4.2 Works on Sentence-Level Intonation from the Phonetic Approach
Due to historical circumstances in Eastern Europe in the second half of the 20th century, Lithuanian prosody, especially at the sentence level, has not received sufficient attention in linguistics. This resulted in major gaps in the description of intonational patterns not only of Baltic (Kundrotas,
2017) but also larger, Slavic languages (Malisz and Żygis,
2017). This lack of investigations also explains why Lithuanian has not been described in the context of broader intonation typologies (Hirst and Di Cristo,
1998).
Lithuanian intonation at the sentence level was mostly studied by Lithuanian linguists from two standpoints: the syntactic and the phonetic. In his historical overview of research on Lithuanian intonation, Kundrotas (
2020) notes that Lithuanian intonation at the sentence level was approached for the first time and in the most extensive manner by syntacticians (Balkevičius,
1963,
1998; Talandienė,
1970). As this research focused on the functional role of intonation rather than on its phonology and phonetics, its overview is out of the scope of the current paper. Phonological research was, for the most part, carried out by a single author, Kundrotas (
2008,
2009,
2017,
2020).
Following the papers in syntax, the first, also rather sporadic, attempts to provide a phonetic description of Lithuanian intonation were published. Most of this research dealt with the phonetic description of sentence types. This direction of research was probably chosen due to the preliminary observations provided by studies on this topic in syntax. First, we can distinguish works aimed at identifying the acoustic correlates of sentence intonation in Lithuanian. Krapikaitė (
2009,
2011) examined three possible phonetic correlates of intonation (F0, duration and intensity) in three sentence types (statements, questions and exclamations). She concluded that F0 is the main distinctive marker of sentence type in Lithuanian. Preliminary evidence from these studies shows that intensity modulations can signal focus-marking, while duration could be considered as a secondary marker of sentence intonation. The findings on the role of F0 have been confirmed in a pilot study by Kazlauskienė and Sabonytė (
2018), who found that pitch variations in Lithuanian best reflect sentence intonation, i.e. sentence type and focus but are not a marker of stress.
Fig. 4
(A; B; C). Annotated example of: A. a statement phrase; B. a question; C. an exclamation, from Krapikaitė (
2009). The stressed syllables of focused words are in bold.
The majority of papers dedicated to sentence types in Lithuanian aimed at providing a phonetic description of pitch variations in these sentences. For instance, Krapikaitė (
2009) recorded statements, questions and exclamations produced by multiple speakers of Standard Lithuanian. As can be seen in an annotated example of a statement phrase (Fig.
4A), intonation starts low at the beginning of the phrase, then rises and peaks on the third and stressed syllable of the first word. It gradually decreases in the second word and reaches a low plateau.
In the question phrase (Fig.
4B) the intonation of the first word increases slightly until the third stressed syllable of the first word. It then drops significantly on the first stressed syllable of the second word and rises again to reach the intonational boundary peak. As noted by the author, the suffix –si is a reflexive marker which often undergoes reduction to –s. Therefore, the final fall of intonation in this particular phrase should not be considered as a trait of questions in Lithuanian. Thus, questions seem to follow the raising-falling-raising patterns. In the exclamation (Fig.
4C), intonation rises to its peak on the first, stressed, syllable of the second word and gradually falls towards the end of the word. The amplitude of this fall is the highest of all three sentence types. In addition to this, the overall pitch in the exclamatory sentence is higher than in declarative sentences and questions (this has also been found by Kazlauskienė and Sabonytė,
2018). Note that the melodic contour is opposite in questions vs exclamations: while in the question intonation is at its lowest point on the first syllable of the second word, it reaches its peak on the same syllable in the exclamation. Krapikaitė (
2009) concludes that this different pattern of F0 on the same stressed syllables in different sentence types are an indication that in Lithuanian, the melodic contour of intonation depends on sentence focus rather than on lexical stress. Specifically, the intonational peak is located on the focused words, and distinctive pitch events happen in or after the stressed syllables of these words. For instance, in the statement phrase
Paskaita baigėsi, the focus is on the first word, where the peak is on the stressed syllable –ta and is followed by a fall in intonation. Similarly, in the exclamation
Paskaita baigėsi! The focus, as well as the peak, is on the stressed syllable –bai of the second word which is followed by a sharp intonation fall. In the question
Paskaita baigėsi? The focus is also on the second word, but this time the stressed syllable –bai has a low tone, which is followed by a strong rise. Overall, this evidence suggests that phrase type in Lithuanian is defined by the movement of F0 in the intonational centre, together with the tone level in the post-nuclear part of the contour (higher or lower relative to the pre-accented part) (Kundrotas,
2008).
Although most of this work was of phonetic nature, in Krapikaitė (
2015), an attempt to provide some phonological generalizations using ToBI (Tones and Break Indices, Beckman and Ayers,
1994) was made. The author identifies possible pitch accent tones in different sentence types, using the same sentence examples as in her previous work: a rising peak accent L+H* was identified on the last syllable –ta of the first word in the statement sentence (Fig.
4A); a low tone L* on the first syllable of the second word in the question (Fig.
4B); and a high pitch accent H* on the same syllable in the exclamation phrase (Fig.
4C). Krapikaitė suggests that each sentence type contains a single pitch accent and can thus be distinguished based on them. However, this paper uses a very limited set of tonal events proposed by ToBI, making the analysis incomplete in at least two aspects. First, it seems necessary to include additional pitch accents to account for the melodic contours of the given sentence types. Second, in order to make generalizations on markers of sentence type, it is important to address phrasal tones. For instance, we propose that the statement type should include L-L% final phrase boundaries, which have been widely attested cross-linguistically in declarative sentences (Gussenhoven,
2016). This would result in a L+H* L-L% melody for the statement phrase given in the examples.
In order to obtain a high-low-high melodic contour attested in Krapikaitė (
2009,
2011) in the question phrase, the description should include a H* pitch accent in the first word (on the last syllable –ta). This would lead to H* L*, and final tones H-H%, which, again, are cross-linguistically attested as markers of yes-no questions (Hedberg
et al.,
2017).
Finally, the exclamation phrase in the given example could be analysed as a sequence of a H* pitch accent in the first word, followed by the H* in the second and a L-L% final tone combination.
A more detailed analysis of question intonation was proposed by Kazlauskienė and Dereškevičiūtė (
2018). They studied three types of question sentences and simple statements in order to identify the main intonational patterns of these sentence types. The authors used ToBI, but, again, chose to use a simplified notation with single-tone H* and L* pitch accents and H% and L% boundary notations. The first type of questions to be analysed was the yes/no question without the particle “ar”, which has been shown to be the most used yes/no question formulation in spoken Lithuanian (Balčiūnienė and Simonavičienė,
2009). These questions are comparable to questions without morphosyntactic question markers in English (Grabe and Karpinski,
2003). Two patterns were identified:
The first one follows the typologically common low-rise nuclear contour, which has also been observed by Krapikaitė (
2009, described above). The second, the falling pattern, reflects the focus placement on the second word “eiti”, ‘can we GO home’?
The second type of questions are yes/no questions starting with the interrogative particle ‘ar’.
Similarly to pattern 1, pattern 3 ends in a low-rise nuclear contour, but the first word is assigned a high pitch accent. It is possible that the presence of the interrogative particle in the clause-initial position affects this change in pitch accent. Note also that while in pattern 1 and 2 the only marker of questions was intonation, in pattern 4 the particle “ar” unambiguously indicates the sentence type from the very beginning of the phrase. Thus, one could expect a smaller intonation rise in yes-no questions with the particle. Although the amplitude of the final rise was twice as high in pattern 2 compared to pattern 3, the rise is still clearly present in pattern 3. Kazlauskienė and Dereškevičiūtė further investigated the interaction between the particle and intonation as markers of question type. They tested the participants’ perception of sentences with and without the particle “ar” by cutting it out from the recordings and asking participants to identify the sentence type. Participants were more than 90 % correct in identifying questions even when the particle was removed, pointing to the fact that it is indeed intonation that conveys most information about the sentence type. Comparable evidence comes from Polish, where a similar particle “czy” is used in yes-no questions. Mikoś (
1976) found a small, although non-significant difference in questions with vs without the particle in Polish and concluded that “czy” is an optional particle, which could be treated as a redundant feature. Turning back to the last two patterns of Lithuanian yes-no questions with interrogative particles, pattern 4 describes the case with a focus on the phrase-initial word ‘CAN [we] go home?’, which conveys impatience. Pattern 5 mirrors pattern 2 and emphasizes the second word ‘go’. Thus, this evidence points to the role of intonation in marking yes-no questions both in sentences with and without the interrogative particle “ar”. More studies are needed in order to shed light on whether this particle is a redundant marker of question type, or whether it has an impact on the phrase-initial intonational contour and, possibly, on the amplitude of the final rise. Finally, the rising contour seems to best describe the simple yes-no question, while the falling contour is used to move focus away from the last to the first or second syntagma in the phrase.
Kazlauskienė & Dereškevičiūtė end their study by analysing wh-questions:
In both cases, wh-questions have a falling contour, but they differ in focus marking: in pattern 2 the wh-word is marked, while in Pattern 7, the second word ‘can we’ is marked. Interestingly, when the wh-word was excised from the recordings, participants’ accuracy in identifying the sentence type fell drastically. This result is expected for pattern 6, where the removal of the wh-word leaves the sentence with no other lexical markers of question type (in Lithuanian, there is no subject auxiliary inversion). Note, though, that the L*H% pattern at the end of this phrase could potentially be used to identify the sentence type. The result of the perceptual experiment is even more surprising for pattern 7 as even without the wh-word, the sentence has the H*L*L*L% contour similar to pattern 4, which should be indicative of question type, as High-Fall contours are attested to be a cross-linguistically common pattern for wh-questions (Hedberg
et al.,
2010). Thus, further investigation is needed in order to clarify to what extent lexical vs intonational information is used in Lithuanian to identify the sentence type.
As can be seen, the above-cited phonetic studies target sentence type intonation, although focus marking is also addressed in a less direct manner. These studies provide the first glimpse into the peculiarities of sentence intonation in Lithuanian and raise many interesting considerations as to the presence of certain cross-linguistically attested intonational patters or the complex interaction of intonation with other syntactic markers (e.g. particles). Note, however, that these studies had small sample sizes and did not carry out (or did not report) statistical tests. Therefore, their findings are of a rather preliminary nature. Moreover, none of them discussed the interaction between the lexical pitch accent and the described post-lexical pitch variations. Finally, some of the studies made a first attempt to use an internationally recognized framework for the development of prosodic annotation, i.e. ToBI, and to adapt it to the Lithuanian language. In these papers, only some fragments of the ToBI system were used, making the results rather incomplete and lacking a deeper phonological analysis. The following subsection will review studies that targeted explicitly the phonology of sentence-level intonation in Lithuanian.
4.3 Works on Sentence-Level Intonation from the Phonological Approach
Intonation in Lithuanian has so far been almost overlooked in the field of phonology. Some researchers working on Lithuanian phonology and accentology mention the major functions of sentence intonation but consider this phenomenon to be out of the scope of their research (Pakerys,
2003; Kazlauskienė,
2012). Others, such as the most prominent Lithuanian phonologist Aleksas Girdenis, acknowledge the importance of intonation but do not study this phenomenon because of its complexity. For this reason, intonation is only fragmentally studied when it is necessary in order to explain some suprasegmental elements of a word (Girdenis,
2003). Finally, a prevailing view in some research circles is that more phonetic description is needed in order to be able to make generalizations about the more abstract phonological level (Kundrotas,
2020).
Perhaps the most extensive phonological analysis of Lithuanian intonation was conducted by G. Kundrotas. It is important to note that Kundrotas carried out significant research in documenting intonational patterns in varying contexts and across speech styles, as well as testing their validity experimentally. The author follows Trubetzkoy’s (
1969) method and seeks to identify meaningful phonemic oppositions in Lithuanian intonation. He distinguishes three such types of oppositions (the stressed syllables of focused words are in bold):
It is important to mention that this researcher follows the theoretical framework of the Prague structuralist school and posits a holistic view of intonation (Bolinger,
1964; Liberman,
1975; Liberman and Sag,
1974). Therefore, Kundrotas argues that the intonation contour expressed by F0 is the main and indecomposable intonation unit in a language (Kundrotas,
2008,
2009). According to the author, the contour varies according to two phonologically meaningful dimensions: the tone of the intonational nucleus (focus or sentence stress) can be either rising or falling; the height of the contour following a nuclear syllable can be higher or lower than its level before the nuclear syllable. Based on these assumptions and experimental studies, Kundrotas (
2008,
2009) identifies seven intonational contours in Lithuanian, which will be presented below.
The first intonation contour (IC1) is characterized by a gradual lowering of the tone in the nucleus, the post-nuclear part of the contour being lower than the pre-nuclear part. This intonation contour is mostly used in declarative sentences:
IC2 is similar to the first one, as it also starts at the normal pitch level of the speaker, then gradually falls in the nucleus and further falls in the post-nuclear part of the contour. However, the pitch in the nucleus is slightly higher than in IC1. IC2 is used in:
The main distinctive feature of IC3 is the gradually rising or the rising-falling tone in the nucleus. In the post-nuclear position, the tone gradually falls and reaches a lower position than in the pre-nuclear part of the contour. According to Siniova and Kundrotas (
2014), this contour is widely used in Lithuanian in a variety of contexts:
IC4 is characterized by a falling-rising pitch. Specifically, the tone slightly falls at the beginning of the nucleus but gradually rises throughout the nucleus and in the post-nuclear part of the contour. The post-nuclear part of the contour is higher than the pre-nuclear part. This intonation contour is used in:
IC5 has two intonation centres, with a rising tone in the first and a falling tone in the second one. Both the intensity and duration of the syllables which constitute the intonation centres are higher compared to other stressed syllables. The two intonation centres can either be located close to each other in the utterance or can be separated by several syllables. Intonation between the two centres is higher than in the pre-nuclear part of the contour but lower in the post-nuclear part. This intonation contour is used in:
IC6 is characterized by a gradually rising pitch in the nucleus. The intonation remains higher in the post-nuclear position compared to the pre-nuclear part of the contour. The duration of the nuclear syllable is longer than the duration of other stressed syllables in the phrase. This duration difference is the main distinctive feature of IC6, compared to IC3, which has also a rising pitch in the nucleus. It is used to:
IC7 is characterized by a rising or rising-falling contour in the nucleus. Pitch falls in the post-nuclear position and becomes lower than in the pre-nuclear part. The distinctive feature of IC7 is the glottalization of the nucleus. It is used in exclamatory, imperative and interrogative sentences as a means of expressive negation by using an opposing meaning to what has been said:
Our review of the studies by Kundrotas reveals that this author provided the most exhaustive description and phonological analysis of Lithuanian sentence-level intonation to date. In his numerous papers, the researcher not only identifies major melodic contours used in Lithuanian but also points to the fact that the same tune might be used in different contexts, and several tunes might be used to express the same function. Unfortunately, the holistic view of intonation posited by the author makes the further development of Lithuanian intonational theory somewhat problematic. Specifically, the view that the intonation contour cannot and should not be divided into smaller units makes it hardly possible to explain the “systematic variation” observed in the different realizations of the same contour (Arvaniti and Ladd,
2009). Moreover, in order to capture the diversity of remaining intonation patterns occurring in the language and their variations, one would have to come up with a very large number of such indecomposable melodies. In addition to this, the theoretical framework followed in these studies does not allow to take into account intonation at the word level (pitch-accents) and their interaction with sentence-level intonation. Finally, it impedes the comparison of these results with studies on other languages carried out by the international research community in recent decades, which mostly follow the now widely accepted Autosegmental-metrical framework. The following section will introduce this model as well as several other theoretical and computational models of intonation. The possibilities to apply these models to the Lithuanian language will be discussed in the Discussion section.