Relative prosodic boundary strength and prior bias in disambiguation

Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages

  Wagner, Michael ^a   Crivellaro, Serena ^b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Gradience; Prosodic boundaries; Rational listener; Relative boundary strength

Indexed keywords

BOUNDARY STRENGTHS; PROSODIC BOUNDARY;

EID: 84902969530     PISSN: 23332042     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. K. Carlson, J. Charles Clifton, and L. Frazier, “Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 45, pp. 58-81, 2001.
2. C. J. Clifton, K. Carlson, and L. Frazier, “Informative prosodic boundaries,” Language and Speech, vol. 45, pp. 87-114, 2002.
3. I. Lehiste, “Phonetic disambigation of syntactic ambiguity,” Glossa, vol. 7, pp. 107-122, 1973.
4. P. J. Price, M. Ostendorf, S. Shattuck-Hufnagel, and C. Fong, “The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 9, pp. 2956-2970, 1991.
5. C. W. Wightman, S. Shattuck-Hufnagel, M. Ostendorf, and P. J. Price, “Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 92, pp. 1707-1717, 1992.
6. K. Silverman, M. Beckman, M. Ostendorf, C. Wightman, P. Price, J. Pierrehumbert, and J. Hirschberg, “ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody,” in Proceedings of the 1992 international conference conference of spoken language processing, vol. 2, 1992, pp. 867-870.
7. L. Frazier, K. Carlson, and C. Clifton, “Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 244-249, 2006.
8. J. Snedeker and E. Casserly, “Is it all relative? effects of prosodic boundaries on the comprehension and production of attachment ambiguities,” 2010, to appear. Language and Cognitive Processes.
9. J. R. D. Pijper and A. A. Sanderman, “On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 96, p. 2037, 1994.
10. P. Boersma and D. Weenink, “PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer. report 132.” 1996, institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam.
11. S. Gahl and S. M. Garnsey, “Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation,” Language, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 748-775, 2004.
12. R. Baayen, D. Davidson, and D. Bates, “Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 390-412, 2008.
13. M. Wagner, “Prosody and recursion,” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, 2005.
14. M. Clayards, M. Tanenhaus, R. Aslin, and R. Jacobs, “Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues,” Cognition, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 804-809, 2008.
15. R. Levy and T. F. Jaeger, “Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction.” in Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), J. P. B. Schlökopf and T. Hoffman, Eds., vol. 19, 2006, pp. 849-856.