Prosodic Focus and Clefting in ellipsis sentences processing in Brazilian Portuguese

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Alves Fonseca, Aline
Data de Publicação: 2023
Outros Autores: Oliveira da Silva, Andressa Christine, Greco Carvalho, Júlia, Campos e Souza, Marcella
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