Pragmatic orientation of syntax in spontaneous speech A corpus-based comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and Italian adverbial clauses Giulia Bossaglia Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais This paper reports on the syntax of finite adverbial clauses in spoken Brazilian Portu- guese (BP) and Italian (IT), based on C-ORAL-BRASIL and Italian C-ORAL-ROM cor- pora. The analysis of adverbial clauses here is mainly focused on the syntax/pragmatics and syntax/information structure interfaces, aiming to show significant differences in the syntax of spoken versus written language. Keywords: Language into Act Theory; syntax; spontaneous speech; Brazilian Portu- guese; Italian 1. A note on adverbial clauses Adverbial clauses are traditionally defined within the domain of subordination as dependent clauses with an adverb-like function with respect to the predicate of the main clause, in opposition to complements, functioning as noun phrases saturating the valence of the main predicate, and relatives, modifying nouns in the main clause (Longacre & Thompson 1985, Kortmann 1997, Thompson, Longacre & Hwang 2007). Adverbial clauses are typically introduced by specific morphemes (adverbial subordinators or adverbial conjunctions) carrying the lexical information speci- fying the kinds of semantic relation existing between the two clauses (Foley & Van Valin 1984, Givón 1994, Hengeveld & Wanders 2007)1. Such semantic re- 1 Kortmann (1997: 56-ff.) points at some circularity problems related to definitions of adver- bial clauses focusing on the presence of an explicit adverbial subordinator, since adverbial CHIMERA. Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 2 (2015), 1-34. ISSN 2386-2629 © 2015 The Author; distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License Giulia Bossaglia 2 lations are generally identified in temporal, conditional, cause/reason, conces- sive, means, manner (Matthiessen & Thompson 1988, cf. Longacre & Thomp- son 1985; see also Hengeveld 1993, 1998, Hengeveld & Wanders 2007 for a slightly different classification). In other terms, two states of affairs can be linked in a way that one (the ad- verbial clause) represents the circumstances in which the other (the main clause) occurs (Cristofaro 2003: 155). The codification of such circumstances is de- scribed as optional, and adverbial clauses can be not only preposed or postponed to the main clause, but also omitted without affecting its grammaticality (Hengeveld 1998). This implies that the event or state of affairs encoded by an adverbial clause is conceived as semantically autonomous from that of its main clause, in a way that is significant in order to better understand the peculiar posi- tion of these clauses within the domain of subordination itself. It is nowadays assumed that coordination and subordination are not parts of a dichotomy, but rather the endpoints of a continuum (Haiman & Thompson 1984, Lehmann 1988, Givón 1980, 1990; see also Foley & Van Valin 1984). Starting from this assumption, Lehmann (1988) points out that clause combining in subordination can be analyzed as well by means of a multi-dimensional set of related continua involving parameters such as: (1) downgrading of subordinate clause (parataxis vs. embedding; cf. the distinction between the features depend- ent and embedded in Foley & Van Valin 1984), (2) desententialization of de- pendent clause (finiteness vs. nouniness; cf. balancing vs. deranking: Stassen 1985, Cristofaro 2003), (3) interlacing of the clauses and (4) explicitness of link- ing between them (syndesis vs. asyndesis). All these continua describe different morphosyntactic levels in which the degree of semantic autonomy or integration of the subordinate clause can be iconically represented, since “the closer the semantic relationship, the tighter the syntactic linkage” between two clauses (Foley & Van Valin 1984: 264; see Haiman 1983, Givón 1980, 1990). Adverbial clauses typically codify autonomous events or states of affair with respect to their main clause, and they actually represent the less subordinate type of dependent clauses.2 Actually, (finite) adverbial clauses are not embedded,3 relations between clauses are not directly linked to it. Nonetheless, this paper will not deepen this aspect since only a working definition of adverbial clause is needed. 2 Actually, not all semantic types of adverbial clauses share the same degree of autonomy with respect to the main clause, as, for example, purpose clauses (see Cristofaro 2003: Chap- ter 6, Schulte 2007, Scmidtke-Bode 2009 for details). Compare, in a generative perspective, the distinction between central and peripheral adverbial clauses in Haegeman (2004, 2012). 3 Pragmatic orientation of syntax in spontaneous speech their predicate is more predictably “balanced”, they are rarely interlaced with the main clause, and the adverbial morphemes introducing them are explicit not on- ly in terms of the syndetic relationship with the main clause, but also in specify- ing the semantics of such a relationship. 1.1 Adverbial clauses in spoken language The behavior of finite adverbial clauses has received much attention in many studies on speech, which analyze a set of properties and functions in different languages and with slightly varied focuses. Studies that include intonation in their analyses are particularly interesting, since in our theoretical and methodo- logical perspective (see section 2) prosody represents a crucial, then not negligi- ble, dimension of spoken language. The following properties of adverbial clauses in speech are important for the purposes of this paper: the mobility of the position of adverbial clauses with re- spect to the main one and the different functions those positions appear to carry out in interaction, and the type of prosodic linking between adverbial and main clauses. The taxonomy of adverbial clauses proposed in Chafe (1984, 1988) consti- tutes the basic ground of many other works on this topic (Longacre & Thomp- son 1985, Mathiessen & Thompson 1988, Ford 1993, Couper-Kuhlen 1996, Ford & Thompson 1996, Thompson, Longacre & Hwang 2007, Hopper & Thompson 2008, among others). Chafe’s taxonomy is based on (i) position with respect to the main clause, (ii) ± boundedness in the same pitch contour (i.e. intonation unit) of the main clause, (iii) type of intonational profile (“comma” and “period” intonation corre- sponding respectively to non-final and final pitch movement) of the two clauses. Adverbial clauses, therefore, are classified as preposed and bound (see (a) be- low), postponed and bound (b), preposed and free (c), postponed and free (d; ex- amples taken from Chafe 1984: 439): (a) Because it has such a big memory I decided to buy it. (one intonation unit segmented by “period” intonation) 3 This is the defining feature of subordination according to Mathiessen & Thompson (1988), but in the slightly different view of Foley & Van Valin (1984: 264) a clause [+ dependent] and [-embedded] would be considered within the domain of cosubordination, since their no- tion of subordination requires embedding. Giulia Bossaglia 4 (b) I decided to buy it because it has a big memory. (one intonation unit segmented by “period” intonation) (c) Because it has such a big memory, I decided to buy it. (two intonation units separated by comma intonation; the adverbial clause is performed with non-final contour) (d) I decided to buy it, because it has such a big memory. (two intonation units separated by comma intonation; the main clause is performed with non-final contour) In Chafe’s view, free preposed adverbial clauses (like c) cannot display period intonation, while postponed ones can display both types. This follows from the assumption that, in general, preposed adverbial clauses function as “guideposts” to the information flow, providing background to the information in the following main clause, while postponed ones fulfill a more “coordinate” function, commenting a specific condition relevant to the preceding main clause. When free (i.e. in a separate intonation unit, with final intonation) postponed adverbial clauses are used in interaction as afterthoughts.4 In a similar perspective, Couper-Kuhlen (1996) analyses because-clauses in spoken English, finding in the presence or absence of prosodic reset of f 0 (fundamental frequency) declination between main and postponed dependent clauses the defining cue of two possible functions of because-clauses: with the prosodic reset, the dependent clause represents an intonation unit of its own, serving as a turn construction means (“intonational coordination”: 402); without the declination reset, the because-clause belongs to the prior clause (“intonational subordination”: ibidem). All these studies challenge the traditional notion of syntactic dependency, making it clear that, by virtue of specific pragmatic functions of these (formally) dependent clauses in the construction of speech and interaction, adverbial clauses are not interpretable as instances of proper subordination in various of the contexts they occur.5 4 Ford, Fox & Thompson (2002) argue that such a use does not correspond to afterthought, but rather to an increment strategy in the construction of the discourse in interaction, typically involving adverbial clauses (see also Couper-Kuhlen 1996, Thompson & Couper-Kuhlen 2005). 5 Hopper & Thompson (2008) present some interesting data on conditional wenn-clauses (equivalent to if-clauses) in spoken German. Here, such a challenge to the notion of syntactic dependency has as well a concrete syntactic manifestation in the fact that the (standard) ex- 5 Pragmatic orientation of syntax in spontaneous speech Our analysis of adverbial clauses in spoken Brazilian Portuguese and Italian considers a similar set of parameters, as well. 2. Theoretical framework: Language into Act Theory This study on adverbial clauses in spoken BP and IT is founded on the Lan- guage into Act Theory (from now on, L-AcT; Cresti 1995, 2000), an inductive theory constructed throughout decades of empirical work on LABLITA (Linguis- tics Laboratory of the Italian Department, Florence University) spoken corpora (Moneglia 2005). Based on L-AcT, the C-ORAL-ROM (Cresti & Moneglia 2005) and C-ORAL-BRASIL (Raso & Mello 2012a) projects designed the C- ORAL-ROM (Italian, French, Spanish, European Portuguese) and C-ORAL- BRASIL (Brazilian Portuguese) comparable spoken corpora. L-AcT represents an innovative approach to the study of spoken language, since it emphasizes the importance of the prosodic dimension of speech. Actual- ly, many speech studies have been based solely on speech transcriptions for a long time, which means they have taken written texts as data source, thus failing to account for an adequate analysis of the richness and peculiarities of spoken language, starting from syntax. Moreover, L-AcT is innovative in the way the importance of prosody in speech is conceived even with respect to approaches that do recognize and include intonation in their analysis (cf. section 1), as we will show throughout this section. L-Act is an extension of Austin’s Speech Act Theory (Austin 1962) and as- sumes that a Speech Act is composed by the following simultaneous acts: a. locutionary act: the transmitted linguistic content; b. illocutionary act: the (type of) action performed by means of the transmitted linguistic content; c. perlocutionary act: the affective stimulus which makes the speaker perform the speech act.6 pected verb inversion in the apodosis in some cases does not occur, manifesting the lack of syntactic integration with the preceding protasis. These cases are precisely considered exam- ples of apparent biclausal structures, understood as grammatical formats accomplishing dis- course oriented functions. 6 Austin’s perlocutionary act corresponds, instead, to the speaker’s purpose in performing the speech act. Giulia Bossaglia 6 Based on prosodic criteria, L-AcT identifies the unit of reference of spoken lan- guage in the utterance, understood as the minimal speech segment prosodically and pragmatically interpretable as autonomous, that is, as a speech act. Prosody can provide pragmatic autonomy to any linguistic content, even if it lacks syn- tactic or semantic completeness, as it is shown in the examples below (from Ital- ian C-ORAL-ROM and C-ORAL-BRASIL corpora):7 (1) *CAR: muito feio // Ex. bfamcv03 [252] ‘*CAR: very bad //’ (2) *REN: ahn // Ex. bfamdl01 [522] ‘*REN: uhm //’ (3) *MAX: a Recco // Ex. ifamcv01_taglio [58] ‘*MAX: to Recco //’ (4) *ELA: a Recco // Ex. ifamcv01_taglio [59] ‘*ELA: to Recco //’ (5) *VAL: hanno pubblicato la graduatoria / Ex. ifamcv18 [185] ‘*VAL: they published the ranking list /’ In (1)-(4) an adjectival phrase, an interjection and two prepositional phrases, re- spectively, display prosodic and pragmatic autonomy, i.e., they are utterances. Additionally, (3) and (4) show how different prosodic profiles convey different speech acts (illocutions), independently from the locutive content, which is the same in both (a Recco). On the other hand, listening to (5), a syntactic and semantically complete sentence, it is possible to perceive that such a tonal unit is not pragmatically au- tonomous, as if something were missing. In the terms of Chafe (1988), (5) dis- plays a “comma intonation”, signaling that there is “more to come”. Actually, (5) represents only a sub-part of a bigger utterance, reported in (6) below: 7 Starred abbreviations stand for the speakers’ pseudonyms in the corpora; the name of the source texts of the examples are indicated in the audio link: b = Brazilian, i = Italian, fam = familiar/private context, pub = public context, mn = monologue, dl = dialogue, cv = conversa- tion (then: bfamcv03 stands for familiar/private conversation n. 03 of Brazilian Portuguese C- ORAL corpus, and so on). 7 Pragmatic orientation of syntax in spontaneous speech (6) *VAL: hanno pubblicato la graduatoria / il nove di maggio // Ex. ifamcv18 [185] ‘*VAL: they published the ranking list / on May the ninth //’ (6a) / il nove di maggio // Ex. ifamcv18 [185] ‘/ on May the ninth //’ The utterance in (6) is composed by two units, of which only the second is pragmatically autonomous (listen to (6a)), for it carries the prosodic nucleus of the illocution. The unit carrying the illocution is the Comment (COM), and it is the only one which is necessary, in speech, for an utterance to be pragmatically autonomous. Simple utterances are formed only by this single, necessary unit, like (1)-(4), while compound utterances are formed by the COM, plus one or more units. The prosodic/pragmatic criteria adopted by L-AcT manage to identify a con- sistent unit of reference for speech in the utterance, since the adoption of a syn- tactic one fails to account for a large amount of spoken language data, which hardly correspond to a clause or a sentence, but still do function properly from a communicative point of view. 8 The segmentation of speech flow into tonal units is based on prosodic crite- ria as well: prosodic breaks perceived as non-terminal are marked with “/”, while terminal breaks, determining utterance boundaries, with “//” in the tran- scription.9 Thus, a Prosodic Interface assumed by L-AcT (Cresti 2000, 2014; Moneglia 2011) exists in order to (i) provide pragmatic autonomy to linguistic contents, (ii) define the type of action performed by means of the utterance, and (iii) segment the speech flow in utterances and utterance sub-units. Tonal units other than COM can carry prosodically conveyed information values as well: following the IPO model (Institute for Perception Research Eindhoven; see t’Hart, Collier & Cohen 1990), L-AcT assumes that f exhibits 0 several movements within the utterance. Some of them are voluntary,10 though unconscious, and have perceptual relevance, conveying determined information values, in accordance with the Information Patterning Theory (Cresti 1995; 8 See Miller & Weinert (1998) for a discussion of the relevant literature on the problem of defining a consistent unit of reference for speech. 9 Details on transcription criteria and norms in Mello et al. (2012). 10 Involuntary movements, instead, are due to micro-melodical phenomena and have no per- ceptual relevance. In this perspective, the f declination reset pointed out by Couper-Kuhlen 0 (1996) in performing a specific type of because-clause is a voluntary movement carrying rel- evant information. Giulia Bossaglia 8 Moneglia & Cresti 2006; Cresti & Moneglia 2010).11 In (6) above, for example, the first tonal unit conveys a Topic (TOP) information unit, with the value of de- fining the domain of application of the illocution in COM, by virtue of a relation of pragmatic aboutness existing between the two. In this way, based on prosodic and pragmatic criteria, L-AcT manages to widen the range of information units relevant to the analysis of speech, traditionally limited to Topic and Comment (Chafe 1976; Halliday 1989; Krifka 2007). Actually, several information units were identified, characterized by specific (i) functions, and (ii) prosodic profiles implying their (iii) distribution within the utterance. Following the IPO model (t’Hart, Collier & Cohen 1990, Cresti & Moneglia 2010), the possible prosodic profiles are: root, which defines the type of illocution and identifies the Com- ment unit only; prefix, which precedes a root unit and is typical of Topic units; suffix, which follows a root unit and is proper of Appendix units, for example (see Table 1 below for the explanation of information units functions); and post- fix, which can precede or follow a root unit, but cannot occur at the beginning of the utterance (it is the Parenthesis unit prosodic profile).12 Information units are divided into textual units, which form the text of the utterance or are directed to the interpretation of it (see Table 1), and dialogic units, which regulate the interaction (Table 2; tables adapted from Moneglia & Raso 2014: 490). Units without information value are found in the speech flow as well, as il- lustrated in Table 3 (adapted from Moneglia & Raso 2014: 491). Such an overview on the information units identified by L-AcT is funda- mental in order to understand how this theory conceives the syntax of spoken language. 2.1 L-AcT: properties of spoken language syntax As introduced in the previous section, L-AcT identifies the unit of reference of speech in the utterance, determined through a pragmatic/prosodic criterion, therefore overtly excluding a syntactic one. Actually, in the still ongoing debate on which would be the proper unit of reference for speech, the inadequacy of the sole syntactic criterion has emerged, since a great amount of linguistic content in 11 Besides f movements, other variables such duration, intensity and syllabic alignment to the 0 f curve are taken into account. 0 12 Root and prefix are special profiles for they host a specific prosodic nucleus, while the other types do not. This is consistent with the relevance of Comment and Topic units, the pattern Topic-Comment representing spoken language’s main one (Moneglia & Cresti 2010, Mittmann 2012). 9 Pragmatic orientation of syntax in spontaneous speech Table 1. Information Units according to L-AcT: Textual Units Type Tag Function Comment COM It accomplishes the illocutionary force of the utterance. Topic TOP It establishes the domain of application of the illocution expressed by the Comment. Appendix of APC It integrates the text of the Comment and concludes the Comment utterance. Appendix of APT It gives a delayed integration of the information given in Topic. Topic Parenthesis PAR It provides instructions about how the utterance, or a part of it, has to be interpreted; it has a backward or forward scope. Locutive INT It signals that the subsequent locutive space has to be Introducer interpreted by means of different coordinates (generally, it introduces metaillocutions). Multiple CMM They constitute a chain of Comments forming an illocutionary Comments prosodic pattern, which is interpreted holistically. Bound COB It constitutes a chain of Comments, produced by progressive Comment adjunctions which fol-low the flow of thought. Chains of COB are called Stanzas. List of Topic TPL List of two or more TOP units semantically and syntactically connected, forming one prosodically marked major unit. List of PRL List of two or more PAR units semantically and syntactically Parenthesis connected, forming one prosodically marked major unit. Table 2. Information Units according to L-AcT: Dialogic Units Type Tag Function Incipit INP It opes the communicative channel in order to start a dialogic turn or an utterance, bearing contrastive value. Conative CNT It pushes the interlocutor to participate or to stop a non- collaborative behaviour in a dialogue. Phatic PHA It controls the communicative channel, contributing to its maintenance and stimulating the interlocutor towards social cohesion. Allocutive ALL It specifies the addressee of the message, keeping his attention and having a social cohesive function. Expressive EXP It provides emotional support to the speech act, marking social cohesion. Discourse DCT It connects different parts of the discourse, marking continuity. Connector Giulia Bossaglia 10 Table 3. Units without information value Type Tag Function Scanning SCA It is a tonal part of a bigger information unit, whose locutive Unit content’s needs to be scanned, normally for expressive or speech incompetence reasons. Interrupted i-[TAG] It is part of an information unit which is interrupted by a PAR Unit or dialogic unit. Empty Unit EMP Unit whose locutive content is not to be considered as part of the utterance, as it happens in case of 1) retracting; 2) interrupted last unit of an utterance. Time taking TMT It corresponds to the so-called filled pause. Unit Unclassified UNC Unit to which it is not possible to attribute another tag for some reason. speech does not correspond to complete syntactic units, but rather to phrases, interjections, and fragments. Therefore, the sentence has been discarded as the unit of reference for speech, and most authors identify it in the clause (Chafe 1984, 1988, Quirk et al. 1985, Halliday 1985, Voghera 1992, Miller & Weinert 1998, Thompson & Couper-Kuhlen 2005). Additional problems follow from the fact that syntactic boundaries frequently do not correspond to prosodic ones in the speech flow, making it necessary for many authors to postulate the existence of an underlying “crystalline deep structure with clear clause boundaries” (Heath 1985: 103), attempting to reduce to some abstract syntactically well-formed structure the strongly fragmented structures of spoken language. Assuming that intonation represents a paramount part of speech grammar, L-AcT proposes that the analysis of the syntactic properties of spoken language take into account how the utterance package is constructed, that is, how the communicative content is pragmatically/informationally built by the speaker. Thus, the syntax of spoken language is analyzed according to whether the utter- ance is a simple or a compound one. Therefore, according to L-AcT, each in- formation unit represents a syntactic and semantic island, and only in this specif- ic domain is it possible to analyze proper syntactic relations: (7) *PAU: esse tipo de muro /=TOP= se ficar baixo demais ele fica feio //=COM= Ex. bpubdl01 [71] ‘*PAU: this kind of wall /=TOP= if (it) is (built) too short it is ugly //=COM=’