This paper looks at the perception of prosodic prominence and the interpretation of focus position in the unrelated languages, Samoan and English. In many languages, prosodic prominence is a key marker of focus, so it is expected that prosodic prominence would affect judgments of focus position. However, it is shown that focus position, in turn, influences the perception of prosodic prominence according to language-specific expectations about the alignment between focus position and nuclear accent placement. Two sets of parallel perception experiments in Samoan and English are reported. In the first, participants judged the most prosodically prominent word in sentences which varied in syntactic construction (cleft/canonical) and intended stress position (subject/object). In both languages, participants were more likely to choose the intended stressed word if it was in the focus position. However, this effect was much larger in Samoan, which fits with its relatively lower functionality of prosodic prominence. In the second experiment, participants were asked to choose which question had been asked, consistent with subject or object focus. It was found that in both languages, participants weighted syntactic and prosodic cues to focus in line with expectations from their language. These findings have implications for how we conceive the role of prosodic prominence in speech processing across languages.
AmengualM.ChamorroP. (2015). The effects of language dominance in the perception and production of the Galician mid vowel contrasts. Phonetica, 72, 207–236.
2.
AyersG. M. (1996). Nuclear accent types and prominence: Some psycholinguistic experiments (Ph.D dissertation). The Ohio State University, Ohio, United States.
3.
BallC.PrinceE. (1978). A note on stress and presupposition. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 585.
4.
BauerW. (1991). Maoriko again. Te Reo, 34, 3–14.
5.
BaumannS. (2016). Second occurrence focus. In FéryC.IshiharaS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure (Ch. 24). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
BirchS. L.GarnseyS. M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 232–267.
8.
BirdsongD.GertkenL.AmengualM. (2012, January). Bilingual Language Profile: an easy-to-use instrument to assess bilingualism, COERLL, University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from https://sites.la.utexas.edu/bilingual/.
9.
BishopJ. (2012). Information structural expectations in the perception of prosodic prominence. In ElordietaG.PrietoP. (Eds.), Prosody and meaning (pp. 239–270). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
10.
BishopJ. (2017). Focus projection and prenuclear accents: evidence from lexical processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32, 236–253.
11.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, computer program (version 6.0.37). Retrieved from http://www.praat.org.
12.
BotinisA.FourakisM.GawronskaB. (1999). Focus identification in English, Greek and Swedish. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1557–1560). San Francisco, USA.
13.
BreenM.FedorenkoE.WagnerM.GibsonE. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1044–1098.
14.
BrownJ.KochK. (2016). Focus and change in Polynesian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 36, 304–349.
BüringD. (2003). On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545.
17.
BüringD. (2009). Towards a typology of focus realization. In ZimmermanM.FéryC. (Eds.), Information structure (pp. 177–205). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
CalhounS. (2010). The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language, 86, 1–42.
19.
CalhounS. (2012). The theme/rheme distinction: Accent type or relative prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 329–349.
20.
CalhounS. (2015). The interaction of prosody and syntax in Samoan focus marking. Lingua, 165B, 205–229.
21.
CalhounS. (2017). Exclusives, equatives and prosodic phrases in Samoan. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2, 11.
22.
CalhounS.YuiN.KellyK. (2016, December). Change in Māori focus/topic ko: the impact of language contact on prosody. In Proceedings of the Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association conference (pp. 69–7). Sydney, Australia.
23.
CarlsonK.DickeyM. W.FrazierL.CliftonCJr. (2009). Information structure expectations in sentence comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 114–139.
24.
ColeJ. (2015). Prosody in context: a review. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1–31.
25.
ColeJ.MoY.Hasegawa-JohnsonM. (2010). Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology, 1, 425–452.
26.
CutlerA.DahanA.van DonselaarW. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: a literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141–201.
27.
DelinJ.OberlanderJ. (1995). Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: the case of it-clefts. Linguistics, 33, 465–500.
28.
DestruelE.FéryC. (this issue). Prominence in French dual focus. Language and Speech, 64, 319–345.
29.
FanselowG. (2016). Syntactic and prosodic reflexes of information structure in Germanic. In FéryC.IshiharaS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure (Ch. 31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
FéryC. (2013). Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 683–734.
31.
FéryC.IshiharaS. (Eds.) (2014). The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
FletcherJ.GrabeE.WarrenP. (2005). Intonational variation in four dialects of English: the high rising tone. In JunS. A. (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 390–409). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
GormanK.HowellJ.WagnerM. (2011). Prosodylab-aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech. Canadian Acoustics, 39, 192–193.
34.
GussenhovenC. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
HallidayM. A. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244.
36.
HedbergN. (2013). Multiple focus and cleft sentences. In HartmannK.VeenstraT. (Eds.), Cleft structures (pp. 227–250). Amsterdam, Netherlands and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
37.
HothornT.BretzF.WestfallP. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363.
38.
HowardM. (2016). The intonational phonology of Samoan questions (Honours thesis). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
39.
HowardM. (2018). The intonational phonology of Samoan questions. Presented at Proslang: Workshop on the processing of prosody across languages and varieties. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
40.
HunkinG. A. (2001). A corpus of contemporary colloquial Samoan (MA thesis). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
41.
KemberH.ChoiJ.YuJ.CutlerA. (this issue). The processing of linguistic prominence. Language and Speech, 64, 413–436.
42.
KislerT.ReichelU.SchielF. (2017). Multilingual processing of speech via web services. Computer Speech and Language, 45, 326–347.
43.
KrifkaM. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55, 243–276.
44.
Kruse Va’aiE. (2011). Producing the text of culture: The appropriation of English in contemporary Samoa. Apia, Samoa: Govt of Samoa Printing Press.
45.
KüglerF.CalhounS. (forthcoming). Prosodic encoding of information structure: a typological perspective. In GussenhovenC.ChenA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody (Ch. 31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
46.
KüglerF.FéryC. (2017). Postfocal downstep in German. Language and Speech, 60, 260–288.
47.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26.
48.
LaddD. R. (2008). Intonational phonology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
LambrechtK. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39, 463–516.
50.
LeeY.-C.WangB.ChenS.Adda-DeckerM.AmelotA.NambuS.LibermanM. (2015). A crosslinguistic study of prosodic focus. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) (pp. 4754–4758). Brisbane, Australia.
51.
LuchkinaT.ColeJ. (this issue). Perception of word-level prominence in free word order language discourse. Language and Speech, 64, 381–412.
52.
LuchkinaT.PuriV.JyotiP.ColeJ. (2015). Prosodic and structural correlates of perceived prominence in Russian and Hindi. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, Scotland.
53.
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). Opensesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324.
54.
MoselU.HovdhaugenE. (1992). Samoan reference grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
55.
OrfitelliR.YuK. (2009, May). Intonational phonology of Samoan. In Proceedings of the 16th Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association conference. University of California Santa Cruz.
56.
ParteeB. (1999). Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues. In BoschP.van der SandtR. (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 213–231). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
PrinceE. F. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 54, 883–906.
58.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Computer software manual. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
59.
ReppS.DrenhausH. (2015). Intonation influences processing and recall of left-dislocation sentences by indicating topic vs. focus status of dislocated referent. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 324–346.
60.
RoothM. (1992). A theory of focus intepretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.
61.
SealsC. (2017). Pasifika heritage languages in New Zealand. In KaganO.CarreiraM.ChikC. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook on heritage language education: From innovation to program building (pp. 298–312). New York: Routledge.
62.
SelkirkE. (2011). The syntax-phonology interface. In GoldsmithJ.RiggleJ.YuA. (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (second ed.) (pp. 435–484). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
63.
SoraceA. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 1–3.
TerkenJ.HermesD. J. (2000). The perception of prosodic prominence. In HorneM. (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce (pp. 89-127). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
66.
TurnbullR.RoyerA.ItoK.SpeerS. (2017). Prominence perception is dependent on phonology, semantics, and awareness of discourse. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32, 1017–1033.
67.
VainioM.JärvikiviJ. (2006). Tonal features, intensity, and word order in the perception of prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 319–342.
68.
VallduvíE. (2016). Information structure. In AloniM.DekkerP. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics (pp. 728–755). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
69.
WagnerM. (2005). Prosody and recursion (PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
70.
WardG.BirnerB. (2006). Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In HornL. R.WardG. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 152–174). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
71.
WarrenP.DalyN. (2005). Characterizing New Zealand English intonation: broad and narrow analysis. In BellA.HarlowR.StarksD. (Eds.), Languages of New Zealand (pp. 217–237). Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.
72.
YuK.StablerE. (2017). (In)variability in the Samoan syntax/prosody interface and consequences for syntactic parsing. Laboratory Phonology, 8. DOI: 10.5334/labphon.113
73.
ZurawK.YuK.OrfitelliR. (2014). The word-level prosody of Samoan. Phonology, 31, 271–327.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
