Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 905-945

  Wagner, Michael ^a,b   Watson, Duane G ^c  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Intonation; Production; Prosody

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ARTICLE; BOOK; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; PERCEPTION; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; SPEECH;

EID: 77957811016     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690961003589492     Document Type: Article

References (183)

1. Allbritton, D. W., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 714-735. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.714
2. Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 419-439. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2558
3. Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247-264. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
4. Anderson, C., & Carlson, K. (2004, March). Prosodic phrasing in DO/SC and closure sentences. Paper presented at the Seventeenth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, College Park, MD.
5. Arnold, J. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
6. Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 495-527. doi:10.1080/01690960801920099
7. Aylett, M. (2000, October). Stochastic suprasegmentals: Relationships between redundancy, prosodic structure and care of articulation in spontaneous speech. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing Beijing, China.
8. Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 31-56. doi:10.1177/00238309040470010201
9. Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In J. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 1-46). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
10. Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 1-22. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2667
11. Bard, E. G., & Aylett, M. P. (1999). The dissociation of deaccenting, givenness, and syntactic role in spontaneous speech. In J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa, M. Ohala, D. Granveille, & A. Bailey (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1753-1756). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
12. Beach, C. M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 644-663. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90030-N
13. Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-310.
14. Beckman, M. E., & Edwards, J. (1992). Intonational categories and the articulatory control of duration. In Y. Tohkura, E. Vatikiotis-Bateson, & Y. Sagisaka (Eds.), Speech perception, production and linguistic structure (pp. 359-375). Tokyo: Ohmsha.
15. Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 92-111. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003
16. Bell, A., Gregory, M., Brenier, J., Jurafsky, D., Ikeno, A., & Girand, C. (2002, September). Which predictability measure affect content and durations? Paper presented at the Proceedings of ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Pronunciation Modeling and Lexicon Adaptation for Spoken Language, Estes Park, CO.
17. Berkovits, R. (1994). Durational effects in final lengthening, gapping, and contrastive stress. Language and Speech, 37, 237-250.
18. Birch, S., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38(4), 365-392.
19. Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (2002). Effects of varying focus and accenting of adjuncts on the comprehension of utterances. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 571-588. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00018-9
20. Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind reader). Language, 48, 633-644. doi:10.2307/412039
21. Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1044-1098. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
22. Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 102, 137-167. doi:10.1080/01690969508407091
23. Brown-Schmidt, S., Campana, E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Real-time reference resolution by nai{dotless}̈ve participants during a task-based unscripted conversation. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 153-171). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Büring, D. (2003). Focus projection and default prominence. In V. Molna ́r & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 321-346). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
25. Büring, D. (2007). Intonation, semantics, and information structure. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 445-473). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Byrd, D., Krivokapic, J., & Lee, S. (2006). How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 1589-1599. doi:10.1121/1.2217135
27. Byrd, D., & Saltzman, E. (1998). Intragestural dynamics of multiple phrasal boundaries. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 173-199. doi:10.1006/jpho.1998.0071
28. Byrd, D., & Saltzman, E. (2003). The elastic phrase: Modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. Journal of Phonetics, 31(2), 149-180. doi:10.1016/S0095-4470(02)00085-2
29. Carlson, K., Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(1), 58-81. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2762
30. Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21-51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31. Chen, A., den Os, E., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2007). Pitch accent type matters for online processing of information status: Evidence from natural and synthetic speech. The Linguistic Review, 24, 317-344. doi:10.1515/TLR.2007.012
32. Chen, M. Y. (1987). The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology Yearbook, 4, 109-149.
33. Cho, T. (2002). The effects of prosody on articulation in English. New York: Routledge.
34. Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology (pp. 183-216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
36. Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 239-298.
37. Clifton, C. J., Frazier, L., & Carlson, K. (2006). Tracking the what and why of speakers' choices: Prosodic boundaries and the length of constituents. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(5), 854-861.
38. Cooper, W. E., & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39. Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40(2), 141-201.
40. Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 292-314. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00001-3
41. de Pijper, J. R., & Sanderman, A. A. (1994). On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2037-2047. doi:10.1121/1.410145
42. Dilley, L. (2005). The phonetics and phonology of tonal systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
43. Dilley, L., Breen, M., Bolivar, M., Kraemer, J., & Gibson, E. (2006, September). A comparison of inter-coder reliability for two systems of prosodic transcriptions: RaP (rhythm and pitch) and ToBI (tones and break indices). Paper presented in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Pittsburgh, PA.
44. Dilley, L., & Brown, M. (2005). The RaP (rhythm and pitch) labeling system. v. 1.0, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available from http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/pitt/dilley/rapsystem.htm.
45. Dilley, L., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Ostendorf, M. (1996). Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 423-444. doi:10.1006/jpho.1996.0023
46. Eady, S. J., Cooper, W. E., Klouda, G. V., Mueller, P. R., & Lotts, D. W. (1986). Acoustical characteristics of sentential focus: Narrow vs. broad and single vs. dual focus environments. Language and Speech, 29, 233-251.
47. Edwards, J., Beckman, M. E., & Fletcher, J. (1991). The articulatory kinematics of final lengthening. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 369-382. doi:10.1121/1.400674
48. Fant, G., & Kruckenberg, A. (1996). On the quantal nature of speech timing. Spoken Language, 1996. Proceedings of the ICSLP, pp. 2044-2047
49. Ferreira, F. (1988). Planning and timing in sentence production: The syntax-to-phonology conversion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
50. Ferreira, F. (1991). Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 210-233. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90004-4
51. Ferreira, F. (1993). Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review, 100, 233-253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.233
52. Ferreira, F. (2002). Prosody. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 762-768). London: Macmillan.
53. Ferreira, F. (2007). Prosody and performance in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 1151-1177. doi:10.1080/01690960701461293
54. Féry, C., & Truckenbrodt, H. (2005). Sisterhood and tonal scaling. Studia Linguistica, 59, 223-243.
55. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319. doi:10.1023/A:1023258301588
56. Fodor, J. D. (2002, April). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. In Proceedings of speech prosody (pp. 83-90). Aix-en-Provence, France.
57. Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 3728-3740. doi:10.1121/1.418332
58. Fowler, C., & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers signaling of new and old words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech, 28, 47-56.
59. Frazier, L., Carlson, K., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 244-249. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.002
60. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1998). Sentence reanalysis and visibility. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 143-176). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
62. Fry, D. B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 765-768. doi:10.1121/1.1908022
63. Fry, D. B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech, 1(2), 126-152.
64. Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S. M. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748-775. doi:10.1353/lan.2004.0185
65. Gee, J., & Grosjean, F. (1983). Performance structures: A psycholinguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 411-458. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90014-2
66. Ghini, M. (1993). Phi-formation in Italian: A new proposal. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 41-78.
67. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95-126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68. Grabe, E., Warren, P., & Nolan, F. (1994). Resolving category ambiguities-evidence from stress shift. Speech Communication, 15, 101-114. doi:10.1016/0167-6393(94)90045-0
69. Gregory, M. (2001). Linguistic informativeness and speech production: An investigation of contextual and discourse-pragmatic effects on phonological variation. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
70. Gregory, M. L., Healy, A. F., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Common ground in production: Effects of mutual knowledge on word duration. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado at Boulder, CO.
71. Grosjean, F., & Collins, M. (1979). Breathing, pausing, and reading. Phonetica, 36, 98-114. doi:10.1159/000259950
72. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203-225.
73. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175-204.
74. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions. Language, 69, 274-307. doi:10.2307/416535
75. Gunlogson, C. (2003). True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge.
76. Gussenhoven, C. (1983). A semantic analysis of the nuclear tones of English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
77. Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris.
78. Gussenhoven, C. (1991). The English rhythm rule as an accent assignment rule. Phonology, 8, 1-35. doi:10.1017/S0952675700001263
79. Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
80. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244. doi:10.1017/S0022226700016613
81. Heldner, M. (2001). Spectral emphasis as an additional source of information in accent detection. In M. Bacchiani, J. Hirschberg, D. Litman, & M. Ostendorf (Eds.), Prosody 2001: ISCA tutorial and research workshop on prosody in speech recognition and understanding (pp. 57-60), Red Bank, NJ.
82. Hirose, Y. (1999). Resolving reanalysis ambiguity in Japanese relative clauses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, CUNY, New York, NY.
83. Hirschberg, J. (1993). Pitch accent in context predicting intonational prominence from text. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1-2), 305-340. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(93)90020-C
84. Isaacs, A., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Accent detection is a slippery slope: Direction and rate of F0 change drives listeners' comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1178-1200. doi:10.1080/01690961003783699
85. Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 85(2), 541-573. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.013
86. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
87. Jackendoff, R. S. (1977). X'-syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
88. Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
89. Jun, S. A. (1993). The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
90. Jun, S. A. (2005). Prosodic typology: The phonology and intonation and phrasing. Oxford: OUP.
91. Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency in the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229-254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
92. Keating, P., Cho, T., Fougeron, C., & Hsu, C. (2003). Domain-initial strengthening in four languages. In J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology 6 (pp. 143-161). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
93. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J.L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1-44. doi:10.1093/jos/ffm018
94. Kim, H., Yoon, T., Cole, J., & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. (2006). Acoustic differentiation of L- and LL% in switchboard and radio news speech. In Proceedings of speech prosody 2006, Dresden, Germany.
95. Kjelgaard, M. M., & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 153-194. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2620
96. Klatt, D. H. (1975). Vowel lengthening is syntactically determined in a connected discourse. Journal of Phonetics, 3, 129-140.
97. Kochanski, G., Grabe, E., Coleman, J., & Rosner, B. (2005). Loudness predicts prominence: Fundamental frequency lends little. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1038-1054. doi:10.1121/1.1923349
98. Kraljic, T., & Brennan, S. E. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology, 50, 194-231. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.08.002
99. Ladd, D., & Morton, R. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics, 25, 313-342. doi:10.1006/jpho.1997.0046
100. Ladd, D. R. (1988). Declination and 'reset' and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 530-544.
101. nd edn). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
102. Larkey, L. S. (1983). Reiterant speech: An acoustic and perceptual validation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73, 1337-1345. doi:10.1121/1.389237
103. Lavoie, L. (2001). Consonant strength: Phonological patterns and phonetic manifestations. New York: Garland.
104. Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
105. Lehiste, I. (1973). Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa, 7, 107-122.
106. Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 19 (pp. 849-856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
107. Liberman, M. (1975). The intonational system of English. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
108. Liberman, M., & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(2), 249-336.
109. Lieberman, P. (1960). Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32(4), 451-454. doi:10.1121/1.1908095
110. Lieberman, P. (1967). Intonation, perception, and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
111. Lovric, N. (2003). Implicit prosody in silent reading: Relative clause attachment in Croatian. Unpublished dissertation, CUNY, New York, NY.
112. MacDonald, M. (1999). Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 177-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
113. Marcus, M., & Hindle, D. (1990). Description theory and intonation boundaries. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 483-512). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
114. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L., Warren, P., Grenier, P., & Lee, C. (1992). Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 45(1), 73-87.
115. Martin, J. G. (1970). On judging pauses in spontaneous speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 75-78. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80010-X
116. McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2002). Gradient effects of within-category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition, 86(2), B33-B42. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00157-9
117. Nagel, H. N., Shapiro, L. P., Tuller, B., & Nawy, R. (1996). Prosodic influences on the resolution of temporary ambiguity during on-line sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 319-344. doi:10.1007/BF01708576
118. Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.
119. O'Malley, M., Kloker, D., & Dara-Abrams, B. (1973). Recovering parentheses from spoken algebraic expressions. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 21(3), 217-220. doi:10.1109/TAU.1973.1162449
120. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
121. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
122. Post, B. (1999). Restructured phonological phrases in French: Evidence from clash resolution. Linguistics, 37(1), 41-63.
123. Price, P. J., Ostendorf, S., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 9, 2956-2970. doi:10.1121/1.401770
124. Prieto, P. (2005). Syntactic and eurhythmic constraints on phrasing decisions in Catalan. Studia Linguistica, 59(2-3), 194-222.
125. Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York: Academic Press.
126. Pynte, J., & Prieur, B. (1996). Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(1), 165-192. doi:10.1080/016909696387259
127. Redi, L., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2001). Variation in the realization of glottalization in normal speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 29(4), 407-429. doi:10.1006/jpho.2001.0145
128. Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Focus: The PF-interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
129. Rietveld, A. C. M., & Gussenhoven, C. (1985). On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence. On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 299-308.
130. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75-116. doi:10.1007/BF02342617
131. Samek-Lodovici, V. (2002). Prosody-syntax in the expression of focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23, 687-755. doi:10.1007/s11049-004-2874-7
132. Schafer, A. (1997). Prosodic parsing: The role of prosody in sentence comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
133. Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., & Warren, P. (2005). Prosodic influences on the production and comprehension of syntactic ambiguity in a game-based conversation task. In M. Tanenhaus & J. Trueswell (Eds.), Approaches to studying world situated language use: Psycholinguistic, linguistic and computational perspectives on bridging the product and action tradition (pp. 209-225). Cambridge: MIT Press.
134. Schmerling, S. F. (1976). Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
135. Schwarzschild, R. (1999). Givenness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141-177. doi:10.1023/A:1008370902407
136. Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71(2), 109-147. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00025-6
137. Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
138. Selkirk, E. O. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371-405.
139. Selkirk, E. O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550-569). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
140. Selkirk, E. O. (2000). The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment (pp. 231-262). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
141. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Turk, A. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 193-247. doi:10.1007/BF01708572
142. Silverman, K. E. A., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J. F., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., et al. (1992). TOBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In Proceedings of the 1992 international conference on spoken language processing (Vol. 2, pp. 867-870). Banff, Canada.
143. Sluijter, A. M. C., & van Heuven, V. J. (1996). Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2471-2485. doi:10.1121/1.417955
144. Snedeker, J., & Casserly, E. (2010). Is it all relative? Effects of prosodic boundaries on the comprehension and production of attachment ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1234-1264. doi:10.1080/01690960903525499
145. 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. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00519-3
146. Speer, S. R., Kjelgaard, M. M., & Dobroth, K. M. (1996). The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 249-271. doi:10.1007/BF01708573
147. Steedman, M. (1991). Structure and intonation. Language, 67(2), 260-296. doi:10.2307/415107
148. Stirling, L., & Wales, R. (1996). Does prosody support or direct sentence processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 193-212. doi:10.1080/016909696387268
149. Streeter, L. A. (1978). Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64(6), 1582-1592. doi:10.1121/1.382142
150. Syrdal, A. K., & McGory, J., (2000). Inter-transcriber reliability of ToBI prosodic labeling. In Proceedings of the ICSLP (Vol. 3, pp. 235-238), Beijing, China.
151. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632-1634. doi:10.1126/science.7777863
152. Terken, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing ''given'' information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech, 37(2), 125-145.
153. Terken, J., & Nooteboom, S. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2(3), 145-163. doi:10.1080/01690968708406928
154. Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
155. Truckenbrodt, H. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(2), 219-255. doi:10.1162/002438999554048
156. Truckenbrodt, H. (2002). Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology, 19(1), 77-120. doi:10.1017/S095267570200427X
157. Truckenbrodt, H., & Darcy, I. (2010). Object clauses, movement, and phrasal stress. In L. Rochman & N. Erteschik-Shir (Eds.), The sound patterns of syntax (pp. 189-216). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
158. Turk, A. E. (2008, June). Prosodic constituency signals relative predictability. Paper presented at Labphon, University of Wellington, New Zealand.
159. Turk, A. E., & Sawusch, J. R. (1996). The processing of duration and intensity cues to prominence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(6), 3782-3790. doi:10.1121/1.414995
160. Turk, A. E., & White, L. (1999). Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics, 27(2), 171-206. doi:10.1006/jpho.1999.0093
161. van den Berg, R., Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, T. (1992). Downstep in Dutch: Implications for a model. In G. Docherty & R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology, Vol. 2: Gesture, segment, prosody (pp. 335-358). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
162. Vanderslice, R., & Ladefoged, P. (1972). Binary suprasegmental features and transformational word-accentuation rules. Language, 48(4), 819-838. doi:10.2307/411990
163. Venditti, J., & Hirschberg, J. (2003, August). Intonation and discourse processing. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain.
164. Wagner, M. (2005). Prosody and recursion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
165. Wagner, M. (2006). Givenness and locality. In M. Gibson & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 16 (pp. 295-312). Ithaca, NY: CLC.
166. Wagner, M. (2010). Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28, 183-237.
167. Warren, P. (1985). The temporal organization and perception of speech. Unpublished dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
168. Warren, P., Grabe, E., & Nolan, F. (1995). Prosody, phonology and parsing in closure ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 457-486. doi:10.1080/01690969508407112
169. Watson, D., & Gibson, E. A. (2005). Intonational phrasing and constituency in language production and comprehension. Studia Linguistica, 59(2-3), 279-300. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00130.x
170. Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005, March). Not just given and new: The effects of discourse and task based constraints on acoustic prominence. Poster presented at the 2005 CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ.
171. Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008a). Tic tac toe: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106(3), 1548-1557. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.009
172. Watson, D. G., Breen, M., & Gibson, E. (2006a). The role of syntactic obligatoriness in the production of intonational boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1045-1056. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1045
173. Watson, D. G., & Gibson, E. A. (2004a). Making sense of the sense unit condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 508-517. doi:10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.508
174. Watson, D. G., & Gibson, E. A. (2004b). The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(6), 713-755. doi:10.1080/01690960444000070
175. Watson, D. G., Gunlugson, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006b). Online methods for the investigation of prosody. In A. Saube (Ed.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 259-282). Leipzig, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
176. Watson, D. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Gunlogson, C. (2008b). Interpreting pitch accents in on-line comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science, 32, 1232-1244. doi:10.1080/03640210802138755
177. Watt, S. M., & Murray, W. S. (1996). Prosodic form and parsing commitments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 291-318. doi:10.1007/BF01708575
178. Weber, A., Braun, B., & Crocker, M.W. (2006). Finding referents in time: Eye-tracking evidence for the role of contrastive accents. Language and Speech, 49(3), 367-392. doi:10.1177/00238309060490030301
179. Welby, P. (2003). Effects of pitch accent position, type, and status on focus projection. Language and Speech, 46(1), 53-81. doi:10.1177/00238309030460010401
180. Wheeldon, L., & Lahiri, A. (1997). Prosodic units in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 356-381. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2517
181. Wightman, C. W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M., & Price, P. J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 1707-1717. doi:10.1121/1.402450
182. Williams, E. (1997). Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 577-628.
183. Xu, Y., & Xu, C. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33(2), 159-197. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001