Have a personal or library account? Click to login
A comparative analysis of English nuclear stress principles in conversation Cover

A comparative analysis of English nuclear stress principles in conversation

By: Kent Lee  
Open Access
|Jun 2023

References

  1. Bardovi-Harlig, K., 1986. Pragmatic determinants of English sentence stress. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  2. Beckman, M. E. and Ayers, G., 1997. Guidelines for ToBI labelling. The OSU Research Foundation, vol. 3, no. 30, pp. 255-309.
  3. Bolinger, D., 1972. Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind-reader). Language, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 633-644.
  4. Blutner, R., Bezuidenhout, A., Breheny, R., Glucksberg, S. and Happé, F., 2004. Optimality theory and pragmatics. Camden, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
  5. Bresnan, J., 2000. Optimal syntax. In J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, and J. van de Weijer, eds. Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 334-385.
  6. Brinton, L. J., 2008. The comment clause in English. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Brown, G. and Yule, G., 1985. Discourse analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Celce-Murcia, M, Brinton, D. M. and Goodwin, J. M., 2010. Teaching pronunciation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Chen, Y. and Gussenhoven, C., 2008. Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 724-746.
  11. Chomsky, N. and Halle, M., 1968. Sound pattern of English. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  12. Costa, J., 2001. The emergence of unmarked word order. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, and S. Vikner, eds. Optimality-theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 171-204.
  13. Cruttenden, A., 1986. Intonation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  14. De Looze, C., Yanushevskaya, I., Kane, J. and Chasaide, A. N., 2014. Pitch range declination and reset in turn-taking organisation. Speech Prosody, vol. 7, pp. 1100-1104.
  15. Derwing, T. M. and Munro, M. J., 1997. Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-16.
  16. Desrochers, R., 1998. The role of parameters in phonology: A critical account. Language Sciences, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 369-397.
  17. Diaz, M. T. and Swaab, T. Y., 2007. Electrophysiological differentiation of phonological and semantic integration in word and sentence contexts. Brain Research, vol. 1146, pp. 85-100.
  18. Duffy, S. A., 1986. Role of expectations in sentence integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 208-219.
  19. Estebas-Vilaplana, E., 2014. The evaluation of intonation. In G. Thompson and L. Alba-Juez, eds. Evaluation in Context. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 179-194.
  20. Erteschik-Shir, N., 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Erteschik-Shir, N., 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Field, J., 2005. Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 399-423.
  23. Flack, K., 2007. Templatic morphology and indexed markedness constraints. Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 749-758.
  24. Gernsbacher, M. A., 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
  25. Giegerich, H. J., 2004. Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-24.
  26. Goldberg, A., 1995. Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  27. Gundel, J. K., 1999. On different kinds of focus. In P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, eds. Focus. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 293-305.
  28. Gussenhoven, C., 2016. Foundations of intonational meaning: Anatomical and physiological factors. Topics in Cognitive Science, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 425-434.
  29. Gussenhoven, C., 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Gussenhoven, C., 1999. On the Limits of Focus Projection in English. In P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, eds., Focus. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43-55.
  31. Gussenhoven, C., 1985. Two views of accent–a reply. Journal of Linguistics, vol. 21, pp. 125-38.
  32. Hansen, M.-B. M., 1998. The function of discourse particles. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hirschberg, J., 2004. Pragmatics and intonation. In L. R. Horn and G. Ward, eds. The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 515-537.
  33. Hirschberg, J., 1993. Pitch accent in context predicting intonational prominence from text. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 305-340.
  34. Hauser, M. D. and Fowler, C. A., 1992. Fundamental frequency declination is not unique to human speech: Evidence from nonhuman primates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 363-369.
  35. Keller, F. and Alexopoulou, T., 2001. Phonology competes with syntax: Experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of Information Structure. Cognition, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 301-372.
  36. Kim, O.-Y., 2007. An acoustic study of English sentence stress and rhythm produced by Korean speakers. Speech Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 121-135.
  37. Kintsch, W., 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Kiss, K., 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, vol. 74, pp. 245-273.
  39. König, E., 1991. The meaning of focus particles. New York: Routledge.
  40. Kratzer, A. and Selkirk, E., 2020. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-53.
  41. Kreidler, C., 1997. Describing spoken English: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
  42. Ladd, D. R., 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press.
  43. Ladefoged, P., 2015. A course in phonetics, 7th ed. New York: Cengage Learning.
  44. Lee, J.-K., 2007. The phonology and phonetics of the stress patterns of English compounds and noun phrases. Speech Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 21-35.
  45. Lee, K., 2001. Teaching discourse stress to Asian students. KOTESOL Proceedings 2001. Seoul, Korea: KOTESOL, pp. 103-116.
  46. Lee, K., 2013. Sentence stress in information structure. Oenoehak [Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea], vol. 66, pp. 3-30.
  47. Lehman, C., 1977. A re-analysis of givenness: stress in discourse. Papers from the thirteenth regional meeting, 316-324. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  48. Liberman, M. and Sproat, R., 1992. The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In I. A. Sag and A. Szabolcsi, eds. Lexical matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 131-181.
  49. McCarthy, J. J., 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M. and Cai, Z., 2014. Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Miller, J., 1996. Clefts, particles and word order. Language Sciences, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 111-125.
  52. Nathan, G. S., 2008. Phonology: A cognitive grammar introduction, Vol. 3. Oxfordshire, UK: John Benjamins Publishing.
  53. Nespor, M. and Vogel, I., 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
  54. Odden, D., 2014. Rules v. Constraints. In J. A. Goldsmith, J. Riggle and A. C. L. Yu, eds. Handbook of phonological theory (Vol. 2). Malden, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-39.
  55. Polyanskaya, L., Samuel, A. G. and Ordin, M., 2019. Regularity in speech rhythm as a social coalition signal. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1453, no. 1, pp. 153-165.
  56. Rochemont, M., 2016. Givenness. In C. Féry and S. Ishihara, eds. The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 41-63.
  57. Rooth, M., 2008. Notions of focus anaphoricity. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, vol. 55, no. 3-4, pp. 277-285.
  58. Selkirk, E., 1995. Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing. In J. Goldsmith, ed. The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Ltd, pp. 550-569.
  59. Szwedek, A., 1987. The role of category membership in the structure of the sentence. Folia Linguistica, vol. 21, no. 2-4, pp. 249-260.
  60. Szwedek, A., 2011. More evidence on the primacy of the noun over the verb. A cognitive explanation. In Z. Wąsik, ed. Languages in contact 2011. Wrocław, Poland: Philological School of Higher Education in Wrocław Publishing, pp. 213-224.
  61. Szwedek, A., 2017. When do nouns control sentence stress placement? Philological School of Higher Education, 6, 145-176.
  62. Tajsner, P., 2008. Aspects of the grammar of focus: A minimalist view (Vol. 24). Bern: Peter Lang.
  63. Terken, J. and Hermes, D., 2000. The perception of prosodic prominence. In M. Horne, ed. Prosody: Theory and experiment. Dordrecht, Holland: Springer, pp. 89-127.
  64. Um, H.-Y., 2004. The English intonation of native speakers and Korean learners: A comparative study. Speech Sciences, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 117-130.
  65. van den Brink, D., Brown, C. M. and Hagoort, P., 2006. The cascaded nature of lexical selection and integration in auditory sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 364-372.
  66. Wennerstrom, A., 1998. Intonation as cohesion in academic discourse: A study of Chinese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-25.
  67. Wennerstrom, A., 1994. Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of nonnative speakers. Applied Linguistics, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 399-420.
  68. Walker, M. A., Joshi, A. K. and Prince, E. F., 1998. Centering in naturally occurring discourse: An overview. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi and E. F. Prince, eds. Centering Theory in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-28.
  69. Yavaş, H., 2011. Applied English phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  70. Välimaa-Blum, R., 2004. On nominal and intonational frame anaphora. Cycnos, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 31-47.
  71. Xu, Z. and Aronoff, M., 2010. A realization optimality-theoretic approach to full and partial identity of forms. Morphology, vol. 20, pp. 381-411.
  72. Zwaan, R. A. and Radvansky, G. A., 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 162-185.
  73. Zubizarreta, M. L., 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Linguistic Inquiry monograph #33. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Language: English
Page range: 18 - 42
Published on: Jun 28, 2023
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2023 Kent Lee, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.