What is emphasis and how is it coded?

Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages

  Kohler, Klaus J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSODICS;

EID: 84946420153     PISSN: 23332042     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Armstrong, L. E.; Ward, I. C., 1926. A Handbook of English Intonation. Cambridge: Heffer.
2. Coustenoble, H. N.; Armstrong, L. E., 1934. Studies in French Intonation. Cambridge: Heffer.
3. Chen, A., 2005. Universal and language-specific perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning. PhD thesis Nijmegen. Utrecht: LOT.
4. Chen, A.; Gussenhoven, C.; Rietveld, T., 2002. Languagespecific uses of the effort code. In B. Bel and I. Marlien (eds.), Proc of Speech Prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, 211-214.
5. Dombrowski, E.; Niebuhr, O., 2005. Acoustic patterns and communicative functions of phrase-final F0 rises in German: activating and restricting contours. Phonetica 62, 176-195.
6. Gussenhoven, C., 2002. Intonation and interpretation: phonetics and phonology. In B. Bel and I. Marlien (eds.), Proc of Speech Prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, 47-57.
7. Gussenhoven, C.; Rietveld, T., 2000. The behaviour of H and L under variations in pitch range in Dutch rising contours. Language and Speech 43 (2), 183-203.
8. IPDS, 1995. The Kiel Corpus of Spontaneous Speech. vols 1, 2 CD-ROM#2, 3. IPDS: Kiel.
9. Kohler, K. J., 1997. Modelling prosody in spontaneous speech. In Y. Sagisaka, N. Campbell, and N. Higuchi (eds.), Computing Prosody. Computational models for processing spontaneous speech. New York: Springer, 187-210.
10. Kohler, K. J., 2003. Neglected categories in the modelling of prosody: pitch timing and non-pitch accents. In Proc. 15th ICPhS, Barcelona. 2925-2928.
11. Kohler, K. J., 2005. Timing and communicative functions of pitch contours, Phonetica 62, 88-105.
12. Kohler, K. J., 2005. Form and function of non-pitch accents. AIPUK 35a, 97-123.
13. Kohler, K. J., 2005. Pragmatic and attitudinal meanings of pitch patterns in German syntactically marked questions. AIPUK 35a, 125-142.
14. Kohler, K. J., 2006. Paradigms of experimental prosodic analysis-from measurement to function. In S. Sudhoff et al (eds), Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter (= Language, Context, and Cognition, 3).
15. Ladd, D. R., 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: CUP.
16. Ladd, D. R.; Morton, R., 1997. The perception of intonational emphasis: continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics 25, 313-342.
17. Liberman, M.; Pierrehumbert, J., 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In M. Aronoff and R. Oehrle (eds.), Language sound structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 157-233.
18. Pierrehumbert, J., 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD thesis, MIT.
19. www. ipds. uni-kiel. de/kjk/publikationen/audiobsp. en. html Sound illustrations of examples discussed in this paper.