A givenness illusion

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 27, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 1433-1458

  Wagner, Michael ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Contrast; Focus; Givenness; Information structure; Phonological identity; Prosody

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; ILLUSION; LINGUISTICS; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84868544464     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.607713     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Arnold, J. E. 2008. THE BACON not the bacon: How children and adults understand accented and unaccented noun phrases. Cognition, 108: 69-99.
2. Artstein, R. 2004. Focus below the word level. Natural Language Semantics, 12: 1-22.
3. Aylett, M. and 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: 31-56.
4. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. and Bates, D. M. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59: 390-412.
5. Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M., Doherty-Sneddon, G. and Newlands, A. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42: 1-22.
6. Bates, D. M., & Maechler, M. 2010. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes classes. R package version 0.999375-33.http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/
7. Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C. and Jurafsky, D. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60: 92-111.
8. Bock, J. K. and Mazzella, J. R. 1983. Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 11: 64-76.
9. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. 1996. PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer (Report 132). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam.
10. Bolinger, D. 1961. Contrastive accent and constrastive stress. Language, 37: 83-96.
11. Bolinger, D. 1972. Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Language, 48: 633-644.
12. Braun, B. and Tagliapietra, L. 2010. The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25: 1024-1043.
13. Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M. and Gibson, E. 2010. Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25: 1044-1098.
14. Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English, New York, NY: Harper & Row.
15. Cutler, A., Dahan, D. and van Donselaar, W. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40: 141-201.
16. Cutler, A. and Isard, S. D. 1980. "The production of prosody". In Language production, Edited by: Butterworth, B. Vol. 1, 245-269. London, UK: Academic Press.
17. Forster, K. I. and Forster, J. C. 2003. DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, 35: 116-124.
18. Fowler, C. A. and Housum, J. 1987. Talkers' signaling of new and old. words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26: 489-504.
19. German, J., Pierrehumbert, J. and Kaufmann, S. 2006. Evidence for phonological constraints on nuclear accent placement. Language, 82: 152
20. Gordon, P. C. and Chan, D. 1995. Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34: 216-231.
21. Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J. and Gilliom, L. A. 1993. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17: 311-347.
22. Gorman, K., Howell, J., & Wagner, M. 2011 Prosodylab-aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech. Proceedings of Acoustics Week in Canada. Canadian Acoustics 39 3, 192 193
23. Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3: 199-244.
24. Heim, I. 1991. "Artikel und Definitheit". In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, Edited by: von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D. 487-535. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
25. 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.
26. Jaeger, T. F. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61: 23-62.
27. Kehler, A. 2005. Coherence-driven constraints on the placement of accent. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 98-115. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications
28. Ladd, D. R. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd ed., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Lam, T. Q. and Watson, D. G. 2010. Repwetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38: 1137-1146.
30. Newman, S. S. 1946. On the stress system of English. Word, 2: 171-187.
31. Nooteboom, S. G. and Terken, J. M. B. 1982. What makes speakers omit pitch accents? An experiment. Phonetica, 39: 317-336.
32. Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1: 75-116.
33. Sauerland, U. 2005. "Don't interpret focus! Why a presuppositional account of focus fails, and how a presuppositional account of givenness works". In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, University of Nijmegen, Edited by: Maier, E., Bary, C. and Huitink, J. 370-384. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: NCS.
34. Schwarzschild, R. 1999. Givenness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7: 141-177.
35. Selkirk, E. O. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J. A. Goldsmith Handbook of phonological theory chapter 16 550-569. London, UK: Blackwell.
36. Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics, 9: 315-332.
37. Stalnaker, R. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25: 701-721.
38. Terken, J. and Hirschberg, J. 1994. Deaccentuation of words representing'given'information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech, 37: 125
39. Truckenbrodt, H. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
40. Venditti, J. J., & Hirschberg, J. 2003. Intonation and discourse processing. J. Trouvain W. Barry, Proceedings of the international congress of phonetic sciences 315-318. Saarbrücken, Germany: University of Saarbrücken.
41. Wagner, M. 2005. Prosody and recursion Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
42. Wagner, M. 2006. "Givenness and locality". In Proceedings of SALT XVI, Edited by: Gibson, M. and Howell, J. 295-312. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
43. Wagner, M., Breen, M., Flemming, E., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Gibson, E. 2010. Prosodic effects of discourse salience and association with focus. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody. http://speechprosody2010.illinois.edu/program.php
44. Wagner, M. and McCurdy, K. 2010. Poetic rhyme reflects cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of information structure. Cognition, 117: 166-175.
45. Wagner, M. and Watson, D. G. 2010. Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25: 905-945.
46. Watson, D. G. 2010. The many roads to prominence: Understanding emphasis in conversation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 52: 163-183.
47. Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E. and Tanenhaus, M. K. 2008. Tic tac toe: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106: 1548-1557.
48. Williams, E. 1980. Remarks on stress and anaphora. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1: 1-16.
49. Williams, E. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 577-628.
50. Young, S., Evermann, G., Gales, M., Hain, T., Kershaw, D., Liu, X., et al. 2006. The HTK book (version 3.4). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Engineering Department.