Sarah Hawkins (sh110@cam.ac.uk)
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:28:02 +0100 (BST)
Mark:
I didn't have time to check the final version of the dbase Sebastian sent
yesterday. On the assumption you won't have read them all yet, and just in
case any confuse you (which I doubt), here are some corrections to
camsent1, and some comments on camsent2:
camsent1:
We talked about the teller in the bank. (not tellor)
We cheered the Derry supporters again. (no apostrophe)
We cheered the Dehli supporters again.
camsent2:
(1) sentences like
We 'heard that it 'could be a 'bestially.
don't make sense unless you think of it as someone discussing words as if
they were items of some sort, from which one such item could be chosen.
If you can say it like that, great; if it's too unnatural, you might as
well omit them, I think:
(2) There are 2 basic types of sentence:
(i) We 'heard (that) it 'could/might be (a) 'xxxx.
(ii) We 'heard it could/might be (a) 'xxxx.
Sentences of type (i) should have nuclear syllable on the last word, and
it should preferably be a fall. I don;t mind if "heard" is just an
accented syllable, or another (falling) nucleus in this set, but try not
to make the word "heard" *extra* long.
Sentences of type (ii), which have only 2 stress marks instead of 3,
might be easier to read with 2 nuclear accents, the second one of which
rises. (I think Francis Nolan might transcribe it as one accent group,
with a split nucleus, fall on heard, rise on last word. Jill may be able
to clarify).
In other words, it's fine by me if you use different intonation patterns
etc for the two types -- and Jill/Jana may like that idea -- as long as
the overall tempo and degree of formality/casualness is very similar in
all sentences, and all items within a single type have the same intonation
pattern.
Also, if Jill/Jana would like to use these sentences for some intonation
pattern that I haven;t mentioned and that might be interesting for them,
feel free to do that, though I would prefer to hear what's proposed just
in case: the only potential important issue I can think of is that the
overall rhythm should be reasonably controlled. So if you or Jill/Jana
would like to discuss the intonation pattern, and/or hear the version I'm
envisaging, then feel free to phone.
hope this is clear, and helpful
Sarah
_____________________________________________________________________
Dr. Sarah Hawkins Email: sh110@cam.ac.uk
Dept. of Linguistics Phone: +44 1223 33 50 52
University of Cambridge Fax: +44 1223 33 50 53
Sidgwick Avenue or +44 1223 33 50 62
Cambridge CB3 9DA
United Kingdom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Jul 02 1999 - 15:29:24 BST