The Prosody of the Czech Discourse Marker ‘Jasně': An Analysis of Forms and Functions

References

1 Ambrazaitis G (2 006): Prosodic signalling of (un)expected information in South Swedish - an interactive manipulation experiment; in Hoffmann R, Mixdorff H (eds): Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation, Band 40: Speech Prosody - 3rd International Conference. Dresden, TUD Press, pp 911-914.Search in Google Scholar

2 Ambrazaitis G (2009): Nuclear Intonation in Swedish: Evidence from Experimental-Phonetic Studies and a Comparison with German. Travaux de l'institut de Linguistique de Lund, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, vol 49.Search in Google Scholar

3 Armstrong LE, Ward IC (1926): A Handbook of English Intonation. Cambridge, W. Heffer & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

4 Arvaniti A (2011): The representation of intonation; in van Oostendorp M, Ewen CJ, Hume EJ, Rice K (eds): The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Malden, Wiley-Blackwell, pp 757-780.Search in Google Scholar

5 Bartošek J, Hanžl V (2011): Intonation based sentence modality classifier for Czech using Artificial Neural Network; in Travieso-González CM, Alonso-Hernández JB (eds): Advances in Nonlinear Speech Processing. Heidelberg, Springer, pp 162-169.Search in Google Scholar

6 Batliner A, Kompe R, Kießling A, Nöth E, Niemann H (1995): Can you tell apart spontaneous and read speech if you just look at prosody; in Rubio Ayuso A, López Soler J (eds): Speech Recognition and Coding. New Advances and Trends. Berlin/NewYork, Springer, pp 321-324.Search in Google Scholar

7 Beňuš Š, Gravano A, Hirschberg J (2007): Prosody of backchannels in American English. Proceedings of 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp 1065-1068.Search in Google Scholar

8 Boersma P, Weenink D (2014): Praat: doing phonetics by computer [computer program], version 5.3.35. http://www.praat.org/.Search in Google Scholar

9 Boysen L (2015): Die Produktion und Perzeption der Mikrorhythmen Deutscher Tonhöhenakzente. MA Thesis, Kiel University, Germany.Search in Google Scholar

10 Bruce G (1977): Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective. Lund, Gleerup.Search in Google Scholar

11 Buschmeier H, Malisz Z, Wlodarczak M, Kopp S, Wagner P (2011): ‘Are you sure you're paying attention?' - ‘Uh-huh'. Communicating understanding as a marker of attentiveness. Proceedings of Interspeech 2011. Florence, ISCA.10.21437/Interspeech.2011-540Search in Google Scholar

12 Cabarrão V, Mata AI (2012): Prosodic and pragmatic properties of affirmative words in European Portuguese. Proceedings of the International Conference of Experimental Linguistics, Athens, Greece.Search in Google Scholar

13 Caspers J (2000): Melodic characteristics of backchannels in Dutch Map Task dialogues. Proceedings of ICSLP 2000, Beijing, China, vol 2, pp 611-614.10.21437/ICSLP.2000-343Search in Google Scholar

14 Chen A (2005): Universal and Language-Specific Perception of Paralinguistic Intonational Meaning. Utrecht, LOT.Search in Google Scholar

15 Daneš F (1957): Intonace a věta ve spisovné češtině. Praha, Academia.Search in Google Scholar

16 Dankovičová J (2001): The Linguistic Basis of Articulation Rate Variation in Czech. Frankfurt am Main, Hector.Search in Google Scholar

17 Dellwo V, Leemann A, Kolly M-J (2015): The recognition of read and spontaneous speech in local vernacular: the case of Zurich German dialect. J Phon 48:13-28.10.1016/j.wocn.2014.10.011Search in Google Scholar

18 Dilley LC, Pitt MA (2007): A study of regressive place assimilation in spontaneous speech and its implications for spoken word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 122:2340-2353.10.1121/1.2772226Search in Google Scholar

19 Duběda T (2011): Towards an Inventory of Pitch Accents for Read Czech, Slovo a Slovesnost 72/1, pp 3-12.Search in Google Scholar

20 Duběda T, Raab J (2008): Pitch accents, boundary tones and contours: automatic learning of Czech intonation; in Sojka P, Horák A, Kopeček I, Pala K (eds): Proceedings of Text, Speech and Dialogue. Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer, pp 293-302.Search in Google Scholar

21 Ehlich K (1986): Interjektionen (Linguistische Arbeiten, Band 111). Berlin, De Gruyter.10.1515/9783111357133Search in Google Scholar

22 Erickson D, Fujimura·(1996): On defining emphasis. Proceedings of 5th Conference on Laboratory Phonology, Chicago, USA.Search in Google Scholar

23 Fant G, Kruckenberg A (1994): Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish. STL-QPSR 35:125-144.Search in Google Scholar

24 Frota S (2012): A focus intonational morpheme in European Portuguese: production and perception; in Elordieta G, Prieto P (eds): Prosody and Meaning. Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, pp 163-196.Search in Google Scholar

25 Grabe E (1998): Comparative Intonational Phonology: English and German. PhD Thesis, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Search in Google Scholar

26 Gravano A, Beňuš Š, Chávez H, Hirschberg J, Wilcox L (2007): On the role of context and prosody in the interpretation of okay. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 800-807.Search in Google Scholar

27 Gravano A, Hirschberg J (2009): Turn-yielding cues in task-oriented dialogue. Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2009. London, ISCA, pp 253-261.10.3115/1708376.1708412Search in Google Scholar

28 Gravano A, Hirschberg J, Beňuš Š (2011): Affirmative cue words in task-oriented dialogue. Comput Linguist 38:1-39.10.1162/COLI_a_00083Search in Google Scholar

29 Gruber J (2011): An Articulatory, Acoustic, and Auditory Study of Burmese Tone. PhD Thesis, Georgetown University, USA.Search in Google Scholar

30 Gussenhoven C (2002): Intonation and interpretation: phonetics and phonology. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, France, pp 47-57.Search in Google Scholar

31 Gussenhoven C, Driessen W (2004): Explaining two correlations between vowel quality and tone: the duration connection; in Bel B, Marlien I (eds): Proceedings 2nd International Conference of Speech Prosody, Nara, Japan, pp 179-182.Search in Google Scholar

32 Ha KP (2010): Prosody of Vietnamese from an interactional perspective: ờ, ừ and vâng in backchannels and requests for information. J Southeast Asian Linguist Soc 3:56-76.Search in Google Scholar

33 Himmelmann NP (2006): Prosody in language documentation; in Gippert J, Himmelmann NP, Mosel U (eds): Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp 163-181.Search in Google Scholar

34 Hirschberg J, Litman D (1993): Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Comput Linguist 19:501-530.Search in Google Scholar

35 Hobbs JR (1990): The pierrehumbert-hirschberg theory of intonational meaning made simple: comments on pierrehumbert and hirschberg; in Cohen PR, Morgan JL, Pollack ME (eds): Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 313-323.Search in Google Scholar

36 Ishi CT, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2011): Analysis of acoustic-prosodic features related to paralinguistic information carried by interjections in dialogue speech. Proceedings 12th Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2011), Florence, Italy, pp 3133-3136.10.21437/Interspeech.2011-784Search in Google Scholar

37 Ishi CT, Hatano H, Hagita N (2012): Extraction of paralinguistic information carried by mono-syllabic interjections in Japanese. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Shangai, China, pp 681-684.Search in Google Scholar

38 Jančák P (1957): Zvuková stránka českého pozdravu. Praha, Academia.Search in Google Scholar

39 Janota P (1967): An experiment concerning the perception of stress by Czech listeners. Acta Universitatis Carolinae - Philologica, Phonetica Pragensia I, pp 45-68.Search in Google Scholar

40 Janota P, Palková Z (1974): Auditory Evaluation of Stress under the Influence of Context. AUC Philologica 2/1974, Phonetica Pragensia 4:29-59.Search in Google Scholar

41 Jurafsky D, Shriberg E, Fox B, Curl T (1998): Lexical, prosodic, and syntactic cues for dialog acts. Proceedings of ACL/COLING, Montreal, Canada, pp 114-120.Search in Google Scholar

42 Kohler KJ (1990): Macro and micro F0 in the synthesis of intonation; in Kingston J, Beckman ME (eds): Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 115-138.Search in Google Scholar

43 Kohler KJ (1997): Modelling prosody in spontaneous speech; in Sagisaka Y, Campbell N, Higuchi N (eds): Computing Prosody, Computational Models for Processing Spontaneous Speech. New York, Springer, pp 187-210.Search in Google Scholar

44 Kohler KJ (2005): Timing and communicative functions of pitch contours. Phonetica 62:88-105.10.1159/000090091Search in Google Scholar

45 Kohler KJ (2006): Paradigms of experimental prosodic analysis: from measurement to function; in Sudhoff S, Lenertová D, Meyer R, Pappert S, Augurzky P, Mleinek I, Richter N, Schließer J (eds): Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp 123-152.Search in Google Scholar

46 Kohler KJ (2013): From communicative functions to prosodic forms. Phonetica 70:24-65.10.1159/000351415Search in Google Scholar

47 Kolář J, Romportl J, Psutka J (2003): The Czech Speech and Prosody Database Both for ASR and TTS Purposes. Proceedigns of Eurospeech, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1577-1580.Search in Google Scholar

48 Krahmer E, Swerts M (2005): How children and adults produce and perceive uncertainty in audiovisual speech. Lang Speech 48(pt 1):29-54.10.1177/00238309050480010201Search in Google Scholar

49 Laan G (1997): The contribution of intonation, segmental durations, and spectral features to the perception of a spontaneous and a read speaking style. Speech Commun 22:43-65.10.1016/S0167-6393(97)00012-5Search in Google Scholar

50 Lai C (2008): Prosodic cues for backchannels and short questions: really? Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Campinas, Brazil.Search in Google Scholar

51 Lai C (2009): Perceiving surprise on cue words: prosody and semantics interact on right and really. Proceedings of the 10th Interspeech Conference, Brighton, UK, pp 1-4.10.21437/Interspeech.2009-475Search in Google Scholar

52 Lai C (2010): What do you mean, you're uncertain?: the interpretation of cue words and rising intonation in dialogue. Proceedings of the 11th Interspeech Conference, Makuhari, Japan, pp 1-4.10.21437/Interspeech.2010-429Search in Google Scholar

53 Malisz Z, Karpiński M (2010): Multimodal aspects of positive and negative responses in polish task-Oriented dialogues. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Chicago, USA.Search in Google Scholar

54 Möbius B (2003): Gestalt psychology meets phonetics - an early experimental study of intrinsic F0 and intensity. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona, IPA and UAB, vol III, pp 2677-2680.Search in Google Scholar

55 Mozziconacci SJ (1998): Speech Variability and Emotion: Production and Perception. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Search in Google Scholar

56 Michalsky J (2015): Frageintonation im Deutschen. Zur Intonatorischen Markierung von Interrogativität und Fragehaltigkeit. PhD Thesis, University of Oldenburg, Germany.Search in Google Scholar

57 Michaud A, Mazaudon M (2006): Pitch and voice quality characteristics of the lexical word-tones of tamang, as compared with level tones (naxi data) and pitch-plus-voice-quality tones (vietnamese data); in Hoffmann R, Mixdorff H (ed): Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation, Band 40: Speech Prosody - 3rd International Conference. Dresden, TUD Press, pp 823-826.Search in Google Scholar

58 Mixdorff H (2012): The application of the fujisaki model in quantitative prosody research; in Niebuhr·(ed): Prosodies: Context, Function, Communication. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp 55-74.Search in Google Scholar

59 Niebuhr·(2007): Perzeption und Kognitive Verarbeitung der Sprechmelodie, Theoretische Grundlagen und Empirische Untersuchungen. Language, Context, and Cognition, vol VII. deGruyter, Berlin/New York.10.1515/9783110204339Search in Google Scholar

60 Niebuhr·(2010): On the phonetics of intensifying emphasis in German. Phonetica 67:170-19810.1159/000321054Search in Google Scholar

61 Niebuhr·(2011): Alignment and pitch-accent identification: implications from F0 peak and plateau contours. Arbeitsber Inst Phonet Digitale Sprachverarbeitung 38:77-95.Search in Google Scholar

62 Niebuhr·(2013): The acoustic complexity of intonation; in Asu EL, Lippus P (eds): Nordic Prosody XI. Frankfurt/New York, Peter Lang, pp 15-29.Search in Google Scholar

63 Niebuhr·(2015): Stepped intonation contours - a new field of complexity; in Skarnitzl R, Niebuhr·(eds): Tackling the Complexity in Speech. Prague, Charles University Press, pp 39-74.Search in Google Scholar

64 Niebuhr O, Michaud A (2015): Speech Data Acquisition - The Underestimated Challenge. Kieler Arbeiten in Linguistik & Phonetik (Kalipho) 3:1-42.Search in Google Scholar

65 Niebuhr O, Pfitzinger HP (2010): On pitch-accent identification - the role of syllable duration and intensity. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Chicago, USA.Search in Google Scholar

66 Niebuhr O, Landgraf R, Pfitzinger HP, Schmidt G (2015): The Kiel corpora of ‘Speech & Emotion' - a summary. Proceedings of the 41st Tagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Akustik, Nuremberg, Germany, pp 1-4.Search in Google Scholar

67 O'Connor JD, Arnold GF (1961): Intonation of Colloquial English. London, Longman.Search in Google Scholar

68 Palková Z, Volín J (2003): The role of F0 contours in determining foot boundaries in Czech. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona, IPA and UAB, vol II, pp 1783-1786.Search in Google Scholar

69 Petrone C, D'Imperio M (2011): From tones to tunes: effects of the F0 prenuclear region in the perception of Neapolitan statements and questions; in Frota S, Elordieta G, Prieto P (eds): Prosodic Categories: Production, Perception and Comprehension. Berlin, Springer, pp 207-230.Search in Google Scholar

70 Pierrehumbert J (1980): The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD thesis, MIT. Distributed 1988, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar

71 Pierrehumbert JB, Steele SA (1989): Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica 46:181-196.10.1159/000261842Search in Google Scholar

72 Pierrehumbert J, Hirschberg J (1990): The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse; in Cohen P, Morgan J, Pollack M (eds): Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 271-311.Search in Google Scholar

73 Podlipský VJ, Skarnitzl R, Volín J (2009): High front vowels in Czech: a contrast in quantity or quality? Proceedings of Interspeech, Brighton, UK, pp 132-135.10.21437/Interspeech.2009-50Search in Google Scholar

74 Redi LC (2003): Categorical effects in production of pitch contours in English. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain, pp 2921-2924.Search in Google Scholar

75 Rietveld T, Chen A (2006): How to obtain and process perceptual judgements of intonational meaning; in Sudhoff S, Lenertová D, Meyer R, Pappert S, Augurzky P, Mleinek I, Richter N, Schließer J (eds): Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp 283-319.Search in Google Scholar

76 Schegloff EA (1982): Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh' and other things that come between sentences; in Tannen D (ed): Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown, Georgetown University Press, pp 71-93.Search in Google Scholar

77 Schiffrin D (1987): Discourse Markers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841Search in Google Scholar

78 Schmidt JE (2001): Bausteine der intonation? Germanistische Linguistik 157-158:9-32.Search in Google Scholar

79 Sugiyama Y (2012): Production and Perception of Japanese Pitch Accent. Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

80 ‘t Hart J, Collier R, Cohen A (1990): A Perceptual Study of Intonation. An Experimental-Phonetic Approach to Speech Melody. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627743Search in Google Scholar

81 Tamburini F, Caini C (2005): An automatic system for detecting prosodic prominence in American English. Int J Speech Technol 8:33-44.10.1007/s10772-005-4760-zSearch in Google Scholar

82 Truong KP, Heylen D (2010): Disambiguating the functions of conversational sounds with prosody: the case of ‘yeah'. Proceedings of Interspeech, Makuhari, Japan, pp 2554-2557.Search in Google Scholar

83 van Zyl M, Hanekom JJ (2012): When ‘okay' is not okay: acoustic characteristics of single-word prosody conveying reluctance. J Acoust Soc Am 133:EL13-EL19.Search in Google Scholar

84 Volín J (2008a): Variabilita Neukončujících Melodií ve Světle Shlukové Analýzy. [Cluster Analysis of Variation in Continuation Melodies.] Phonetica Pragensia XI (AUC-Philologica 2007/2), pp 173-179.Search in Google Scholar

85 Volín J (2008b): Z Intonace Čtených Zpravodajství: Výška První Slabiky v Taktu. [Intonation of News Reading: The Pitch of the Stressed Syllable]. Čeština Doma a ve Světě 1-2/2008, pp 89-96.Search in Google Scholar

86 Volín J, Skarnitzl R (2007): Temporal downtrends in Czech read speech. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of ISCA (Interspeech 2007). Antwerpen, ISCA, pp 442-445.10.21437/Interspeech.2007-214Search in Google Scholar

87 Volín J, Weingartová L (2012): Idiosyncrasies in local articulation rate trajectories in Czech. Proceedings of Perspectives on Rhythm and Timing. Glasgow, UG, p 67.Search in Google Scholar

88 Volín J, Weingartová L, Niebuhr·(2014): Between recognition and resignation - the prosodic forms and communicative functions of the Czech confirmation tag ‘jasně'; in Campbell N, Gibbon D, Hirst D (eds): Proceedings of Speech Prosody. Dublin, TCD, pp 115-119.Search in Google Scholar

89 Wagner P, Trouvain J, Zimmerer F (2015): In defense of stylistic diversity in speech research. J Phon 48:1-12.10.1016/j.wocn.2014.11.001Search in Google Scholar

90 Ward N (1998): Some exotic discourse markers of spoken dialog. Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, Montreal, Canada, pp 62-64.Search in Google Scholar

91 Ward N (2006): Non-lexical conversational sounds in American English. Pragmat Cogn 14:129-182.10.1075/pc.14.1.08warSearch in Google Scholar

92 Ward N, Tsukahara W (2000): Prosodic features which cue back-channel responses in English and Japanese. J Pragmat 32:1177-1207.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00109-5Search in Google Scholar

93 Weingartová L (2015): Identifikace Mluvčího v Temporální Doméně řeči [Speaker Identification in the Temporal Domain of Speech]. PhD Thesis. Prague, Institute of Phonetics, Charles University in Prague.Search in Google Scholar

94 Wlodarczak M, Buschmeier H, Malisz Z, Kopp S, Wagner P (2012): Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Feedback Behaviors in Dialog, Interspeech 2012 Satellite Workshop. Stevenson, pp 93-96.Search in Google Scholar

95 Xu Y (2004): Understanding tone from the perspective of production and perception. Lang Linguist 5:757-797.Search in Google Scholar

96 Xu Y (2010): In defense of lab speech. J Phon 38:329-336.10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.003Search in Google Scholar

97 Yngve V (1970): On getting a word in edgewise. Chicago Linguist Soc 6:567-578.Search in Google Scholar