Effects of Pitch Accent Position, Type, and Status on Focus Projection

Language and Speech

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 53-81

  Welby, Pauline ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Focus; Focus projection; Intonation; Pitch accent

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141884138     PISSN: 00238309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00238309030460010401     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. AYERS, G. (1996). Nuclear accent types and prominence: Some psycholinguistics experiments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus.
2. BARTELS, C., & KINGSTON, J. (1994). Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. In P. Bosch & R, van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus and natural language processing, Vol. 1: Intonation and syntax (pp. 1-10). IBM Deutschland Informationssysteme GmbH Scientific Center, Institute for Logic and Linguistics. (=Working Papers of the Institute for Logic and Linguistics, 6).
3. BECKMAN, M. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17-67.
4. BECKMAN, M., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1994). The ToBI annotation conventions. Unpublished manuscript. The Ohio State University and AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories.
5. BECKMAN, M., & PIERREHUMBERT, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-310.
6. BIRCH, S., & CLIFTON, C., Jr., (1995). Focus, accent and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365-391.
7. BROWN, G (1983). Prosodic structures and the Given/New distinction. In D. R. Ladd & A. Cutler (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 67-77). Berlin: Springer.
8. CHAFE, W. (1983). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1983). Testing the reality of focus domains. Language and Speech, 26, 61-80.
10. GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accent. Dordrecht/ Cinnaminson: Foris.
11. GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1992). Sentence accents and argument structure. In I. Roca (Ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar (pp. 79-106). Berlin/New York: Foris.
12. GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1999). On the limits of focus projection in English. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 43-55). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
13. HERMAN, R., & McGORY, J. T. (2002). The conceptual similarity of intonational tones and its effects on intertranscriber reliability. Language and Speech, 45, 1-36.
14. KRAHMER, E., & SWERTS, M. (1998). Reconciling two competing views on contrastiveness. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1299-1302), Sydney.
15. LADD, D. R., & SCHEPMAN, A. (2003). "Sagging transitions" between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 81-112.
16. McGORY, J. T., HERMAN, R., & SYRDAL, A. (1999). Using tone similarity judgments in tests of intertranscriber reliability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2242 [abstract].
17. NAKATANI, C. (1997). The computational processing of intonational prominence: A functional prosody account. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
18. OSTENDORF, M., PRICE, P., & SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S. (1997). Boston University radio speech corpus. (CD-ROM.) Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
19. PIERREHUMBERT, J., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp.271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
20. PIERREHUMBERT, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed (1987) by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
21. PRINCE, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of Given-New information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.223-255). New York: Academic Press.
22. SAG, I., & LIBERMAN, M. (1975). The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 11, 487-497.
23. SCHAFER, A. (1997). Prosodic parsing: The role of prosody in sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
24. SELKIRK, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
25. SELKIRK, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp.550-569). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
26. STEEDMAN, M. (1990). Syntax and intonational structure in a combinatory grammar. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp.457-482). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
27. TERKEN, J., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing "given" information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech, 37, 125-145.
28. VALLDUVÍ, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.