Prosodic and Semantic Properties of Intonational Phrases

Tanja Milićev; Nataša Milićević; Maja Marković

doi:10.2478/v10319-012-0008-9

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Prosodic and Semantic Properties of Intonational Phrases

Romanian Journal of English Studies

Volume 9 (2012): Issue 1 (December 2012)

By: Tanja Milićev, Nataša Milićević and Maja Marković

Open Access

|Feb 2013

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to investigate the relation between prosodic and semantic properties of Intonational Phrases, based on the facts from Serbian. The production tests and elicited judgements show that the prosodic integration of the embedded IPs (appositives, parentheticals, and the left-peripheral adverbs) has a distinct semantic effect, or is accompanied by the narrow focus interpretation within the proposition modified.

References

Dehé, N. 2007. ‘The relation between syntactic and prosodic parenthesis’ in Parentheticals (Linguistikaktuell/ Linguistics today, 106.). N. Dehé and Y. Kavalova (eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 261-284.
Search in Google Scholar
Dehé, N. and A. Wichmann. 2010. ‘The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in discourse - Prosodic cues to the semantic-pragmatic boundary’ in Functions of Language 17/1, pp 1-28.
Search in Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph .1970. Root and Structure Preserving Transformations, Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Search in Google Scholar
Ernst, Th. B. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486258
Search in Google Scholar
Nespor, M. and I. Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Search in Google Scholar
Marković, M. and T. Milićev (forthcoming). ‘Clitic placement and the properties of the Intonational Phrase in Serbian’. Proceedings of SinFonIJA 3, University of Novi Sad.
Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. and J. Hirschberg. 1990. ‘The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse’ in Intentions in communication. Ph. R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. E. Pollack (eds.). Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, pp. 271-311.
Search in Google Scholar
Potts, Ch. 2003. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of California at Santa Cruz.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.003.0003
Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1986. ‘On derived domains in sentence phonology’. Phonology 3, pp. 371-405.
Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1995. ‘Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing’ in The Handbook of Phonological Theory. John Goldsmith (ed.). London: Blackwell.
Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. 2005. ‘Comments on the Intonational Phrasing in English’ in Prosodies. S. Frota, M. Vigario and M. JoaoFreitas (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 11-58.
Search in Google Scholar

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10319-012-0008-9 | Journal eISSN: 2286-0428 | Journal ISSN: 1584-3734

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 70 - 77

Published on: Feb 21, 2013

Published by: West University of Timisoara

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

Keywords:

conventional implicature,

focus,

intonational phrase,

prosodic integration

Related subjects:

Linguistics and semiotics,

Theoretical frameworks and disciplines,

Linguistics, other,

Germanic languages,

English

© 2013 Tanja Milićev, Nataša Milićević, Maja Marković, published by West University of Timisoara
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 9 (2012): Issue 1 (December 2012)