Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | letrônica |
Texto Completo: | https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/letronica/article/view/44425 |
Resumo: | This research investigates the influence of prosodic focus and sytanctic clefting in the processing of ambiguous replacive ellipsis sentences in Brazilian Portuguese, such as “In orchestral rehearsal, (it was) the violinist (who) impressed the maestro during the first song, not the soloist”. Our research was inspired by Carlson (2015) who investigated similar ellipsis sentences in English. We conducted two auditory experiments, manipulating prosody and clefting in 7 conditions. After listening to the audio, participants (N=66) read a question (“What happened in...?”) and they chose an answer: a subject interpretation response (“The soloist impressed nobody”), or an object interpretation response (“Nobody impressed the soloist”). The results indicate that both strategies of focalization (i.e., clefting and prosody) increased subject interpretation choices. When the focus cues were conflicting, the clefting structure played a decisive role in the final interpretation. Our results are aligned with Carlson (2015), which point that prosodic focus plays an important role in the ambiguity resolution (see Schafer et. al, 1996). However, as it was observed by Kiss (1998), the clefting structure conveys an exhaustive contrastive focus on the sentence, being more effective in the disambiguation process than other cues. |
id |
PUC_RS-14_ede64117ae1f24f69f7f870a53142bf7 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br:article/44425 |
network_acronym_str |
PUC_RS-14 |
network_name_str |
letrônica |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian PortugueseFoco prosódico e clivagem no processamento de elipses no português brasileiroProcessamento de frasesElipsesFoco ProsódicoClivagemSentence ProcessingEllipsis Prosodic FocusClefting. This research investigates the influence of prosodic focus and sytanctic clefting in the processing of ambiguous replacive ellipsis sentences in Brazilian Portuguese, such as “In orchestral rehearsal, (it was) the violinist (who) impressed the maestro during the first song, not the soloist”. Our research was inspired by Carlson (2015) who investigated similar ellipsis sentences in English. We conducted two auditory experiments, manipulating prosody and clefting in 7 conditions. After listening to the audio, participants (N=66) read a question (“What happened in...?”) and they chose an answer: a subject interpretation response (“The soloist impressed nobody”), or an object interpretation response (“Nobody impressed the soloist”). The results indicate that both strategies of focalization (i.e., clefting and prosody) increased subject interpretation choices. When the focus cues were conflicting, the clefting structure played a decisive role in the final interpretation. Our results are aligned with Carlson (2015), which point that prosodic focus plays an important role in the ambiguity resolution (see Schafer et. al, 1996). However, as it was observed by Kiss (1998), the clefting structure conveys an exhaustive contrastive focus on the sentence, being more effective in the disambiguation process than other cues.Este trabalho investiga a influência da marcação de foco prosódico contrastivo e do que chamamos de “foco sintático” por meio da clivagem, na resolução de ambiguidades em estruturas elípticas replacive: “Durante o ensaio da orquestra, (foi) o violinista (que) impressionou o maestro, não o solista”. Esta pesquisa foi inspirada em Carlson (2015), que investigou sentenças similares em inglês. Conduzimos duas atividades experimentais com uma combinação de 7 condições experimentais de clivagem e foco prosódico. Após ouvirem as sentenças, os participantes (N=66) respondiam perguntas como: “O que aconteceu em...?”. A resposta podia ser uma interpretação de objeto: “Ninguém impressionou o solista”; ou uma interpretação de sujeito: “O solista não impressionou ninguém.” Os resultados apontam que ambas as estratégias de focalização (foco prosódico e clivagem) influenciaram o aumento da interpretação de sujeito. Quando as pistas de focalização são conflitivas, a clivagem exerceu um papel decisivo na interpretação final. Nossos resultados estão alinhados com os de Carlson (2015) para o inglês. O foco prosódico desempenha um importante papel na resolução de ambiguidades, como em Schafer et al. (1996). No entanto, conforme Kiss (1998), a clivagem transmite um foco contrastivo e exaustivo para a sentença, sendo, portanto, uma pista de desambiguização mais efetiva do que outras.Editora da PUCRS - ediPUCRS2023-11-21info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/letronica/article/view/4442510.15448/1984-4301.2023.1.44425Letrônica; Vol. 16 No. 1 (2023): Single Volume ; e44425Letrônica; v. 16 n. 1 (2023): Volume Único ; e444251984-430110.15448/1984-4301.2023.1reponame:letrônicainstname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS)instacron:PUC_RSporhttps://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/letronica/article/view/44425/28224Copyright (c) 2023 Letrônicahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAlves Fonseca, AlineOliveira da Silva, Andressa ChristineGreco Carvalho, JúliaCampos e Souza, Marcella2024-04-04T16:07:48Zoai:ojs.revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br:article/44425Revistahttps://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/letronicaPRIhttps://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/letronica/oailetronica@pucrs.br||ivanetemileski@gmail.com1984-43011984-4301opendoar:2024-04-04T16:07:48letrônica - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese Foco prosódico e clivagem no processamento de elipses no português brasileiro |
title |
Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese |
spellingShingle |
Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese Alves Fonseca, Aline Processamento de frases Elipses Foco Prosódico Clivagem Sentence Processing Ellipsis Prosodic Focus Clefting. |
title_short |
Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese |
title_full |
Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese |
title_fullStr |
Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese |
title_full_unstemmed |
Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese |
title_sort |
Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese |
author |
Alves Fonseca, Aline |
author_facet |
Alves Fonseca, Aline Oliveira da Silva, Andressa Christine Greco Carvalho, Júlia Campos e Souza, Marcella |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Oliveira da Silva, Andressa Christine Greco Carvalho, Júlia Campos e Souza, Marcella |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Alves Fonseca, Aline Oliveira da Silva, Andressa Christine Greco Carvalho, Júlia Campos e Souza, Marcella |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Processamento de frases Elipses Foco Prosódico Clivagem Sentence Processing Ellipsis Prosodic Focus Clefting. |
topic |
Processamento de frases Elipses Foco Prosódico Clivagem Sentence Processing Ellipsis Prosodic Focus Clefting. |
description |
This research investigates the influence of prosodic focus and sytanctic clefting in the processing of ambiguous replacive ellipsis sentences in Brazilian Portuguese, such as “In orchestral rehearsal, (it was) the violinist (who) impressed the maestro during the first song, not the soloist”. Our research was inspired by Carlson (2015) who investigated similar ellipsis sentences in English. We conducted two auditory experiments, manipulating prosody and clefting in 7 conditions. After listening to the audio, participants (N=66) read a question (“What happened in...?”) and they chose an answer: a subject interpretation response (“The soloist impressed nobody”), or an object interpretation response (“Nobody impressed the soloist”). The results indicate that both strategies of focalization (i.e., clefting and prosody) increased subject interpretation choices. When the focus cues were conflicting, the clefting structure played a decisive role in the final interpretation. Our results are aligned with Carlson (2015), which point that prosodic focus plays an important role in the ambiguity resolution (see Schafer et. al, 1996). However, as it was observed by Kiss (1998), the clefting structure conveys an exhaustive contrastive focus on the sentence, being more effective in the disambiguation process than other cues. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-11-21 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/letronica/article/view/44425 10.15448/1984-4301.2023.1.44425 |
url |
https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/letronica/article/view/44425 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.15448/1984-4301.2023.1.44425 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/letronica/article/view/44425/28224 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Letrônica http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Letrônica http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Editora da PUCRS - ediPUCRS |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Editora da PUCRS - ediPUCRS |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Letrônica; Vol. 16 No. 1 (2023): Single Volume ; e44425 Letrônica; v. 16 n. 1 (2023): Volume Único ; e44425 1984-4301 10.15448/1984-4301.2023.1 reponame:letrônica instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) instacron:PUC_RS |
instname_str |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) |
instacron_str |
PUC_RS |
institution |
PUC_RS |
reponame_str |
letrônica |
collection |
letrônica |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
letrônica - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
letronica@pucrs.br||ivanetemileski@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1799128594680643584 |