elongated words are indeed prosodic breaks of various “strong” dependencies. Such a break is not due only to prosody or phonological rules, but can be attributed to the strength of syntagmatic relations (i.e. dependencies) between the elongated word and the word that precedes it, and between the elongated word and the following word. The findings suggest an encompassing approach to the prosody-syntax interface which says that through the elongated boundaries phenomenon, speakers and listeners are exposed to the tension between the prosodic strata and the syntactic strata of language, i.e. between a prosodic break and syntactic continuity. This tension occurs about 10%–18% of spontaneous Israeli Hebrew boundary tones.
Published online: 01 October 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.215.10sil
References

References

Anderson, S.R.
2005 Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L.
2007 Antconc Version 3.2.1w. Center for English Language Education, Waseda University. <www​.antlab​.sci​.waseda​.ac​.jp​/index​.html>Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C.
2007 Linguistic analysis of spoken language: The case of French language. In Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistic Informatics: Contributions of Linguistics, Applied Linguistics, Computer Sciences, Y. Kawaguchi, S. Zaima & T. Takagaki (eds). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Brown, K.E. & Miller, J.E.
(eds) 1996 Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M.
2006 Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide: Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
CoSIH-
The Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew. <www​.tau​.ac​.il​/humanities​/semitic​/cosih​.html>
Cresti, E. & Moneglia, M.
2005 C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danieli, M., Garrido, J.M., Moneglia, M., Panizza, A., Quazza, S. & Swert, M.
2004 Evaluation of consensus on the annotation of prosodic breaks in the Romance corpus of spontaneous speech ‘C-ORAL-ROM’. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) , 26–28. Lisboa.
Fraser, N.M.
1996 Dependency grammar. In Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories, K.E. Brown & J.E. Miller (eds), 71–75. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Fraser, N.M., Corbett, G.G. & McGlashan, S.
1993 Introduction. In Heads in Grammatical Theory, G.G. Corbett, N.M. Fraser & S. McGlashan (eds), 1–10. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, A.
2000 Prosodic Features and Prosodic Structure: The Phonology of Suprasegmentals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fox, B., Maschler, Y. & Uhmann, S.
2006 A cross-linguistic study of self-repair in English, German, and Hebrew. Paper read at ICCA 2006 , May 12, Helsinki.
Goldberg, Y.
2011 Automatic Syntactic Processing of Modern Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva.
Goldberg, Y. & Elhadad, M.
2010 Easy first dependency parsing of Modern Hebrew. In Proceedings of the SPMRL-2010 – An NAACL/HLT workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically Rich Languages , June 5, Los Angeles CA.
Hudson, R.A.
1990 English Word Grammar. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1993 Do we have heads in our minds? In Heads in Grammatical Theory, G.G. Corbett, N.M. Fraser & S. McGlashan (eds), 266–291. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Word grammar. In Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories, K.E. Brown & J.E. Miller (eds), 368–372. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Izre’el, S.
2005 Intonation units and the structure of spontaneous spoken language: A view from Hebrew. Paper read at IDP05 – International Symposium on ‘Towards modeling the relations between prosody and spontaneous spoken discourse’ , Aix-en-Provence, France.
2010 The basic unit of language: A view from spoken Israeli Hebrew. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Afroasiatic Languages, 55–89. Tsukuba, Ibaraki: Tsukuba University.Google Scholar
Izre’el, S. & Mettouchi, A.
Forthcoming. Representation of speech in CorpAfroAs: Transcriptional strategies and prosodic units. In CorpAfroAs: The Corpus of AfroAsiatic Languages. http://​corpafroas​.huma​-num​.fr​/fichiers​/IZRE'EL​&METTOUCHI​_REPRESENTATION​_OF​_SPEECH​.pdf
Lacheret-Dujour, A.
2007 Prosodie-discours: Une interface à muiltiples facettes. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 28: 7–40.Google Scholar
Leipzig Glossing Rules (LGR)
List of Standard Abbreviations http://​www​.eva​.mpg​.de​/lingua​/resources​/glossing​-rules​.php
Maschler, Y.
2009 Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 181]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.A.
1988 Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Mertens, P.
2011 Prosodie, syntaxe, discours: autour d’une approche predictive. In Actes d’IDP 2009 ; Septembre 2009, H.-Y. Yoo & E. Delais-Roussarie (eds), 19–32. Paris.
Rosén, H.B.
1977 Contemporary Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosta, A.
2006 Structural and distributional heads. In: Word Grammar: New Perspectives on a Theory of Language Structure, K. Sugayama & R.A. Hudson (eds), 171–200. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
SAMPA (Speech Assessment Methods Phonetic Alphabet)
SAMPA for Hebrew. <www​.phon​.ucl​.ac​.uk​/home​/sampa​/hebrew​.htm>
Schneider, G.
1998 A Linguistic Comparison of Constituency, Dependency and Link Grammar. MA thesis, University of Zurich.
Selkirk, E.
1995 The Prosodic Structure of Function Words. <http://​people​.umass​.edu​/selkirk​/pdf​/PSFWUMOP%27%20copy​.pdf>
Silber-Varod, V.
2010 Phonological aspects of hesitation disfluencies. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010 , May 14–19, Chicago IL.
2011 The SpeeCHain Perspective: Prosodic-Syntactic Interface in Spontaneous Spoken Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University.
Steedman, M.
2001 Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4): 649–685. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stern, N.
1994 Dictionary of Hebrew Verbs: The Valence and Distribution of the Verb in Contemporary Hebrew. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press(in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Sugayama, K. & Hudson, R.A.
(eds) 2006 Word Grammar: New Perspectives on a Theory of Language Structure. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tesnière, T.
1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale, Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar