Anticipatory deaccenting in language comprehension

References

• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2008). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375–28. Retrieved from http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buring, D. (2007). Semantics, intonation, and information structure. In R. Reiss (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 445–474). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carbary, K. M., Gunlogson, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2009). Deaccenting cues listeners to upcoming referents. Presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (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.
   Google Scholar
• Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
   Google Scholar
• Grodner, D. G., & Sedivy, J. C. (2011). The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences. In N. Pearlmutter & E. Gibson (Eds.), The processing and acquisition of reference (pp. 239–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequential rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 541–573. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurumada, C., Brown, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). Prosody and pragmatic inference: It looks like adaptation. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 647–652). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology (2nd ed.). Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mack, J. E., Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Taylor, P. V. (2012). (Not) hearing optional subject: The effects of pragmatic usage preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 211–223. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 953–978. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.705006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B. C. J. (2012). An introduction to the psychology of hearing (6th ed.). London: Emerald, Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (1998). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116. doi:10.1007/BF02342617
   Google Scholar
• Salverda, A. P., Kleinschmidt, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Immediate effects of anticipatory coarticulatory information in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 71(1), 145–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuel, A. G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 474–494. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.110.4.474
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuel, A. G. (1996). Phoneme restoration. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 647–653. doi:10.1080/016909696387051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzschild, R. (1999). GIVENness, avoid F and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7(2), 141–177. doi:10.1023/A:1008370902407
   Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. O. (1996). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. A. Goldsmith, (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). London: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sherman, B. L. (1971). Phonemic restoration: An insight into the mechanisms of speech perception ( Unpublished master's thesis). University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steedman, M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 649–689. doi:10.2307/414489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoyneshka, I., Fodor, J. D., & Fernandez, E. M. (2010). Phoneme restoration methods for investigating prosodic influences on syntactic processing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 25, 1265–1293. doi:10.1080/01690961003661192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terken, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing ‘given’ information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech, 37, 125–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terken, J., & Nooteboom, S. G. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2(3–4), 145–163. doi:10.1080/01690968708406928
   Google Scholar
• Van Deemter, K. (1999). Contrastive stress, contrariety, and focus. In P. Bosch, & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives ( Studies in Natural Language Processing) (pp. 3–17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167, 392–393. doi:10.1126/science.167.3917.392
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Gunlogson, C. (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in on-line comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science, 32, 1232–1244. doi:10.1080/03640210802138755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar