A new approach to prosodic grouping

Kentner, Gerrit; Féry, Caroline

doi:10.1515/tlr-2013-0009

Cited by 31 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to the complex sentences used in previous studies, our study employed coordinated lists with different syntactic and semantic subgroupings of the elements. The production of prosodic boundary cues in such subgroupings is shown in Ladd (1988) and Féry and Truckenbrodt (2005)—where the lists are lists of sentences—and in Wagner (2005) and Kentner and Féry (2013), where the lists are lists of names as in our experiment. We varied the position of the utterance-internal IPB in our stimulus material to determine whether prosodic context affects the processing of boundary cues as reflected by the occurrence of the CPS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…To our knowledge, the current study is the first that demonstrates that the CPS can also be elicited for boundaries in short, non-sentential sequences. Since behavioral studies (e.g., Lehiste, 1973; Wagner, 2005; Kentner and Féry, 2013) have also used this kind of coordinate structure to investigate prosodic phrasing in production and perception, this finding is further evidence for the CPS as an indication of prosodic boundary processing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Brain response to prosodic boundary cues depends on boundary position

Holzgrefe¹,

Wellmann²,

Petrone³

et al. 2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosodic information is crucial for spoken language comprehension and especially for syntactic parsing, because prosodic cues guide the hearer's syntactic analysis. The time course and mechanisms of this interplay of prosody and syntax are not yet well-understood. In particular, there is an ongoing debate whether local prosodic cues are taken into account automatically or whether they are processed in relation to the global prosodic context in which they appear. The present study explores whether the perception of a prosodic boundary is affected by its position within an utterance. In an event-related potential (ERP) study we tested if the brain response evoked by the prosodic boundary differs when the boundary occurs early in a list of three names connected by conjunctions (i.e., after the first name) as compared to later in the utterance (i.e., after the second name). A closure positive shift (CPS)—marking the processing of a prosodic phrase boundary—was elicited for stimuli with a late boundary, but not for stimuli with an early boundary. This result is further evidence for an immediate integration of prosodic information into the parsing of an utterance. In addition, it shows that the processing of prosodic boundary cues depends on the previously processed information from the preceding prosodic context.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Brain response to prosodic boundary cues depends on boundary position

Holzgrefe¹,

Wellmann²,

Petrone³

et al. 2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…She attributes this to Match Phrase, arguing that it does not distinguish between syntactic constituents headed by functional and lexical categories (Itô & Mester 2013 make the same claim). Furthermore, a large body of evidence has shown that coordinated phrases are generally parsed into a prosodic constituent to the exclusion of material outside of the coordination (Price et al 1991;Fougeron & Keating 1997;Féry & Truckenbrodt 2005;Wagner 2005;Féry 2010;Kentner & Féry 2013). On the assumption that coordinations are headed by functional categories (Munn 1993), we have another case of a functional projection apparently governed by Match Phrase.…”

Section: The Problem Of Function Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simplifying M<small>ATCH</small> W<small>ORD</small>: Evidence from English functional categories

Tyler

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In work on the syntax-prosody interface, there is a prevalent idea that while lexical categories are preferentially mapped to prosodic words, no such pressure exists for functional categories (Selkirk 1984; 1996; 2011; Selkirk & Shen 1990; Truckenbrodt 1999; Elfner 2012). In Match Theory (Selkirk 2011), in which syntax-prosody isomorphism is enforced by a series of violable constraints, this supposed pressure is built into the system with the claim that MATCH WORD in some sense “ignores” functional categories. I argue that this idea is misguided, and that MATCH WORD does not discriminate between lexical and functional heads. The pervasive phonological reduction of function words is instead ascribed to the idiosyncratic prosodic requirements of the function words themselves. In particular, I adopt the model of Prosodic Subcategorization (Inkelas 1989; Zec 2005). This approach explains particular interactions that would be unexpected if MATCH WORD were genuinely indifferent to functional categories, and fits in with a large body of evidence suggesting that functional elements can behave in prosodically idiosyncratic ways (Nespor & Vogel 1986; Inkelas & Zec 1990; Zec 2005). The evidence comes from the behavior of several classes of English functional categories: prepositions, auxiliaries, determiners, weak object pronouns and contracted negation -n’t.

show abstract

“…In English, for example, Ladd and Johnson (1987) showed that the relative depth of syntactically embedded constituents is correlated with the strength of the prosodic boundary between these constituents, which is further reflected in the relative scaling of f 0 peaks between these constituents. Later studies lend further support to the effect of syntactic complexity (or syntactically derived prosodic difference) on f 0 scaling (e.g., Dutch in van den Berg et al, 1992;Yoruba in Laniran & Clements, 2003;andGerman in Truckenbrodt, 2002, 2007;Féry & Truckenbrodt, 2005;Kentner & Féry, 2013). What remains unclear is the range of syntactic structures that may influence f 0 scaling.…”

Section: Pre-planning and Sentential F 0 Scalingmentioning

confidence: 86%