Rising Accents in Castilian Spanish: A Revision of Sp_ToBI* Timothy L. Face+ & Pilar Prieto^ +University of Minnesota ^ Institució Catalana de la Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA) and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) 1. Introduction In October 1999, a workshop was held at The Ohio State University for the purpose of developing a transcription system for Spanish intonation within the Tones and Break Indices (ToBI) framework (Jun, 2005). As a result of this workshop, Beckman, Díaz-Campos, McGory & Morgan (2002) published a preliminary proposal for Spanish ToBI (Sp_ToBI) that was intended to be “a consensus transcription system” (p. 10) as the authors were representing a group of scholars – both workshop participants and others – from a variety of backgrounds, all interested in developing a consensus Sp_ToBI transcription system.1 As Beckman et al. (2002) recognized, before an Sp_ToBI system could be built, it was important to achieve an analysis of Spanish intonation, with which there was broad agreement, within the Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) model of intonational phonology (Pierrehumbert, 1980; Beckman & Pierrehumbert, 1986; Pierrehumbert & Beckman, 1988; Ladd, 1996). Therefore, while they mentioned other aspects of their preliminary Sp_ToBI system, Beckman et al. (2002) focused the majority of their article on a phonological analysis of Spanish intonation within the AM model. While the preliminary Sp_ToBI transcription system proposed by Beckman et al. (2002) was a very important first step, there has been relatively little continuity of the Sp_ToBI development group after that first meeting, in spite of the 2nd Spanish ToBI Workshop being held in Barcelona, Spain in 2005.2 Furthermore, the Sp_ToBI system proposed by Beckman et al. (2002) was intended to be a preliminary set of tagging conventions, as noted explicitly at various points in their paper.3 Although the Sp_ToBI system as proposed in Beckman et al. (2002) is preliminary, researchers often take it as a firm proposal with strong consensus (e.g. Kimura 2006, Sahyang, Andruski, Casielles, Nathan & Work 2006, Velázquez 2006). This is particularly problematic since in several ways this preliminary system seems to be quite “out of touch” with current work on Spanish intonation, and in our view is in considerable need of revision. The most relevant example for the present paper is the inventory of pitch accents proposed (i.e. H*, L*, L+H*, L*+H, and H+L*). While H* was a common analysis of rising accents in Spanish, many analyses no longer use this accent. Also, other accents have been motivated in other studies but are not included in the preliminary Sp_ToBI system, such as H*+L in the work of Ortiz Lira (1999) and Sosa (1999). In this paper we will focus on the issue of rising accents and their phonological analysis, which is an area where the preliminary Sp_ToBI proposal encounters at least two basic problems: 1) the ambiguous manner by which starredness is assigned to one tone of bitonal pitch accents, and 2) the assumption that there is only a two-way contrast in rising accents.4 While these issues are not unique to Spanish – indeed the issue of 1 assigning starredness has received considerable attention in the field of intonational phonology in recent years – our Castilian Spanish data present challenges to both the assumption that there is only a two-way contrast in rising accents and to the manner in which starredness is commonly assigned to bitonal accents. Through an examination of our data on rising accents in Castilian Spanish, the variety spoken in the central region of Spain, we will make two primary contributions in this paper. First, we will provide new empirical data on the inventory of rising pitch accents in Castilian Spanish, showing that there is a three-way contrast that must be accounted for. Secondly, we will propose an analysis based on the secondary association of pitch accent tones that not only is able to account for the three-way contrast in rising accents, but which offers a more straightforward manner of assigning starredness in bitonal pitch accents. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we provide a discussion of the various analyses of rising pitch accents that have been proposed for Spanish and of the problems that have been pointed out for the standard analysis of these accents. In Section 3 we present empirical data and show that there is a three-way contrast in rising accents in Castilian Spanish. Section 4 presents our proposal for accounting for the three-way contrast in rising accents by incorporating secondary associations of pitch accent tones into the AM model. We also argue that this proposal provides a more straightforward manner of assigning starredness in bitonal pitch accents. Finally, in Section 5 we conclude by pointing out similar three-way contrasts in other Romance languages and discuss the importance of incorporating such contrasts into the phonological representation of intonation. We also argue that by doing so for Castilian Spanish we not only offer a way for the AM model to deal with previously challenging data, but also take a step towards making the Sp_ToBI system more transparent. 2. Spanish rising accents within the AM model 2.1 The original Sp_ToBI analysis For several years, the ‘standard’ view in transcribing Spanish rising pitch accents has been that of Sosa (1995, 1999) and later Face (2001c, 2002a, 2002b, 2003). Sosa, for the Spanish of Caracas, and Face, for Castilian Spanish, have shown that there are two distinct types of F0 rises. In these varieties (and in several others), one type of rising pitch accent is characterized by an F0 valley at or near the onset of the stressed syllable and an F0 peak occurring in a post-tonic syllable. The other rising pitch accent is also characterized by an F0 valley at or near the onset of the stressed syllable, but differs from the other accent in that the F0 peak is reached within the temporal boundaries of the stressed syllable. The Sp_ToBI proposal put forth by Beckman et al. (2002) follows these authors and chooses two different representations for these two types of rising pitch accents. In order to understand the analyses assigned, we look at the labels assigned to these pitch accents by Beckman et al. (2002) and the definitions of each that they provide. The Sp_ToBI proposal by Beckman et al. (2002) includes two firm labels for rising pitch accents: L*+H and L+H*. The L*+H label is used for the accent described above as having a peak on the post-tonic syllable in Caracas and Castilian Spanish. The 2 L+H* label is used for the accent described as having a peak on the tonic syllable. The definitions given for each label by Beckman et al. (2002, pp. 33) are as follows: L*+H late rising accent, with peak after the stressed syllable and valley toward the beginning…or toward the middle of the stressed syllable. L+H* early rising accent, with peak during the stressed syllable…or just after the end of the stressed syllable if the syllable is intrinsically short. It should be noted that these definitions refer to L*+H as a ‘late rising accent’ and to L+H* as an ‘early rising accent’. These terms are perhaps a bit misleading, and in fact there is ambiguity as to what these accents refer to. On the one hand, in some dialects what really distinguishes these accents is not when the rise occurs, but rather where the peak is realized. Therefore L*+H might be better characterized as having a ‘late peak’ and L+H* as having an ‘early peak’. While the definition of L+H* does not mention the valley location, it typically occurs near the onset of the stressed syllable, much like in the case of the L*+H accent. These L*+H and L+H* labels are the same as those proposed by Sosa (1995, 1999) and Face (2001c, 2002a, 2002b, 2003) for these accents. On the other hand, there is ambiguity in the definition of the L*+H accent as the definition indicates that the valley occurs “toward the beginning…or toward the middle of the stressed syllable.” Where the valley occurs depends on the variety of Spanish, according to Beckman et al. (2002), and one of the examples on the Sp_ToBI website shows a case with a late-rising accent, where the rise begins late in the stressed syllable.5 The Sp_ToBI proposal, then, employs the L*+H label to refer to any rising accent with a late peak, but assumes that the implementation of the valley differs across varieties of Spanish. Crucial to this analysis is the claim that an early rising and late rising accent, both with peaks in the post-tonic syllable, do not occur contrastively in the same variety of Spanish. As we will show in Section 2.3 and in Section 3, this is not the case. Schematic representations of the intonation patterns represented by these Sp_ToBI labels, including the two rising patterns represented by the L*+H label, are seen in Figure 1. L+H* L*+H Figure 1. Schematic representations of the F0 patterns represented by the L+H* and L*+H labels within the Sp_ToBI system. It is important to note here that L*+H and L+H* are distinct phonological units, and one would expect them to be applied to contrasting pitch accents. In both Caracas and Castilian Spanish, as well as other varieties, the L*+H label is used for the prenuclear pitch accent in declaratives, while the L+H* label is used for the nuclear accent.6 As 3 these two accents are in complimentary distribution, one might question whether they merit distinct phonological representations. While we will show in Section 3 that both of these accents occur in prenuclear position in Castilian Spanish with distinct meaning, and thus do indeed contrast, much of the motivation for these pitch accents has come from their use in prenuclear and nuclear positions. Beckman et al. (2002, pp. 16-17) discuss the debate in the literature on whether prenuclear and nuclear accents merit distinct phonological analyses, although they opt for maintaining a phonological distinction between prenuclear L*+H and nuclear L+H* accents. While they discuss the evidence that leads them to make this decision, they also comment on the goal of Sp_ToBI to provide a pan-Spanish transcription system: “On the principle that a pan-Spanish ToBI should over-specify rather than under-specify, however, the Sp_ToBI group recommended differentiating the tags for early and late peaks even for those…varieties where the difference may be allophonic” (p. 17). Beckman et al. (2002, p. 33) also propose two tentative labels to be used “when a syllable sounds accented, but is difficult to identify as one of the above [accents]”; given this difficulty, the tentative labels are to be used “as a place holder for later re-analysis after the inventory of tunes in this dialect is better understood”. One of the place holders is the label H*, which has at times been used as an analysis of rising accents in Spanish (see Section 2.2). The definition of this label provided by Beckman et al. (2002, p. 33) is as follows: H* a clear small peak during the accented syllable, at about the same level as a clear prior L*+H, when the lack of a minimum cannot be attributed to upstep and undershoot. Therefore, although H* is a label that could be (and has been; see below) used in the analysis of rising accents, within Beckman et al.’s (2002) Sp_ToBI proposal it is not a firm analysis, but rather a place holder for re-analysis once scholars achieve a better understanding of the intonational system under investigation. In this way Sp_ToBI follows English ToBI, which uses H* as a default label when there is uncertainty as to the appropriate accent label. 2.2 Other AM analyses of Sp_ToBI’s L*+H and L+H* accents Work by Prieto and her colleagues in the 1990s (Prieto, van Santen & Hirschberg, 1995; Prieto, Shih & Nibert, 1996; Prieto, 1998) analyzed rising accents in Mexican Spanish, conducting detailed experiments to understand their behavior. The phonological analysis of the accents provided was H*, indicating a high tone associated with the stressed syllable. This H* analysis was applied both to prenuclear accents, whose F0 peaks were realized after the stressed syllable, and to nuclear accents, whose F0 peaks were realized within the stressed syllable. Thus what Sp_ToBI analyzes with distinct labels (i.e. L*+H and L+H*), and has been argued by Sosa and Face to be two distinct phonological accents, was viewed by Prieto and her colleagues as one pitch accent (i.e. H*) with different phonetic realizations. This H* analysis has been maintained in some later work as well, such as that of Nibert (2000) on Peninsular Spanish. 4 Beginning with the work of Sosa (1995, 1999) and later Face (2001c, 2002a, 2002b, 2003), the rising accents in Spanish have generally been analyzed as bitonal L+H accents of some sort. The motivation for the bitonal L+H analysis is that there is an F0 valley that occurs at or at least very near the stressed syllable. If there were two H* accents in sequence, one might expect some “sag” in the F0 contour between the H targets, but a clear F0 valley aligned consistently near the onset of the stressed syllable as in Prieto’s Mexican data and in the data on Caracas and Castilian Spanish by Sosa and Face, respectively, would not be expected and would have no explanation.7 Further, even if the F0 valley were to be attributed to sag between H targets, this could not explain why the first accent of an utterance, where there is no preceding H* to sag from, would have an F0 valley aligned near the onset of the stressed syllable. In spite of the widespread use of the L*+H and L+H* labels in Spanish as described above, recently some authors have pointed out problems with this ‘standard’ analysis and the way of assigning a star to one tone of the bitonal pitch accent (e.g. Arvaniti, Ladd & Mennen 1998, Ladd, Faulkner, Faulkner & Schepman 1999, Atterer & Ladd 2004). Face (2001b) proposed for Castilian Spanish that L*+H be used as described above, but that the accent with the F0 peak on the tonic syllable be analyzed as (L+H)*. This parenthetical notation was proposed due to the fact that the difference in tonal alignment affects the F0 peak, but not the F0 valley. That is, in the L*+H pitch accent the F0 valley is aligned near the onset of the stressed syllable and the F0 peak generally occurs in a post-tonic syllable. In what has typically been analyzed as a L+H* pitch accent, the F0 peak is aligned with the stressed syllable (hence the star on the H tone), but the L is no less aligned than it is in the L*+H accent. Therefore, Face (2001b) argues, both tones are aligned with the stressed syllable and (L+H)* more accurately reflects the tonal alignment facts than does L+H*. Recognizing the same problem in her analysis of Peruvian Spanish, O’Rourke (2005) uses a notational variant to the parenthetical notation to indicate the alignment of both tones of the pitch accent. Instead of the L*+H vs. (L+H)* analysis proposed by Face (2001b), O’Rourke proposes a L*H vs. L*H* distinction, with the star on each tone of the L*H* accent representing the alignment of both tones to the stressed syllable.8 The (L+H)* notation has been used in ways other than that proposed by Face (2001b). Hualde (2002) employs the (L+H)* notation in place of both L*+H and L+H*. Hualde (2002) agrees that H* is not a satisfactory analysis of rising pitch accents in Spanish, since the consistently aligned F0 valley seems to require a L preceding the H, and thus a L+H analysis of some sort. However, his (L+H)* analysis maintains a different aspect of the original H* analysis: it considers the two F0 patterns typically analyzed as L*+H and L+H* to be phonetic realizations of the same pitch accent (i.e. they are allophonic). Hualde proposes that the two tones have essentially an equal relationship to the stressed syllable, and therefore chooses the (L+H)* representation to indicate the association of both tones with the stressed syllable. Elordieta & Calleja (2005) propose avoiding the specification of one tone as stronger than the other in a different way. They propose that the star notation be eliminated altogether. Given the differences that they find in peak alignment between Vitoria Spanish and Lekeitio Spanish, they suggest that these dialects implement one phonological pitch accent in different ways. They suggest that we “view phonetic alignment of accentual tones…as the surface manifestation of a set of instructions that are 5 part of the phonetic grammar…Thus, the pitch accents in V[itoria] S[panish] and the ones proposed earlier for L[ekeitio] S[panish] and M[adrid] S[panish] could be reinterpreted as a continuum of L+H accents with different phonetic specifications for tonal alignment.” (Elordieta & Calleja, 2005, pp. 434-435). By claiming that the phonological unit is a L+H pitch accent with tones specified, but no tone signalled as stronger than the other through the star notation, Elordieta & Calleja rely on differences in phonetic implementation to explain differences in tonal alignment across varieties of Spanish. This analysis is adequate for the cases they consider, but would not be able to account for contrastive tonal alignment between rising accents within a single variety of Spanish. What can be seen from this discussion is that while L*+H and L+H* are commonly used to describe the rising F0 patterns described above for Spanish, these are not the only analyses, and certainly there are issues to consider in any analysis (such as whether or not the two rising patterns merit analysis as two distinct phonological units rather than phonetic variants of a single phonological unit). But the issue becomes even more complicated when another type of rising F0 pattern is considered, as will be seen in the following section. 2.3 A third Spanish rising accent While most reported differences in the shape of rising accents in Spanish involve primarily a difference in the alignment of the F0 peak, Willis (2003) found a different type of distinction between rising accents in Dominican Spanish that involves where the rise begins (i.e. where the L is realized). He finds one accent, used for narrow focus, with an F0 valley aligned near the onset of the stressed syllable (i.e. an early rise) and an F0 peak in a post-tonic syllable, having the shape of the prenuclear accent found in many varieties of Spanish. The other accent, used as a broad focus prenuclear accent in Dominican Spanish, is differentiated from the narrow focus accent not in the alignment of the F0 peak, but rather in where the rise begins. In this accent there is a low F0 throughout much of the stressed syllable, and then a rise in F0 beginning near the end of the stressed syllable (i.e. a late rise) and occurring primarily in a post-tonic syllable.9 It is clear that there is a phonological contrast between these two Dominican pitch accents. A schematic representation of these pitch accents is seen in Figure 2. early rise late rise Figure 2. Schematic representations of the Dominican Spanish early rise and late rise pitch accents as described by Willis (2003). 6 This contrast poses a challenge to the notational system of the AM model, as here we have two contrastive rising pitch accents, but in both cases the F0 valley is aligned with the stressed syllable (though in different ways) and the F0 peak is not aligned with the stressed syllable in either accent. Based on tonal alignment, L+H* does not seem to be an adequate analysis for either accent, leaving only L*+H within the standard AM analysis. While L*+H has been used in Sp_ToBI and several other analyses of Spanish rising accents as the analysis for a rise where the F0 valley is aligned near the onset of the stressed syllable, the other Dominican rising pitch accent has a low F0 clearly aligned within the stressed syllable. In fact, this Dominican accent with the late rise seems to have the L more centrally associated with the stressed syllable since the low F0 occupies the majority of the stressed syllable. Therefore Willis (2003) analyzes the Dominican prenuclear accent, with the low F0 throughout the stressed syllable and the rise that begins near the end of the stressed syllable, as L*+H. Since there is a clear contrast between the two pitch accents in Dominican Spanish, another analysis is needed for the focal accent where the rise begins near the onset of the stressed syllable. Being that he has already used L*+H for the late-rise accent, and being that L+H* is not adequate based on tonal alignment, Willis analyzes the early-rising accent as (L+H)*. This use of the parenthetical notation is different from both uses mentioned in the previous section. However, while Willis does not follow Hualde in analyzing all F0 rises as (L+H)*, he does follow Hualde in using the (L+H)* notation to indicate that neither tone is more centrally related to the stressed syllable than the other. Given the goal of Sp_ToBI to be a pan-Spanish ToBI system, it is quite problematic that L*+H has been used for two different F0 patterns in Spanish, and that the exact same F0 pattern (i.e. the rise with the F0 valley aligned near the onset of the stressed syllable and the F0 peak in a post-tonic syllable) has received multiple analyses.10 Two of the factors that are clearly involved in creating these difficulties of analysis are different views of starredness within the AM model and the inability of the standard AM model to account for more than a two-way contrast in rising (i.e. L+H) accents. The issue of starredness is addressed in the next section. 2.4 Starredness in the AM model The star notation on one tone of a pitch accent has two related, yet distinct, functions in typical AM analyses. In Pierrehumbert’s (1980) original representational analysis of American English, tones were marked with a star * to indicate their association with metrically strong syllables. In bitonal pitch accents, one tone was considered to be associated (in the autosegmental sense of association) with a metrically strong syllable (i.e. typically the stressed syllable), and this was the tone that was marked with a star. As is well-known, pitch accent types can be phonologically distinguished by their relative alignment with the stressed syllable. Pierrehumbert (1980) showed that tonal alignment functions contrastively in English and that early aligned pitch accents are phonologically distinct from late aligned pitch accents. Pierrehumbert & Steele’s (1989) results are consistent with the idea that there is a categorical difference between the two accents. They undertook an imitation task with the two intonation patterns of the utterance Only a millionaire (underlining indicates the stressed syllable) illustrated in 7 Figure 3. The results of the experiment revealed the existence of two separate phonological categories (see also later experiments by Ward & Hirschberg, 1985; Hirschberg & Ward, 1992; Arvaniti & Garding in press; among others, which confirmed a clear separation between the two). The AM representations shown in Figure 3 (i.e. L*+H and L+H*) capture the fact that the L+H shape is aligned differently in the two contrastive pitch accents. While L*+H has a L on the stressed syllable and a H trailing it, L+H* has a H on the stressed syllable with a L leading it. Figure 3. Fundamental frequency contour of the utterance Only a millionaire spoken with two different pitch accents on millionaire: the late-aligned pitch accent, which indicates incredulity or uncertainty (right panel), and the early-aligned pitch pattern, which indicates assertion (left panel). The vertical cursor is placed at the [m] release in millionaire. [figures taken from Pierrehumbert & Steele, 1989, p.182]. However, it is not always clear which tone of a bitonal pitch accent should bear the suffixed star notation, at least partly because there is not always be a clear correspondence between phonological association and phonetic alignment. Many scholars working on the intonation of various languages have assumed a one-to-one relationship between the star and phonetic alignment. Pierrehumbert & Beckman (1988, pp. 234) note that “the * diacritic marks which tone of a bitonal accent is aligned with stress”. Yet other scholars present cases where there is not a direct relationship between phonological association (indicated by the star) and phonetic alignment, including in the ToBI labeling conventions for English (Beckman & Hirschberg 1994; see also Beckman, Hirschberg & Shattuck-Hufnagel 2005). Arvaniti, Ladd & Mennen (2000) demonstrate extensively that the use of the star diacritic to mark alignment is inadequate. Nonetheless, in work on a wide variety of languages, and as can be clearly seen for Spanish in the preceding sections, one of the most common interpretations of the star notation is that the starred tone is to be phonetically aligned with the stressed syllable. The relationship between association and alignment is not always clear in the literature, and contradictory claims have been made. In the case of the Spanish rising accents under consideration here, there are clear mismatches between the proposed phonological association and phonetic alignment. The accents described by Sp_ToBI as L*+H and L+H* show identical alignment of the L, even though in one case the L bears a star and in the other case it does not. Furthermore, the L*+H label is used to refer to rises with late peaks regardless of the alignment of the L, yet Willis (2003) demonstrates that there is a phonological contrast between these two types of rises. If, instead of indicating alignment, the * is meant to indicate the metrically 8 stronger tone of the two tones in a bitonal pitch accent, a different problem arises with the Sp_ToBI analysis of Spanish. In the case of the standard analyses of L*+H and L+H* in declaratives in many varieties of Spanish, this viewpoint would indicate that in L*+H the L is the strong tone while in L+H* the H is the strong tone. Yet when speakers of Castilian Spanish hear these accents, they perceive both of them as primarily high.11 This corresponds to what Prieto, D’Imperio & Gili-Fivela (2005, p. 374) report when they state that “in order for a syllable to be perceived as high, the pitch level needs to stay high or rise for a good portion of the accented syllable; conversely, in order for a syllable to be perceived as low the pitch level must stay low or fall during the accented syllable.” Thus, following the viewpoint that the star indicates the strong tone of the pitch accent that is associated with the stressed syllable, and given that both of the declarative pitch accents in Spanish are perceived as high, it seems that both of these accents should be analyzed as L+H*. There is no way, then, to distinguish these two accents as the AM model does not allow for multiple distinct L+H* accents. In fact, Beckman & Pierrehumbert (1988, p.159) state that association alone cannot account for this type of difference, and suggest that in cases where it is desirable to do so it would need to be done through language- specific rules of phonetic interpretation rather than through phonological specification. In spite of Sp_ToBI’s goal to provide a pan-Spanish transcription system, some might consider the L*+H vs. L+H* distinction to be sufficient for some varieties of Spanish since this distinction represents a phonological contrast between two rising pitch accents. It could be argued that the L*+H vs. L+H* distinction is sufficient for any variety of Spanish with only two contrastive rising pitch accents, although these labels may represent different phonetic patterns in different varieties. However, as we show in Section 3, Castilian Spanish not only has the two rising accents typically analyzed as L*+H and L+H*, but also has a third rising accent similar to the Dominican Spanish late- rising accent. This three-way contrast in rising accents poses a problem for the AM model, and therefore for the Sp_ToBI system, which can only represent a two-way contrast through standard uses of the star notation and cannot accommodate a three-way contrast in rising (or falling) accents in its present state. While a diacritic or other arbitrary notational mechanism could be proposed to account for a three-way contrast, we offer in Section 4 a principled analysis that not only accounts for the three-way contrast, but also explains why such a contrast should exist, while at the same time providing a more straightforward use of starredness in the AM model. 3. Three-way contrast in Castilian Spanish rising accents 3.1 Broad focus and narrow focus in declaratives In Castilian Spanish, prenuclear broad focus accents have late F0 peaks while prenuclear narrow focus accents have earlier F0 peaks (de la Mota, 1995, 1997; Nibert, 2000; Face, 2001b, 2001c, 2002a; Hualde, 2002, 2003a).12 Examples of the broad focus late peak and the narrow focus early peak can be seen in Figure 4, adapted from Face & D’Imperio (2005), where the shading indicates the stressed syllable of the word terminó. While we propose that his previous analyses based on tonal alignment patterns must be revised, it is important to note that Face (2001b, 2001c, 2002a) has argued (and the position has become the ‘standard’, though not only, view) that there is a clear contrast 9 between these two types of rising accents that cannot be explained as the result of phonetic influence on peak alignment. There is, then, a two-way contrast in rising accents in prenuclear position in Castilian Spanish. It must be noted that the alignment of the F0 peak is not the only intonational difference between broad focus and narrow focus utterances. Very common is a post-focal pitch reduction, sometimes with reduced F0 peaks and sometimes with no visible F0 peaks in a pitch track. The example in the right panel of Figure 4 illustrates this post-focal pitch range reduction. The F0 peak height is also sometimes, but not always, higher in narrow focus accents than in broad focus accents. So while there is indeed a contrast in the alignment of the F0 peak between broad focus and contrastive focus, there are other intonational cues to this distinction as well. In the following sections we will demonstrate that Castilian Spanish has not only these two rising accents in prenuclear position, but a third rising accent as well. Figure 4. Broad focus reading (left panel) of the sentence Que terminó la banana de la chica ‘That she finished the girl’s banana’, and a reading of the same sentence with narrow focus on terminó (right panel). Adapted from Face & D’Imperio (2005). 3.2 Focus in absolute interrogatives In a recent study, Face (in press) has considered the intonational marking of narrow focus in Castilian Spanish absolute interrogatives. Speakers of Castilian Spanish read a list of contextualized absolute interrogatives.13 There were five target interrogatives, each containing three stressed words as well as unstressed words such as articles and prepositions. Each of the five target interrogatives was placed into four different contexts, where each context was a declarative sentence presenting information that preceded the interrogative. Three of the contexts forced a reading of the interrogative with narrow focus on one of the three stressed words. The fourth context for each target interrogative resulted in a reading of the interrogative in broad focus, with no portion of the interrogative highlighted over the others. The contextualizing sentence and target interrogative were presented as two-line mini-dialogues. The speakers that participated in the study were presented these two-line dialogues in random order on sheets of paper, and these speakers then read each contextualizing sentence to themselves and then read the interrogative response out loud. Speakers were instructed to read the interrogative as they would in response to the contextualizing sentence. Face (in press) found that the most frequent manner in which speakers of Castilian Spanish mark narrow focus with intonation in Castilian Spanish absolute interrogatives is through an F0 pattern similar to the late-rising accent reported by Willis (2003) in cases of broad focus in Dominican Spanish declaratives.14 In Castilian Spanish, a narrowly focused word in an absolute interrogative most often is characterized by a low 10