The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure:A probabilistic perspective

Language

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-42

  Calhoun, Sasha ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Corpus analysis; Focus; Information structure; Metrical structure; Probabilistic linguistics; Prosody

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951062384     PISSN: 00978507     EISSN: 15350665     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0197     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. ASHBY, JANE, and CHARLES CLIFTON, JR. 2005. The prosodic property of lexical stress affects eye movements in silent reading: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition 96.B89- B100.
2. AYERS, GAYLE. 1996. Nuclear accent types and prominence: Some psycholinguistic experiments. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.
3. BARD, ELLEN; ANNE ANDERSON; CATHERINE SOTILLO; MATTHEW AYLETT; GWYNETH DOHERTY-SNEDDON; and ALISON NEWLANDS. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42.1-22
4. BARTELS, CHRISTINE, and JOHN KINGSTON. 1994. Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. Focus and natural language processing, vol.1, ed. by Robert van der Sandt, 1-10. Heidelberg: IBMWorking Papers.
5. BAUMANN, STEFAN, and MARTINE GRICE. 2006. The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 38.1636-57. (Special issue, Prosody and pragmatics.)
6. BEAVER, DAVID; BRADY CLARK; EDWARD FLEMMING; T. FLORIAN JAEGER; and MARIA WOLTERS. 2007. When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of secondoccurrence focus. Language 83.245-76
7. BECKMAN, MARY. 1996. The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes 11.17-67.
8. BECKMAN, MARY, and JULIA HIRSCHBERG. 1999. The ToBI annotation conventions. Columbus: The Ohio State University. Online: http://www.ling.ohio- state.edu/~tobi/ame-tobi/ annotation-conventions.html.
9. BECKMAN, MARY, and JANET PIERREHUMBERT. 1986. Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook 3.255-310.
10. BOD, RENS; JENNIFER HAY; and STEFANIE JANNEDY (eds.) 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. BOERSMA, PAUL, and DAVID WEENINK. 2008. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.0.35). Online: http://www.praat.org.
12. BOLINGER, DWIGHT. 1965. Forms of English: Accent, morpheme and order. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
13. BOLINGER, DWIGHT. 1972. Accent is predictable (if you're a mind reader). Language 49.633-44
14. BRAUN, BETTINA. 2006. Phonetics and phonology of thematic contrast in German. Language and Speech 49.451-93.
15. BRAZIL, DAVID. 1985. The communicative value of intonation in English. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. [2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.]
16. BURÁŇOVÁ, EVA; EVA HAJIčOVÁ; and PETR SGALL. 2000. Tagging of very large corpora: Topic-focus articulation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING) 18.139-44.
17. BÜRING, DANIEL. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26.511-45.
18. BÜRING, DANIEL. 2006. Focus projection and default prominence. The architecture of focus, ed. by Valéria Molnár and SusanneWinkler, 321-346 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
19. CALHOUN, SASHA. 2004. Phonetic dimensions of intonational categories-The case of L+H* and H*. Proceedings of Prosody 2004, ed. by Bernard Bel and Isabelle Marlien, 103-106
20. CALHOUN, SASHA. 2006. Information structure and the prosodic structure of English: A probabilistic relationship. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.
21. CALHOUN, SASHA. 2009.What makes a word contrastive: Prosodic, semantic and pragmatic perspectives. Where prosody meets pragmatics (Studies in pragmatics 8), ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Nicole Dehé, and AnneWichmann. Bingley: Emerald.
22. CALHOUN, SASHA. 2010. How does informativeness affect prosodic prominence? Language and Cognitive Processes, to appear. (Special issue, Prosody: Production & perception.)
23. CALHOUN, SASHA; JEAN CARLETTA; JASON BRENIER; NEIL MAYO; DAN JURAFSKY; MARK STEEDMAN; and DAVID BEAVER. 2010. The NXT-format Switchboard Corpus: A rich resource for investigating the syntax, semantics, pragmatics and prosody of dialogue. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal, to appear.
24. CARLETTA, JEAN. 1996. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics 22.249-54.
25. CHATER, NICK, and CHRISTOPHER MANNING. 2006. Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Science 10.335-44.
26. CLARK, HERBERT. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. COHEN, ANTONIE; RENÉ COLLIER; and JOHAN 'T HART. 1982. Declination: Construct or intrinsic feature of speech pitch? Phonetica 39.254-73.
28. COOPER,WILLIAM, and JEANNE PACCIA-COOPER. 1980. Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. CUTLER, ANNE; DELPHINE DAHAN; and WILMA VAN DONSELAAR. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 40.141-201.
30. DE PIJPER, JAN ROELOF, and ANGELIEN A. SANDERMAN. 1994. On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96.2037-47
31. DILLEY, LAURA. 2005. The phonetics and phonology of tonal systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
32. É.KISS,KATALIN. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74.245-73.
33. EADY, STEPHEN, and WILLIAM COOPER. 1986. Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80.402-15
34. FABER, DAVID. 1987. The accentuation of intransitive sentences in English. Journal of Linguistics 23.341-58.
35. FERREIRA, FERNANDA. 1993. Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review 100.233-53
36. FERREIRA, FERNANDA. 2007. Prosody and performance in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 22.1151-77.
37. FÉRY, CAROLINE, and VIERI SAMEK-LODOVICI. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82.131-50
38. FODOR, JANET. 2002. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. North East Linguistic Society 32.113-32
39. GERMAN, JAMES; JANET PIERREHUMBERT; and STEFAN KAUFMANN. 2006. Evidence for phonological constraints on nuclear accent placement. Language 82.151-68
40. GODFREY, JOHN J.; EDWARD C. HOLLIMAN; and JANE MCDANIEL. 1992. SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP-92), San Francisco, CA, 517-520
41. GRABE, ESTHER, and EE LING LOW. 2002. Acoustic correlates of rhythm class. Laboratory phonology 7, ed. by Carlos Gussenhoven and NatashaWarner, 515-546 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
42. GRABE, ESTHER, and PAULWARREN. 1995. Stress shift: Do speakers do it or do listeners hear it? Phonology and phonetic evidence: Papers in laboratory phonology 4, ed. by Bruce Connell and Amalia Arvaniti, 95-110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. GRICE, MARTINE; D. ROBERT LADD; and AMELIA ARVANITI. 2000. On the place of phrase accents in intonational phonology. Phonology 17.143-85.
44. GUSSENHOVEN, CARLOS. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19.377-417.
45. GUSSENHOVEN, CARLOS. 1999. On the limits of focus projection in English. Focus: Linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives, ed. by Peter Bosch and Rob A. van der Sandt, 43-55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. HALLE, JOHN, and FRED LERDAHL. 1993.A generative textsetting model. Current Musicology 55.3-23
47. HALLIDAY, M.A. K. 1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 3. Journal of Linguistics 4.179-215.
48. HAYES, BRUCE. 1995. Metrical stress theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49. HEDBERG, NANCY, and JUAN MANUEL SOSA. 2007. The prosody of topic and focus in spontaneous English dialogue. Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, ed. by Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon, and Daniel Büring, 101-120 Dordrecht: Springer.
50. HERMES, DIK J., and H. H. RUMP. 1994. Perception of prominence in speech intonation induced by rising and falling pitch movements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90.97-102.
51. HIRSCHBERG, JULIA. 1993. Pitch accent in context: Predicting intonational prominence from text. Artificial Intelligence 63.305-40
52. ITO, KIWAKO, and SHARI SPEER. 2008. Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58.541-73.
53. JACKENDOFF, RAY. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. JOHNSON, KEITH. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalisation. Talker variability in speech processing, ed. by Keith Johnson and JohnW.Mullennix, 145-165 San Diego: Academic Press.
55. JUN, SUN-AH. 1993. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.
56. JURAFSKY, DAN. 2003. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Bod et al., 39-95.
57. KRAHMER, EMIEL, and MARC SWERTS. 2001. On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication 34.391-405.
58. KRUIJFF-KORBAYOVÁ, IVANA, and MARK STEEDMAN. 2003. Discourse and information structure. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12.249-59.
59. LADD, D. ROBERT. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
60. LADD, D. ROBERT. 1983. Even, focus and normal stress. Journal of Semantics 2.157-70.
61. LADD, D. ROBERT. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3.311-40.
62. LADD, D. ROBERT. 1988. Declination 'reset' and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84.530-44
63. LADD, D. ROBERT. 2008. Intonational phonology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. LADD, D. ROBERT, and RACHEL MORTON. 1997. The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics 25.313-42.
65. LADD, D. ROBERT, and ASTRID SCHEPMAN. 2003. 'Sagging transitions' between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence. Journal of Phonetics 31.81-112.
66. LADD, D. ROBERT; JO VERHOEVEN; and KAREN JACOBS. 1994. Influence of adjacent pitch accents on each other's perceived prominence: Two contradictory effects. Journal of Phonetics 22.87-99.
67. LAKOFF, GEORGE. 1971. Presupposition and relative well-formedness. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. by Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits, 329-340 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. LAMBRECHT, KNUD. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69. LAMBRECHT, KNUD, and LAURA MICHAELIS. 1998. Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21.477-544.
70. LEVIN, BETH, andMALKA RAPPAPORT HOVAV. 1994. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. LIBERMAN, MARK. 1975. The intonational system of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
72. LIBERMAN, MARK, and JANET PIERREHUMBERT. 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. Language sound structure, ed. by Mark Aronoff, Richard Oerhle, Frances Kelley, and Bonnie Wilker Stephens, 157-233. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
73. NAKATANI, CHRISTINE; JULIA HIRSCHBERG; and BARBARA GROSZ. 1995. Discourse structure in spoken language: Studies on speech corpora. Working notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation, 106-112
74. NEELEMAN, AD, and KRISZTA SZENDROI. 2004. Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 35.149-59.
75. NENKOVA, ANI; JASON BRENIER; ANUBHA KOTHARI; SASHA CALHOUN; LAURA WHITTON; DAVID BEAVER; and DAN JURAFSKY. 2007. To memorize or to predict: Prominence labeling in conversational speech. NAACL Human Language Technology Conference, 9-16. Rochester, NY: Association for Computational Linguistics.
76. NESPOR, MARINA, and IRENE VOGEL. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
77. PAN, SHIMEI; KATHLEEN MCKEOWN; and JULIA HIRSCHBERG. 2002. Exploring features from natural language generation for prosody modeling. Computer Speech and Language 16.457-90.
78. PIERREHUMBERT, JANET. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
79. PIERREHUMBERT, JANET. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory phonology 7, ed. by Carlos Gussenhoven and NatashaWarner, 101-140 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
80. PIERREHUMBERT, JANET. 2003. Probabilistic phonology: Discrimination and robustness. In Bod et al., 177-228.
81. PIERREHUMBERT, JANET, and JULIA HIRSCHBERG. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Intentions in communication, ed. by Philip Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha Pollack, 271-311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. PITRELLI, JOHN; MARY BECKMAN; and JULIA HIRSCHBERG. 1994. Evaluation of prosodic transcription labeling reliability in the ToBI framework. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, vol.2, 123-126,Yokohama, Japan.
83. PRICE, PATTI; MARI OSTENDORF; STEFANIE SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL; and CYNTHIA FONG. 1991. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90.2956-70
84. PRINCE, ALAN, and MARK LIBERMAN. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8.249-336.
85. RAMUS, FRANCK; MARINA NESPOR; and JACQUES MEHLER. 1999. Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition 73.265-92.
86. ROCHEMONT, MICHAEL S. 1986. Focus in generative grammar.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ROOTH, MATS. 1992. A theory of focus intepretation. Natural Language Semantics 1.75-116.
87. ROOTH, MATS. 1996. Focus. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 271-297 Oxford: Blackwell.
88. RUMP, H. H., and RENÉ COLLIER. 1996. Focus conditions and the prominence of pitchaccented syllables. Language and Speech 39.1-17
89. SAMEK-LODOVICI, VIERI. 2005. Prosody syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23.687-755.
90. SCHAFER, AMY; SHARI SPEER; and PAUL WARREN. 2005. Prosodic influences on the production and comprehension of syntactic ambiguity in a game-based conversation task. Approaches to studying world situated language use: Psycholinguistic, linguistic and computational perspectives on bridging the product and action tradition, ed. by Michael Tanenhaus and John Trueswell, 209-226 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
91. SCHMERLING, SUSAN. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.
92. SCHWARZSCHILD, ROGER. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7.141-77.
93. SELKIRK, ELISABETH. 1984. Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
94. SELKIRK, ELISABETH. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, 550-569 Oxford: Blackwell.
95. SELKIRK, ELISABETH. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. Speech prosody 2002: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody, 643-646
96. SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, STEFANIE; MARI OSTENDORF; and KENNETH ROSS. 1994. Stress shift and early pitch accent placement in lexical items in American English. Journal of Phonetics 22.357-88.
97. SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, STEFANIE, and ALICE TURK. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25.193-247.
98. SPEER, SHARI; PAULWARREN; and AMY SCHAFER. 2003. Intonation and sentence processing. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. by Maria- Josep Solé, Daniel Recasens, and Joaquín Romero, 95-105.
99. STALNAKER, ROBERT C. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and semantics, vol.9: Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 315-332 NewYork: Academic Press.
100. STEEDMAN, MARK. 1991. Structure and intonation. Language 67.260-96.
101. STEEDMAN,MARK. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31.649-89.
102. SWERTS, MARC. 1997. Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strengths. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101.514-21
103. SWERTS, MARC; EMIEL KRAHMER; and CINZIA AVESANI. 2002. Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics 30.629-54.
104. SYRDAL,ANN, and JULIA MCGORY. 2000. Inter-transcriber reliability of ToBI prosodic labeling. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, vol.3, 235-238, Beijing, China.
105. TERKEN, JACQUES. 1991. Fundamental frequency and perceived prominence of accented syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89.1768-76
106. TERKEN, JACQUES, and DIK J. HERMES. 2000. The perception of prosodic prominence. Prosody: Theory and experiment: Studies presented to Gösta Bruce, ed. by Merle Horne, 89-127. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
107. TRUCKENBRODT, HUBERT. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
108. TRUCKENBRODT, HUBERT. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30.219-55.
109. TRUCKENBRODT, HUBERT. 2002. Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19. 77-120.
110. TRUCKENBRODT, HUBERT. 2006. Phrasal stress. The encyclopedia of languages and linguistics, 2nd edn., vol.9, ed. by Keith Brown, 572-579 Oxford: Elsevier.
111. TRUESWELL, JOHN. 1996. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 35.566-85.
112. TRUESWELL, JOHN; MICHAEL TANENHAUS; and SUSAN GARNSEY. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33.285-318.
113. VALLDUVÍ, ENRIC, and MARIAVILKUNA. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. Syntax and Semantics 29.79-108.
114. VAN DEN BERG, ROB; CARLOS GUSSENHOVEN; and TONI RIETVELD. 1992. Downstep in Dutch: Implications for a model. Papers in laboratory phonology 2: Gesture, segment, prosody, ed. by Gerard J. Doherty and D. Robert Ladd, 335-359 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
115. WAGNER, MICHAEL. 2005. Asymmetries in prosodic domain formation. MITWorking Papers in Linguistics (Perspectives on phrases) 49.329-67.
116. WAGNER, MICHAEL. 2006. Givenness and locality. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 16, ed. by Masayuki Gibson and Jonathan Howell, 295-312. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
117. WARREN, PAUL. 1999. Prosody and language processing. Language processing, ed. by Simon Garrod and Martin Pickering, 155-188 Hove: Pyschology Press.
118. WATSON, DUANE, and EDWARD GIBSON. 2004. The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 19.713-55.
119. WATSON, DUANE; CHRISTINE GUNLOGSON; andMICHAEL TANENHAUS. 2008. Interpreting pitch accents in on-line comprehension: H* vs L+H*. Cognitive Science 32.1232-44.
120. WELBY, PAULINE. 2003. Effects of pitch accent position, type and status on focus projection. Language and Speech 46.53-81.
121. WIGHTMAN, COLIN; STEFANIE SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL; MARI OSTENDORF; and PATTI PRICE. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91.1707-17
122. XU,YI, and CHING X. XU. 2005. Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics 33.159-97.
123. XU, YI; CHING X. XU; and SUN XUEJING. 2004. On the temporal domain of focus. Proceedings of Prosody 2004, ed. by Bernard Bel and Isabelle Marlien, 81-84, Nara, Japan.
124. YOON, TAE-JIN; SANDRA CHAVARRÍA; JENNIFER COLE; and MARK HASEGAWA-JOHNSON. 2004. Intertranscriber reliability of prosodic labeling on telephone conversation using ToBI. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 2729-2732, Jeju, Korea.
125. ZHANG, TONG; MARK HASEGAWA-JOHNSON; and STEPHEN LEVINSON. 2006. Extraction of pragmatic and semantic salience from spontaneous spoken English. Speech Communication 48.437-62.