Prosody in context: a review

References

• Adami, A. G., Mihaescu, R., Reynolds, D. A., & Godfrey, J. J. (2003). Modeling prosodic dynamics for speaker recognition. Proceedings of Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP'03), 4, 788–791.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 495–527. doi:10.1080/01690960801920099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arvaniti, A., & Adamou, E. (2011). Focus expression in Romani. In M. B. Washburn, K. McKinney-Bock, E. Varis, A. Sawyer, & B. Tomaszewicz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 240–248). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
   Google Scholar
• Arvaniti, A., Ladd, D. R., & Mennen, I. (2006). Phonetic effects of focus and ‘tonal crowding’ in intonation: Evidence from Greek polar questions. Speech Communication, 48, 667–696. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2005.09.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avesani, C., Vayra, M., & Zmarich, C. (2007). On the articulatory bases of prominence in Italian. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress on Phonetic Sciences, 981–984.
   Google Scholar
• Barth-Weingarten, D., Dehé, N., & Wichmann, A. (Eds.). (2009). Where prosody meets pragmatics (Studies in Pragmatics 8). Bingley: Emerald Group.
   Google Scholar
• Baumann, S., & Grice, M. (2006). The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1636–1657. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumann, S., & Hadelich, K. (2003). Accent type and givenness: An experiment with auditory and visual priming. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1811–1814.
   Google Scholar
• Beckman, M. E. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17–67. doi:10.1080/016909696387213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckman, M. E., & Edwards, J. (1990). Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. In J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech (pp. 152–178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beckman, M. E., & Edwards, J. (1994). Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. In P. A. Keating (Ed.), Phonological structure and phonetic form: Papers in laboratory phonology III (pp. 7–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In S. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 9–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255–309. doi:10.1017/S095267570000066X
   Google Scholar
• Birch, S., & Clifton, C., Jr., (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365–392. doi:10.1177/002383099503800403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaauw, E. (1994). The contribution of prosodic boundary markers to the perceptual difference between read and spontaneous speech. Speech Communication, 14, 359–375. doi:10.1016/0167-6393(94)90028-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. (1958). A theory of pitch accent in English. Word, 14, 109–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. (1982). Intonation and its parts. Language, 58, 505–533. doi:10.2307/413847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brazil, D. (1985). Phonology: Intonation in discourse. In D. van Teun (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 2. Dimensions of discourse (pp. 57–75). London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1044–1098. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breen, M., Watson, D. G., & Gibson, E. (2010). Intonational phrasing is constrained by meaning, not balance. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 904–945. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.508878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G. (1983). Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction. In A. Cutler & R. Ladd (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 67–77). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, G., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2005). Is there an ironic tone of voice? Language and Speech, 48, 257–277. doi:10.1177/00238309050480030101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büring, D. (2006). Focus projection and default prominence. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 321–346). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Byrd, D., Kaun, A., Narayanan, S., & Saltzman, E. (2000). Phrasal signatures in articulation. In M. B. Broe & J. B. Pierrehumbert (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology 5. Acquisition and the lexicon (pp. 70–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Byrd, D., Krivokapić, J., & Lee, S. (2006). How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 1589–1599. doi:10.1121/1.2217135
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrd, D., & Saltzman, E. (1998). Intragestural dynamics of multiple phrasal boundaries. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 173–199. doi:10.1006/jpho.1998.0071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calhoun, S. (2006). Information structure and the prosodic structure of English: A probabilistic relationship ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
   Google Scholar
• Calhoun, S. (2010a). The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language, 86, 1–42. doi:10.1353/lan.0.0197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calhoun, S. (2010b). How does informativeness affect prosodic prominence? Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1099–1140. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.491682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cambier-Langeveld, T. (1997). The domain of final lengthening in the production of Dutch. In H. de Hoop & J. Coerts (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 13–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Cambier-Langeveld, T. (1999). The interaction between final lengthening and accentual lengthening: Dutch versus English. In J. J. Ohala (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, vol. 1 (pp. 467–470). San Francisco, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Cambier-Langeveld, T., & Turk, A. (1999). A cross-linguistic study of accentual lengthening: Dutch vs. English. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 255–280. doi:10.1006/jpho.1999.0096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, N., & Beckman, M. (1997). Stress, prominence, and spectral tilt. In Proceedings of INT-1997, 67–70. Retrieved September 9, 2012, from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/int_97/inta_067.html
   Google Scholar
• Cao, J. (2004). Restudy of segmental lengthening in Mandarin Chinese. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody (pp. 231–234). Nara, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, K., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 58–81. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2762
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspers, J. (2003). Local speech melody as a limiting factor in the turn-taking system in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 251–276. doi:10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00007-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 20–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Cheang, H., & Pell, M. (2008). The sound of sarcasm. Speech Communication, 50, 366–381. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2007.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, A., den Os, E., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2007). Pitch accent type matters for online processing of information status: Evidence from natural and synthetic speech. The Linguistic Review, 24, 317–344. doi:10.1515/TLR.2007.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, A., Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, T. (2004). Language-specificity in the perception of paralinguistic intonational Meaning. Language and Speech, 47, 311–349. doi:10.1177/00238309040470040101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, T. (2005). Prosodic strengthening and featural enhancement: Evidence from acoustic and articulatory realizations of /ɑ,i/ in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 3867–3878. doi:10.1121/1.1861893
   Google Scholar
• Cho, T., & Keating, P. (2001). Articulatory and acoustic studies of domain-initial strengthening in Korean. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 155–190. doi:10.006/jpho.2001.0131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, T., & Keating, P. (2009). Effects of initial position versus prominence in English. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 466–485. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2009.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, T., & McQueen, J. M. (2005). Prosodic influences on consonant production in Dutch: Effects of prosodic boundaries, phrasal accent and lexical stress. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 121–157. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2005.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifton, C., Carlson, K., & Frazier, L. (2002). Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech, 45, 87–114. doi:10.1177/00238309020450020101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, J., & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. (2012). Corpus phonology with speech resources. In A. Cohn, C. Fougeron, & M. Huffman (Eds.), Handbook of laboratory phonology (pp. 431–440). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, J., Hasegawa-Johnson, M., Shih, C., Kim, H., Lee, E., Lu, H., … Yoon, T. (2005). Prosodic parallelism as a cue to repetition disfluency. In J. Véronis & E. Campione (Eds.), Proceedings of DiSS ’05: Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop (pp. 53–58). Aix-en-Provence, France.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, J., Kim, H., Choi, H., & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. (2007). Prosodic effects on acoustic cues to stop voicing and place of articulation: Evidence from radio news speech. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 180–209. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2006.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, J., McMurray, B., Linebaugh, G., & Munson, C. (2010). Unmasking the acoustic effects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation: A statistical modeling approach. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 167–184. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2009.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, J., Mo, Y., & Baek, S. (2010). The role of syntactic structure in guiding prosody perception with ordinary listeners and everyday speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1141–1177. doi:10.1080/01690960903525507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, J., Mo, Y., & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. (2010). Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology, 1, 425–452. doi:10.1515/labphon.2010.022
   Google Scholar
• Cole, J., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2011). The phonology and phonetics of perceived prosody: What do listeners imitate? In P. Cosi, R. De Mori, G. Di Fabbrizio, & R. Pieraccini (Eds.), Proceedings of Interspeech (pp. 969–972). Florence, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, W. E., Eady, S. J., & Mueller, P. R. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 2142–2156. doi:10.1121/1.392372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 366–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cruttenden, A. (1986/1997). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Culpeper, J. (2011). “It's not what you said, it's how you said it!”: Prosody and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 57–83). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545–1579. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
   Web of Science ®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
• Daly, N., & Warren, P. (2001). Pitching it differently in New Zealand English: Speaker sex and intonation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, 85–96. doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00139
   Google Scholar
• de Jong, K. (1995). The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 491–504. doi:10.1121/1.412275
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong, K., Beckman, M. E., & Edwards, J. (1993). The interplay between prosodic structure and coarticulation. Language and Speech 36, 197–212. doi:10.1177/002383099303600305
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong, K., & Zawaydeh, B. (1999). Stress, duration, and intonation in Arabic word-level prosody. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 3–22. doi:10.006/jpho.2001.0151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong, K., & Zawaydeh, B. (2002). Comparing stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus: Patterns of variation in Arabic vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 53–75. doi:10.1006/jpho.2001.0151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delais-Roussarie, E., & Rialland, A. (2007). Metrical structure, tonal association and focus in French. In S. Baauw (Ed.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2005: Selected papers from going romance Utrecht (pp. 73–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   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, 116–129. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2008.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Pijper, J. R., & Sanderman, A. A. (1994). On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2037–2047. doi:10.1121/1.410145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilley, L., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Ostendorf, M. (1996). Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 423–444. doi:10.1006/jpho.1996.0023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Imperio, M., & House, D. (1997). Perception of questions and statements in Neapolitan Italian. In G. Kokkinakis, N. Fakotakis, & E. Dermatas (Eds.), Proceedings of Eurospeech, 251–254.
   Google Scholar
• Dogil, G., & Williams, B. (1999). The phonetic manifestation of word stress. In H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp. 273–311). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Donati, C., & Nespor, N. (2003). From focus to syntax. Lingua, 113, 1119–1142. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00015-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downing, L. (2011). Bantu tone. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology. Blackwell. Retrieved from http://www.companiontophonology.com
   Google Scholar
• Eady, S., & Cooper, W. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 402–415. doi:10.1121/1.394091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eady, S., Cooper, W., Klouda, G., Mueller, P., & Lotts, D. (1986). Acoustical characterization of sentential focus: Narrow vs. broad and single vs. dual focus environments. Language and Speech, 29, 233–250. doi:10.1177/002383098602900304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edlund, J., & Heldner, M. (2005). Exploring prosody in interaction control. Phonetica, 62, 215–226. doi:10.1159/000090099
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edlund, J., House, D., & Strömbergsson, S. (2012). Question types and some prosodic correlates in 600 questions in the Spontal database of Swedish dialogues. In Q. Ma, H. Ding, & D. Hirst (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody (pp. 737–740). Shanghai.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, J., Beckman, M. E., & Fletcher, J. (1991). The articulatory kinematics of final lengthening. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 369–382. doi:10.1121/1.400674
   Google Scholar
• Face, T. L. (2005). F0 peak height and the perception of sentence type in Castilian Spanish. Revista internacional de lingüística iberoamericana, 3(2), 49–65.
   Google Scholar
• Farahani, F., Georgiou, P. G., & Narayanan, S. S. (2004). Speaker identification using supra-segmental pitch pattern dynamics. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing-ICASSP, 89–92. doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2004.1325929
   Google Scholar
• Ferý, C. (1993). German intonational patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Ferý, C., & Kügler, F. (2008). Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 680–703. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2008.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fougeron, C. (2001). Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodic constituents in French. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 109–135. doi:10.1006/jpho.2000.0114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. A. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3728–3740. doi:10.1121/1.418332
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, C. A., & Brown, J. M. (2000). Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 21–32. doi:10.3758/BF03212058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, C. A., & Smith, M. R. (1986). Speech perception as “vector analysis”: An approach to the problems of segmentation and invariance. In J. Perkell & D. Klatt (Eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes (pp. 123–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., Clifton, C., Jr., & Carlson, K. (2004). Don't break or do: Prosodic boundary preferences. Lingua, 114, 3–27. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00044-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frota, S. (2000). Prosody and focus in European Portuguese: Phonological phrasing and intonation (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics). Garland Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Fry, D. B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 765–768. doi:10.1121/1.1908022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geluykens, R., & Swerts, M. (1994). Prosodic cues to discourse boundaries in experimental dialogues. Speech Communication, 15, 69–77. doi:10.1016/0167-6393(94)90042-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP-92 (pp. 517–520). San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, M. (2011). Stress: Phonotactic and phonetic evidence. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology. Blackwell. Retrieved from http://www.companiontophonology.com
   Google Scholar
• Grabe, E. (2004). Intonational variation in urban dialects of English spoken in the British Isles. In P. Gilles & J. Peters (Eds.), Regional variation in intonation (pp. 9–31). Tuebingen: Niemeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Grabe, E., Gussenhoven, C., Haan, J., Marsi, E., & Post, B. (1997). The meaning of intonation phrase onsets in Dutch. In A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou, & G. Carayiannis (Eds.), Intonation: Theory, models, and applications (pp. 161–164). Athens: ESCA. Graff, Delia.
   Google Scholar
• Grabe, E., Post, B., Nolan, F., & Farrar, K. (2000). Pitch accent realization in four varieties of British English. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 161–185. doi:10.006/jpho.2000.0111
   Google Scholar
• Gravano, A., Hirschberg, J., & Beňuš, Š. (2012). Affirmative cue words in task-oriented dialogue. Computational Linguistics, 38(1), 1–39. doi:10.1162/COLI_a_00083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, M. (1995). The intonation of interrogation in Palermo Italian: Implications for intonation theory. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, M., Reyelt, M., Benzmuller, R., Mayer, J., & Batliner, A. (1996). Consistency in transcription and labelling of German intonation with GToBI. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 3, 1716–1719.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. In International Conference on Spoken Language Processing- ICSLP 92 (pp. 429–432).Banff, Alberta.
   Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C. (2002). Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In Speech Prosody (pp. 47–57). Aix-en-Provence.
   Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C., Repp, B. H., Rietveld, A., Rump, H. H., & Terken, J. (1997). The perceptual prominence of fundamental frequency peaks. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 3009–3022. doi:10.1121/1.420355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, A. C. (1988). Fundamental frequency declination in Dutch: Testing three hypotheses. Journal of Phonetics, 16, 355–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haan, J., & van Heuven, V. J. (1999). Male vs. female pitch range in Dutch questions. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1581–1584). San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond, M. (2011). The foot. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology. Blackwell. Retrieved from http://www.companiontophonology.com
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hazan, V., & Baker, R. (2010). Does reading clearly produce the same acoustic-phonetic modifications as spontaneous speech in a clear speaking style? In Proceedings of DiSS-LPSS Joint Workshop (pp. 7–10). Tokyo.
   Google Scholar
• Heldner, M., & Edlund, J. (2010). Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 555–568. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heldner, M., Edlund, J., & Hirschberg, J. (2010). Pitch similarity in the vicinity of backchannels. In T. Kobayashi, K. Hirose, & S. Nakamura (Eds.), Proceedings of Interspeech (pp. 3054–3057). Makuhari.
   Google Scholar
• Herman, R. 2000. Phonetic markers of global discourse structures in English. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 466–493. doi:10.1006/jpho.2000.0127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschberg, J. (2000). A corpus-based approach to the study of speaking style. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce (pp. 335–350). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschberg, J. (2002). Communication and prosody: Functional aspects of prosody. Speech Communication, 36, 31–43. doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(01)00024-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirst, D., & Bouzon, C. (2005). The effect of stress and boundaries on segmental duration in a corpus of authentic speech (British English). In Proceedings of Interspeech (pp. 29–32). Lisbon.
   Google Scholar
• Hirst, D., di Cristo, A., & Espesser, R. (2000). Levels of representation and levels of analysis for the description of intonation systems. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce (pp. 51–88). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Hockey, B. A., & Fagyal, Z. (1999). Phonemic length and pre-boundary lengthening: An experimental investigation on the use of durational cues in Hungarian. In Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 313–316). San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Horne, M., Strangert, E., & Heldner, M. (1995). Prosodic boundary strength in Swedish: Final lengthening and silent interval duration. In T. Kobayashi, K. Hirose, & S. Nakamura (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 170–173). Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• House, D. (2003). Perceiving question intonation: The role of pre-focal pause and delayed focal peak. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 755–758). Barcelona.
   Google Scholar
• Hualde, J. I. (2000). Intonation in Spanish and the other Ibero-Romance languages: Over-view and status quaestionis. In C. Wiltshire & J. Camps (Eds.), Romance phonology and variation: Selected papers from LSRL 30 (pp. 101–115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hyman, L. M. (2011). The representation of tone. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology. Blackwell. Retrieved from http://www.companiontophonology.com
   Google Scholar
• Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 541–573. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. (1951). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jun, S. A. (2005a). Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In S. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 201–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jun, S. A. (2005b). Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kager, R. (1995). The metrical theory of word stress. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 367–402). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, J., & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87, 771–816. doi:10.1353/lan.2011.0076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keating, P., Cho, T., Fougeron, C., & Hsu, C. (2003). Domain-initial strengthening in four languages. In J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology VI (pp. 143–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klatt, D. H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 1208–1221. doi:10.1121/1.380986
   Google Scholar
• Klewitz, G., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Quote-unquote: The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association, 9, 459–485.
   Google Scholar
• Kochanski, G., Grabe, E., Coleman, J., & Rosner, B. (2005). Loudness predicts prominence: Fundamental frequency lends little. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1038–1054. doi:10.1121/1.1923349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2001). On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication, 34, 391–405. doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00058-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraljic, T., & Brennan, S. E. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology, 50, 194–231.doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krivokapić, J., & Byrd, D. (2012). Prosodic boundary strength: An articulatory and perceptual study. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 430–442. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2012.02.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R. (1988). Declination “reset” and the hierarchical organization of utterances. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 530–544. doi:10.1121/1.396830
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology (2nd ed.). Cambridge and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R., & Morton, R. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics, 25, 313–342. doi:10.1006/jpho.1997.0046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R., Silverman, K. E., Tolkmitt, F., Bergmann, G., & Scherer, K. R. (1985). Evidence for the independent function of intonation contour type, voice quality, and F0 range in signaling speaker affect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78, 435–444. doi:10.1121/1.392466
   Google Scholar
• Laniran, Y. O., & Clements, G. N. (2003). Downstep and high raising: Interacting factors in Yoruba tone production. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 203–250. doi:10.1016/S0095-4470(02)00098-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laskowski, K., Heldner, M., & Edlung, J. (2009). Exploring the prosody of floor mechanisms in English using the fundamental frequency variation spectrum. In Proceedings of the 17th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 2009) (pp. 2539–2543). Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levitan, R., Gravano, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2011). Entrainment in speech preceding backchannels. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (short papers) (pp. 113–117).
   Google Scholar
• Levitan, R., Gravano, A., Willson, L., Benuš, Š., Hirschberg, J., & Nenkova, A. (2012). Acoustic-prosodic entrainment and social behavior. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human language technologies (pp. 11–19).
   Google Scholar
• Levitan, R., & Hirschberg, J. (2011). Measuring acoustic-prosodic entrainment with respect to multiple levels and dimensions. In P. Cosi, R. De Mori, G. Di Fabbrizio, & R. Pieraccini (Eds.), Proceedings of Interspeech (pp. 3081–3084). Florence, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Liberman, M. (1975). The intonational system of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club (1978).
   Google Scholar
• Liberman, M., & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 249–336. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman, P. (1960). Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32, 451–454. doi:10.1121/1.1908095
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, B. E. F. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H & H theory. In H. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 403–439). NATO ASI Seriess D: Behaviour and Social Sciences, 55. Dordrecht: Kluwer A.P.
   Google Scholar
• Local, J., Kelly, J., & Wells, W. (1986). Towards a phonology of conversation: Turn taking in Tyneside English. Journal of Linguistics, 22, 411–437. doi:10.1017/S0022226700010859
   Google Scholar
• Low, E. L., Grabe, E., & Nolan, F. (2001). Quantitative characterisations of speech rhythm: Syllable-timing in Singapore English. Language and Speech, 43, 377–401. doi:10.1177/00238309000430040301
   Google Scholar
• Luchkina, T., & Cole, J. (2013). Routes to prominence in free word order language discourse. In P. Mertens & A. C. Simon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Prosody-Discourse Interface Conference 2013 (IDP-2013). Leuven. http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/ling/franitalco/idp2013/proceedings.html.
   Google Scholar
• Luchkina, T., & Cole, J. (2014). Structural and prosodic correlates of prominence in free word order language discourse. In N. Campbell, D. Gibbon, & D. Hirst (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 7. Dublin.
   Google Scholar
• Magne, C., Astésano, C., Lacheret-Dujour, A., Morel, M., Alter, K., & Besson, M. (2005). On-line processing of “pop-out” words in spoken French dialogues. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 740–756. doi:10.1162/0898929053747667
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattys, S., White, L., & Melhorn, J. (2005.) Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 134, 477–500.doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.477
   Google Scholar
• McMurray, B., Cole, J., & Munson, C. (2011). Features as an emergent product of perceptual parsing: Evidence from vowel-to-vowel coarticulation. In C. N. Clements & R. Ridouane (Eds.), Where do phonological features come from? Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech categories (pp. 197–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• McMurray, B., & Jongman, A. (2011). What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychological Review, 118, 219–246. doi:10.1037/a0022325
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menn, L., & Boyce, S. (1982). Fundamental frequency and discourse structure. Language and Speech, 25, 341–383. doi:10.1177/002383098202500403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mo, Y. (2011). Prosody production and perception with conversational speech (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/18560
   Google Scholar
• Mooshammer, C., Bombien, L., & Krivokapic, J. (2013). Prosodic effects on speech gestures: A shape analysis based on functional data analysis. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 19, 060182. Acoustical Society of America. doi:10.1121/1.4800316
   Google Scholar
• Mooshammer, C., & Fuchs, S. (2002). Stress distinction in German: Simulating kinematic parameters of tongue-tip gestures. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 337–355. doi:10.1006/jpho.2001.0159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakajima, S., & Allen, J. F. (1993). A study on prosody and discourse structure in cooperative dialogues. Phonetica, 50, 197–210. doi:10.1159/000261940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakatani, C. H., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). A corpus-based study of repair cues in spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1603–1616. doi:10.1121/1.408547
   Google Scholar
• Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986/2007). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Nooteboom, S. G., & Eefting, W. (1994). Evidence for the adaptive nature of speech on the phrase level and below. Phonetica, 51, 92–98. doi:10.1159/000261961
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ohala, J. J. (1983). Cross-language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica, 40, 1–18. doi:10.1159/000261678
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohala, J. J. (1984). An ethological perspective on common cross- language utilization of F0 in voice. Phonetica, 41, 1–16. doi:10.1159/000261706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira, M., & Freitas, T. (2008). Intonation as a cue to turn management in telephone and face-to-face interactions. In P. A. Barbosa, S. Madureira, & C. Reis (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody (pp. 485–488). Campiñas.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega-Llebaria, M., & Prieto, P. (2011). Acoustic correlates of stress in central Catalan and Castilian Spanish. Language and Speech, 54(1), 73–97. doi:10.1177/0023830910388014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pell, M., Paulmann, S., Dara, C., Alasseri, A., & Kotz, S. (2009). Factors in the recognition of vocally expressed emotions: A comparison of four languages. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 417–435. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2009.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peppé, S., Wells, J., & Maxim, B. (2000). Prosodic variation in Southern British English. Language and Speech, 43, 309–334. doi:10.1177/00238309000430030501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierrehumbert, J. (1979). The perception of fundamental frequency declination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 363–369. doi:10.1121/1.383670
   Google Scholar
• Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E., & Fosler-Lussier, E. (2007). Buckeye corpus of conversational speech (2nd release). Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu
   Google Scholar
• Pitrelli, J. F., Beckman, M. E., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Evaluation of prosodic transcription labeling reliability in the ToBI framework. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 123–126).Yokohama.
   Google Scholar
• Plag, I., Kunter, G., & Schramm, M. (2011.) Acoustic correlates of primary and secondary stress in North American English. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 362–374. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2011.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porges, S. W. 2011. The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. New York, NY: WW Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Porges, S. W., Macellaio, M., Stanfill, S. D., McCue, K., Lewis, G. F., Harden, E. R., … Heilman, K. J. (2013). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia and auditory processing in autism: Modifiable deficits of an integrated social engagement system? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88, 261–270. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.11.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prieto, P., van Santen, J., & Hirshberg, J. (1995). Tonal alignment patterns in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics, 23, 429–451. doi:10.1006/jpho.1995.0032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redi, L., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2001). Variation in the realization of glottalization in normal speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 407–429. doi:10.1006/jpho.2001.0145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116. doi:10.1007/BF02342617
   Google Scholar
• Rump, H. H., & Collier, R. (1996). Focus conditions and the prominence of pitch-accented syllables. Language and Speech, 39(1), 1–17. doi:10.1177/002383099603900101
   Google Scholar
• Sanderman, A. A., & Collier, R. (1997). Prosodic phrasing and comprehension. Language and Speech, 40, 391–409. doi:10.1177/002383099704000405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schafer, A., Speer, S., Warren, P., & White, S. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 169–182. doi:10.1023/A:1005192911512
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. (1984). Prosody and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371–375. doi:10.1017/S0952675700000695
   Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517. doi:10.1017/s0047404500004012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M., & Ross, K. (1994). Stress shift and early pitch accent placement in lexical items in American English. Journal of Phonetics, 22, 357–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shenk, P. S. (2006). The interactional and syntactic importance of prosody in Spanish-English bilingual discourse. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10, 179–205. doi:10.1177/13670069060100020401
   Google Scholar
• Shriberg, E. 2001. To ‘errrr’ is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31, 153–164. doi:10.1017/S0025100301001128
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, K. E. A., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1990). The timing of prenuclear high accents in English. In J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and the physics of speech (pp. 72–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Skopeteas, S., & Fanselow, G. (2010). Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua, 120, 1370–1391. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slioussar, N. (2011). Grammar and information structure: A novel view based on Russian data. Retrieved from September 13, 2013, from http://www.slioussar.ru/talks-papers.html
   Google Scholar
• Sluijter, A. M. C., & Terken, J. M. B. (1993). Beyond sentence prosody: Paragraph intonation in Dutch. Phonetica, 50, 180–188. doi:10.1159/000261938
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sluijter, A. M. C., & van Heuven, V. (1996a). Spectral tilt as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2471–2485. doi:10.1121/1.417955
   Google Scholar
• Sluijter, A. M. C., & van Heuven, V. (1996b). Acoustic correlates of linguistic stress and accent in Dutch and American English. In Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing-ICSLP 96 (pp. 630–633). Philadelphia, PA: Applied Science and Engineering Laboratories, Alfred I. duPont Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, C. L. (2004).Topic transitions and durational prosody in reading aloud: Production and modeling. Speech Communication, 42, 247–270. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2003.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snedeker, J., & Truesell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 103–130. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00519-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sridhar, V. K. R., Bangalore, S., & Narayanan, S. (2009). Combining lexical, syntactic and prosodic cues for improved online dialog act tagging. Computer Speech and Language, 23, 407–422. doi:10.1016/j.csl.2008.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swerts, M. (1997). Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 514–521. doi:10.1121/1.418114
   Google Scholar
• Swerts, M., Bouwhuis, D. G., & Collier, R. (1994). Melodic cues to the perceived “finality” of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2064–2075. doi:10.1121/1.410148
   Google Scholar
• Swerts, M., & Geluykens, R. (1993). The prosody of information units in spontaneous monologue. Phonetica, 51, 189–196. doi:10.1159/000261939
   Google Scholar
• Swerts, M., & Geluykens, R. (1994). Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech, 37, 21–43. doi:10.1177/002383099403700102
   Google Scholar
• Swerts, M., & Hirschberg, J. (2008). Prosodic predictors of upcoming positive or negative content in spoken messages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 1337–1344. doi:10.1121/1.3466875
   Google Scholar
• Swerts, M., Krahmer, E., & Avesani, C. (2002). Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 629–654. doi:10.1006/jpho.2002.0178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swerts, M., Strangert, E., & Heldner, M. (1996). F0 declination in read-aloud and spontaneous speech. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), 1501–1504. doi:10.1109/ICSLP.1996.607901
   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
• t’Hart, J., Collier, R., & Cohen, A. (1990). A perceptual study of intonation: An experimental-phonetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1958). Grundzüge der Phonologie [Principles of Phonology]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
   Google Scholar
• Truckenbrodt, H. (2004). Final lowering in non-final position. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 313–348. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2003.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tseng, C. Y., Pin, S. H., Lee, Y. H., Wang, H. M., & Chen, Y. C. (2005). Fluent speech prosody: Framework and modeling. Speech Communication, 46, 284–309. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2005.03.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tseng, C.-Y., Su, Z.-Y., & Lee, L.-S. (2009). Mandarin spontaneous narrative planning—prosodic evidence from national Taiwan university lecture corpus. In Proceedings of Interspeech (pp. 2943–2946). Brighton.
   Google Scholar
• Turk, A. E., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2007). Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 445–472. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2006.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zyl, M., & Hanekom, J. J. (2012). When “okay” is not okay: Acoustic characteristics of single-word prosody conveying reluctance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(1), EL13–EL19. doi:10.1121/1.4769399
   Google Scholar
• Varga, L. (1998). Rhythmical variation in Hungarian. Phonology, 15, 227–266. doi:10.1017/S0952675798003583
   Google Scholar
• Volskaya, N., & Stepanova, S. (2004). On the temporal component of intonational phrasing. Proceedings of Speech and Computer (SPECOM), 641–644. St. Petersburg, Russia, St. Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation of RAS.
   Google Scholar
• Vroomen, J., Tuomainen, J., & de Gelder, B. (1998). The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 133–149. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, M. (2005). Prosody and recursion ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, M. (2010). Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, 183–237. doi:10.1007/s11049-009-9086-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, M., & Watson, D. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 7–9, 905–945. doi:10.1080/01690961003589492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, B., & Xu, Y. (2011). Differential prosodic encoding of topic and focus in sentence-initial position in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 595–611. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2011.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, G., & Hirschberg, J. (1985). Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language, 61, 747–776. doi:10.2307/414489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, P., & Daly, N. (2000). Sex as a factor in rises in New Zealand English. In J. Holmes (Ed.), Gendered speech in social context: Perspectives from town and gown (pp. 99–115). Wellington: Victoria University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, D., & Gibson, E. (2004). The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 713–755. doi:10.1080/01690960444000070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D. G., 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
• Weber, A., Braun, B., & Crocker, M. W. (2006). Finding referents in time: Eye-tracking evidence for the role of contrastive accents. Language and Speech, 49, 367–392. doi:10.1177/00238309060490030301
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, F., Manganaro, L., Peskin, B., & Shriberg, E. (2002). Using prosodic and lexical information for speaker identification. Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal (ICASSP), 1, 141–144.
   Google Scholar
• Wennerstrom, A. (2001). The music of everyday speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wichmann, A. (2011). Prosody and pragmatic effects. In G. Anderson & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Pragmatics in society (181–213). Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Wichmann, A., House, J., & Rietveld, T. (2000). Discourse effects on f0 peak alignment in English. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modelling and technology (pp. 163–184). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Wightman, C. W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M., & Price, P. J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 1707–1717. doi:10.1121/1.402450
   Google Scholar
• Xu, Y. (1999). Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 55–105. doi:10.1006/jpho.1999.0086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Y. (2010). In defense of lab speech. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 329–336. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Y., & Wang, E. (2001). Pitch targets and their realization: Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Speech Communication, 33, 319–337. doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00063-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Y., & Xu, C. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 159–197. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, T.-J. 2007. A predictive model of prosody through grammatical interface: A computational approach ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, T., Chavarría, S., Cole, J., & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. 2004. Intertranscriber reliability of prosodic labeling on telephone conversation using ToBI. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2004 (pp. 2729–2732). Jeju.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, T., Cole, J., & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. (2007). On the edge: Acoustic cues to layered prosodic domains. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetics Sciences (pp. 1264–1267). Saarbrücken.
   Google Scholar
• Yule, G. (1980). Speakers topics and major paratones. Lingua, 52, 3–47. doi:10.1016/0024-3841(80)90016-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar