Finding referents in time: Eye-tracking evidence for the role of contrastive accents

Language and Speech

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 367-392

  Weber, Andrea ^a   Braun, Bettina ^b   Crocker, Matthew W ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Contrastive accent; Eye tracking; Focus; Prosody; Reference determination

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845910536     PISSN: 00238309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00238309060490030301     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. ALTMANN, G., & KAMIDE, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference, Cognition, 72, 247-264.
2. BAUMANN, S., & HADELICH, K. (2003). Accent type and givenness: An experiment with auditory and visual priming. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Phonetic, Sciences 1811-1814. Barcelona, Spain.
3. BECKMAN, M. E., & PIERREHUMBERT, J. Z. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-309.
4. BIRCH, S., & CLIFTON, C. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365-391.
5. BIRCH, S., & GARNSEY, S. M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 232-267.
6. BLUTNER, R., & SOMMER, R. (1988). Sentence processing and lexical access: The influence of the focus-identifying task. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 359-367.
7. BOERSMA, P., & WEENIK, D. (1996). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer, version 3.4. Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam, Report 132. (updated version on 〈 http://www.praat.org〉.)
8. BOLINGER, D. L. (1978). Intonation across languages. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 2. Phonology (pp. 471-524). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
9. BUERING, D. (1997). The meaning of topic and focus - The 59th Street Bridge accent. London: Routledge.
10. CARLSON, K. (2001). The effects of parallelism and prosody in the processing of gapping structures. Language and Speech, 44, 1-26.
11. CUTLER, A., DAHAN, D., & van DONSELAAR, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141-201.
12. CUTLER, A., & FOSS, D. J. (1977). On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Language and Speech, 20, 1-10.
13. DAHAN, D., TANENHAUS, M., & CHAMBERS, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292-314.
14. GRABE, E. (1998). Comparative intonational phonology: English and German. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nijmegen (Max Planck Institute series in Psycholinguistics, 7), The Netherlands. Wageningen: Ponsen and Looijen bv.
15. GRICE, M., & BAUMANN, S. (2002). Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte, 191, 267-298.
16. GRICE, M., BAUMANN, S., & BENZMUELLER, R. (2005). German intonation in autosegmentalmetrical phonology. In S.-A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
18. HRUSKA, C., & ALTER, K. (2004). Prosody in dialogues and single sentences: How prosody can influence speech perception. In A. Steube (Ed.), Information structure: Theoretical and empirical aspects (pp.221 -226). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
19. IMSI MASTERCLIPS, (1990). Premium image collection 303,000 [Image database]. (〈http://www.imsisoft.com〉)
20. JACKENDOFF, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
21. KRAHMER, E., & SWERTS, M. (2001). On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication, 34, 391-405.
22. LADD, D. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
23. LADD, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
24. LADD, D., & SCHEPMAN, A. (2003). Sagging transitions between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 81-112.
25. MATIN, E., SHAO, K., & BOFF, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information processing time with and without saccades. Perceptual Psychophysics, 53, 372-380.
26. PECHMANN, T. (1984). Überspezifizierung und Betonung in referentieller Kommunikation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Mannheim.
27. PIERREHUMBERT, J. (1990). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
28. PIERREHUMBERT, J., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Coehn et al. (Eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.
29. PITRELLI, J, BECKMAN, M., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1994). Evaluation of prosodie transcription labelling reliability in the ToBI framework. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 123-126). Yokohama, Japan.
30. READ, C., KRAAK, A., & BOVES, L. (1980). The interpretation of ambiguous who-questions in Dutch: The effect of intonation. In W. Zonneveld & F. Weerman (Eds.). Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1977-1979 (pp. 389-410). Dordrecht: Foris.
31. ROOTH, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Amherst: GLSA.
32. ROOTH, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75-116.
33. SCHAFER, A., CARTER, C., CLIFTON, C., & FRAZIER, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135-163.
34. SEDIVY, J., TANENHAUS, M., CHAMBERS, C., & CARLSON, G. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147.
35. th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375-380). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. SELKIRK, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
37. SHIELDS, J. L., McHUGH, A., & MARTIN, J. G. (1974). Reaction time to phoneme targets as a function of rhythmic cues in continuous speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 250-255.
38. SNEDEKER, J., & TRUESWELL, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 103-130.
39. STEEDMAN, M. (1989). Grammar, interpretation, and processing from the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 463-504). Cambridge: MIT Press.
40. TANENHAUS, M., MAGNUSON, J., DAHAN, D., & CHAMBERS, C. (2000). Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: Evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 557-580.
41. TANENHAUS, M., SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M., EBERHARD, K., & SEDIVY, J. (1996). Using eye movements to study spoken language comprehension: Evidence for visually mediated incremental interpretation. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Integration in perception and communication (pp. 457-478). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. TERKEN, J., & NOOTEBOOM, S. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2, 145-163.
43. TOEPEL, U., & ALTER, K. (2004). On the independence of information structural processing. In A. Steube (Ed.), Information structure: Theoretical and empirical aspects (pp. 227-240). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
44. WEBER, A., GRICE, M., & CROCKER, M. C. (2006). The role of prosody in the interpretation of structural ambiguities: A study of anticipatory eye movements. Cognition, 99, B63-B72.
45. WELBY, P. (2003). Effects of pitch accent position, type, and status on focus projection. Language and Speech, 46, 53-81.