Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English

Language

Volumn 87, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 771-816

  Katz, Jonah ^a   Selkirk, Elisabeth ^b  

^a INSTITUT JEAN NICOD   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

English; Focus; Nuclear stress rule; Phonetic prominence; Phrasal stress; Prosody

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855582634     PISSN: 00978507     EISSN: 15350665     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/lan.2011.0076     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. Baayen, R. Harald; Douglas J. Davidson; and Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59.390-412.
2. Bates, Douglas. 2007. lme4: An R package for fitting and analyzing linear, nonlinear and generalized linear mixed models. Online: http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/.
3. Beaver, David I., and Brady Z. Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Malden, MA:Wiley-Blackwell.
4. Beckman, Mary E. 1986. Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris.
5. Beckman, Mary E., and Gayle Ayers Elam. 1993. Guidelines for ToBI labelling. Online: http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi/.
6. Beckman, Mary E., and Janet Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese. Phonology Yearbook 3.225-309.
7. Bolinger, Dwight. 1961. Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37.83-96.
8. Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Language 48.633-44.
9. Breen, Mara. 2007. The identification and function of English prosodic features. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
10. Breen, Mara; Evelina Fedorenko; Michael Wagner; and Edward Gibson. 2010. Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 25.1044-98.
11. Büring, Daniel. 2007. Intonation, semantics and information structure. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 445-73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Büring, Daniel. 2008. Been there, marked that: A theory of second occurrence focus. Los Angeles: University of California, LosAngeles, ms. Online: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/buring/website/allpapers.html.
13. Byrd, Dani, and Elliot Saltzman. 2003. The elastic phrase: Modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. Journal of Phonetics 31.149-80.
14. Calhoun, Sasha. 2006. Information structure and the prosodic structure of English: A probabilistic relationship. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.
15. Calhoun, Sasha. 2010. The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language 86.1-42.
16. Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 25-56. New York: Academic Press.
17. Choi, Jeung-Yoon; Mark Hasegawa-Johnson; and Jennifer Cole. 2005. Finding intonational boundaries using acoustic cues related to the voice source. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118.2579-87.
18. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
19. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24.239-97.
20. Cooper, William E.; Stephen Eady; and Pamela R. Mueller. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77.2142-56.
21. Dilley, Laura; Stephanie Shattuck-Hufnagel; and Mari Ostendorf. 1996. Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics 24.423-44.
22. D'Imperio, Mariapaola. 2002. Italian intonation:An overview and some questions. Probus 14.1.37-69.
23. Downing, Laura J. 2008. Focus and prominence in Chichewa, Chitumbuka and Durban Zulu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics (Papers in phonetics and phonology) 49.47-65.
24. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus vs. information focus. Language 74.245-73.
25. Eady, Stephen, and William E. Cooper. 1986. Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80.402-15.
26. Face, Timothy L. 2002. Local intonational marking of Spanish contrastive focus. Probus 14.1.71-92.
27. Féry, Caroline. 2003. Gradient prosodic correlates of phrasing in French. Nouveaux départs en phonologie, ed. by Trudel Meisenburg and Maria Selig, 161-82. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.
28. Féry, Caroline, and Manfred Krifka. 2008. Information structure: Notional distinctions, ways of expression. Unity and diversity of languages, ed. by Piet van Sterkenburg, 123-36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Féry, Caroline, and Vieri Samek-Lodovici. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82.131-50.
30. Frota, Sonia. 2000. Prosody and focus in European Portuguese: Phonological phrasing and intonation. (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics.) New York: Garland.
31. Fry, Dennis B. 1958. Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1.126-52.
32. Grice, Martine. 1995. Leading tones and downstep in English. Phonology 12.183-233.
33. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19.377-417.
34. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1990. Tonal association domains and the prosodic hierarchy in English. Studies in the pronunciation of English-A commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Gimson, ed. by Susan M. Ramsaran, 27-37. London: Routledge.
35. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1991. The English rhythm rule as an accent deletion rule. Phonology 8.1-35.
36. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, ed. by Iggy Roca, 91-106. Berlin: Foris.
37. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2006. Yucatec Maya tone in sentence perspective. Poster presented at Laboratory Phonology 10, Paris.
39. Gussenhoven, Carlos; Bruno Repp; Toni Rietveld; H. H. Rump; and Jacques Terken. 1997. The perceptual prominence of fundamental frequency peaks. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102.3009-22.
40. Gussenhoven, Carlos, and Renske Teeuw. 2008. A moraic and a syllabic H tone in Yucatec Maya. Fonología instrumental: Patrones fónicos y variación, ed. by Esther Herrera Z. and Pedro Martín Butragueno, 49-71. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.
41. Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
42. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English (part II). Journal of Linguistics 3.199-244.
44. Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10.41-53.
45. Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. Rhythm and meter, ed. by Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans, 201-60. Orlando: Academic Press.
46. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
47. Hedberg, Nancy. 2003. The prosody of contrastive topic and focus in spoken English. Pre-proceedings of the Workshop on Information Structure in Context, ed. by Agnes Bende-Farkas and Arndt Riester, 14-52. Stuttgart: Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung.
48. Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. LosAngeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.
49. Huss, Volker. 1977. English word stress in post-nuclear position. Phonetica 35.86-105.
50. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2004. The syntax of sentential stress. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.
52. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The syntax of sentential stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Keating, Patricia. 2003. Phonetic encoding of prosodic structure. Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on Speech Production, Sydney, 119-24.
54. Keating, Patricia, and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2002. A prosodic view of word form encoding for speech production. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 101.112-56.
55. Koch, Karsten. 2008. Intonation and focus in Nl{belted}e{glottal stop}kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.
56. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The representation of focus. Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenossischen Forschung/Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 825-34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
57. Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Interpreting focus: Presupposed or expressive meanings? Theoretical Linguistics 30.1.123-36. (Special issue on Interpreting focus.)
58. Kratzer, Angelika. 2010. Distinguishing contrastive, new and given information. [Report of joint work with Elisabeth Selkirk.] Keynote lecture, Georgetown Linguistics Society conference, February 2010.
59. Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24.93-135.
60. Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2010. Distinguishing contrastive, new and given information. Talk given at the International Conference on Information Structure, sponsored by SFB 632: Informationsstruktur, Potsdam, July 2010.
61. Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2011. Distinguishing contrastive, new and given information. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst, ms.
62. Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. by Yukio Otsu, 1-25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
63. Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Acompositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, ed. by Joachim Jacobs, 17-53. Opladen: West-
64. deutscher. [Previously published in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 1.127-58, 1991.]
65. Krifka, Manfred. 1993. Focus, presupposition and dynamic interpretation: The case of focus-sensitive particles. Journal of Semantics 10.269-300.
66. Kügler, Frank, and Stavros Skopeteas. 2006. Interaction of lexical tone and information structure in Yucatec Maya. TAL 2006 International Symposium (Tonal Aspects of Language), 83-88.
67. Kügler, Frank, and Stavros Skopeteas. 2007. On the universality of prosodic reflexes of contrast: The case of Yucatec Maya. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Saarbrücken, 1025-28.
68. Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
69. Ladd, D. Robert. 1988. Declination 'reset' and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84.538-44.
70. Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71. Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Ladd, D. Robert, and Astrid Schepman. 2003. 'Sagging transitions' between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence. Journal of Phonetics 31.81-112.
73. LeGac, David. 2002. Tonal alternations and prosodic structure in Somali. Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, 455-58.
74. Liberman, Mark, and Janet Pierrehumbert. 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. Language sound structure, ed. by Mark Aronoff and Richard Oehrle, 157-223. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75. Maekawa, Kikuo. 1997. Effects of focus on duration and vowel formant frequency in Japanese. Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech, ed. by Yoshinori Sagisaka and Nick Campbell, 129-56. Dordrecht: Springer.
76. Neeleman, Ad, and Tanya Reinhart. 1998. Scrambling and the PF interface. The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by Miriam Butt andWilhelm Gueder, 309-53. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
77. Neeleman, Ad, and Kriszta Szendro{double acute}i. 2004. Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 35.149-59.
78. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
79. Okobi, Anthony O. 2006. Acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology dissertation.
80. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
81. Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Mary E. Beckman. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Julia Hirschberg. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Intentions in communication, ed. by Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, 271-311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
83. Pitrelli, John; Mary E. Beckman; and Julia Hirschberg. 1994. Evaluation of prosodic transcription labeling reliability in the ToBI framework. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 94), Yokohama, 123-26.
84. Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 223-55. New York: Academic Press.
85. Quené, Hugo, and Huub van den Bergh. 2004. On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication 43.103-21.
86. Raaijmakers, Jeroen G. W.; Joseph M. C. Schrijnemakers; and Frans Gremmen. 1999. How to deal with 'The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy': Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language 41.416-26.
87. Rialland, Annie, and Stéphane Robert. 2001. The intonational system ofWolof. Linguistics 39.5.893-939.
88. Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
89. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of MassachusettsAmherst dissertation.
90. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1.75-116.
91. Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 271-97. London: Blackwell.
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: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
94. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3.371-405.
95. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by John A. Goldsmith, 550-69. Oxford: Blackwell.
96. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. Prosody: Theory and experiment: Studies presented to Gösta Bruce, ed. by Merle Horne, 231-62. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
97. 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, Aix-en-Provence, 643-46.
98. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2008a. Bengali intonation revisited:An optimality theoretic analysis in which FOCUS stress prominence drives FOCUS phrasing. Topic and focus: Crosslinguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, ed. by Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon, and Daniel Büring, 215-44. Dordrecht: Springer.
99. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2008b. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of 'discourse-new'. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55.331-46.
100. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., ed. by John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan C. L. Yu, 435-84. Oxford: Blackwell.
101. Sluijter, Agaath M. C.; Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel; Kenneth N. Stevens; and Vincent J. van Heuven. 1995. Supralaryngeal resonance and glottal pulse shape as correlates of stress and accent in English. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Stockholm, 630-33.
102. Sluijter, Agaath M. C., and Vincent J. van Heuven. 1996a. Acoustic correlates of linguistic stress and accent in Dutch and American English. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 96), Philadelphia, 630-33.
103. Sluijter, Agaath M. C., and Vincent J. van Heuven. 1996b. Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100.2471-85.
104. Sugahara, Mariko. 2003. Downtrends and post-FOCUS intonation in Tokyo Japanese. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
105. Syrdal, Ann K., and JuliaMcGory. 2000. Inter-transcriber reliability of ToBI prosodic labeling. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 2000), Beijing, vol. 3, 235-38.
106. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
107. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2002. Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19.77-120.
108. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2004. Final lowering in non-final position. Journal of Phonetics 32.313-48.
109. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. Phrasal stress. The encyclopedia of languages and linguistics, vol. 9, 2nd edn., ed. by Keith Brown, 572-79. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
110. Turk, Alice E., and LaurenceWhite. 1999. Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics 27.171-206.
111. Vallduví, Enric, andMariaVilkuna. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. Syntax and semantics, vol. 29: The limits of syntax, ed. by Peter Culicover and Louise McNally, 79-108. New York: Academic Press.
112. 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. Docherty and D. Robert Ladd, 335-58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
113. van Heuven, Vincent J., andAgaathM. C. Sluijter. 1996. Notes on the phonetics of word prosody. Stress patterns of the world, part 1: Background, ed. by Rob Goedemans, Harry van der Hulst, and Ellis Visch, 233-69. The Hague: HollandAcademic Graphics.
114. Veilleux, Nanette; Alejna Brugos; and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2008. The new English ToBI home page. [website] Online: www.tobihome.org.
115. Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
116. Wightman, Colin W.; Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel; Mari Ostendorf; and Patti J. Price. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91.1707-17.
117. Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28.577-628.
118. Xu, Yi, and Ching X. Xu. 2005. Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics 33.159-97.
119. Yoon, Tae-Jin; Jennifer Cole; and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2007. On the edge: Acoustic cues to layered prosodic domains. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Saarbrucken, 1017-20.