Tracking who knows what: epistemic gaps and the prosodic realization of corrective focus
-
Iris Chuoying Ouyang
Abstract
Corrective information is produced with higher prosodic prominence than non-corrective information. However, it remains unclear how corrective prosody is realized in different communicative settings. We conducted two production experiments to investigate whether interlocutors’ prosodic realization of corrective focus depends on each other’s knowledge state. Participants carried out a statement-response task in pairs (e.g., Speaker B: Tina had shrimp at a restaurant. Speaker A: No, she had beef at a restaurant.). Our focus is on the prosody of Speaker A’s utterance. We manipulated whether Speaker B’s statement was implausible in the context (e.g., a context where it is known that Tina actually hates seafood). Furthermore, the two experiments differed in whether Speaker B knew that their statement (e.g., about Tina eating shrimp at a restaurant) was (im)plausible. In Experiment 1, both speakers had access to the crucial context concerning the probability of Speaker A’s statement (Tina’s preferences about food). In Experiment 2, only Speaker A had access to this background information. We found that Speaker A’s prosody when responding to Speaker B was influenced by both (i) the contextual probability of Speaker B’s statements and (ii) Speaker B’s knowledge (or lack thereof) about the contextual probability. We present an analysis where the prosodic prominence associated with corrective information reflects the gap between expectation and reality – in this case, what Speaker A had expected Speaker B to say and what Speaker B actually says.
Funding source: National Science Foundation National Science Foundation
Award Identifier / Grant number: BCS-1451596
Award Identifier / Grant number: Unassigned
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge helpful feedback and comments from the audience at DETEC 2015, held at the University of Alberta, Canada, as well as anonymous reviewers. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-1451596. An earlier version of some of this work was presented at the 2015 conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP) and at the 8th International Conference on Speech Prosody, and is included in the Speech Prosody 2016 proceedings.
Appendix Target items
The 192 critical dialogues in Experiments 1 and 2 are recoverable as follows. Each dialogue has five sentences (Sentences 1–5); the last two sentences of each dialogue (Sentence 4 and Sentence 5) constitute a statement-response pair. In Experiment 1, Sentences 1, 2, and 5 are seen and said aloud by one participant (Speaker A), whereas Sentences 3 and 4 are seen and said aloud by the other participant (Speaker B). Experiment 2 follows the same design as Experiment 1, except Sentence 2 is never said aloud.
There are six conditions, formed by combining two kinds of statement-response relationship (Corrective vs. Non-Corrective), two types of object nouns in the statements (Probable vs. Improbable), and two types of object nouns in the responses (Probable vs. Improbable). A corrective response begins with the word ‘no’ and has an object noun that is different from the object noun in the statement. In contrast, a non-corrective response begins with the word ‘yes’ and has the same object noun as the statement.
Every condition has items from six scenarios (Scenarios 1–6). Each scenario contains two sub-scenarios (X vs. Y, e.g., Christopher prefers meat vs. Abbey prefers seafood) and is associated with a set of four object nouns (e.g., beef, lamb, fish, and shrimp). Two of the four object nouns are probable in the context of sub-scenario X but improbable in sub-scenario Y. The other two object nouns, in contrast, are probable in the context of sub-scenario Y but improbable in sub-scenario X.
These target items were selected based on the results of a norming study, where the contextual probability of each f object noun given the sub-scenario was judged on a seven-point scale (see Section 2.1.2). We provide the median likelihood ratings in the tables below.
Scenario 1: Preference: meat versus seafood
Sub-scenario 1X: Probable Objects: beef, lamb; Improbable Objects: fish, shrimp.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Beef | 6 |
| Probable | Lamb | 6 |
| Improbable | Fish | 1 |
| Improbable | Shrimp | 1 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Christopher; Gary; Joseph} is particular about food.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (He loves meat but hates seafood.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: He went out for lunch yesterday.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that he had {beef; lamb; fish; shrimp} at a restaurant.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, he had {beef; lamb; fish; shrimp} at a restaurant.
Sub-scenario 1Y: Probable Objects: fish, shrimp; Improbable Objects: beef, lamb.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Fish | 6.5 |
| Probable | Shrimp | 6 |
| Improbable | Beef | 1 |
| Improbable | Lamb | 1.5 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Abbey; Lauren; Sabrina} is a picky eater.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (She loves seafood but hates meat.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: She went out for dinner last night.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that she had {beef; lamb; fish; shrimp} at a restaurant.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, she had {beef; lamb; fish; shrimp} at a restaurant.
Scenario 2: Preference: fruit versus vegetables
Sub-scenario 2X: Probable Objects: apples, cherries; Improbable Objects: lettuce, spinach.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Apples | 6 |
| Probable | Cherries | 6 |
| Improbable | Lettuce | 3 |
| Improbable | Spinach | 2.5 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Elisa; Jacky; Tina} prefers her salad a certain way.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: She loves fruit but hates vegetables.
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: She went grocery shopping yesterday evening.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that she got some {apples; cherries; lettuce; spinach} at the farmer’s market.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, she got some {apples; cherries; lettuce; spinach} at the farmer’s market.
Sub-scenario 2Y: Probable Objects: lettuce, spinach; Improbable Objects: apples, cherries.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Lettuce | 6 |
| Probable | Spinach | 6 |
| Improbable | Apples | 2 |
| Improbable | Cherries | 2.5 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Bob; Daniel; Zac} tends to put certain things in his salad.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (He loves vegetables but hates fruit.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: He went grocery shopping this morning.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that he got some {apples; cherries; lettuce; spinach} at the supermarket.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, he got some {apples; cherries; lettuce; spinach} at the supermarket.
Scenario 3: Need: getting bathroom versus patio stuff
Sub-scenario 3X: Probable Objects: bath mats, face wash; Improbable Objects: lawn chairs, yard lights.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Bath mats | 7 |
| Probable | Face wash | 6 |
| Improbable | Lawn chairs | 2 |
| Improbable | Yard lights | 2 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Abbey; Lauren; Sabrina} just moved into her new house.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (She has enough patio stuff but needs more things for the bathroom.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: She went out shopping today.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that she bought some {bath mats; face wash; lawn chairs; yard lights} at a store.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, she bought some {bath mats; face wash; lawn chairs; yard lights} at a store.
Sub-scenario 3Y: Probable Objects: lawn chairs, yard lights; Improbable Objects: bath mats, face wash.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Lawn chairs | 6 |
| Probable | Yard lights | 6 |
| Improbable | Bath mats | 2 |
| Improbable | Face wash | 2 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Christopher; Gary; Joseph} just moved into his new house.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (He has enough bathroom stuff but needs more things for the patio.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: He went out shopping this afternoon.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that he bought some {bath mats; face wash; lawn chairs; yard lights} at the mall.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, he bought some {bath mats; face wash; lawn chairs; yard lights} at the mall.
Scenario 4: Need: selling bedroom versus kitchen stuff
Sub-scenario 4X: Probable Objects: dresser, mattress; Improbable Objects: blender, mixer.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Dresser | 6 |
| Probable | Mattress | 6.5 |
| Improbable | Blender | 2.5 |
| Improbable | Mixer | 2 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Elisa; Jacky; Tina} is moving in with her boyfriend.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (They want to keep her kitchen stuff but get rid of her bedroom furniture.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: They are not going to donate anything.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that she sold her {dresser; mattress; blender; mixer} at a garage sale.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, she sold her {dresser; mattress; blender; mixer} at a garage sale.
Sub-scenario 4Y: Probable Objects: blender, mixer; Improbable Objects: dresser, mattress.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Blender | 6 |
| Probable | Mixer | 6.5 |
| Improbable | Dresser | 2 |
| Improbable | Mattress | 2 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Bob; Daniel; Zac} just moved into his new house.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (They want to keep his bedroom furniture but get rid of his kitchen stuff.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: They are not going to give anything away.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that he sold his {dresser; mattress; blender; mixer} in the classified ads.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, he sold his {dresser; mattress; blender; mixer} in the classified ads.
Scenario 5: Preference: playing carpenter versus chef
Sub-scenario 5X: Probable Objects: hammers, wrenches; Improbable Objects: burgers, pizzas.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Hammers | 6.5 |
| Probable | Wrenches | 6 |
| Improbable | Burgers | 2 |
| Improbable | Pizzas | 2 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Christopher; Gary; Joseph}’s nephew is six, and he likes to imagine what he wants to do when he grows up.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (He loves to pretend to be a carpenter, but never plays chef.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: {Christopher; Gary; Joseph} went to a flea market over the weekend.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that he bought toy {burgers; pizzas; hammers; wrenches} for his nephew.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, he bought toy {burgers; pizzas; hammers; wrenches} for his nephew.
Sub-scenario 5Y: Probable Objects: burgers, pizzas; Improbable Objects: hammers, wrenches.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Burgers | 6 |
| Probable | Pizzas | 6 |
| Improbable | Hammers | 2 |
| Improbable | Wrenches | 2 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Abbey; Lauren; Sabrina}’s niece is four, and she likes to play make-believe.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (She loves to pretend to be a chef, but never plays carpenter.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: {Abbey; Lauren; Sabrina} found some make-believe props on eBay recently.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that she bought toy {burgers; pizzas; hammers; wrenches} for her niece.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, she bought toy {burgers; pizzas; hammers; wrenches} for her niece.
Scenario 6: Preference: farm versus jungle animals
Sub-scenario 6X: Probable Objects: cow, sheep; Improbable Objects: bear, lion.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Cow | 6.5 |
| Probable | Sheep | 6 |
| Improbable | Bear | 2.5 |
| Improbable | Lion | 2 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Elisa; Jacky; Tina}’s son is not a fan of all animals.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (He is obsessed with farm animals but completely uninterested in jungle animals.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: She took her son to a toy store downtown.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that he got a stuffed {cow; sheep; bear; lion} at the shop.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, he got a stuffed {cow; sheep; bear; lion} at the shop.
Sub-scenario 6Y: Probable Objects: bear, lion; Improbable Objects: cow, sheep.
| Likelihood | Object | Median likelihood rating |
|---|---|---|
| Probable | Bear | 5.5 |
| Probable | Lion | 6 |
| Improbable | Cow | 1.5 |
| Improbable | Sheep | 1.5 |
Sentence 1 [Speaker A]: {Bob; Daniel; Zac}’s daughter only likes certain animals.
Sentence 2 [Speaker A]: (She is obsessed with jungle animals but completely uninterested in farm animals.)
Sentence 3 [Speaker B]: He took his daughter to a kid’s store the other day.
Sentence 4 [Speaker B]: I heard that she got a stuffed {cow; sheep; bear; lion} at the shop.
Sentence 5 [Speaker A]: {Yes; No}, she got a stuffed {cow; sheep; bear; lion} at the shop.
References
Altmann, Gerry T. M. & Yuki Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73(3). 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00059-1.Suche in Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Jason M. Kahn & Giulia C. Pancani. 2012. Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 19(3). 505–512. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0233-y.Suche in Google Scholar
Baker, Rachel E. & Ann R. Bradlow. 2009. Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language and Speech 52(4). 391–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909336575.Suche in Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen Gurman, Anne H. Anderson, Catherine Sotillo, Matthew Aylett, Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon & Alison Newlands. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2667.Suche in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Bolker Ben & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Suche in Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Daniel Jurafsky, Eric Fosler-Lussier, Cynthia Girand, Michelle Gregory & Daniel Gildea. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(2). 1001–1024. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1534836.Suche in Google Scholar
van Berkum, Jos J. A., Colin M. Brown, Pienie Zwitserlood, Valesca Kooijman & Peter, Hagoort. 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31(3). 443. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443.Suche in Google Scholar
Boland, Julie E. 2005. Visual arguments. Cognition 95(3). 237–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.008.Suche in Google Scholar
Breen, Mara, Evelina Fedorenko, Michael Wagner & Edward Gibson. E. 2010. Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7–9). 1044–1098. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.504378.Suche in Google Scholar
Brennan, Susan E. 1991. Conversation with and through computers. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(1). 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00158952.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian. 1983. Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction. In Anne Cutler & D. Robert Ladd (eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (Springer series in language and communication 14), 67–77. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-69103-4_6Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Meredith, Anne Pier Salverda, Laura C. Dilley & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2011. Expectations from preceding prosody influence segmentation in online sentence processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18(6). 1189–1196. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0167-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Chambers, John M. & Trevor J. Hastie. 1992. Statistical models in S. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole.Suche in Google Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G. & Janet B. Pierrehumbert. 2008. Effects of semantic predictability and regional dialect on vowel space reduction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124(3). 1682–1688. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2953322.Suche in Google Scholar
Cooper, William E., Stephen J. Eady & Pamela R. Mueller. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77(6). 2142–2156. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372.Suche in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1984. A new look at contrastive intonation. In Ernst Leisi (ed.), Modes of interpretation: Essays presented to Ernst Leisi on the occasion of his 65th birthday (Tubinger Beitrage zur Linguistik 260), 137–158. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Suche in Google Scholar
DeLong, Katherine A., Thomas P. Urbach & Marta Kutas. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8(8). 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504.Suche in Google Scholar
Dombrowski, Ernst. 2003. Semantic features of accent contours: Effects of f0 peak position and f0 time shape. In Proceedings of the 15th international congress of phonetic sciences, 1217–1220. ICPhS 2003.Suche in Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. & Kees Hengeveld. 1997. The theory of functional grammar: The structure of the clause. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110218367Suche in Google Scholar
Eady, Stephen J. & William E. Cooper. 1986. Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80(2). 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.394091.Suche in Google Scholar
Ferguson, S. Hargus. 2004. Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: Vowel intelligibility for normal hearing listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(4). 2365–2373. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1788730.Suche in Google Scholar
Ferguson, S. Hargus & Diane Kewley-Port. 2007. Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: Acoustic characteristics of vowels. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50. 1241–1255. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/087).Suche in Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. 1992. Vowel duration and closure duration in voiced and unvoiced stops: There are no contrast effects here. Journal of Phonetics 20(1). 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30244-x.Suche in Google Scholar
Fussell, Susan R. & Robert M. Krauss. 1989. The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25(3). 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90019-x.Suche in Google Scholar
Galati, Alexia & Susan E. Brennan. 2010. Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language 62(1). 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Garcia, Damien. 2010. Robust smoothing of gridded data in one and higher dimensions with missing values. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 54(4). 1167–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2009.09.020.Suche in Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L., William D. Raymond, Alan Bell, Eric Fosler-Lussier & Daniel Jurafsky. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. CLS 35(2). 151–166.Suche in Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2008. Types of focus in English. In Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel, Büring (eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, 83–100. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-4796-1_5Suche in Google Scholar
Hale, John. 2001. A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In NAACL ’01, Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–8.10.3115/1073336.1073357Suche in Google Scholar
Horton, William S. & Boaz Keysar. 1996. When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition 59(1). 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1.Suche in Google Scholar
Hummert, Mary Lee & Jaye L. Shaner. 1994. Patronizing speech to the elderly as a function of stereotyping. Communication Studies 45(2). 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979409368419.Suche in Google Scholar
Isaacs, Ellen A. & Herbert H. Clark. 1987. References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 116(1). 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.116.1.26.Suche in Google Scholar
Ito, Kiwako & Shari R. Speer. 2008. Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2). 541–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.013.Suche in Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2003. The effect of phrase length and speech rate on prosodic phrasing. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2003), 483–486.Suche in Google Scholar
Kahn, Jason M. & Jennifer E. Arnold. 2012. A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. Journal of Memory and Language 67(3). 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn, Marc Swerts & Emiel Krahmer. 2013. Accounting for the listener: Comparing the production of contrastive intonation in typically-developing speakers and speakers with autism. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134(3). 2182–2196. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4816544.Suche in Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah & Elisabeth Selkirk. 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87(4). 771–816. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0076.Suche in Google Scholar
Krahmer, Emiel & Marc Swerts. 2001. On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication 34(4). 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6393(00)00058-3.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuhlen, Anna K. & Susan E. Brennan. 2010. Anticipating distracted addressees: How speakers’ expectations and addressees’ feedback influence storytelling. Discourse Processes 47(7). 567–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903441339.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.Suche in Google Scholar
Lee, Yoonjeong, Samantha Gordon Danner, Benjamin Parrell, Sungbok Lee, Louis Goldstein & Dani Byrd. 2016. Acoustic and articulatory measures of prosodic convergence in a cooperative maze navigation task. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 140(4). 3344. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4970686.Suche in Google Scholar
Levitan, Rivka, Agustín Gravano & Julia Bell Hirschberg. 2011. Entrainment in speech preceding backchannels. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 113–117.Suche in Google Scholar
Levitan, Rivka & Julia Hirschberg. 2011. Measuring acoustic-prosodic entrainment with respect to multiple levels and dimensions. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech), 3081–3084.10.21437/Interspeech.2011-771Suche in Google Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3). 1126–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006.Suche in Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 1963. Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech 6(3). 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383096300600306.Suche in Google Scholar
Local, John. 1996. Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 12. 177–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511597862.007.Suche in Google Scholar
Lockridge, Calion B. & Susan E. Brennan. 2002. Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9(3). 550–557. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196312.Suche in Google Scholar
Mahowald, Kyle, Evelina Fedorenko, Steven T. Piantadosi & Edward Gibson. 2013. Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition 126(2). 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010.Suche in Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin & Nancy Pearl Solomon. 2004. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47(5). 1048–1058. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/078).Suche in Google Scholar
MATLAB. 2004. Release 2004a. Natick, MA: The MathWorks Inc.Suche in Google Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver & Margaret Zellers. 2013. Late pitch accents in hat and dip intonation patterns. In Oliver Niebuhr (ed.), Understanding prosody: The role of context, function and communication (Language, Context and Cognition 13), 159–186. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110301465.159Suche in Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis. 2003. Intonational equivalence: An experimental evaluation of pitch scales. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2003), 771–774.Suche in Google Scholar
Ouyang, Iris Chuoying & Elsi Kaiser. 2014. Prosodic encoding of informativity: Word frequency and contextual probability interact with information structure. In Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2014), 1120–1125. https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2014/papers/199/.Suche in Google Scholar
Ouyang, Iris Chuoying. 2015. Prosody and informativity: A cross-linguistic investigation. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Ouyang, Iris Chuoying & Elsi Kaiser. 2015. Individual differences in the prosodic encoding of informativity. In Susanne Fuchs, Daniel Pape, Caterina Petrone & Pascal Perrier (eds.), Individual differences in speech production and perception, 147–188. Peter Lang: Bern.Suche in Google Scholar
Ouyang, Iris Chuoying, Sasha Spala & Elsi Kaiser. 2017. Speakers’ rapidly-updated expectations influence prosodic realization of information structure. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 2(51). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v2i0.4046.Suche in Google Scholar
Pan, Shimei & Julia Hirschberg. 2000. Modeling local context for pitch accent prediction. In Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 233–240.10.3115/1075218.1075248Suche in Google Scholar
Rosa, Elise C. & Jennifer E. Arnold. 2011. The role of attention in choice of referring expressions. In Proceedings of PRE-Cogsci: Bridging the gap between computational, empirical and theoretical approaches to reference.Suche in Google Scholar
Roßnagel, Christian Stamov. 2000. Cognitive load and perspective‐taking: applying the automatic‐controlled distinction to verbal communication. European Journal of Social Psychology 30(3). 429–445.10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200005/06)30:3<429::AID-EJSP3>3.0.CO;2-VSuche in Google Scholar
Roßnagel, Christian Stamov. 2004. Lost in thought: Cognitive load and the processing of addressees’ feedback in verbal communication. Experimental Psychology 51(3). 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.51.3.191.Suche in Google Scholar
Russell, Alex W. & Michael F. Schober. 1999. How beliefs about a partner’s goals affect referring in goal‐discrepant conversations. Discourse Processes 27(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545048.Suche in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2006. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.3.1. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.Suche in Google Scholar
Scarborough, Rebecca. 2010. Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels, Vol. 10, 557–586. Laboratory Phonology.10.1515/9783110224917.5.557Suche in Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1996. Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margret Selting (eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008Suche in Google Scholar
van Son, Rob J. J. H. & Louis C. W. Pols. 1999. An acoustic description of consonant reduction. Speech Communication 28(2). 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6393(99)00009-6.Suche in Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enrique & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax, 79–108. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004373167_005Suche in Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael & Duane G. Watson. 2010. Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7–9). 905–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690961003589492.Suche in Google Scholar
Watson, Duane G., Michael K. Tanenhaus & Christine A. Gunlogson. 2008. Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L + H*. Cognitive Science 32(7). 1232–1244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802138755.Suche in Google Scholar
Wicha, Nicole Y. Y., Elizabeth A. Bates, Eva M. Moreno & Marta Kutas. 2003. Potato not Pope: human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters 346(3). 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3940(03)00599-8.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue & Celia Kitzinger. 2006. Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69. 150–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900203.Suche in Google Scholar
Wright, Richard. 2004. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In John Local, Richard Ogden & Rosalind Temple (eds.), Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology VI, 75–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Zahorian, Stephen A. & Hongbing Hu. 2008. A spectral/temporal method for robust fundamental frequency tracking. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(6). 4559–4571. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2916590.Suche in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11). 1651–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Expectations in language processing and production: an introduction to the special issue
- Managing interpersonal discourse expectations: a comparative analysis of contrastive discourse particles in Dutch
- Discourse expectations: explaining the implicit causality biases of verbs
- The online processing of causal and concessive discourse connectives
- The processing signature of anticipatory reading: an eye-tracking study on lexical predictions
- Tracking who knows what: epistemic gaps and the prosodic realization of corrective focus
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Expectations in language processing and production: an introduction to the special issue
- Managing interpersonal discourse expectations: a comparative analysis of contrastive discourse particles in Dutch
- Discourse expectations: explaining the implicit causality biases of verbs
- The online processing of causal and concessive discourse connectives
- The processing signature of anticipatory reading: an eye-tracking study on lexical predictions
- Tracking who knows what: epistemic gaps and the prosodic realization of corrective focus
