Impact of Prosody on the Perception and Interpretation of Discourse Relations: Studies on “Et” and “Alors” in Spoken French

References

• Asr, F. T., & Demberg, V. (2015). Uniform information density at the level of discourse relations: Negation markers and discourse connective omission. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational semantics (pp. 118–128). London: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore, D., & Carston, R. (1999). The pragmatics of and-conjunctions: The non-narrative cases. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2017). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.29, Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
   Google Scholar
• Cain, K., & Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429–441. doi:10.1037/a0022824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crible, L. (2017). Discourse markers and (dis)fluencies in English and French: Variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 242–269. doi:10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crible, L. (2018). Discourse markers and (Dis)fluency: Forms and functions across languages and registers. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Crible, L., & Cuenca, M.-J. (2017). Discourse markers in speech: Distinctive features and corpus annotation. Dialogue & Discourse, 8(2), 149–166.
   Google Scholar
• Degand, L., Cornillie, B., & Pietrandrea, P. (2013). Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? In L. Degand, B. Cornillie, & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Degand, L., & Fagard, B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language, 18(1), 19–56. doi:10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degand, L., Martin, L., & Simon, A. C. (2014). LOCAS-F: Un corpus oral multigenre annoté. In F. Neveu, M. Toke, J. Durand, T. Klingler, L. Mondada & S. Prévost (Eds.), Proceedings of Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (pp. 2613–2626). Paris: EDP Science.
   Google Scholar
• Delais-Roussarie, E., Post, B., Avanzi, M., Buthke, C., Di Cristo, A., Feldhausen, I., … Yoo, H.-Y. (2015). Intonational phonology of French: Developing a ToBI system for French. In S. Frota & P. Prieto (Eds.), Intonation in Romance (pp. 63–100). Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• den Ouden, H., Noordman, L., & Terken, J. (2009). Prosodic realizations of global and local structure and rhetorical relations in read aloud news reports. Speech Communication, 51(2), 116–129. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2008.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Didirková, I., Christodoulides, G., Crible, L., & Simon, A.-C. (2018). Naïve annotations of French et and alors : Comparison with experts and effect of implicitation. In Proceedings of Textlink Final Conference Cross-Linguistic Discourse Annotation. Application & Perspectives (pp. 47–53). Toulouse, France.
   Google Scholar
• Didirková, I., Christodoulides, G., & Simon, A.-C. (2018). The prosody of discourse markers alors and et in French. A speech production study. Presented at the Speech Prosody 9, Poznan, Poland.
   Google Scholar
• Didirková, I., Simon, A. C., & Christodoulides, G. (2017). Same discourse markers, different discourse relations: What do we learn from naïve annotation experiments? Poster presented at the Discourse Markers in Romance Languages, Louvain-la-Neuve.
   Google Scholar
• Drenhaus, H., Demberg, V., Köhne, J., & Delogu, F. (2014). Incremental and predictive discourse processing based on causal and concessive discourse markers: ERP studies on German and English. In Proceedings of CogSci 2014 (pp. 403–408). Quebec City, Canada: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Fabricius-Hansen, C. (2005). Elusive connectives. A case study on the explicitness dimension of discourse coherence. Linguistics, 43(1), 17–48. doi:10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Studies in pragmatics. (K. Fischer Ed., Vol. 1). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Sciences Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Gerecht, M.-J. (1987). Alors : Opérateur temporel, connecteur argumentatif et marqueur de discours. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 8, 69–79.
   Google Scholar
• Gravano, A., Benus, S., Chávez, H., Hirschberg, J., & Wilcox, L. (2007). On the role of context and prosody in the interpretation of ’okay’. In ACL. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/30624787/P07-1.pdf#page=838
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, M.-B. M. (1997). Alors and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 153–187. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00086-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinhans, J., Farrús, M., Gravano, A., Pérez, J. M., Lai, C., & Wanner, L. (2017). Proceedings of Interspeech 2017, Using prosody to classify discourse relations (pp. 3201–3205). ISCA. doi:10.21437/Interspeech.2017-710
   Google Scholar
• Luscher, J. M., & Moeschler, J. (1990). Approches dérivationnelles et procédurales des opérateurs et connecteurs temporels: Les exemples de et et de enfin. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 11, 77–104.
   Google Scholar
• Mak, P., Tribushinina, E., & Andreiushina, E. (2013). Semantics of connectives guides referential expectations in discourse: An eye-tracking study of Dutch and Russian. Discourse Processes, 50(8), 557–576. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.841075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), Retrieved from http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GMyNDBjO/RST%20towards%20a%20functional%20theory%20of%20text%20organization.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, J., Jasinskaja, E., & Kölsch, U. (2006). Pitch range and pause duration as markers of discourse hierarchy: Perception experiments. In INTERSPEECH. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joerg_Mayer5/publication/221491193_Pitch_range_and_pause_duration_as_markers_of_discourse_hierarchy_Perception_experiments/links/56fa935208aede4cf4fa53bc.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mertens, P. (2014). Polytonia: A system for the automatic transcription of tonal aspects in speech corpora. Journal of Speech Sciences, 4(2), 17–57.
   Google Scholar
• Mertens, P., & Simon, A. C. (2013). Towards automatic detection of prosodic boundaries in spoken French. In P. Mertens & A. C. Simon (eds). Proceedings of the Prosody-Discourse Interface Conference 2013 (IDP-2013). Leuven, September 11-13. pp. 81–87.
   Google Scholar
• Michelas, A. (2011). Caractérisation phonétique et phonologie du syntagme intermédiaire en français : de la production à la perception (Doctoral thesis). Université de Provence - Aix-Marseille I.
   Google Scholar
• Michelas, A., & D’Imperio, M. (2015). Prosodic boundary strength guides syntactic parsing of French utterances. Laboratory Phonology, 6(1), 119–146. doi:10.1515/lp-2015-0003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, G., Renals, S., Carletta, J., & Moore, J. (2006). Incorporating speaker and discourse features into speech summarization. In Proceedings of the main conference on Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 367–374). New York: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, J. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. doi:10.3758/BF03201114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nolan, F. (2003). Intonational equivalence: An experimental evaluation of pitch scales. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 771–774). Barcelona, Spain. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/papers/p15_0771.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2009). Towards a multidimensional semantics of discourse markers in spoken dialogue. In IWCS-8 ’09 Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Computational Semantics (pp. 157–168). Tilburg, The Netherlands. Retrieved from /paper/Towards-a-Multidimensional-Semantics-of-Discourse-Petukhova-Bunt/9df8d66a1a9fae60193dfee67ae4704d51f1198b
   Google Scholar
• Pitler, E., Louis, A., & Nenkova, A. (2009). Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of ACL-IJCNLP) (pp. 683–691). Suntec, Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A., Robaldo, L., & Webber, B. (2007). The penn discourse treebank 2.0 annotation manual. IRCS Technical Reports Series. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/203
   Google Scholar
• Price, P. J., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 2956–2970. doi:10.1121/1.401770
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 57(1), 5–16. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., & Horton, W. S. (2014). Anticipatory looks reveal expectations about discourse relations. Cognition, 133(3), 667–691. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., Tyler, J., & Carlson, K. (2017). Form and function: Optional complementizers reduce causal inferences. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1). doi:10.5334/gjgl.134
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., & Mak, P. (2017). Do we seek for causality in discourse? On the cognition of coherence relations and connectives. Presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Zurich, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. doi:10.1080/01638539209544800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saussure, L., & Sthioul, B. (2002). Interprétations cumulative et distributive du connecteur et: Temps, argumentation, séquencement. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 24, 293–314.
   Google Scholar
• Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, S. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 169–182. doi:10.1023/A:1005192911512
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slowiaczek, M. L. (1981). Prosodic units as language processing units. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2662&context=dissertations_1
   Google Scholar
• Speer, S. R., Kjelgaard, M. M., & Dobroth, K. M. (1996). The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 249–271. doi:10.1007/BF01708573
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spooren, W. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 149–168. doi:10.1080/01638539709545010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spooren, W. P. M., & Degand, L. (2010). Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 241–266. doi:10.1515/cllt.2010.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taboada, M. (2006). Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 567–592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, J. (2014). Prosody and the Interpretation of Hierarchically Ambiguous Discourse. Discourse Processes, 51(8), 656–687. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.875866
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, L. K., & Warren, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(87), 638–657. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90107-0
   Google Scholar
• Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. M. (2017). Processing connectives with a complex form-function mapping in L2: The case of french “en effet.” Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar