Focus projection and prenuclear accents: evidence from lexical processing

References

• Ausburn, L., & Ausburn, F. (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. Educational Communication & Technology, 26(4), 337–354. doi:10.1007/BF02766370
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17. doi:10.1023/A:1005653411471
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumann, S., Becker, J., Grice, M., & Mücke, D. (2007). Tonal and articulatory marking of focus in German. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1029–1032.
   Google Scholar
• Baumann, S., Grice, M., & Steindamm, S. (2006). Prosodic marking of focus domains: Categorical or gradient? In R. Hoffmann & H. Mixdorff (Eds.), Proceedings of speech prosody 2006 (pp. 301–304). Dresden, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Beaver, D., & Velleman, D. (2011). The communicative significance of primary and secondary accents. Lingua, 121(11), 1671–1692. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2011.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckman, M., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). The ToBI annotation conventions. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3(1), 15–70. doi:10.1017/S095267570000066X
   Google Scholar
• Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (1995). Focus, accent and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38(4), 365–391. doi:10.1177/002383099503800403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, J. (2012). Information structural expectations in the perception of prosodic prominence. In G. Elordieta & P. Prieto (Eds.), Prosody and meaning (Trends in linguistics) (pp. 239–270). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, J. (2013). Prenuclear accentuation in English: Phonetics, phonology, and information structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Los Angeles: University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, J. (2016). Individual differences in top-down and bottom-up prominence perception. In J. Barnes, A. Brugos, S. Shattuck-Hufnagel, & N. Veilleux (Eds.), Proceedings of speech prosody 2016 (pp. 668–672). doi:10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016
   Google Scholar
• Blutner, R., & Sommer, R. (1988). Sentence processing and lexical access: The influence of the focus identifying task. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 359–367. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90061-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 1024–1043. doi:10.1080/01690960903036836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2011). On-line interpretation of intonational meaning in L2. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(2), 224–235. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.486209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 1044–1098. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
   Google Scholar
• Büring, D. (2006). Focus projection and default prominence. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (Studies in generative grammar 82) (pp. 321–246). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Büring, D. (2007). Semantics, intonation, and information structure. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 445–474). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Calhoun, S. (2006). Information structure and the prosodic structure of English: A probabilistic relationship. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
   Google Scholar
• Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and Reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
   Google Scholar
• Eady, S., & Cooper, W. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80(2), 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 characteristics of sentential focus: Narrow vs. Broad and single vs. Dual focus environments. Language and Speech, 29(3), 233–251. doi:10.1177/002383098602900304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Féry, C., & Kügler, F. (2008). Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics, 36(4), 680–703. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2008.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 285–319. doi:10.1023/A:1023258301588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent Reading. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, 32, 113–132.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, D., & Ross, J. (1983). Great expectations: Context effects during sentence processing. In G. B. F. D'Arcais & R. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language understanding (pp. 169–191). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Testing the reality of focus domains. Language and Speech, 26(1), 61–80. doi:10.1177/002383098302600104
   Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C. (1999). On the limits of focus projection in English. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 43–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C. (2015). Does phonological prominence exist? Lingue e Linguaggio, XIV(1), 7–24. doi:10.1418/80751
   Google Scholar
• Hanssen, J., Peters, J., & Gussenhoven, C. (2008). Prosodic effects of focus in Dutch declaratives. In P. Barbosa, S. Madureira, & C. Reis (Eds.), Proceedings of speech prosody 2008 (pp. 609–612). Campinas, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Hurley, R., & Bishop, J. (2016). Interpretation of “only”: Prosodic influences and individual differences. In J. Barnes, A. Brugos, S. Shattuck-Hufnagel, & N. Veilleux (Eds.), Proceedings of speech prosody 2016 (pp. 193–197). doi:10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-40
   Google Scholar
• Husband, E.M., & Ferreira, F. (2016). The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(2), 217–235. doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1083113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jun, S.-A. (2010). The implicit prosody hypothesis and overt prosody in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 1201–1233. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.503658
   Google Scholar
• Jun, S.-A., & Bishop, J. (2015a). Prominence in relative clause attachment: Evidence from prosodic priming. In L. Frazier & E. Gibson (Eds.), Explicit and implicit prosody in sentence processing: Studies in honor of Janet Dean Fodor (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 46). (pp. 217–340). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jun, S.-A., & Bishop, J. (2015b). Priming implicit prosody: Prosodic boundaries and individual differences. Language and Speech, 58(4), 459–473. doi:10.1177/0023830914563368
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. B. H. (2016). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models. Ver. 2.0-32. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, R. (1990). Metrical representation of pitch register. In J. Kingston & M. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech (pp. 35–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, R. (1993). Constraints on the gradient variability of pitch range, or, Pitch level 4 lives! In P. Keating (Ed.), Papers in laboratory phonology 3: Phonological structure and phonetic form (pp. 43–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, E.-K., & Watson. (2011). Effects of pitch accents in attachment ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(2), 262–297. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.491650
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locasto, P., & Connine, C. (2011). Processing of no-release variants in connected speech. Language and Speech, 54(2), 181–197. doi:10.1177/0023830910397494
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 324–346. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D., Cutler, A., McQueen, J., & Butterfield, S. (2006). Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 53(2), 146–193. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.03.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan, S., McKeown, K., & Hirschberg, J. (2002). Exploring features from natural language generation for prosody modeling. Computer Speech and Language, 16(3), 457–490. doi:10.1016/S0885-2308(02)00022-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, J., Hanssen, J., & Gussenhoven, C. (2014). The phonetic realization of focus in West Frisian, Low Saxon, high German, and three varieties of Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 46, 185–209. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2014.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Ver. 3.3.1]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org
   Google Scholar
• Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116. doi:10.1007/BF02342617
   Google Scholar
• Rump, 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
• Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(1), 135–164. doi:10.1080/016909696387240
   Google Scholar
• Schwarzschild, R. (1999). Givenness, avoid F and other constraints on the placement of focus. Natural Language Semantics, 7(2), 141–177. doi:10.1023/A:1008370902407
   Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sityaev, D., & House, J. (2003). Phonetic and phonological correlates of broad, narrow and contrastive focus in English. In M. J. Solé, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international Congress of phonetic sciences (pp. 1819–1822). Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 103–130. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00519-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumner, M. (2013). A phonetic explanation of pronunciation variant effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(1), EL26–EL32. doi:10.1121/1.4807432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4
   Google Scholar
• Tabossi, P. (1988). Effects of context on the immediate interpretation of unambiguous nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 153–162. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.1.153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turk, A., Nakai, S., & Sugahara, M. (2006). Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: A practical guide. In S. Sudhoff, D. Lenertova, R. Meyer, S. Pappert, P. Augurzky, I. Mleinek, N. Richter, & J. Schließer (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Turnbull, R. (2015). Assessing the listener-oriented account of predictability-based phonetic reduction. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
   Google Scholar
• Turnbull, R. (2016). The role of predictability in intonational variability. Language and Speech. (Published online ahead of print). doi:10.1177/0023830916647079
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Arnold, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (2008). Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106(3), 1548–1557. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welby, P. (2003). Effects of pitch accent position, type, and status on focus projection. Language and Speech, 46(1), 53–81. doi:10.1177/00238309030460010401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitney, P., McKay, T., Kellas, G., & Emerson, W. (1985). Semantic activation of noun concepts in context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11(1), 126–135. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (1988). Constraints upon semantic activation during sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3(3), 165–206. doi:10.1080/01690968808402087
   Google Scholar
• Xiang, M., Grove, J., & Giannakidou, A. (2013). Dependency dependent interference: NPI interference, agreement attraction, and global pragmatic inferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 708. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00708
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xu, Y., & Xu, C. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33(2), 159–197. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, A. (2010). Perceptual compensation is correlated with individuals' “autistic” traits: Implications for models of sound change. PLoS ONE, 5(8), e11950. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar