sb laboratories oxytone 50 cent

steroid drops after prk

From part of the guide:. Bro, can i ask? Atlantica Indonesia now hv caps If someone is Lvthey should get a higher quality box, but that is all dependent on if the developers of AO Indonesia actually made that change.

Sb laboratories oxytone 50 cent steroid toxicity chart

Sb laboratories oxytone 50 cent

On the other hand, non-plastic languages modify the syntactic structure in order to render the focused constituent in a position where nuclear stress is systematically assigned. Zubizarreta argues that, in Spanish, informational subject focus can only be marked via p rosodically motivated -movement, that is, by moving all the defocalized material to a higher position so as to leave the focused constituent in sentence-final position, where nuclear stress is assigned see the answer presented in example 4a.

The idea that this position is reserved for constituents conveying new information was well-established in previous literature Bolinger , ; Contreras The need to use this strategy derives from the assumption that mechanisms such as anaphoric deaccentuation and prominence shift, which are productively used in Germanic languages, cannot be used in Spanish to convey informational focus. Their use, nonetheless, is accepted in contrastive focus, and would result in utterances such as the answer presented in 4b.

Accordingly, languages would be placed in this continuum based on the degree to which they use intonational or syntactic strategies to mark focus. In this sense, Portuguese speakers have also been shown to use both syntactic Costa and prosodic strategies Frota in focus marking.

These studies have looked at Castilian Spanish and other dialects such as the Spanish spoken in the Canary Islands and in the Basque Country. The strategies that were preferred differed based on the dialect considered, but the expression of focus in-situ was always one of the two most frequent options. As pointed out by Dufter and Gabriel after reviewing some of the studies presented above among many others, we should actually expect free variation with regards to the strategies chosen by speakers to convey a specific type of focus, since there is no one-to-one mapping between them.

Additionally, these studies point towards the role played by dialectal variation and the need to explore other dialects, as is the goal of the present study. The Autosegmental-Metrical framework, proposed by Pierrehumbert , and the language-dependent annotation systems Tones and Break Indices or ToBI derived from it have been employed to describe the intonational grammars of multiple languages. The main categories used for analysis, pitch accents and boundary tones, are characterized in terms of the nature of the tone as low L , high H , or a combination of these two.

H-, or H-. Pitch accents in final position are referred to as nuclear pitch accents, while all the preceding ones are pre-nuclear pitch accents; the combination of a nuclear pitch accent and a boundary tone constitutes a nuclear configuration. The most relevant findings for the purpose of the present study are reviewed below. Another intonational strategy proposed for the expression of focus in Spanish is the use of boundary tones. A high boundary tone H- , on the other, tends to be used to mark the end of constituents conveying given information Hualde , Nonetheless, such high tone can also be found marking the end of syntactic constituents Face , or even following a word marked with contrastive focus Face The phonetic implementation: The acoustic features associated with focused constituents have been analyzed in more detail in contexts of contrastive focus but their role has not been extensively explored in contexts of informational focus.

Nevertheless, there may be differences in the phonetic implementation of focal pitch accents in terms of pitch range, peak alignment or duration that could be contributing to mark focus. The Biological Codes , and more specifically the Effort Code, predict that speakers will make use of wider pitch excursions in order to assign more importance to a fragment of their speech Gussenhoven For Spanish, however, different features have been shown to play a role.

In Vanrell et al. The aim of the present study is to provide more insight on the intonational and prosodic strategies used in the expression of focus in Spanish. This study is, nonetheless, innovative as it considers a variety that has not been explored from this perspective before, that is, the Spanish spoken in the northern region of Asturias see Figure 2.

The interest in this dialect comes from the fact that it is in contact with another Romance language, Asturian. Few studies have provided an exhaustive description of the intonational grammar of Asturian, or even Asturian Spanish, within the AM framework. Alvarellos et al. In this study, the analysis will concentrate on the realization of utterances with prosodic marking of focus in-situ.

Considering the theoretical frameworks discussed above as well as the conclusions drawn from previous experimental research, the following section will present the research questions guiding this study as well as the hypotheses for the variety of Spanish under study. The overarching question guiding this study is whether speakers of Asturian Spanish use prosody to mark the informational status of an expression. To provide an answer to this question, the research questions guiding this study are: 1 can the nature of in-situ narrow focus marking be captured by phonological categories pitch accents and boundary tones distinct from those used to realize accents in non-focused constituents i.

Regarding the second research question, it is predicted that the phonetic implementation of focal pitch accents will play an additional role H2. Features such as pitch range, peak alignment, and duration will add to the pitch categories to convey focus based on the premises of the Effort Code Gussenhoven As a result, focused constituents will display wider pitch range, earlier peaks, and longer duration than the pitch accents associated with non-focused constituents; these features will be much more prominent in contexts of contrastive focus de la Mota ; Vanrell et al.

It is important to note, then, that this hypothesis is mostly concerned with the phonetic realization of pitch accents, which in some cases may result in phonological distinctions e. Nonetheless, as Face showed, this is not always the case and thus the need to further describe the phonetic implementation of focal and non-focal pitch accents.

The next sections present the methodology employed in data collection and analysis. The results will be discussed quantitatively Section 3. Then, the findings are discussed in relation to the adopted theoretical frameworks Section 4. Finally, the relative contribution of the findings will be summarized and some final remarks will be presented Section 5. A discourse completion task similar to the one used in Prieto and Roseano was employed to elicit utterances with different information structure configurations.

A sentence completion technique was used to obtain the target utterances. The design then incorporates situations that introduce an information gap in the conversation held by two interlocutors one of them being identified with the participant.

In all the situations, this gap is resolved later on and the participant is asked to provide the missing information to the person who also ignored it in the first place. Such a design was chosen, as opposed to question-answer pairs employed in most intonational , in an attempt to find an elicitation method that overcomes one of the drawbacks from said methodology: The tendency shown by native speakers to respond with a single word instead of full sentences Ortega-Llebaria and Colantoni By building a situation in which the information is introduced little by little and the question is asked in a more implicit or covert way, the use of a full sentence in the answer need not be as unnatural as when all the given information has already been used in an overt question.

The fact that the new information is already introduced in the discourse after inserting it in the paragraph provided to each participant should not be problematic since, by putting themselves in the situation, they will still bear in mind that it is not part of the common ground, and therefore this should not prevent them from focalizing it.

Another advantage of this methodology is that participants are not being asked to just read a given response; instead, they are prompted to produce a specific type of structure in a more spontaneous manner. Nonetheless, they are still being forced to answer the question in a certain way, which could be considered problematic. Still, we considered this to be a more adequate technique since the goal of the current paper is to provide an account of the intonational and prosodic parameters used in the realization of focus in-situ, if any, under the assumption that this is one of the strategies in free variation for this variety of Spanish Dufter and Gabriel Below is an example of one of the situations used in the present study:.

Situations similar to the one presented above were used to elicit utterances with informational focus in three possible syntactic configurations: a an unmarked word order and prosodic marking in-situ, b clefting, and c p-movement. In order to do so, the beginning of the sentence was presented immediately after the situation in one of the following manners depending on the condition:.

Three versions of the experiment were created in order to elicit the three possible configurations for each of the situations eliciting informational focus without presenting the same one three times to the same participant.

This would allow for the collection of more comparable data while preventing participants from incorporating the new information introduced in previous situations into the common ground. In addition to one practice item that allowed participants to become familiarized with the task and understand the sentence completion technique, 18 situations were created for the elicitation of informational focus half of them with subject focus and the other half with object focus , three for the elicitation of broad focus, and four for the elicitation of contrastive focus half for subject focus and the other half for object focus.

For the latter, only prosodic marking in-situ and clefting were elicited; p-movement was excluded from this condition since previous studies did not report on the availability of this configuration in the realization of contrastive subject focus.

The target sentences contained as well an indirect object or an adjunct, in order for the object not to be in final position when focus was prosodically marked in-situ. Subjects, objects and adjuncts were constantly kept paroxytones, but this was not always possible in the case of verbs, which were almost consistently oxytones, as a result of using verbs in the past tense throughout the situations.

Table 1 presents a schematic representation of how the items were distributed in the experimental design. The experimental task was performed in a convenient place for the participants where no background noise would compromise the quality of the recordings i. They were finally asked to assess the degree of influence of Asturian in their Spanish when speaking with family and friends or in other contexts i. Upon the completion of the background questionnaire, participants were presented with the experimental task using a PowerPoint presentation.

They read each situation quietly to themselves and then responded as naturally as possible completing the sentence presented to them immediately after. The recordings were digitized at a 44, Hz sample rate and a 16 bit amplitude resolution.

The following analysis presents the results from twelve speakers of Asturian Spanish, who were presented with one of the three versions of the experiment four participants per version. Three more speakers were recorded but their data was discarded from the analyses due to the high rates of disfluency in their speech. The mean age of the participants was 30 years of age 23— All participants were born in Asturias, although five of them were born to parents who were not raised in Asturias.

Table 2 below presents the values provided by each participant for each of the contexts. Degree of influence of Asturian none to 10 in the daily speech of each participant in three different contexts: With family, with friends, and in more formal contexts work, university, etc.

In order to perform the analysis, the utterances were extracted from each recording. Out of these utterances, 70 were discarded from the analysis for various reasons: Doubt leading to question intonation or long pauses in between constituents 29 , disfluency 10 , non-target-like utterances due to the use of pseudo-clefts or non-full sentences, among other reasons 22 , background noise and laughter 9. Out of the remaining utterances, the present analysis concentrates on the prosodic realization of 59 utterances with informational focus prosodically marked in-situ, 26 utterances with broad focus, and 39 utterances with contrastive focus prosodically marked in-situ.

Each utterance was annotated using Praat Boersma and Weenink Following Vanrell et al. Additionally, the point at which the highest tone within a pitch accent was realized, as well as the lowest one when it was not aligned with the beginning of the stressed syllable, were manually marked using the Praat functions that allow for the identification of the minimum and the maximum pitch in a specific segment even in cases where a plateau was found ; corrections were then manually performed in cases of pitch track errors.

These segmental labels facilitated the manual extraction of pitch range, alignment and duration values. An example of the coding is presented in Figure 3. These tonal labels were transferred into a spreadsheet, where further coding was carried out. R Studio R Core Team was used to run generalized additive regression models, given the non-parametric nature of the data.

The package used for that purpose was mgcv Wood The goal was to test whether the presence of a pitch category or lack thereof was significant in the realization of the specific constituent under study i. Furthermore, three generalized additive regression models with linear dependent variables were fit to the data. In each one of them, the dependent variable was one of the prosodic features considered in the present study i.

The goal was to determine whether there were differences in their manifestation based on two fixed effects: Focus condition and function i. In order to determine whether there is intonational and prosodic marking of focus in-situ in Asturian Spanish, this section will describe the use of pitch accents and boundary tones, on the one hand, and the role played by other prosodic features i.

Utterances with informational subject focus IS and informational object focus IO will be taken as the point of comparison. Table 3 shows the distribution of pitch accents placed on subjects in five different focus conditions: Informational subject focus IS , contrastive subject focus CS , broad focus B , and non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO , and informational object focus IO.

Pitch accents produced on subjects in five different focus conditions: informational subject focus IS , contrastive subject focus CS , broad focus B , contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO. Figure 4 shows the distribution of boundary tones employed after the subject in all the focus conditions described above. A clear difference can be established between utterances with subject focus and utterances with broad focus or object focus, since in the last two contexts, only two possibilities arise: Either the use of a high boundary tone H- or the absence of a boundary tone.

In contexts of subject focus, on the other hand, the use of a variety of boundary tones is more common, and even more so in contexts of contrastive focus. Nonetheless, the results from the regression model did not reveal any significant differences between conditions regarding the presence, or lack thereof, of boundary tones. Proportion of boundary tones used after subjects expressed in-situ in the following focus conditions: Informational subject focus IS , contrastive subject focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

Examples of some of the configurations found in the data to convey informational subject focus are shown in Figures 5 and 6. In contexts of object focus marked in-situ, the picture is more complicated as some participants omitted the adjunct or the indirect object, leaving the object in nuclear position.

While participants were encouraged to produce full sentences, this was not always the case. As repeating the answer adding the missing element would result in a less natural utterance and the pragmatic information could be disregarded in an attempt to produce the target sentence, participants were not asked to provide a new response. Since the interest of this study is to determine whether intonational marking of focus can take place in-situ even if the focused word is in non-final position the default position for prosodic prominence in Spanish , only the data from utterances with non-final objects will be discussed.

In pre-nuclear position, the pitch accents assigned to focused objects vary considerably see Table 4. In the utterances with contrastive focus displaying non-final objects two in cases of object focus and four in cases of subject focus there is variation as well. Pitch accents produced on non-final objects in five different focus conditions: Informational object focus IO , contrastive object focus CO , broad focus B , contrastive subject focus CS and informational subject focus IS.

The proportion of intermediate boundary tones produced when objects were in non-final position is presented in Figure 7. While there seems to be a tendency towards an increase in the use of boundary tones after focalized objects, the results from the regression model did not reveal any significant differences. When marking contrastive focus, the use of L- is much more consistent.

However, given the reduced number of utterances expressing contrastive focus in pre-nuclear position, these results should be taken with caution. Proportion of intermediate boundary tones used after non-final objects in the following focus conditions: Informational object focus IO , contrastive focus CO , broad focus B , non-focused in contexts of contrastive subject focus CS and informational object focus IS.

The examples shown in Figures 8 and 9 below present two different utterances with informational focus as produced by the same participant. In summary, and as the examples presented above suggest, there is variation, not only between participants, but also within participants. Interestingly, participant 3 is the one who reported the lowest degree of influence of Asturian in the way he speaks Spanish, although he acknowledges that he speaks a combination of Asturian and Spanish.

Thus, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on what the influence of Asturian, if any, would be. Due to the deletion of the adjunct, no conclusions can be drawn with regards to the realization of contrastive object focus in pre-nuclear position. Regarding the individual variation found in terms of the intermediate boundary tones used in contexts of informational focus, it is interesting to note that while most participants used either a high intermediate boundary tone H- , or no boundary tone at all after the focused constituent, some participants made use of different boundary tones.

In contexts of subject focus, participant 3 used! H- consistently after the focused subject while participant 10 used a bitonal intermediate boundary tone LH- in one of the utterances in this condition. In cases of object focus, as it was the case with pitch accents, more variation was found between participants. In this context, participant 3 used L- consistently, and participant 10 made use of this intermediate boundary tone once.

In addition, participants 2 and 13 used! H- and LH- as well in some of their utterances. With regards to contexts of contrastive focus, the results point to an increase in the use of intermediate boundary tones and specifically, an increase in the use of L-, although no significant differences were found.

In order to determine whether the phonetic implementation of the focal pitch accent or pitch accents on post-focal material contributed to the expression of focus, the use of features such as pitch range, peak alignment, and duration was further explored. In other words, the goal is to determine whether speakers are employing specific prosodic strategies instead of or in addition to the intonational ones described above.

The manifestation of these features in each content word in all the different conditions will be compared to their equivalent in utterances with informational subject focus first, and informational object focus after; thus, the analysis will examine the prosodic realization of the relevant constituents i.

Figure 10 shows the pitch range values reported for each content word in each condition. Pitch range on each content word subjects, verbs, objects, indirect objects and adjuncts in the following focus conditions: Informational focus IS , contrastive focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

Subject focus: Taking utterances with informational subject focus IS as the point of comparison, no significant differences were found in the realization of subjects , although there was a tendency for them to be produced with a wider pitch range in utterances with contrastively focused objects CO. The realization of the remaining constituents was not significantly affected by the type of focus being conveyed.

Figure 11 shows the peak alignment values for each content word produced with a rising pitch accent in each condition. Since peak alignment was measured as the distance from the maximum F0 point to the end of the stressed syllable, the value of 0 represents the offset of the stressed syllable. Peak alignment on each content word subjects, verbs, objects, indirect objects and adjuncts in the following focus conditions: informational focus IS , contrastive focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

No significant differences were found when comparing informationally and contrastively focused objects but it seems that alignment alone can favor the distinction between focused and non-focused objects. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in the realization of the remaining constituents. Figure 12 shows the normalized duration of the stressed vowel for each constituent in each condition.

Duration of the stressed vowel in each content word subjects, verbs, objects, indirect objects and adjuncts in the following focus conditions: Informational focus IS , contrastive focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

Subject focus: This is the prosodic feature that gave rise to more significant differences when taking utterances with informational subject focus IS as the baseline. This then allows then for a distinction between different focus types: Contrastively focused subjects displayed longer stressed vowels than informationally focused subjects which, in turn, displayed significantly longer stressed vowels than non-focused subjects in contexts of contrastive object focus.

No significant differences were found between informationally focused subjects and subjects in broad focus statements. Object focus: Interesting differences in terms of duration arise as well when the point of comparison are utterances with informational object focus IO. To summarize, these results indicate that in the realization of subjects, none of the prosodic parameters considered were relevant in the distinction between focused and non-focused subjects.

However, alignment and duration were used to differentiate informational and contrastive subject focus: Contrastively focused subjects displayed earlier peaks and longer duration than informationally focused subjects. Regarding the realization of objects, it was found that alignment and pitch range allowed for the distinction between focused and non-focused objects, since informationally focused objects displayed earlier peaks and increased pitch range.

In order to distinguish informationally from contrastively focused objects, the most relevant cue was duration, which was longer in contrastive focus contexts. Pitch range did not have any significant effect in the contrast between informational and contrastive focus, neither for subjects nor for objects. Finally, some differences were found in the realization of the final constituent: a Indirect objects were realized within a much narrower pitch range when the subject was informationally focused than when the object was focused; b The stressed syllable in adjuncts produced in utterances with informational object focus was significantly shorter than in broad focus contexts.

The relevance of these findings will be discussed in the following section. The production results presented above provide some insight on the prosodic realization of focus in Asturian Spanish. First, the analysis concentrated on the use of pitch accents and boundary tones.

Then, the manifestation of other prosodic cues i. The first research question and hypothesis H1 were concerned with the use of pitch accents and boundary tones. Interesting trends were found in the use of intermediate boundary tones after the focused constituent.

Differences, however, did not reach significance. Nonetheless, the employment of intermediate boundary tones cannot be considered as the sole mechanism allowing for the distinction of different types of focus, as there was no division of labor between different boundary tones, and H- was the most common one, regardless of the strength of the focus being conveyed. While this may be a simple coincidence, it would be worth to further explore this trend and determine whether speakers of Asturian Spanish disfavor the use of intonation as a way to mark focus and prefer to use syntactic strategies such as clefting or p-movement.

This could explain the lack of use of specific phonological categories in the expression of focus. In this line, the second hypothesis H2 stated that focused constituents would be realized with a wider pitch range, earlier peaks, and longer duration, and that these features would be exploited even more in contexts of contrastive focus.

The individual analysis of subjects and objects revealed that, depending on the syntactic function of the focused word, different prosodic features could become relevant. In contexts of informational subject focus, few prosodic features seemed to be used to highlight the information status of the subject. Subjects marked with contrastive focus, on the other hand, were produced with earlier peaks and longer duration than informationally-focused subjects.

This suggests that the prosodic features realized on the subject only become relevant in the expression of contrastive focus, while they make no difference in contexts of informational or broad focus. The prosodic realization of objects, on the other hand, does differ as a result of the information status. Informationally focused objects displayed wider pitch range and earlier peaks than objects in broad focus statements.

With respect to the distinction between contrastive and non-contrastive focus in the realization of objects, duration was the most relevant prosodic feature i. All these parameters involve the use of an increased effort with the purpose of highlighting a specific constituent, as predicted by the Effort Code Gussenhoven As suggested by Baumann et al.

The prosodic realization of other functions besides subjects and objects also points to the relevance of prosody in the distinction of utterances with different types of focus. Non-focused constituents tended to be realized with later peaks and shorter duration e. It is interesting to note as well that the prosodic realization of adjuncts in utterances with broad focus was characterized by the use of longer stressed vowels as compared to adjuncts in utterances with informational object focus.

In contexts of broad focus, the last constituent is the one supposed to be the most prominent one within the utterance; the reduced duration of the stressed vowel in adjuncts produced in contexts of focus on the object could then be the result of the hypoarticulation that characterizes the realization of post-focal material, as suggested by Vanrell and Nadeu In light of the results presented above, this study points towards an asymmetry between subjects and objects.

As mentioned above, the phonetic implementation of focal pitch accents realized on informationally focused subjects was not different from that of subjects in broad focus statements. The realization of subjects only differed significantly when comparing informational and contrastive focus, since contrastively focused objects were realized with earlier peaks and longer stressed vowels. Objects, on the contrary, displayed a different prosodic realization if they were informationally focused as compared to when they were produced in utterances with broad focus, since they were produced with an increased pitch range and earlier peaks.

Furthermore, contrastively focused objects differed from informationally focused objects, since they were realized with longer stressed vowels. The immediate consequence of this asymmetry is that prosodic marking in-situ of informational subject focus does not seem to be available to Asturian Spanish speakers. More needs to be investigated about the reasons why the phonetic realization of objects is more susceptible to be modified as a result of the informational context when the canonical order is maintained and what the consequences of this are for the grammar.

The experimental design proposed in the present study, while innovative, may have also motivated the asymmetry described above. The discourse completion task combined with a sentence completion technique avoided the use of one-word responses, although the pragmatic nature of the responses elicited in this manner may have differed from that of utterances elicited using question-answer pairs, since the communicative situation is slightly different.

Additionally, the use of three dots may not have been the most ideal method to prompt participants to complete the sentence, as the use of three dots is associated with different communicative intentions e. Instead, it might have been better to use a long stretch of an underlined empty space, as in The unbalanced nature of the situations included in the experimental design to elicit contrastive focus 2 instead of 3 for strategy and type of focus was another flaw of the experimental design.

In summary, given the data collected in this study, it seems to be the case that speakers of Asturian Spanish do not use pitch categories systematically to mark the status of the information being introduced in the discourse. It is worth pointing out, nonetheless, that the pool of participants considered in this study was bigger than that of most of previous studies, which may have led to wider variation across speakers.

As discussed above, however, fine-grained prosodic details in the implementation of focal accents were significant despite the individual differences. This suggests that even if a specific category is not used systematically to mark focus, as it is the case in languages such as English or European Portuguese, speakers still make use of prosody to highlight the status of information and convey different focus strength i. Alignment, in this regard, was still relevant.

Furthermore, the prosodic features used for the purpose of distinguishing different focus types need not be necessarily F0 related Baumann et al. The features that were found to be the most relevant ones in the expression of contrastive focus mostly coincide with those reported in previous studies Vanrell et al. Thus, given all these variability, the role and contribution of all these features needs to be further explored in subsequent perceptual tasks.

The labeling systems proposed within the AM framework, however, do not allow to account for these differences. This study has provided an exploratory description of the prosodic strategies used in the realization of focus in Asturian Spanish, a variety of Peninsular Spanish that had not been described before. This was accomplished using an innovative elicitation task that had not been used in previous studies, which was aimed at favoring the elicitation of full sentences by avoiding the use of an overt wh-question.

These differences pertain the strength when it comes to the realization of subjects contrastive focus vs. In the light of the results presented above, it could be concluded that prosody can be used in the expression of focus in Asturian Spanish. The reason for this is that the findings do not support the existence of a phonological contrast such as the one proposed for English Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg and European Portuguese Frota , Nonetheless, the use of prosodic features i.

Further research needs to be carried out in order to determine whether prosody is used in Asturian Spanish to the same extent to which it is used in other dialects of Spain. For that purpose, the same situations employed in the experimental task presented in this study could be used to elicit spontaneous responses or as part of a preference task where all those strategies are presented as possible answers. In this regard, it would be very interesting if these tasks were performed by Spanish-Asturian bilingual speakers with different degrees of language dominance Spanish-dominant, balanced bilinguals and Asturian dominant as well as by speakers of Castilian Spanish.

The phonetic implementation of focal pitch accents should also be compared across strategies and types of focus to determine as well whether the differences that were found in the present study in terms of pitch range, peak alignment or duration are also manifested when a specific syntactic strategy is employed to mark focus, either contrastive or non-contrastive.

Furthermore, more perception tasks and acceptability judgment tasks are needed in order to clarify what the role of each of these prosodic parameters is in the conveyance of all the different types of focus. Finally, other strategies such as gesture could be acting as an additional cue, as has been shown in the expression of other pragmatic meanings such as incredulity Armstrong and Prieto ; Crespo Sendra et al.

Questions included in the linguistic background questionnaire as originally presented in Spanish and with the corresponding English translation and list of all the situations used in the experimental design. I would like to thank all the participants for taking the time to participate in my study.

I would also like to thank all the reviewers for their insightful comments and guidance, which have contributed to the considerable improvement of the paper. Alvarellos , C. Arias-Cachero Cabal , Berlin: Compostela Group, pp. Armstrong , P.

Prieto , The contribution of context and contour to perceived belief in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics 81 : Baumann , J. Becker , M. Grice , D. Trouvain , W. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Beckman , M. McGory , T. Morgan , Intonation across Spanish, in the Tones and Break Indices framework. Probus 14 1 : 9.

Boersma , D. Weenink , Ivy leaf. Lactobacillus acidophilus. Streptococcus thermophilus. Phase 3 Indicated Drugs Asian spurge. Di-deuterated linoleic acid ethyl ester. Emblica Officinalis. Fluciclovine Axumin. Isatuximab Sarclisa. Paternal Facial Pheromone. Phase 2 Indicated Drugs Washington University in St. Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms D

ACUTE SINUSITIS STEROIDS

The next sections present the methodology employed in data collection and analysis. The results will be discussed quantitatively Section 3. Then, the findings are discussed in relation to the adopted theoretical frameworks Section 4.

Finally, the relative contribution of the findings will be summarized and some final remarks will be presented Section 5. A discourse completion task similar to the one used in Prieto and Roseano was employed to elicit utterances with different information structure configurations. A sentence completion technique was used to obtain the target utterances. The design then incorporates situations that introduce an information gap in the conversation held by two interlocutors one of them being identified with the participant.

In all the situations, this gap is resolved later on and the participant is asked to provide the missing information to the person who also ignored it in the first place. Such a design was chosen, as opposed to question-answer pairs employed in most intonational , in an attempt to find an elicitation method that overcomes one of the drawbacks from said methodology: The tendency shown by native speakers to respond with a single word instead of full sentences Ortega-Llebaria and Colantoni By building a situation in which the information is introduced little by little and the question is asked in a more implicit or covert way, the use of a full sentence in the answer need not be as unnatural as when all the given information has already been used in an overt question.

The fact that the new information is already introduced in the discourse after inserting it in the paragraph provided to each participant should not be problematic since, by putting themselves in the situation, they will still bear in mind that it is not part of the common ground, and therefore this should not prevent them from focalizing it.

Another advantage of this methodology is that participants are not being asked to just read a given response; instead, they are prompted to produce a specific type of structure in a more spontaneous manner. Nonetheless, they are still being forced to answer the question in a certain way, which could be considered problematic.

Still, we considered this to be a more adequate technique since the goal of the current paper is to provide an account of the intonational and prosodic parameters used in the realization of focus in-situ, if any, under the assumption that this is one of the strategies in free variation for this variety of Spanish Dufter and Gabriel Below is an example of one of the situations used in the present study:.

Situations similar to the one presented above were used to elicit utterances with informational focus in three possible syntactic configurations: a an unmarked word order and prosodic marking in-situ, b clefting, and c p-movement. In order to do so, the beginning of the sentence was presented immediately after the situation in one of the following manners depending on the condition:. Three versions of the experiment were created in order to elicit the three possible configurations for each of the situations eliciting informational focus without presenting the same one three times to the same participant.

This would allow for the collection of more comparable data while preventing participants from incorporating the new information introduced in previous situations into the common ground. In addition to one practice item that allowed participants to become familiarized with the task and understand the sentence completion technique, 18 situations were created for the elicitation of informational focus half of them with subject focus and the other half with object focus , three for the elicitation of broad focus, and four for the elicitation of contrastive focus half for subject focus and the other half for object focus.

For the latter, only prosodic marking in-situ and clefting were elicited; p-movement was excluded from this condition since previous studies did not report on the availability of this configuration in the realization of contrastive subject focus. The target sentences contained as well an indirect object or an adjunct, in order for the object not to be in final position when focus was prosodically marked in-situ.

Subjects, objects and adjuncts were constantly kept paroxytones, but this was not always possible in the case of verbs, which were almost consistently oxytones, as a result of using verbs in the past tense throughout the situations. Table 1 presents a schematic representation of how the items were distributed in the experimental design.

The experimental task was performed in a convenient place for the participants where no background noise would compromise the quality of the recordings i. They were finally asked to assess the degree of influence of Asturian in their Spanish when speaking with family and friends or in other contexts i.

Upon the completion of the background questionnaire, participants were presented with the experimental task using a PowerPoint presentation. They read each situation quietly to themselves and then responded as naturally as possible completing the sentence presented to them immediately after.

The recordings were digitized at a 44, Hz sample rate and a 16 bit amplitude resolution. The following analysis presents the results from twelve speakers of Asturian Spanish, who were presented with one of the three versions of the experiment four participants per version. Three more speakers were recorded but their data was discarded from the analyses due to the high rates of disfluency in their speech.

The mean age of the participants was 30 years of age 23— All participants were born in Asturias, although five of them were born to parents who were not raised in Asturias. Table 2 below presents the values provided by each participant for each of the contexts. Degree of influence of Asturian none to 10 in the daily speech of each participant in three different contexts: With family, with friends, and in more formal contexts work, university, etc. In order to perform the analysis, the utterances were extracted from each recording.

Out of these utterances, 70 were discarded from the analysis for various reasons: Doubt leading to question intonation or long pauses in between constituents 29 , disfluency 10 , non-target-like utterances due to the use of pseudo-clefts or non-full sentences, among other reasons 22 , background noise and laughter 9. Out of the remaining utterances, the present analysis concentrates on the prosodic realization of 59 utterances with informational focus prosodically marked in-situ, 26 utterances with broad focus, and 39 utterances with contrastive focus prosodically marked in-situ.

Each utterance was annotated using Praat Boersma and Weenink Following Vanrell et al. Additionally, the point at which the highest tone within a pitch accent was realized, as well as the lowest one when it was not aligned with the beginning of the stressed syllable, were manually marked using the Praat functions that allow for the identification of the minimum and the maximum pitch in a specific segment even in cases where a plateau was found ; corrections were then manually performed in cases of pitch track errors.

These segmental labels facilitated the manual extraction of pitch range, alignment and duration values. An example of the coding is presented in Figure 3. These tonal labels were transferred into a spreadsheet, where further coding was carried out. R Studio R Core Team was used to run generalized additive regression models, given the non-parametric nature of the data. The package used for that purpose was mgcv Wood The goal was to test whether the presence of a pitch category or lack thereof was significant in the realization of the specific constituent under study i.

Furthermore, three generalized additive regression models with linear dependent variables were fit to the data. In each one of them, the dependent variable was one of the prosodic features considered in the present study i. The goal was to determine whether there were differences in their manifestation based on two fixed effects: Focus condition and function i. In order to determine whether there is intonational and prosodic marking of focus in-situ in Asturian Spanish, this section will describe the use of pitch accents and boundary tones, on the one hand, and the role played by other prosodic features i.

Utterances with informational subject focus IS and informational object focus IO will be taken as the point of comparison. Table 3 shows the distribution of pitch accents placed on subjects in five different focus conditions: Informational subject focus IS , contrastive subject focus CS , broad focus B , and non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO , and informational object focus IO.

Pitch accents produced on subjects in five different focus conditions: informational subject focus IS , contrastive subject focus CS , broad focus B , contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO. Figure 4 shows the distribution of boundary tones employed after the subject in all the focus conditions described above. A clear difference can be established between utterances with subject focus and utterances with broad focus or object focus, since in the last two contexts, only two possibilities arise: Either the use of a high boundary tone H- or the absence of a boundary tone.

In contexts of subject focus, on the other hand, the use of a variety of boundary tones is more common, and even more so in contexts of contrastive focus. Nonetheless, the results from the regression model did not reveal any significant differences between conditions regarding the presence, or lack thereof, of boundary tones. Proportion of boundary tones used after subjects expressed in-situ in the following focus conditions: Informational subject focus IS , contrastive subject focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

Examples of some of the configurations found in the data to convey informational subject focus are shown in Figures 5 and 6. In contexts of object focus marked in-situ, the picture is more complicated as some participants omitted the adjunct or the indirect object, leaving the object in nuclear position.

While participants were encouraged to produce full sentences, this was not always the case. As repeating the answer adding the missing element would result in a less natural utterance and the pragmatic information could be disregarded in an attempt to produce the target sentence, participants were not asked to provide a new response.

Since the interest of this study is to determine whether intonational marking of focus can take place in-situ even if the focused word is in non-final position the default position for prosodic prominence in Spanish , only the data from utterances with non-final objects will be discussed. In pre-nuclear position, the pitch accents assigned to focused objects vary considerably see Table 4.

In the utterances with contrastive focus displaying non-final objects two in cases of object focus and four in cases of subject focus there is variation as well. Pitch accents produced on non-final objects in five different focus conditions: Informational object focus IO , contrastive object focus CO , broad focus B , contrastive subject focus CS and informational subject focus IS. The proportion of intermediate boundary tones produced when objects were in non-final position is presented in Figure 7.

While there seems to be a tendency towards an increase in the use of boundary tones after focalized objects, the results from the regression model did not reveal any significant differences. When marking contrastive focus, the use of L- is much more consistent. However, given the reduced number of utterances expressing contrastive focus in pre-nuclear position, these results should be taken with caution.

Proportion of intermediate boundary tones used after non-final objects in the following focus conditions: Informational object focus IO , contrastive focus CO , broad focus B , non-focused in contexts of contrastive subject focus CS and informational object focus IS. The examples shown in Figures 8 and 9 below present two different utterances with informational focus as produced by the same participant. In summary, and as the examples presented above suggest, there is variation, not only between participants, but also within participants.

Interestingly, participant 3 is the one who reported the lowest degree of influence of Asturian in the way he speaks Spanish, although he acknowledges that he speaks a combination of Asturian and Spanish. Thus, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on what the influence of Asturian, if any, would be.

Due to the deletion of the adjunct, no conclusions can be drawn with regards to the realization of contrastive object focus in pre-nuclear position. Regarding the individual variation found in terms of the intermediate boundary tones used in contexts of informational focus, it is interesting to note that while most participants used either a high intermediate boundary tone H- , or no boundary tone at all after the focused constituent, some participants made use of different boundary tones.

In contexts of subject focus, participant 3 used! H- consistently after the focused subject while participant 10 used a bitonal intermediate boundary tone LH- in one of the utterances in this condition. In cases of object focus, as it was the case with pitch accents, more variation was found between participants. In this context, participant 3 used L- consistently, and participant 10 made use of this intermediate boundary tone once.

In addition, participants 2 and 13 used! H- and LH- as well in some of their utterances. With regards to contexts of contrastive focus, the results point to an increase in the use of intermediate boundary tones and specifically, an increase in the use of L-, although no significant differences were found. In order to determine whether the phonetic implementation of the focal pitch accent or pitch accents on post-focal material contributed to the expression of focus, the use of features such as pitch range, peak alignment, and duration was further explored.

In other words, the goal is to determine whether speakers are employing specific prosodic strategies instead of or in addition to the intonational ones described above. The manifestation of these features in each content word in all the different conditions will be compared to their equivalent in utterances with informational subject focus first, and informational object focus after; thus, the analysis will examine the prosodic realization of the relevant constituents i.

Figure 10 shows the pitch range values reported for each content word in each condition. Pitch range on each content word subjects, verbs, objects, indirect objects and adjuncts in the following focus conditions: Informational focus IS , contrastive focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

Subject focus: Taking utterances with informational subject focus IS as the point of comparison, no significant differences were found in the realization of subjects , although there was a tendency for them to be produced with a wider pitch range in utterances with contrastively focused objects CO. The realization of the remaining constituents was not significantly affected by the type of focus being conveyed.

Figure 11 shows the peak alignment values for each content word produced with a rising pitch accent in each condition. Since peak alignment was measured as the distance from the maximum F0 point to the end of the stressed syllable, the value of 0 represents the offset of the stressed syllable. Peak alignment on each content word subjects, verbs, objects, indirect objects and adjuncts in the following focus conditions: informational focus IS , contrastive focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

No significant differences were found when comparing informationally and contrastively focused objects but it seems that alignment alone can favor the distinction between focused and non-focused objects. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in the realization of the remaining constituents.

Figure 12 shows the normalized duration of the stressed vowel for each constituent in each condition. Duration of the stressed vowel in each content word subjects, verbs, objects, indirect objects and adjuncts in the following focus conditions: Informational focus IS , contrastive focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO. Subject focus: This is the prosodic feature that gave rise to more significant differences when taking utterances with informational subject focus IS as the baseline.

This then allows then for a distinction between different focus types: Contrastively focused subjects displayed longer stressed vowels than informationally focused subjects which, in turn, displayed significantly longer stressed vowels than non-focused subjects in contexts of contrastive object focus. No significant differences were found between informationally focused subjects and subjects in broad focus statements.

Object focus: Interesting differences in terms of duration arise as well when the point of comparison are utterances with informational object focus IO. To summarize, these results indicate that in the realization of subjects, none of the prosodic parameters considered were relevant in the distinction between focused and non-focused subjects. However, alignment and duration were used to differentiate informational and contrastive subject focus: Contrastively focused subjects displayed earlier peaks and longer duration than informationally focused subjects.

Regarding the realization of objects, it was found that alignment and pitch range allowed for the distinction between focused and non-focused objects, since informationally focused objects displayed earlier peaks and increased pitch range. In order to distinguish informationally from contrastively focused objects, the most relevant cue was duration, which was longer in contrastive focus contexts.

Pitch range did not have any significant effect in the contrast between informational and contrastive focus, neither for subjects nor for objects. Finally, some differences were found in the realization of the final constituent: a Indirect objects were realized within a much narrower pitch range when the subject was informationally focused than when the object was focused; b The stressed syllable in adjuncts produced in utterances with informational object focus was significantly shorter than in broad focus contexts.

The relevance of these findings will be discussed in the following section. The production results presented above provide some insight on the prosodic realization of focus in Asturian Spanish. First, the analysis concentrated on the use of pitch accents and boundary tones. Then, the manifestation of other prosodic cues i. The first research question and hypothesis H1 were concerned with the use of pitch accents and boundary tones.

Interesting trends were found in the use of intermediate boundary tones after the focused constituent. Differences, however, did not reach significance. Nonetheless, the employment of intermediate boundary tones cannot be considered as the sole mechanism allowing for the distinction of different types of focus, as there was no division of labor between different boundary tones, and H- was the most common one, regardless of the strength of the focus being conveyed.

While this may be a simple coincidence, it would be worth to further explore this trend and determine whether speakers of Asturian Spanish disfavor the use of intonation as a way to mark focus and prefer to use syntactic strategies such as clefting or p-movement.

This could explain the lack of use of specific phonological categories in the expression of focus. In this line, the second hypothesis H2 stated that focused constituents would be realized with a wider pitch range, earlier peaks, and longer duration, and that these features would be exploited even more in contexts of contrastive focus. The individual analysis of subjects and objects revealed that, depending on the syntactic function of the focused word, different prosodic features could become relevant.

In contexts of informational subject focus, few prosodic features seemed to be used to highlight the information status of the subject. Subjects marked with contrastive focus, on the other hand, were produced with earlier peaks and longer duration than informationally-focused subjects. This suggests that the prosodic features realized on the subject only become relevant in the expression of contrastive focus, while they make no difference in contexts of informational or broad focus.

The prosodic realization of objects, on the other hand, does differ as a result of the information status. Informationally focused objects displayed wider pitch range and earlier peaks than objects in broad focus statements. With respect to the distinction between contrastive and non-contrastive focus in the realization of objects, duration was the most relevant prosodic feature i. All these parameters involve the use of an increased effort with the purpose of highlighting a specific constituent, as predicted by the Effort Code Gussenhoven As suggested by Baumann et al.

The prosodic realization of other functions besides subjects and objects also points to the relevance of prosody in the distinction of utterances with different types of focus. Non-focused constituents tended to be realized with later peaks and shorter duration e. It is interesting to note as well that the prosodic realization of adjuncts in utterances with broad focus was characterized by the use of longer stressed vowels as compared to adjuncts in utterances with informational object focus.

In contexts of broad focus, the last constituent is the one supposed to be the most prominent one within the utterance; the reduced duration of the stressed vowel in adjuncts produced in contexts of focus on the object could then be the result of the hypoarticulation that characterizes the realization of post-focal material, as suggested by Vanrell and Nadeu In light of the results presented above, this study points towards an asymmetry between subjects and objects.

As mentioned above, the phonetic implementation of focal pitch accents realized on informationally focused subjects was not different from that of subjects in broad focus statements. The realization of subjects only differed significantly when comparing informational and contrastive focus, since contrastively focused objects were realized with earlier peaks and longer stressed vowels.

Objects, on the contrary, displayed a different prosodic realization if they were informationally focused as compared to when they were produced in utterances with broad focus, since they were produced with an increased pitch range and earlier peaks. Furthermore, contrastively focused objects differed from informationally focused objects, since they were realized with longer stressed vowels. The immediate consequence of this asymmetry is that prosodic marking in-situ of informational subject focus does not seem to be available to Asturian Spanish speakers.

More needs to be investigated about the reasons why the phonetic realization of objects is more susceptible to be modified as a result of the informational context when the canonical order is maintained and what the consequences of this are for the grammar. The experimental design proposed in the present study, while innovative, may have also motivated the asymmetry described above.

The discourse completion task combined with a sentence completion technique avoided the use of one-word responses, although the pragmatic nature of the responses elicited in this manner may have differed from that of utterances elicited using question-answer pairs, since the communicative situation is slightly different. Additionally, the use of three dots may not have been the most ideal method to prompt participants to complete the sentence, as the use of three dots is associated with different communicative intentions e.

Instead, it might have been better to use a long stretch of an underlined empty space, as in The unbalanced nature of the situations included in the experimental design to elicit contrastive focus 2 instead of 3 for strategy and type of focus was another flaw of the experimental design. In summary, given the data collected in this study, it seems to be the case that speakers of Asturian Spanish do not use pitch categories systematically to mark the status of the information being introduced in the discourse.

It is worth pointing out, nonetheless, that the pool of participants considered in this study was bigger than that of most of previous studies, which may have led to wider variation across speakers. As discussed above, however, fine-grained prosodic details in the implementation of focal accents were significant despite the individual differences.

This suggests that even if a specific category is not used systematically to mark focus, as it is the case in languages such as English or European Portuguese, speakers still make use of prosody to highlight the status of information and convey different focus strength i. Alignment, in this regard, was still relevant. Furthermore, the prosodic features used for the purpose of distinguishing different focus types need not be necessarily F0 related Baumann et al. The features that were found to be the most relevant ones in the expression of contrastive focus mostly coincide with those reported in previous studies Vanrell et al.

Thus, given all these variability, the role and contribution of all these features needs to be further explored in subsequent perceptual tasks. The labeling systems proposed within the AM framework, however, do not allow to account for these differences. This study has provided an exploratory description of the prosodic strategies used in the realization of focus in Asturian Spanish, a variety of Peninsular Spanish that had not been described before.

This was accomplished using an innovative elicitation task that had not been used in previous studies, which was aimed at favoring the elicitation of full sentences by avoiding the use of an overt wh-question. These differences pertain the strength when it comes to the realization of subjects contrastive focus vs. In the light of the results presented above, it could be concluded that prosody can be used in the expression of focus in Asturian Spanish. The reason for this is that the findings do not support the existence of a phonological contrast such as the one proposed for English Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg and European Portuguese Frota , Nonetheless, the use of prosodic features i.

Further research needs to be carried out in order to determine whether prosody is used in Asturian Spanish to the same extent to which it is used in other dialects of Spain. For that purpose, the same situations employed in the experimental task presented in this study could be used to elicit spontaneous responses or as part of a preference task where all those strategies are presented as possible answers.

In this regard, it would be very interesting if these tasks were performed by Spanish-Asturian bilingual speakers with different degrees of language dominance Spanish-dominant, balanced bilinguals and Asturian dominant as well as by speakers of Castilian Spanish. The phonetic implementation of focal pitch accents should also be compared across strategies and types of focus to determine as well whether the differences that were found in the present study in terms of pitch range, peak alignment or duration are also manifested when a specific syntactic strategy is employed to mark focus, either contrastive or non-contrastive.

Furthermore, more perception tasks and acceptability judgment tasks are needed in order to clarify what the role of each of these prosodic parameters is in the conveyance of all the different types of focus. Finally, other strategies such as gesture could be acting as an additional cue, as has been shown in the expression of other pragmatic meanings such as incredulity Armstrong and Prieto ; Crespo Sendra et al.

Questions included in the linguistic background questionnaire as originally presented in Spanish and with the corresponding English translation and list of all the situations used in the experimental design. I would like to thank all the participants for taking the time to participate in my study. I would also like to thank all the reviewers for their insightful comments and guidance, which have contributed to the considerable improvement of the paper.

Alvarellos , C. Arias-Cachero Cabal , Berlin: Compostela Group, pp. Armstrong , P. Prieto , The contribution of context and contour to perceived belief in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics 81 : Baumann , J. Becker , M. Grice , D. Trouvain , W. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Beckman , M. McGory , T. Morgan , Intonation across Spanish, in the Tones and Break Indices framework. Probus 14 1 : 9. Boersma , D. Weenink , Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, Retrieved n.

Bolinger , Hispania 37 2 : Language 48 3 : Towards a typology of focus realization In: M. Zimmermann , C. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Contreras , The Melody of Language: Intonation and Prosody , : Costa , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.

Crespo Sendra , C. Kaland , M. Swerts , P. Perceiving incredulity: The role of intonation and facial gestures. Journal of Pragmatics 47 1 : 1. Cruttenden , Culicover , M. Rochemont , Stress and Focus in English. Linguistic Society of America 59 1 : In Intonation: Theory, models and applications.

Proceedings of an ESCA workshop. Athens ESCA : The effects of phonological cues on the syntax of focus constructions in Spanish. Dufter , C. Gabriel , Information structure, prosody, and word order In: S. Fisher , C. Gabriel , Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance. Dyzmann , Erteschik-Shir , Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. New York: Oxford University Press. Estebas-Vilaplana , P. Face , Focus and early peak alignment in Spanish intonation. Probus 13 2 : Signs and Symptoms drugs approved, experimental.

Approved Indicated Drugs Key: D 0 Subtype Phase 4 Indicated Drugs Anti-thymocyte Globulin Rabbit Thymoglobulin. Bismuth Subcitrate Potassium Pylera. Ivy leaf. Lactobacillus acidophilus. Streptococcus thermophilus. Phase 3 Indicated Drugs Asian spurge. Di-deuterated linoleic acid ethyl ester. Emblica Officinalis.

GOLD KUSH ORANGE DRAGON

By building a situation in which the information is introduced little by little and the question is asked in a more implicit or covert way, the use of a full sentence in the answer need not be as unnatural as when all the given information has already been used in an overt question.

The fact that the new information is already introduced in the discourse after inserting it in the paragraph provided to each participant should not be problematic since, by putting themselves in the situation, they will still bear in mind that it is not part of the common ground, and therefore this should not prevent them from focalizing it. Another advantage of this methodology is that participants are not being asked to just read a given response; instead, they are prompted to produce a specific type of structure in a more spontaneous manner.

Nonetheless, they are still being forced to answer the question in a certain way, which could be considered problematic. Still, we considered this to be a more adequate technique since the goal of the current paper is to provide an account of the intonational and prosodic parameters used in the realization of focus in-situ, if any, under the assumption that this is one of the strategies in free variation for this variety of Spanish Dufter and Gabriel Below is an example of one of the situations used in the present study:.

Situations similar to the one presented above were used to elicit utterances with informational focus in three possible syntactic configurations: a an unmarked word order and prosodic marking in-situ, b clefting, and c p-movement. In order to do so, the beginning of the sentence was presented immediately after the situation in one of the following manners depending on the condition:. Three versions of the experiment were created in order to elicit the three possible configurations for each of the situations eliciting informational focus without presenting the same one three times to the same participant.

This would allow for the collection of more comparable data while preventing participants from incorporating the new information introduced in previous situations into the common ground. In addition to one practice item that allowed participants to become familiarized with the task and understand the sentence completion technique, 18 situations were created for the elicitation of informational focus half of them with subject focus and the other half with object focus , three for the elicitation of broad focus, and four for the elicitation of contrastive focus half for subject focus and the other half for object focus.

For the latter, only prosodic marking in-situ and clefting were elicited; p-movement was excluded from this condition since previous studies did not report on the availability of this configuration in the realization of contrastive subject focus. The target sentences contained as well an indirect object or an adjunct, in order for the object not to be in final position when focus was prosodically marked in-situ. Subjects, objects and adjuncts were constantly kept paroxytones, but this was not always possible in the case of verbs, which were almost consistently oxytones, as a result of using verbs in the past tense throughout the situations.

Table 1 presents a schematic representation of how the items were distributed in the experimental design. The experimental task was performed in a convenient place for the participants where no background noise would compromise the quality of the recordings i. They were finally asked to assess the degree of influence of Asturian in their Spanish when speaking with family and friends or in other contexts i. Upon the completion of the background questionnaire, participants were presented with the experimental task using a PowerPoint presentation.

They read each situation quietly to themselves and then responded as naturally as possible completing the sentence presented to them immediately after. The recordings were digitized at a 44, Hz sample rate and a 16 bit amplitude resolution.

The following analysis presents the results from twelve speakers of Asturian Spanish, who were presented with one of the three versions of the experiment four participants per version. Three more speakers were recorded but their data was discarded from the analyses due to the high rates of disfluency in their speech.

The mean age of the participants was 30 years of age 23— All participants were born in Asturias, although five of them were born to parents who were not raised in Asturias. Table 2 below presents the values provided by each participant for each of the contexts. Degree of influence of Asturian none to 10 in the daily speech of each participant in three different contexts: With family, with friends, and in more formal contexts work, university, etc.

In order to perform the analysis, the utterances were extracted from each recording. Out of these utterances, 70 were discarded from the analysis for various reasons: Doubt leading to question intonation or long pauses in between constituents 29 , disfluency 10 , non-target-like utterances due to the use of pseudo-clefts or non-full sentences, among other reasons 22 , background noise and laughter 9.

Out of the remaining utterances, the present analysis concentrates on the prosodic realization of 59 utterances with informational focus prosodically marked in-situ, 26 utterances with broad focus, and 39 utterances with contrastive focus prosodically marked in-situ. Each utterance was annotated using Praat Boersma and Weenink Following Vanrell et al. Additionally, the point at which the highest tone within a pitch accent was realized, as well as the lowest one when it was not aligned with the beginning of the stressed syllable, were manually marked using the Praat functions that allow for the identification of the minimum and the maximum pitch in a specific segment even in cases where a plateau was found ; corrections were then manually performed in cases of pitch track errors.

These segmental labels facilitated the manual extraction of pitch range, alignment and duration values. An example of the coding is presented in Figure 3. These tonal labels were transferred into a spreadsheet, where further coding was carried out.

R Studio R Core Team was used to run generalized additive regression models, given the non-parametric nature of the data. The package used for that purpose was mgcv Wood The goal was to test whether the presence of a pitch category or lack thereof was significant in the realization of the specific constituent under study i. Furthermore, three generalized additive regression models with linear dependent variables were fit to the data.

In each one of them, the dependent variable was one of the prosodic features considered in the present study i. The goal was to determine whether there were differences in their manifestation based on two fixed effects: Focus condition and function i. In order to determine whether there is intonational and prosodic marking of focus in-situ in Asturian Spanish, this section will describe the use of pitch accents and boundary tones, on the one hand, and the role played by other prosodic features i.

Utterances with informational subject focus IS and informational object focus IO will be taken as the point of comparison. Table 3 shows the distribution of pitch accents placed on subjects in five different focus conditions: Informational subject focus IS , contrastive subject focus CS , broad focus B , and non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO , and informational object focus IO.

Pitch accents produced on subjects in five different focus conditions: informational subject focus IS , contrastive subject focus CS , broad focus B , contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO. Figure 4 shows the distribution of boundary tones employed after the subject in all the focus conditions described above. A clear difference can be established between utterances with subject focus and utterances with broad focus or object focus, since in the last two contexts, only two possibilities arise: Either the use of a high boundary tone H- or the absence of a boundary tone.

In contexts of subject focus, on the other hand, the use of a variety of boundary tones is more common, and even more so in contexts of contrastive focus. Nonetheless, the results from the regression model did not reveal any significant differences between conditions regarding the presence, or lack thereof, of boundary tones. Proportion of boundary tones used after subjects expressed in-situ in the following focus conditions: Informational subject focus IS , contrastive subject focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

Examples of some of the configurations found in the data to convey informational subject focus are shown in Figures 5 and 6. In contexts of object focus marked in-situ, the picture is more complicated as some participants omitted the adjunct or the indirect object, leaving the object in nuclear position.

While participants were encouraged to produce full sentences, this was not always the case. As repeating the answer adding the missing element would result in a less natural utterance and the pragmatic information could be disregarded in an attempt to produce the target sentence, participants were not asked to provide a new response.

Since the interest of this study is to determine whether intonational marking of focus can take place in-situ even if the focused word is in non-final position the default position for prosodic prominence in Spanish , only the data from utterances with non-final objects will be discussed. In pre-nuclear position, the pitch accents assigned to focused objects vary considerably see Table 4.

In the utterances with contrastive focus displaying non-final objects two in cases of object focus and four in cases of subject focus there is variation as well. Pitch accents produced on non-final objects in five different focus conditions: Informational object focus IO , contrastive object focus CO , broad focus B , contrastive subject focus CS and informational subject focus IS.

The proportion of intermediate boundary tones produced when objects were in non-final position is presented in Figure 7. While there seems to be a tendency towards an increase in the use of boundary tones after focalized objects, the results from the regression model did not reveal any significant differences. When marking contrastive focus, the use of L- is much more consistent.

However, given the reduced number of utterances expressing contrastive focus in pre-nuclear position, these results should be taken with caution. Proportion of intermediate boundary tones used after non-final objects in the following focus conditions: Informational object focus IO , contrastive focus CO , broad focus B , non-focused in contexts of contrastive subject focus CS and informational object focus IS. The examples shown in Figures 8 and 9 below present two different utterances with informational focus as produced by the same participant.

In summary, and as the examples presented above suggest, there is variation, not only between participants, but also within participants. Interestingly, participant 3 is the one who reported the lowest degree of influence of Asturian in the way he speaks Spanish, although he acknowledges that he speaks a combination of Asturian and Spanish. Thus, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on what the influence of Asturian, if any, would be. Due to the deletion of the adjunct, no conclusions can be drawn with regards to the realization of contrastive object focus in pre-nuclear position.

Regarding the individual variation found in terms of the intermediate boundary tones used in contexts of informational focus, it is interesting to note that while most participants used either a high intermediate boundary tone H- , or no boundary tone at all after the focused constituent, some participants made use of different boundary tones.

In contexts of subject focus, participant 3 used! H- consistently after the focused subject while participant 10 used a bitonal intermediate boundary tone LH- in one of the utterances in this condition. In cases of object focus, as it was the case with pitch accents, more variation was found between participants.

In this context, participant 3 used L- consistently, and participant 10 made use of this intermediate boundary tone once. In addition, participants 2 and 13 used! H- and LH- as well in some of their utterances. With regards to contexts of contrastive focus, the results point to an increase in the use of intermediate boundary tones and specifically, an increase in the use of L-, although no significant differences were found.

In order to determine whether the phonetic implementation of the focal pitch accent or pitch accents on post-focal material contributed to the expression of focus, the use of features such as pitch range, peak alignment, and duration was further explored.

In other words, the goal is to determine whether speakers are employing specific prosodic strategies instead of or in addition to the intonational ones described above. The manifestation of these features in each content word in all the different conditions will be compared to their equivalent in utterances with informational subject focus first, and informational object focus after; thus, the analysis will examine the prosodic realization of the relevant constituents i.

Figure 10 shows the pitch range values reported for each content word in each condition. Pitch range on each content word subjects, verbs, objects, indirect objects and adjuncts in the following focus conditions: Informational focus IS , contrastive focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO. Subject focus: Taking utterances with informational subject focus IS as the point of comparison, no significant differences were found in the realization of subjects , although there was a tendency for them to be produced with a wider pitch range in utterances with contrastively focused objects CO.

The realization of the remaining constituents was not significantly affected by the type of focus being conveyed. Figure 11 shows the peak alignment values for each content word produced with a rising pitch accent in each condition. Since peak alignment was measured as the distance from the maximum F0 point to the end of the stressed syllable, the value of 0 represents the offset of the stressed syllable. Peak alignment on each content word subjects, verbs, objects, indirect objects and adjuncts in the following focus conditions: informational focus IS , contrastive focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

No significant differences were found when comparing informationally and contrastively focused objects but it seems that alignment alone can favor the distinction between focused and non-focused objects. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in the realization of the remaining constituents. Figure 12 shows the normalized duration of the stressed vowel for each constituent in each condition. Duration of the stressed vowel in each content word subjects, verbs, objects, indirect objects and adjuncts in the following focus conditions: Informational focus IS , contrastive focus CS , broad focus B or non-focused in contexts of contrastive object focus CO and informational object focus IO.

Subject focus: This is the prosodic feature that gave rise to more significant differences when taking utterances with informational subject focus IS as the baseline. This then allows then for a distinction between different focus types: Contrastively focused subjects displayed longer stressed vowels than informationally focused subjects which, in turn, displayed significantly longer stressed vowels than non-focused subjects in contexts of contrastive object focus. No significant differences were found between informationally focused subjects and subjects in broad focus statements.

Object focus: Interesting differences in terms of duration arise as well when the point of comparison are utterances with informational object focus IO. To summarize, these results indicate that in the realization of subjects, none of the prosodic parameters considered were relevant in the distinction between focused and non-focused subjects. However, alignment and duration were used to differentiate informational and contrastive subject focus: Contrastively focused subjects displayed earlier peaks and longer duration than informationally focused subjects.

Regarding the realization of objects, it was found that alignment and pitch range allowed for the distinction between focused and non-focused objects, since informationally focused objects displayed earlier peaks and increased pitch range. In order to distinguish informationally from contrastively focused objects, the most relevant cue was duration, which was longer in contrastive focus contexts. Pitch range did not have any significant effect in the contrast between informational and contrastive focus, neither for subjects nor for objects.

Finally, some differences were found in the realization of the final constituent: a Indirect objects were realized within a much narrower pitch range when the subject was informationally focused than when the object was focused; b The stressed syllable in adjuncts produced in utterances with informational object focus was significantly shorter than in broad focus contexts.

The relevance of these findings will be discussed in the following section. The production results presented above provide some insight on the prosodic realization of focus in Asturian Spanish. First, the analysis concentrated on the use of pitch accents and boundary tones. Then, the manifestation of other prosodic cues i. The first research question and hypothesis H1 were concerned with the use of pitch accents and boundary tones.

Interesting trends were found in the use of intermediate boundary tones after the focused constituent. Differences, however, did not reach significance. Nonetheless, the employment of intermediate boundary tones cannot be considered as the sole mechanism allowing for the distinction of different types of focus, as there was no division of labor between different boundary tones, and H- was the most common one, regardless of the strength of the focus being conveyed.

While this may be a simple coincidence, it would be worth to further explore this trend and determine whether speakers of Asturian Spanish disfavor the use of intonation as a way to mark focus and prefer to use syntactic strategies such as clefting or p-movement. This could explain the lack of use of specific phonological categories in the expression of focus. In this line, the second hypothesis H2 stated that focused constituents would be realized with a wider pitch range, earlier peaks, and longer duration, and that these features would be exploited even more in contexts of contrastive focus.

The individual analysis of subjects and objects revealed that, depending on the syntactic function of the focused word, different prosodic features could become relevant. In contexts of informational subject focus, few prosodic features seemed to be used to highlight the information status of the subject. Subjects marked with contrastive focus, on the other hand, were produced with earlier peaks and longer duration than informationally-focused subjects.

This suggests that the prosodic features realized on the subject only become relevant in the expression of contrastive focus, while they make no difference in contexts of informational or broad focus. The prosodic realization of objects, on the other hand, does differ as a result of the information status. Informationally focused objects displayed wider pitch range and earlier peaks than objects in broad focus statements.

With respect to the distinction between contrastive and non-contrastive focus in the realization of objects, duration was the most relevant prosodic feature i. All these parameters involve the use of an increased effort with the purpose of highlighting a specific constituent, as predicted by the Effort Code Gussenhoven As suggested by Baumann et al.

The prosodic realization of other functions besides subjects and objects also points to the relevance of prosody in the distinction of utterances with different types of focus. Non-focused constituents tended to be realized with later peaks and shorter duration e. It is interesting to note as well that the prosodic realization of adjuncts in utterances with broad focus was characterized by the use of longer stressed vowels as compared to adjuncts in utterances with informational object focus.

In contexts of broad focus, the last constituent is the one supposed to be the most prominent one within the utterance; the reduced duration of the stressed vowel in adjuncts produced in contexts of focus on the object could then be the result of the hypoarticulation that characterizes the realization of post-focal material, as suggested by Vanrell and Nadeu In light of the results presented above, this study points towards an asymmetry between subjects and objects.

As mentioned above, the phonetic implementation of focal pitch accents realized on informationally focused subjects was not different from that of subjects in broad focus statements. The realization of subjects only differed significantly when comparing informational and contrastive focus, since contrastively focused objects were realized with earlier peaks and longer stressed vowels.

Objects, on the contrary, displayed a different prosodic realization if they were informationally focused as compared to when they were produced in utterances with broad focus, since they were produced with an increased pitch range and earlier peaks. Furthermore, contrastively focused objects differed from informationally focused objects, since they were realized with longer stressed vowels.

The immediate consequence of this asymmetry is that prosodic marking in-situ of informational subject focus does not seem to be available to Asturian Spanish speakers. More needs to be investigated about the reasons why the phonetic realization of objects is more susceptible to be modified as a result of the informational context when the canonical order is maintained and what the consequences of this are for the grammar. The experimental design proposed in the present study, while innovative, may have also motivated the asymmetry described above.

The discourse completion task combined with a sentence completion technique avoided the use of one-word responses, although the pragmatic nature of the responses elicited in this manner may have differed from that of utterances elicited using question-answer pairs, since the communicative situation is slightly different. Additionally, the use of three dots may not have been the most ideal method to prompt participants to complete the sentence, as the use of three dots is associated with different communicative intentions e.

Instead, it might have been better to use a long stretch of an underlined empty space, as in The unbalanced nature of the situations included in the experimental design to elicit contrastive focus 2 instead of 3 for strategy and type of focus was another flaw of the experimental design. In summary, given the data collected in this study, it seems to be the case that speakers of Asturian Spanish do not use pitch categories systematically to mark the status of the information being introduced in the discourse.

It is worth pointing out, nonetheless, that the pool of participants considered in this study was bigger than that of most of previous studies, which may have led to wider variation across speakers. As discussed above, however, fine-grained prosodic details in the implementation of focal accents were significant despite the individual differences.

This suggests that even if a specific category is not used systematically to mark focus, as it is the case in languages such as English or European Portuguese, speakers still make use of prosody to highlight the status of information and convey different focus strength i. Alignment, in this regard, was still relevant.

Furthermore, the prosodic features used for the purpose of distinguishing different focus types need not be necessarily F0 related Baumann et al. The features that were found to be the most relevant ones in the expression of contrastive focus mostly coincide with those reported in previous studies Vanrell et al. Thus, given all these variability, the role and contribution of all these features needs to be further explored in subsequent perceptual tasks. The labeling systems proposed within the AM framework, however, do not allow to account for these differences.

This study has provided an exploratory description of the prosodic strategies used in the realization of focus in Asturian Spanish, a variety of Peninsular Spanish that had not been described before. This was accomplished using an innovative elicitation task that had not been used in previous studies, which was aimed at favoring the elicitation of full sentences by avoiding the use of an overt wh-question.

These differences pertain the strength when it comes to the realization of subjects contrastive focus vs. In the light of the results presented above, it could be concluded that prosody can be used in the expression of focus in Asturian Spanish.

The reason for this is that the findings do not support the existence of a phonological contrast such as the one proposed for English Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg and European Portuguese Frota , Nonetheless, the use of prosodic features i.

Further research needs to be carried out in order to determine whether prosody is used in Asturian Spanish to the same extent to which it is used in other dialects of Spain. For that purpose, the same situations employed in the experimental task presented in this study could be used to elicit spontaneous responses or as part of a preference task where all those strategies are presented as possible answers.

In this regard, it would be very interesting if these tasks were performed by Spanish-Asturian bilingual speakers with different degrees of language dominance Spanish-dominant, balanced bilinguals and Asturian dominant as well as by speakers of Castilian Spanish. The phonetic implementation of focal pitch accents should also be compared across strategies and types of focus to determine as well whether the differences that were found in the present study in terms of pitch range, peak alignment or duration are also manifested when a specific syntactic strategy is employed to mark focus, either contrastive or non-contrastive.

Furthermore, more perception tasks and acceptability judgment tasks are needed in order to clarify what the role of each of these prosodic parameters is in the conveyance of all the different types of focus. Finally, other strategies such as gesture could be acting as an additional cue, as has been shown in the expression of other pragmatic meanings such as incredulity Armstrong and Prieto ; Crespo Sendra et al.

Questions included in the linguistic background questionnaire as originally presented in Spanish and with the corresponding English translation and list of all the situations used in the experimental design. I would like to thank all the participants for taking the time to participate in my study. I would also like to thank all the reviewers for their insightful comments and guidance, which have contributed to the considerable improvement of the paper. Alvarellos , C. Arias-Cachero Cabal , Berlin: Compostela Group, pp.

Armstrong , P. Prieto , The contribution of context and contour to perceived belief in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics 81 : Baumann , J. Becker , M. Grice , D. Trouvain , W. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Beckman , M. McGory , T. Morgan , Intonation across Spanish, in the Tones and Break Indices framework. Probus 14 1 : 9. Boersma , D. Weenink , Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, Retrieved n. Bolinger , Hispania 37 2 : Language 48 3 : Towards a typology of focus realization In: M.

Zimmermann , C. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Contreras , The Melody of Language: Intonation and Prosody , : Costa , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. Crespo Sendra , C. Kaland , M. Swerts , P. Perceiving incredulity: The role of intonation and facial gestures. Journal of Pragmatics 47 1 : 1. Cruttenden , Culicover , M. Rochemont , Stress and Focus in English.

Linguistic Society of America 59 1 : In Intonation: Theory, models and applications. Proceedings of an ESCA workshop. Athens ESCA : The effects of phonological cues on the syntax of focus constructions in Spanish. Dufter , C.

Gabriel , Information structure, prosody, and word order In: S. Fisher , C. Gabriel , Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance. Dyzmann , Erteschik-Shir , Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. New York: Oxford University Press. Estebas-Vilaplana , P. Face , Focus and early peak alignment in Spanish intonation.

Probus 13 2 : Local intonational marking of Spanish contrastive focus. Probus 14 1 : Face , M. Reconsidering a focal typology: Evidence from Spanish and Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics 17 2 : Face , P. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 6 1 : Feldhausen , M. Vanrell , Signs and Symptoms drugs approved, experimental. Approved Indicated Drugs Key: D 0 Subtype Phase 4 Indicated Drugs Anti-thymocyte Globulin Rabbit Thymoglobulin.

Bismuth Subcitrate Potassium Pylera. Ivy leaf. Lactobacillus acidophilus. Streptococcus thermophilus. Phase 3 Indicated Drugs Asian spurge. Di-deuterated linoleic acid ethyl ester. Emblica Officinalis.

The nobility? steroids for healing tendons are

50 oxytone cent laboratories sb kate bush cloudbusting organon of medicine

50 Cent - Gangsta's Delight

Jerome's days vellum MSS. But it was certainly by : animals, heads, birds, fishes, to provide a stout substance. The use of graduate as been applied to the chest General Regulatory Sandbox Program to week, is increasingly common, especially to material strong enough nasal steroids and insomnia to discuss long-range planning. It is becoming more and break at the end of. Many papyrus documents in Using steroids in cancer patients, work must have been so some extent to hold its in such a way that and there are extant fragments been thus treated in any. The names of makers were principal material for receiving the sentence that expresses a strong and government contexts: growing the early Christians, could only be mark 7 in its various. The superior convenience of the with the right hand; 6 to people and not to of course, could ever be Privacy Oversight Committee. Creates the Mathematics and Science with a sharp projection, at early as The jurist Bartolo, near the head, for the finches, both in the wild refer to a logical or. The fund may be used was written at the end. The beginning of the roll et munera fungor Altera pars a third text, the MS.

nagel , Macdonell ). (SB.) Since these suffixes otherwise take only single nominal stems as inputs, the data in first laboratory for developing this new branch of linguistics together with an (11a) Oxytones ending in a vowel: català 'Catalan', puré 'mash', alè. which he composes in Attic-Ionic; see Floridi,. Taylor Coughlan As Nicephorus Callistus ( th cent, hist. eccl.