Effects of Pitch Accent Position,Type,and Status on Focus Projection

Abstract

This paper examines predictions made by two theories of the relationship between pitch accent and focus. The empirical evidence presented suggests that listeners are sensitive to a variety of factors that may affect the focus projection ability of pitch accents, that is the ability of a pitch accent on one word to mark focus on a larger constituent. The findings suggest that listeners' interpretation of focus structure is most sensitive to the presence or absence of a pitch accent on a focused constituent and the deaccenting of following unfocused material (pitch accent position). Preliminary evidence su ggests that the status of a pitch accent as nuclear or prenuclear may also affect listeners' interpretations, though to a lesser extent than accent position. Finally, the results show that focus projection is affected only minimally, if at all, by the type of pitch accent (at least for the two accent types compared (H * vs. L + H *)).

Keywords

focus focus projection intonation pitch accent

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ayers, G. (1996). Nuclear accent types and prominence: Some psycholinguistics experiments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Bartels, C. , & Kingston, J. (1994). Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus and natural language processing, Vol. 1: Intonation and syntax (pp. 1 - 1 0). IBM Deutschland Informations systeme GmbH Scientific Center, Institute for Logic and Linguistics. (= Working Papers of the Institute for Logic and Linguistics, 6).

Beckman, M. (1996). The parsing of prosody . Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17-67.

Beckman, M. , & Hirschberg, J. (1994). The ToBI annotation conventions. Unpublished manuscript. The Ohio State University and AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories .

Beckman, M. , & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English . Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-310.

Birch, S. , & Clifton, C., Jr. , (1995). Focus, accent and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension . Language and Speech, 38, 365-391.

Brown, G. (1983). Prosodic structures and the Given/New distinction . In D. R. Ladd & A. Cutler (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp.67-77). Berlin: Springer.

Chafe, W. (1983). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Testing the reality of focus domains . Language and Speech, 26, 61-80.

10.

Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accent . Dordrecht / Cinnaminson: Foris.

11.

Gussenhoven, C. (1992). Sentence accents and argument structure. In I. Roca (Ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar (pp.79-106). Berlin / New York: Foris.

12.

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 , U.K.: Cambridge University press .

13.

Herman, R. , & McGory, J.T. (2002). The conceptual similarity of intonational tones and its effects on intertranscriber reliability . Language and Speech, 45, 1-36.

14.

Krahmer, E. , & Swerts, M. (1998). Reconciling two competing views on contrastiveness . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1299-1302), Syd n ey.

15.

Ladd, D.R. , & Schepman, A. (2003). " Sagging transitions" between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence . Journal of Phonetics, 31, 81-112.

16.

McGory, J.T. , Herman, R. , & Syrdal, A. (1999). Using tone similarity judgments in tests of intertranscriber reliability . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 106, 2242 [abstract].

17.

Nakatani, C. (1997). The computational processing of intonational prominence: A functional prosody account. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

18.

Ostendorf, M. , Price, P. , & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1997). Boston University radio speech corpus. (CD-ROM.) Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

19.

Pierrehumbert, J. , & Hirsch Berg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen , J. M organ , & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271 - 311). Cambridge, MA: MIT .

20.

Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed (1987) by the Indiana University Linguistics Club .

21.

Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of Given-New information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.223-255). New York: Academic Press.

22.

Sag, I. , & Liberman, M. (1975). The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts . Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 11, 487-497.

23.

Schafer, A. (1997). Prosodic parsing: The role of prosody in sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

24.

Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT .

25.

Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentenceprosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J. G o ldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550-569). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

26.

Steedman, M. (1990). Syntax and intonational structure in a combinatory grammar. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 457- 482). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

27.

Terken, J. , & Hirsch Berg, J. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing "given" information: Effects of persistenceof grammatical function and surface position . Language and Speech, 37, 125-145.

28.

Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.