Accessibility is no alternative to alternatives

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

Volumn 30, Issue 1-2, 2015, Pages 212-233

  Wagner, Michael ^a   Klassen, Jeffrey ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

accessibility; contrast; focus; givenness; repetition

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; SPEECH AND LANGUAGE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 84938339561     PISSN: 23273798     EISSN: 23273801     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2014.959532     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. D.Allerton, (1978). The notion of “givenness” and its relations to presupposition and to theme. Lingua, 44, 133–168.
2. M.Ariel, (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 65–87. doi:10.1017/S0022226700011567
3. M.Ariel, (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
4. M.Ariel, (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T.Sanders, J.Schliperoord, & W.Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
5. J.E.Arnold, (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns (PhD dissertation). Stanford University.
6. J.E.Arnold, (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137–162. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3102_02
7. J.E.Arnold, (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 495–527. doi:10.1080/01690960801920099
8. J.E.Arnold, (2010). How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4, 187–203. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00193.x
9. J.E.Arnold,, J.M.Kahn,, & G.C.Pancani, (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 505–512. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0233-y
10. M.Aylett, (2000). Stochastic Suprasegmentals: Relationships between redundancy, prosodic structure and care of articulation in spontaneous speech (PhD dissertation), University of Edinburgh.
11. M.Aylett,, & A.Turk, (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
12. R.H.Baayen,, D.J.Davidson,, & D.M.Bates, (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
13. E.G.Bard,, A.H.Anderson,, C.Sotillo,, M.Aylett,, G.Doherty-Sneddon,, & A.Newlands, (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(1), 1–22. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2667
14. D.J.Barr,, R.Levy,, C.Scheepers,, & H.J.Tily, (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
15. D.M.Bates,, & M.Maechler, (2010). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-33.
16. S.Baumann, (2006). The intonation of givenness: Evidence from German (Linguistische Arbeiten 508). Berlin: de Gruyter.
17. S.Baumann,, & A.Riester, (2012). Referential and lexical givenness: Semantics, prosodic, and cognitive aspects. In G.Elordieta & P.Prieto (Eds.), Prosody and meaning (pp. 119–162). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
18. A.Bell,, J.M.Brenier,, M.Gregory,, C.Girand,, & D.Jurafsky, (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
19. A.Bell,, M.Gregory,, J.Brenier,, D.Jurafsky,, A.Ikeno,, & C.Girand, (2002). Which predictability measures affect content word durations? In Proceedings of ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Pronunciation Modeling and Lexicon Adaptation for Spoken Language. Aspen Lodge, Estes Park, CO, USA.
20. P.Boersma,, & D.Weenink, (1996). PRAAT: A system for doing phonetics by computer. Report 132. Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam.
21. D.Bolinger, (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a Mind-Reader). Language, 48, 633–644. doi:10.2307/412039
22. M.Breen,, E.Fedorenko,, M.Wagner,, & E.Gibson, (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1044–1098. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
23. S.E.Brennan, (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 137–167. doi:10.1080/01690969508407091
24. G.Brown, (1983). Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction. In A.Cutler & D.R.Ladd (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (Vol. 14, pp. 67–77). Berlin: Springer.
25. D.Büring, (2008). What's new (and what's given) in the theory of focus? In Proceedings of BLS 34, pp. 403–424. Berkeley, CA, USA.
26. W.L.Chafe, (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50(1), 111–133. doi:10.2307/412014
27. N.Chomsky, (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D.Steinberg & L.Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology (pp. 183–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. H.H.Clark,, & C.J.Sengul, (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory & Cognition, 7(1), 35–41. doi:10.3758/BF03196932
29. H.H.Clark,, & S.Haviland, (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R.O.Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (Discourse processes, advances in research and theory 1) (pp. 1–40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
30. D.Dahan,, M.K.Tanenhaus,, & C.G.Chambers, (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292–314. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00001-3
31. K.I.Forster,, & C.Davis, (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.680
32. C.Fowler,, & J.Housum, (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. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90136-7
33. C.A.Fowler,, E.T.Levy,, & J.M.Brown, (1997). Reductions of spoken words in certain discourse contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 24–40. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.2504
34. A.Frank,, & T.F.Jaeger, (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In B.Love, K.McRae, &V.Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (CogSci 2008) (pp. 939–944). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
35. S.Gahl,, Y.Yao,, & K.Johnson, (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 789–806. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006
36. T.Givón, (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T.Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1–42.) Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
37. K.Gorman,, J.Howell,, & M.Wagner, (2011). Prosodylab-aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech. Canadian Acoustics, 39, 192–193.
38. B.J.Grosz, (1977). The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 67–76). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
39. B.J.Grosz,, A.Joshi,, & S.Weinstein, (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 44–50). Cambridge, MA.
40. B.J.Grosz,, S.Weinstein,, & A.Joshi, (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.
41. J.K.Gundel,, N.Hedberg,, & R.Zacharski, (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. doi:10.2307/416535
42. M.A.K.Halliday, (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244. doi:10.1017/S0022226700016613
43. C.L.Hamblin, (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 41–53.
44. I.Heim, (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In A.von Stechow & D.Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 487–535). Berlin: de Gruyter.
45. R.S.Jackendoff, (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. T.F.Jaeger, (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
47. D.Jurafsky,, A.Bell,, M.Gregory,, & W.D.Raymond, (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.
48. J.M.Kahn,, & J.E.Arnold, (2012). A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 311–325. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.002
49. M.Kameyama, (1986). A property-sharing constraint in centering. In D.E.Walker (Ed.), Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (pp. 200–206). New York, NY: Association for Computational Linguistics.
50. R.Katzir, (2013). A note on contrast. Natural Language Semantics, 21, 333–343. doi:10.1007/s11050-013-9095-8
51. T.Q.Lam,, & D.G.Watson, (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1137–1146. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1137
52. R.Levy,, & T.F.Jaeger, (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In J.P.B.Schlökopf & T.Hoffman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS 19) conference (pp. 849–856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53. S.G.Nooteboom,, & J.M.B.Terken, (1982). What makes speakers omit pitch accents? An experiment. Phonetica, 39, 317–336. doi:10.1159/000261670
54. H.Paul, (1880). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Max Niemeyer.
55. E.Prince, (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P.Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York, NY: Academic Press.
56. A.J.P.Riester, (2013). Relative givenness in German adjectival modification. Talk given at 2nd Graz Workshop on Information Structure (GWIS 2): Methodological Issues in the Study of Information Structure.
57. M.Rooth, (1985). Association with focus (PhD dissertation), University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
58. M.Rooth, (1992a). Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In S.Berman & A.Hestvik (Eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Universitäten Stuttgart und Tübingen in Kooperation mit der IBM Deutschland, Stuttgart, Germany.
59. M.Rooth, (1992b). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116. doi:10.1007/BF02342617
60. J.R.Ross, (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (PhD dissertation), MIT.
61. R.Schwarzschild, (1999). Givenness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141–177. doi:10.1023/A:1008370902407
62. R.Smyth, (1994). Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 197–229. doi:10.1007/BF02139085
63. J.Terken, (1984). The distribution of pitch accents in instructions as a function of discourse structure. Language and Speech, 27, 269–289.
64. J.Terken,, & J.Hirschberg, (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing ‘given’ information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech, 37, 125–145.
65. J.Terken,, & S.G.Nooteboom, (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 145–163. doi:10.1080/01690968708406928
66. H.Truckenbrodt, (1995). Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence (PhD dissertation), MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
67. M.Wagner, (2005a). NPI-licensing and focus movement. In E.Georgala & J.Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th semantics and linguistic theory (SALT 15) conference (pp. 276–293). Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, Ithaca, NY.
68. M.Wagner, (2005b). Prosody and recursion (PhD dissertation), MIT.
69. M.Wagner, (2006). Givenness and locality. In M.Gibson & J.Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th semantics and linguistic theory (SALT 16) conference (pp. 295–312). Ithaca, NY: CLC.
70. M.Wagner, (2010). Local alternatives in givenness marking. Talk given at the Workshop on Alternative-Based Semantics, Université de Nantes.
71. M.Wagner, (2012). A givenness illusion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 1433–1458. doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.607713
72. M.Wagner,, M.Breen,, E.Flemming,, S.Shattuck-Hufnagel,, & E.Gibson, (2010). Prosodic effects of discourse salience and association with focus. In Proceedings of speech prosody, 5th international conference. Chicago, IL, USA.
73. D.G.Watson, (2010). The many roads to prominence: Understanding emphasis in conversation. In B.H.Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 163–183). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
74. D.G.Watson,, & J.E.Arnold, (2005). Not just given and new: The effects of discourse and task-based constraints on acoustic prominence. Presented at 18th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Tucscon, AZ, USA.
75. D.Watson,, M.Tanenhaus,, & C.Gunlogson, (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32, 1232–1244. doi:10.1080/03640210802138755
76. S.Young,, G.Evermann,, M.Gales,, T.Hain,, D.Kershaw,, X.A.Liu,, P.Woodland, (2006). The HTK Book (Version 3.4). Cambridge University Engineering Department.