TY - JOUR
T1 - Intonational phrasing is constrained by meaning, not balance
AU - Breen, Mara
AU - Watson, Duane G.
AU - Gibson, Edward
N1 - Funding Information:
Correspondence should be addressed to either of the following two authors: Mara Breen, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, 522 Tobin Hall, Amherst, MA 01003, USA. E-mail: [email protected] or Edward Gibson, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT 43 Vassar St., Rm. 3035, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. E-mail: [email protected] This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0218605, ‘‘Intonational boundaries in sentence production and comprehension’’. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We would like to thank Vivek Rao and Jennifer Ford for their help in data coding. We would also like to thank the following people for their comments on earlier presentations of this work: Three anonymous reviewers, Timothy Desmet, Laura Dilley, Fernanda Ferreira, Edward Flemming, Michael Frank, Doug Rohde, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, Michael Wagner, and the audience at the 2005 Architectures and Mechanisms in Language Processing Conference in Ghent, Belgium. Finally, we would especially like to thank Ev Fedorenko for her extremely helpful and detailed feedback on earlier versions of this paper. Her comments greatly improved the final product.
PY - 2011/12
Y1 - 2011/12
N2 - This paper evaluates two classes of hypotheses about how people prosodically segment utterances: (1) meaning-based proposals, with a focus on Watson and Gibson's (2004) proposal, according to which speakers tend to produce boundaries before and after long constituents; and (2) balancing proposals, according to which speakers tend to produce boundaries at evenly spaced intervals. In order to evaluate these proposals, we elicited naïve speakers' productions of sentences systematically varying in the length of three postverbal constituents: a direct object, an indirect object (a prepositional phrase), and a verb phrase modifier, as in the sentence, The teacher assigned the chapter (on local history) to the students (of social science) yesterday/before the first midterm exam. Mixed-effects modelling was used to analyse the pattern of prosodic boundaries in these sentences, where boundaries were defined either in terms of acoustic measures (word duration and silence) or following the ToBI (Tones and Break Indices) prosodic annotation scheme. Watson and Gibson's (2004) meaning-based proposal, with the additional constraint that boundary predictions are evaluated with respect to local sentence context rather than the entire sentence, significantly outperformed the balancing alternatives.
AB - This paper evaluates two classes of hypotheses about how people prosodically segment utterances: (1) meaning-based proposals, with a focus on Watson and Gibson's (2004) proposal, according to which speakers tend to produce boundaries before and after long constituents; and (2) balancing proposals, according to which speakers tend to produce boundaries at evenly spaced intervals. In order to evaluate these proposals, we elicited naïve speakers' productions of sentences systematically varying in the length of three postverbal constituents: a direct object, an indirect object (a prepositional phrase), and a verb phrase modifier, as in the sentence, The teacher assigned the chapter (on local history) to the students (of social science) yesterday/before the first midterm exam. Mixed-effects modelling was used to analyse the pattern of prosodic boundaries in these sentences, where boundaries were defined either in terms of acoustic measures (word duration and silence) or following the ToBI (Tones and Break Indices) prosodic annotation scheme. Watson and Gibson's (2004) meaning-based proposal, with the additional constraint that boundary predictions are evaluated with respect to local sentence context rather than the entire sentence, significantly outperformed the balancing alternatives.
KW - Intonation
KW - Language production
KW - Phrasing
KW - Prosody
KW - Syntax
KW - ToBI
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858024777&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858024777&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/01690965.2010.508878
DO - 10.1080/01690965.2010.508878
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84858024777
SN - 0169-0965
VL - 26
SP - 1532
EP - 1562
JO - Language and Cognitive Processes
JF - Language and Cognitive Processes
IS - 10
ER -