Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Logic of Tune A Proof-Theoretic Analysis of Intonation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1582))

Abstract

This paper presents a proof-theoretic sign-based grammar founded on non-associative non-commutative linear logic which models a compositional theory of the 'information packaging' meaning of intonational contours. Cross-language comparison reveals that in expressing information packaging, different languages exploit word order and prosody in different ways: one single informational construct can be realized by drastically different structural means across languages. Thus for languages such as English and Dutch it can be argued that, roughly speaking, information packaging is structurally realized by means of alternative intonational contours of identical strings, while languages such as Catalan and Turkish have a constant prosodic structure and realize information packaging by means of string order permutations. Such cross-linguistic generalizations suggest that information packaging involves syntax as well as prosody, so that any attempt to reduce informational aspects to either syntax (for Catalan or Turkish) or prosody (for English or Dutch) must be inadequate from a cross-linguistic point of view. The present paper proposes to treat the different structural realizations of information packaging by means of a both intonationally/syntactically and semantically/informationally interpreted sign-based version of the non-associative Lambek calculus, the 'pure logic of residuation'. The signs, the grammatical resources of this formalism, are form-meaning units which reflect the fact that the dimensions of form and meaning contribute to well-formedness in an essentially parallel way. The proof-theoretic categorial engine of the formalism represents phonological head/non-head dependencies in terms of a doubling of the pure logic of residuation which is enriched with unary modal operators, where the unary brackets that come with these operators function as demarcations of specific intonational domains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Beckman, M., and J. Pierrehumbert (1986). 'Intonational Structure in Japanese and English'. Phonological Yearbook3, pp. 15–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W.L. (1976). 'Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View'. In C.N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. Associated Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Ö. (1974). 'Topic-Comment Structure Revisited'. In Ö. Dahl (ed.), Topic and Comment, Contextual Boundedness and Focus. Papers in Text Linguistics6. Helmut Buske, Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engdahl, E. (ed.) (1994). Integrating Information Structure into Constraint-based and Categorial Approaches. ESPRIT Basic Research Project 6852, Dynamic Interpretation of Natural Language. DYANA-2 Deliverable R1.3.B. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erteschik-Shir, N. (1996). The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. Dissertation University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1983). 'File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness'. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. De Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, H. (1996a). 'Intonation, Derivation, Information. A Proof-Theoretic Framework for the Representation of Information Packaging'. In: M. Abrusci and C. Casadio (eds.), Proofs and Linguistic Categories. Proceedings of the Third Roma Workshop. Editrice CLUEB, Bologna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, H. (1996b). 'Information Packaging: From Cards to Boxes'. In T. Galloway and J. Spence (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics And Linguistic Theory VI, CLC Publications, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, H. (1997). 'L+H* Accent and Non-Monotone Anaphora'. To appear in: R. Kager and W. Zonneveld (eds.), Proceedings of the Utrecht Workshop on Phrasal and Prosodic Phonology. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, H. (1998). 'A Strong Theory of Topic and Focus Interpretation'. Manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, H., and P. Dekker (1995). 'Links without Locations'. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J., (1990). 'The Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg Theory of Intonation Made Simple: Comments on Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg'. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication, Mit Press, Cambridge (Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B. (1995). 'Integrating "Free" Word Order Syntax and Information Structure'. Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (1983). Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik von Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Niemeyer, Tübingen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. (1981). 'A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation'. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam. Reprinted in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.) (1984), Truth, Interpretation and Information. Selected Papers from the Third Amsterdam Colloquium. Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., and U. Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraak, E. (1995). 'French object clitics: a multimodal analysis'. In G. Morrill and R. Oehrle (eds.), Proceedings Formal Grammar Conference, Barcelona, pp. 166–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1991). 'A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions'. Linguistische Berichte, Suppl.4, pp. 17–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambek, J. (1958). 'The Mathematics of Sentence Structure'. American Mathematical Monthly65, pp. 154–169.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lambek, J. (1961). 'On the Calculus of Syntactic Types'. In R. Jakobson (ed.), Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects. Providence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linden, E.-J. van der (1991). 'Accent Placement and Focus in Categorial Logic'. In S. Bird (ed.), Declarative Perspectives on Phonology. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science. ECCS, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moortgat, M. (1996). 'Multimodal Linguistic Inference'. Journal of Logic, Language and Information5, pp. 349–385.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Moortgat, M. (1997). 'Generalized Quantification and Discontinuous Type Constructors'. In H. Bunt and A. van Horck (eds.) (1997), Proceedings of the Tilburg Symposium on Discontinuous Dependencies. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moortgat, M., and G. Morrill (1991). 'Heads and Phrases. Type Calculus for Dependency and Constituent Structure'. OTS Research Paper, University of Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrill, G. (1992). 'Categorial Formalisation of Relativisation: Pied Piping, Islands, and Extraction Sites'. Report de Recerca LSI-92-23-R, Departament de Llenguatges i Sistemes Informàtics, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrill, G. (1994). Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Muskens, R. (1993). 'A Compositional Discourse Representation Theory'. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, S.G., and J.M.B. Terken (1982). 'What Makes Speakers Omit Pitch Accents?'. Phonetica39, pp. 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oehrle, R. (1988). 'Multidimensional Compositional Functions as a Basis for Grammatical Analysis'. In R. Oehrle, E. Bach and D. Wheeler (eds.), Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oehrle, R. (1991). 'Prosodic Constraints on Dynamic Grammatical Analysis'. In S. Bird (ed.), Declarative Perspectives on Phonology. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science. ECCS, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oehrle, R. (1994). 'Term-labeled Categorial Type Systems'. Linguistics and Philosophy17, pp. 633–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. Disertation Mit, Cambridge (Mass.). Distributed by the IULC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J., and J. Hirschberg (1990). 'The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse'. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C., and I. Sag (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 1: Fundamentals. CSLI, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C., and I. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, and CSLI, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E. (1981). 'Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information'. In P. Cole, Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T. (1982). 'Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics'. Philosophica27, pp. 53–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. Dissertation University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1992). 'A Theory of Focus Interpretation'. Natural Language Semantics1, pp. 75–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M. (1991). 'Structure and Intonation'. Language67, pp. 260–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M. (1992). 'Surface Structure, Intonation and "Focus"'. In E. Klein and F. Veltman (eds.) Natural Language and Speech. Symposium Proceedings, Brussels. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M. (1993). 'The Grammar of Intonation and Focus'. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, E. (1992). The Informational Component. Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, E. (1993). 'Information Packaging: A Survey'. Report prepared for Word Order, Prosody, and Information Structure. Centre for Cognitive Science and Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, E. (1994). 'The Dynamics of Information Packaging'. In E. Engdahl (ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, E., and R. Zacharski (1993). 'Accenting Phenomena, Association with Focus, and the Recursiveness of Focus-Ground'. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Trans 10, 3512 JK, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Herman Hendriks

  2. ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Doelenstraat 15, 1012 CP, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Herman Hendriks

Authors
  1. Herman Hendriks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université Pierre Mendès France (Grenoble 2), 1251 avenue Centrale, BP 47, F-38040, Grenoble Cedex, France

    Alain Lecomte

  2. LORIA (Nancy), 615 rue de Jardin Botanique, BP 101, F-54602, Villers lès Nancy Cedex, France

    François Lamarche  & Guy Perrier  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hendriks, H. (1999). The Logic of Tune A Proof-Theoretic Analysis of Intonation. In: Lecomte, A., Lamarche, F., Perrier, G. (eds) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LACL 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1582. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48975-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48975-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-65751-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48975-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation