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. 17–50

Chapter 2
Prosodic separation of postverbal material in Georgian

A corpus study on syntax-phonology interface

| Bielefeld University,
| Goethe-University Frankfurt
| Tbilisi State University,
A striking property of Georgian intonation is that focused postverbal material is prosodically separated from the core clause. The challenge of the present study is to assess the external validity of this experimental result by means of a corpus study. Corpus data is known to contain immense variability due to uncontrolled factors related to spontaneous speech production, such as segmental effects, intra-speaker variation, etc. The corpus study confirmed that the right edge of the verb is frequently associated with a prosodic boundary that separates the prosodic constituent encompassing the verb and the preverbal material from the postverbal domain. This boundary can be overwritten by information structure, in particular by postfocal dephrasing.
Article outline
  • 1.Assumptions about empirical data
  • 2.Georgian prosody and syntax
  • 3.External validity of experimental findings
  • 4.Corpus study: Method
    • 4.1Corpus
    • 4.2Data selection
    • 4.3Annotation and analysis
  • 5.Corpus results
    • 5.1Effects of word order
    • 5.2Effects of information structure
    • 5.3Effects of random factors
    • 5.4Statistical modelling
  • 6.Variability of scripted and spontaneous data
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.02sko
References (60)
References
Adli, Aria. 2011. On the relation between acceptability and frequency. In The Development of Grammar: Language Acquisition and Diachronic Change [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 11], Esther Rinke & Tanja Kupisch (eds), 383–404. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apridonidze, Šukia. 1986. Sit’q’vatganlageba axal kartulši (Word order in modern Georgian). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steven. 2016. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4 classes. R package, version 1.1–12. <[URL]>
Baumann, Stefan. 2006. The Intonation of Givenness: Evidence from German. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Riester, Arndt. 2013. Coreference, lexical givenness, and prosody in German. Lingua 136: 16–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. 1997. A typology of spontaneous speech. In Computing Prosody, Yoshinori Sagisaka, Nick Campbell & Norio Higuchi (eds), 7–26. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blaauw, Eleonora. 1991. Phonetic characteristics of spontaneous and read-aloud speech. In ESCA Workshop on Phonetics and Phonology of Speaking Styles, Barcelona, Spain, 30 September – 2 October. ISCA Archive. <[URL]>
Boeder, Winfried. 1991. The phrasing of Old Georgian according to scribal punctuation. In Seventh Conference on the Non-Slavic Languages of the Soviet Union, Chicago, May 1991, 22–24.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 1992–2016. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 6.0.17) [Computer program]. <[URL]>
Brehm, Annika, Lausecker, Alina & Feldhausen, Ingo. 2014. The intonation of imperatives in Mexican Spanish. In Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP), Cologne, Germany, Susanne Fuchs, Martine Grice, Anne Hermes, Leonardo Lancia & Doris Mücke (eds), 53–56. Cologne: University of Cologne. <[URL]>
Bruce, Gösta & Touati, Paul. 1991. On the analysis of prosody in spontaneous speech with exemplification from Swedish and French. Presented at the ESCA Workshop on Phonetics and Phonology of Speaking Styles, Barcelona, Spain, 30 September – 2 October.
Clark, Herbert H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12(4): 335–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Ruiter, Laura. 2015. Information status marking in spontaneous vs. read speech in story-telling tasks – Evidence from intonation analysis using GToBI. Journal of Phonetics 48: 29–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2003. Intonation in Spanish declaratives: Differences between lab speech and spontaneous speech. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2: 115–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2005. The decathlon model: Design features for an empirical syntax. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds), 187–208. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2017. Intonation and Prosodic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. Sisterhood and tonal scaling. Studia Linguistica 59(2–3): 223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew K. 2005. Intonational phonology of Chikasaw. In Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), 301–330. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan & Jagdfeld, Nils. 2007. Evidence for tonal identity from peak scaling under pitch span variations. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Saarbrücken, Germany, Jürgen Trouvain (ed.), 977–980. Saarbrücken: Saarland University.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1987. Government and tonal phrasing in Papago. Phonology Yearbook 4: 151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Petra. 2003. Prosodic Phrasing in Spontaneous Swedish. Lund: Department of Linguistics and Phonetics.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice. 1981. Georgian Syntax: A Study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Jilka, Matthias, & Möbius, Bernd. 2006. Towards a comprehensive investigation of factors relevant to peak alignment using a unit selection corpus. In Interspeech 2006 and 9th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 2054–2057. Pennsylvania PA: International Speech Communication Association (ISCA).Google Scholar
Jilka, Matthias & Möbius, Bernd. 2007. The influence of vowel quality features on peak alignment. In 8th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2007), 2621–2624. Antwerp: International Speech Communication Association (ISCA).Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard & Harbusch, Karin. 2005. The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A corpus study into argument linearization in the midfield of German subordinate clauses. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds), 329–350. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kepser, Stephan & Reis, Marga. 2005. Evidence in Linguistics. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds), 1–6. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Karsten A. 2008. Spontaneous speech, lab speech, and effects on intonation: some useful findings for fieldworkers (and laboratory phonologists). In Proceedings of the 2008 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Susie Jones (ed.), 1–14. Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, John Baugh, & Joel Sherzer (eds), 28–53. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
. 2004. Ordinary events. In Sociolinguistic Variation: Critical Reflections, Carmen Fought (ed.), 31–43. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1990. Metrical representation of pitch register. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology, I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, John Kingston & Mary Beckman (eds), 35–57. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llisterri, Joaquim. 1992. Speaking styles in speech research. In Proceedings of ELSNET/ESCA/SALT Workshop on Integrating Speech and Natural Language, Dublin, Ireland, 15–17 July.Google Scholar
Mahjani, Behzad. 2003. An Instrumental Study of Prosodic Features and Intonation in Modern Farsi (Persian). MA thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley & Gordon, Matthew. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis. 2003. Intonational equivalence: An experimental evaluation of pitch scales. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain, Maria-Josep Solé (ed.), 771–774. Barcelona: ICPhS Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Oliveira, Miguel. 2000. Prosodic Features in Spontaneous Narratives. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1993. Variation theory and language contact. In American Dialect Research: An Anthology Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the American Dialect Society, Dennis R. Preston (ed.), 251–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <[URL]>
Reis, Harry T. & Gosling, Samuel D. 2010. Social psychological methods outside the laboratory. In Handbook of Social Psychology, Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert & Gardner Lindzey (eds), 82–114. Hoboken NJ: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey R. 2007. Grammar without grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 1998. Investigating ‘self-conscious’ speech: The performance register in Ocracoke English. Language in Society 27(1): 53–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds), 435–484. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shosted, Ryan K. & Chikovani, Vakhtang. 2006. Illustrations of the IPA: Standard Georgian. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36(2): 255–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Fanselow, Gisbert. 2010. Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua 120: 1370–1391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Féry, Caroline. 2010. Effect of narrow focus on tonal realization in Georgian. In Speech Prosody 2010, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson (ed.).Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, & Féry, Caroline. 2014. Focus and intonation in Georgian: Constituent structure and prosodic realization. Ms, University of Göttingen and Goethe University Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, Féry, Caroline & Asatiani, Rusudan. 2009. Word order and intonation in Georgian. Lingua 119: 102–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokhoff, Martin & van Lambalgen, Michel. 2011. Abstractions and idealizations: The construction of modern linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 37(1–2): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2): 219–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Donzel, Monique. 1999. Prosodic Aspects of Information Structure in Discourse. PhD dissertation, University van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
van Santen, Jan P. H. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1994. Segmental effects on timing and height of pitch contours. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 94), Yokohama, Japan, 719–722.Google Scholar
Vicenik, Chad & Jun, Sun-Ah. 2014. An autosegmental-metrical analysis of Georgian intonation. In Prosodic Typology, II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Jun Sun-Ah (ed.), 154–186. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Petra, Trouvain, Jürgen, & Zimmerer, Frank. 2015. In defense of stylistic diversity in speech research. Journal of Phonetics 48: 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wertheim, Suzanne. 2003. Rethinking the observer’s paradox and data “purity”. In Proceedings of the 28th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Julie Larson & Mary Paster (eds), 511–521. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Xu, Yi. 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 27: 27–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. In defense of lab speech. Journal of Phonetics 38: 329–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Borise, Lena
2023. The syntax of wh-phrases, narrow foci, and neg-words in Georgian. The Linguistic Review 40:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 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.