Acoustic correlates of information structure

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1044-1098

  Breen, Mara ^a   Fedorenko, Evelina ^b   Wagner, Michael ^c   Gibson, Edward ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Information structure; Prosody

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ARTICLE; BOOK; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; PERCEPTION; PHONETICS; PITCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; SPEECH ANALYSIS; VOWEL;

EID: 77957814335     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.504378     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Albritton, D., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 714-735.
2. Bartels, C., & Kingston, J. (1994). Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. In P. Boach & R. Van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus & natural language processing [IBM Working Papers on Logic and Linguistics, v. 6], (pp. 1-10), Heidelberg, Germany.
3. Baumann, S., Grice, M., & Steindamm, S. (2006). Prosodic marking of focus domains-categorical or gradient? In Proceedings of speech prosody (pp. 301-304). Dresden, Germany.
4. Beckman, M. (1986). Stress and non-stress accent [Netherlands Phonetic Archives Series No. 7]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
5. Beckman, M., & Ayers Elam, G. (1997). Guidelines for ToBI labeling, version 3. Ohio State University.
6. Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38(4), 365-391.
7. Birner, B. (1994). Information status and word order: An analysis of english inversion. Language, 70(2), 233-259.
8. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2006). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.3.10) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
9. Bolinger, D. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language, 37, 83-96.
10. Breen, M., Dilley, L., Gibson, E., Bolivar, M., & Kraemer, J. (2006, March). Advances in prosodic annotation: A test of inter-coder reliability for the RaP (Rhythm and Pitch) and ToBI (Tones and Break Indices) transcription systems. Poster presented at the 19th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY.
11. 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, Germany: Springer.
12. Calhoun, S. (2005, January). It's the difference that matters: An argument for contextually-grounded acoustic into national phonology. In Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting. Oakland, CA.
13. Calhoun, S. (2006). Information structure and the prosodic structure of English: A probabilistic relationship (PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK).
14. Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27-55). New York: Academic Press.
15. Clark, E. V., & Clark, H. H. (1978). Universals, relativity, and language processing. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language (Vol. 1, pp. 225-277). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16. Cooper, W., Eady, S., & Mueller, P. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 77(6), 2142-2156.
17. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1984). A new look at contrastive intonation. In R.Watts & U.Weidman (Eds.), Modes of interpretation: Essays presented to Ernst Leisi (pp. 137-158). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
18. Cutler, A. (1977). The context-independence of ''Intonational Meaning''. Chicago Linguistic Society, (CLS 13), 104-115.
19. Dilley, L. C. (2005). The phonetics and phonology of tonal systems. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
20. Eady, S. J., & Cooper, W. E. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 402-415.
21. Féry, C., & Krifka, M. (2008). Information structure: Notional distinctions, ways of expression. In P. van Sterkenburg (Ed.), Unity and diversity of languages (pp. 123-136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Fry, D. B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 765-768.
23. Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. (2010). Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 233-234.
24. Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Testing the reality of focus domains. Language and Speech, 26, 61-80.
25. 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, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. Gussenhoven, C., Repp, B. H., Rietveld, A., Rump, W. H., & Terken, J. (1997). The perceptual prominence of fundamental frequency peaks. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 3009-3022.
27. Halliday, M. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
28. Hawkins, S., & Warren, P. (1991). Factors affecting the given-new distinction in speech. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 66-69). Aix en Provence, France.
29. Ito, K., & Speer, S. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 541-573.
30. Ito, K., Speer, S. R., & Beckman, M. E. (2004). Informational status and pitch accent distribution in spontaneous dialogues in English. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 279-282). Nara, Japan.
31. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434-446.
33. 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(2), 1038-1054.
34. Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2001). On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication, 34, 391-405.
35. Kraljic, T., & Brennan, S. E. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology, 50, 194-231.
36. Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 79]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37. Ladd, D. R., & Morton, R. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics, 25, 313-342.
38. Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39, 463-516.
39. Lieberman, P. (1960). Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32(4), 451-454.
40. Molnar, V. (2002). Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective. In H. Hasselgård, S. Johansson, B. Behrens, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Language and computers (Vol. 39, pp. 147-161). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
41. Paul, H. (1880). Prinzipien der sprachgeschichte [Principles of the history of language]. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer.
42. Pell, M. D. (2001) Influence of emotion and focus location on prosody in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(4), 1668-1680.
43. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Unpublished dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
44. 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.
45. Pierrehumbert, J., & Steele, S. (1989). Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica, 46, 181-196.
46. Pitrelli, J., Beckman, M., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Evaluation of prosodic transcription labeling reliability in the ToBI framework. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 123-126). Yokohama, Japan.
47. Rietveld, A. C. M., & Gussenhoven, C. (1985). On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 299-308.
48. Rochemont, M. S. (1986). Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
49. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Doctoral thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA.
50. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75-116.
51. Rump, H. H., & Collier, R. (1996). Focus conditions and the prominence of pitch-accented syllables. Language and Speech, 39, 1-17.
52. Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, S. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 169-182.
53. Schwarzchild, R. (1999). GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141-177.
54. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550-569). Oxford: Blackwell.
56. Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., Hakkani-Tur, D., & Tur, G. (2000). Prosody-based automatic segmentation of speech into sentences and topics. Speech Communication, 32, 127-154.
57. Shriberg, E., Bates, R., Taylor, P., Stolcke, A., Jurafsky, D., Ries, K.,... Van Ess-Dykema, C. (1998). Can prosody aid the automatic classification of dialog acts in conversational speech? Language and Speech, 41(3-4), 439-487.
58. nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 867-879). Banff, Canada.
59. Sluijter, A., & van Heuven, V. (1996). Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2471-2485.
60. Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential contest. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 103-130.
61. Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701-721.
62. Syrdal, A., & McGory, J. (2000). Inter-transcriber reliability of ToBI prosodic labeling. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 235-238). Beijing, China.
63. Terken, J. (1991). Fundamental frequency and perceived prominence accented syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 1768-1776.
64. 't Hart, J., Collier, R., & Cohen, A. (1990). A perceptual study of intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65. Turk, A., & Sawusch, J. (1996). The processing of duration and intensity cues to prominence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 3782-3790.
66. Welby, P. (2003). Effects of pitch accent position, type, and status on focus projection. Language and Speech, 46, 53-81.
67. 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, 91(3), 1707-1717.
68. Xu, Y., & Xu, C. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 159-197.
69. Yoon, T., Chavarria, S., Cole, J., & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. (2004). Intertranscriber reliability of prosodic labeling on telephone conversation using ToBI. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 2729-2732). Nara, Japan.