Book contents
- Intonation and Prosodic Structure
- Key Topics in Phonology
- Intonation and Prosodic Structure
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Phonetic Correlates of Intonation
- 3 Lower-Level Prosodic Constituents
- 4 Intonation and Syntax:
- 5 Models of Intonation
- 6 Intonation and Meaning
- 7 Tone and Stress at the Word Level
- 8 Sentence Intonation in a Typological Comparison
- 9 The Processing of Prosody
- 10 Summary and Conclusion
- Glossary
- References
- Name Index
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Book contents
- Intonation and Prosodic Structure
- Key Topics in Phonology
- Intonation and Prosodic Structure
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Phonetic Correlates of Intonation
- 3 Lower-Level Prosodic Constituents
- 4 Intonation and Syntax:
- 5 Models of Intonation
- 6 Intonation and Meaning
- 7 Tone and Stress at the Word Level
- 8 Sentence Intonation in a Typological Comparison
- 9 The Processing of Prosody
- 10 Summary and Conclusion
- Glossary
- References
- Name Index
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Intonation and Prosodic Structure , pp. 329 - 362Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Allbritton, David W., Mc Koon, Gail & Ratcliff, Roger. 1996. Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22: 714–735.Google ScholarPubMed
Ambrazaitis, Gilbert. 2009. Nuclear Intonation in Swedish: Evidence from Experimental-Phonetic Studies and a Comparison with German. Travaux de l’institut de linguistique de Lund 49. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto, Bodomo, Adams B.. 2000. Tonal polarity in Dagaare. In Carstens, Vicky & Parkinsons, F (eds.), Trends in African Linguistics 4: Advances in African Linguistics, 119–134. Trenton, NJ: African World Press.Google Scholar
Arnhold, Anja. 2012. Finnish Prosdy: Studies in Intonation and Phrasing. Doctoral dissertation, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Arnhold, Anja. 2014. Prosodic structure and focus realization in West Greenlandic. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic Typology II. The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 216–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnhold, Anja. 2016. Complex prosodic focus marking in Finnish: Expanding the data landscape. Journal of Phonetics 56: 85–109.Google Scholar
Arregui, Karlos. 2016. Focus projection theories. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 185–202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2011. The Representation of Intonation. In Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth and Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 2, 757–780. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, Robert D. & Mennen, Ineke. 1998. Stability of tonal alignment: The case of Greek prenuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 26: 3–25.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, Robert D. 2000. What is a starred tone? Evidence from Greek. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V, 119–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ashby, Jane & Clifton, Charles. 2005. The prosodic property of lexical stress affects eye movements during silent reading. Cognition 96: B89–B100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atterer, Michaela & Ladd, Robert D.. 2004. On the phonetics and phonology of “segmental anchoring” of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics 32: 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augurzky, Petra. 2006. Attaching Relative Clauses in German: The Role of Implicit and Explicit Prosody in Sentence Processing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bader, Markus. 1996. Sprachverstehen. Syntax und Prosodie beim Lesen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Bader, Markus. 1998. Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In Fodor, Janet Dean & Ferreira, Fernanda (eds.), Reanalysis in Sentence Processing, 1–46. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bagemihl, Bruce. 1991. Syllable structure in Bella Coola. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 589–646.Google Scholar
Bansal, Ram Krishna. 1976. The Intelligibility of Indian English, 2nd ed. Monograph 4. Hyderabad: CIEFL.Google Scholar
Bao, Zhiming. 2011. Chinese tone sandhi. In Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth and Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 5, 2561–2585. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen Gurman & Aylett, Matthew P.. 1999. The dissociation of de-accenting, givenness, and syntactic role in spontaneous speech. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco, 1753–1756.Google Scholar
Bartels, Christine. 1997. Towards a Compositional Interpretation of English Statement and Question Intonation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bartels, Christine. 1999. The Intonation of English Statements and Questions: A Compositional Interpretation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2003. Prosody, productivity and word structure: The stød pattern of Modern Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Robert S. & Benedict, Paul K.. 1997. Modern Cantonese Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Riester, Arndt. 2012. Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In Elordieta, Gorka & Prieto, Pilar (eds.), Prosody and Meaning, 119–161. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, William H. 1982. A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beaver, David, Brady, Zack Clark, Flemming, Edward, Jaeger, Florian T. & Wolters, Maria. 2007. When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of second-occurrence focus. Language 82: 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1986. Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Rob van de, Gussenhoven, Carlos & Rietveld, Toni. 1992. Downstep in Dutch: Implications for a model. In Docherty, Gerhard & Ladd, Robert D. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, 335–367. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Arlene & Szamosi, Michael. 1972. Observations on sentential stress. Language 48: 304–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. 2006. Stress and tone in East Slavic dialects. Phonology 23: 125–156.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language, 279–362. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Beyssade, Claire, Hemforth, Barbara, Marandin, Jean-Marie & Portes, Cristel. 2009. Prosodic markings of information focus in French. In Yoo, Hi-Yon & Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference Interface Discourse and Prosody, Paris, 109–122.Google Scholar
Bickmore, Lee. 1990. Branching nodes and prosodic categories: Evidence from Kinyambo. In Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec (eds.), The Phonology-Syntax Connection, 1–17. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bing, Janet M. 1979. Aspects of English Prosody. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Birch, Stacy L. & Clifton, Charles Jr. 1995. Focus, Accent, and Argument Structure: Effects on Language Comprehension. Language and Speech 38 (4): 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Stacy L. 2002. Effects of varying focus and accenting of adjuncts on the comprehension of utterances. Journal of Memory and Language 47(4): 571–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Stacy L. & Garnsey, Susan M. 1995. The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 232–267.Google Scholar
Bishop, Christopher M. 2014. Information structural expectations in the perception of prosodic prominence. In Elordieta, Gorka & Prieto, Pilar (eds.), Prosody and Meaning, 239–269. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1993. A tonal analysis of Lithuanian nominal accent. Language 69: 237–273.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 206–244. Cambridge, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn J. & Mazella, Joanne R.. 1983. Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory and Cognition 11: 64–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 1999–2014. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.70. Retrieved 2 April 2014 from www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1958. A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14: 109–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1964. Around the edge of language: Intonation. Harvard Educational Review 34: 282–293. Reprinted in Bolinger, 1972, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1965. Pitch accent and sentence rhythm. In Abe, I. & Kanekiyo, T. (eds.), Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Rhythm, 139–180. Tokyo: Hokuou.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1978. Intonation across languages. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 2: Phonology, 471–524. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1986. Intonation and Its Parts: The Melody of Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, Bettina. 2006. Phonetics and phonology of thematic contrast in German. Language and Speech 49: 451–493. doi: 10.1177/00238309060490040201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazil, David. 1975. Discourse Intonation. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Breen, Mara. 2014. Empirical investigations of the role of implicit prosody in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 8: 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, Mara & Clifton, Charles Jr.. 2011. Stress matters: Effects of anticipated lexical stress on silent reading. Journal of Memory and Language 64: 153–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breen, Mara 2013. Stress matters revisited: A boundary change experiment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66: 1896–1909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breen, Mara, Watson, Duane & Gibson, Edward. 2011. Intonational phrasing is constrained by meaning, not balance. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 1532–1562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47: 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63(4): 741–782.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta. 1977. Swedish word accent in sentence perspective. Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 12. Gleerup: Lund.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta. 1999. Swedish. In Hulst, Harry van der (ed.), Word Prosodic System in the Languages of Europe, 554–567. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta. 2005. Intonational prominence in varieties of Swedish revisited. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 410–429. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Gösta & Gårding, Eva. 1978. A prosodic typology for Swedish dialects. In Gårding, Eva, Bruce, Gösta & Bannert, Robert (eds.), Nordic Prosody, 219–228. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26: 511–545.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2010. Towards a typology of focus realization. In Zimmermann, Malte & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information Structure. Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, 177–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2016. (Contrastive) Topic. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Byarushengo, Ernest R., Hyman, Larry M. & Tenenbaum, Samuel. 1976. Tone, accent, and assertion in Haya. In Hyman, Larry M. (ed.), Studies in Bantu Tonology, 183–205. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Sasha. 2010. The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language 86: 1–42.Google Scholar
Carlson, Katy, Clifton, Charles & Frazier, Lyn. 2001. Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 45: 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Patrick J. & Slowiaczek, Maria L.. 1987. Models and modules: Multiple pathways to the language processor. In Garfield, J. (ed.), Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Understanding, 221–247. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace, L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1988. Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication 5: 395–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Aoju, Gussenhoven, Carlos & Rietveld, Toni. 2004. Language-specificity in the perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning. Language and Speech 47: 311–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Matthew Y. 1987. The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology Yearbook 4: 109–150.Google Scholar
Chen, Yiya. 2010. Post-Focus F0 compression: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Phonetics 38: 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yiya & Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2008. Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 36: 724–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yiya, Os, Els den & de Ruiter, Jan Peter. 2007. Pitch accent type matters for online processing of information status: Evidence from natural and synthetic speech. The Linguistic Review 24: 317–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yiya & Yi, Xu. 2006. Production of weak elements in speech: Evidence from f0 patterns of neutral tone in standard Chinese. Phonetica 63: 47–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, Lisa & Downing, Laura. 2011. To phrase or not to phrase: on the (non-)congruence of focus and prosody. Paper presented at GLOW 34, Vienna.Google Scholar
Cho, Hyesun. 2011. The timing of phrase-initial tones in Seoul Korean: A weighted-constraint model. Phonology 28: 293–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–297.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Haviland, Susan E.. 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, R. O. (ed.), Discourse Processes: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 1. Discourse Production and Comprehension, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, B. and Sag, I. A. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1979. The description of terraced-level tone languages. Language 55: 536–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 1984. Principles of tone assignment in Kikuyu. In Clements, G. N. & Goldsmith, John (eds.), Autosegmental Studies in Bantu Tone, 281–340. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. & Ford, K. C.. 1980. On the phonological status of downstep in Kikuyu. In Goyvaerts, D. (ed.), Phonology in the 80s, 309–357. Ghent: Story Scientia.Google Scholar
Clements, George, N. & Rialland, Annie. 2007. Africa as a phonological area. In Heine, B. & Nurse, D. (eds.), The Linguistic Geography of Africa, 36–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, Charles Jr., Carlson, Katy & Frazier, Lyn. 2002. Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech 45: 87–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clifton, Charles 2006. Tracking the what and why of speakers’ choices: Prosodic boundaries and the length of constituents. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13: 854–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohn, A., Fougeron, C. & Huffman, M.. 2012. Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cooper, William E. &Paccia-Cooper, Jeanne. 1980. Syntax and Speech, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, William, E., Eady, Stephen J. & Mueller, Pamela R.. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77: 2142–2156.Google ScholarPubMed
Cooper, William E. & Sorensen, J.. 1981. Fundamental Frequency in Sentence Production. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1986/1997. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 1969 . Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David & Quirk, Randolph. 1964. Systems of Prosodic and Paralinguistic Features in English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuetos, Fernando & Mitchell, Don C.. 1988. Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30: 73–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, Anne, Dahan, Delphine & van Donselaar, Wilma. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 40: 141–201.Google ScholarPubMed
Cutler, Anne & Fodor, Jerry A.. 1979. Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition 7: 49–59.Google ScholarPubMed
Dahan, Delphine, Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Chambers, Craig G.. 2002. Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 292–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Stuart. 2005. “Capitalistic” vs. “militaristic”: The paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In Downing, Laura, Hall, Tracy A. & Raffelsieffen, Renate (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, 107–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deguchi, Masanori & Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2002. Prosody and wh-questions. In Hirotani, Masako (ed.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society, Vol. 1, 73–92. NELS 32. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth. 1995. Pour une approche parallèle de la structure prosodique: Etude de l’organisation prosodique et rhythmique de la phrase française. Unpublished PhD thesis. Université de Toulouse: Le Mirail.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, Rialland, Annie, Doetjes, Jenny & Marandin, Jean-Marie. 2002. The prosody of post-focus sequences in French. In Bel, Bernard & Marlien, I. (eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody. 2002. Aix en Provence, 239–242.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre. 1966. Les dix intonations de base en français. The French Review 40: 1–14.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1984. L’accentuation dans les phrases en français. In Dell, François, Hirst, Daniel & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (eds.), Forme sonore du language, 65–122. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Destruel-Johnson, Emilie. 2013. An Empirical Investigation of the Meaning and Use of the French c’est-cleft. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Destruel-Johnson, Emilie & Féry, Caroline. 2016. Dual focus and compression in post-verbal sequences in French. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, Albert. 1998. Intonation in French. In Hirst, Daniel & Albert Di Cristo (eds.), Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages, 195–218. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Dilley, Laura, Ladd, Robert D. & Schepman, Astrid. 2005. Alignment of L and H in bitonal pitch accents: Testing two hypotheses. Journal of Phonetics 33: 115–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola & House, David. 1997. Perception of questions and statements in Neapolitan Italian. Proceedings of Eurospeech (Rhodes). 251–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola D’Imperio, Mariapaola & Michelas, Amandine. 2014. Pitch scaling and the internal structuring of the Intonation Phrase in French. Phonology 31: 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, Picus Sizhi & Féry, Caroline. 2014. Word order, information structure and intonation of discontinuous nominal constructions in Cantonese information structure. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 43: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolphyne, Florence Abena. (1988) The Akan (Fante-Twi) Language: Its Sound System and Tonal Structure. Accra: Ghana Universities Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 1997. Tone systems in New Guinea. Linguistic Typology 1: 347–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura. 2010. Accent in African languages. In Hulst, Harry van der, Goedemans, Rob & Zanten, Ellen van (eds.), A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in the Languages of the World, 381–427. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura J. & Kadenge, Maxwell. 2014. Motivating prosodic stems in Shona. Handout of the workshop ‘On the Prosodic Hierarchy in a Typological Perspective’, Stockholm University, March 2014.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. & Pompino-Marschall, Bernd. 2013. The focus prosody of Chichewa and the Stress-Focus constraint: A response to Samek-Lodovici 2005. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 47–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, Fred I. 1972. Contrastive statements. Philosophical Review 81: 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, San. 1991. Stress and syntax-phonology mismatches: Tonal domains in Danyang and Shanghai. In Bates, D. (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 127–137. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Association.Google Scholar
Duanmu, San. 1993. Rime length, stress, and association domains. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, San. 2007. The Phonology of Standard Chinese, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, San. 2011. Chinese syllable structure. In Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 5, 2151–2777. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dyrud, Lars O. 2001. Hindi-Urdu: Stress Accent or Non-Stress Accent? PhD thesis, University of North Dakota.Google Scholar
Eady, Stephen J. & Cooper, William. E.. 1986. Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80: 402–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elfner, Emily. 2015. Recursion in prosodic phrasing: Evidence from Connemara Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. doi 10.1007/s11049-014-9281-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasson, Stig. 2010. German and Swedish quantity: A comparison. In Dammel, Antje, Kürschner, Sebastian & Nübling, Damaris (eds.), Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik 1, 5–55. Hildesheim, Zürich & New York: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Eliasson, Stig & LaPelle, Nancy. 1973. Generativa regler för svenskans kvantitet. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 88: 133–148.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka. 1998. Intonation in a pitch-accent variety of Basque. Annuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 32: 511–569.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Lenertová, Denisa. 2010. Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 169–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fant, Gunnar. 1960. Acoustic Theory of Speech Production, 2nd ed. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton1970.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, Ingo. 2010. Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 1993. Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review 100: 233–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Féry, Caroline. 1998. German word stress in Optimality Theory. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2(2): 101–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2006. The prosodic basis of topicalization. In Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 69–86. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2010. The intonation of Indian languages: An areal phenomenon. In Hasnain, Imtiaz & Chaudhury, Shreesh (eds.), Problematizing Language Studies. Festschrift for Ramakant Agnihotri, 288–312. New Delhi: Aakar Books.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2011. German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121: 1906–1922.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2012. Prosody and information structure of the German particles selbst, wieder and auch. In Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.), Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth O. Selkirk, 441–468. London: Equinox Press.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2013. Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 683–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2014. Final compression in French as a phrasal phenomenon. In Bourns, Katz, , Stacey & Myer, Lindsy L. (eds.), Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context. Studies in Honor of Knud Lambrecht, 133–156. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2015. Extraposition and prosodic monsters in German. In Frazier, Lyn & Gibson, T. (eds.), Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing, 11–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, Hörnig, Robin & Pahaut, Serge. 2010. Phrasing in French and German: An experiment with semi-spontaneous speech. In Gabriel, Christoph & Lleó, Conxita (eds.), Intonational Phrasing at the Interfaces: Cross-Linguistic and Bilingual Studies in Romance and Germanic, 11–41. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2009. The phonology of second occurrence focus. Journal of Linguistics 45: 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline 2010. How focus and givenness shape prosody. In Zimmermann, Malte & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Information Structure. Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, 36–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline 2016. Introduction. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), Handbook of Information Structure, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline (eds.). 2016. Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline, Kaiser, Elsi, Hörnig, Robin, Weskott, Thomas & Kliegl, Reinhold. 2009. Perception of intonational contours on given and new referents: A completion study and an eye-movement experiment. In Boersma, Paul & Hamann (eds.), Silke, Perception in Phonology, 235–266. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank. 2008. Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36: 680–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline, Pandey, Pramod & Kentner, Gerrit. 2016. The prosody of Focus and Givenness in Hindi and Indian English. Studies in Language 40.2: 302–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82: 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Schubö, Fabian. 2010. Hierarchical prosodic structures in the intonation of center-embedded relative clauses. The Linguistic Review 27: 289–313.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Stoel, Ruben. 2005. Gradient perception of intonation. In Fanselow, Gisbert, Caroline Féry, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ralf Vogel (eds.), Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives, 145–166. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. Sisterhood and Tonal Scaling. Studia Linguistica. Special Issue “Boundaries in intonational phonology” 59: 223–243.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Ines, Hartmann, Katharina, Reineke, Brigitte, Schwarz, Anne & Zimmermann, Malte. 2010. Subject focus in West African languages. In Zimmermann, Malte & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Information Structure from Different Perspectives, 234–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1998. Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 285–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 2002a. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Hirotani, Masako (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society, 113–137.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 2002b. Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference. Aix-en-Provence, 83–88.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Carlson, Katy & Clifton, Charles Jr. 2006. Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 244–249.Google ScholarPubMed
Frazier, Lyn & Fodor, Janet Dean. 1978. The Sausage Machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6: 291–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Rayner, Keith. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14: 176–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frota, Sónia. 2014. A focus intonational morpheme in European Portuguese: Production and perception. In Elordieta, Gorka & Prieto, Pilar (eds.), Prosody and Meaning, 163–196. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Frota, Sónia & Prieto, Pilar (eds.). 2015. Intonation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, D. B. 1955. Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27: 765–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gårding, Eva. 1983. A generative model of intonation. In Cutler, Anne & Ladd, Robert (eds.), Prosody: Models and Measurements, 11–25. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gårding, Eva. 1987. Speech act and tonal pattern in Standard Chinese. Phonetica 44: 13–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gee, James P. & Grosjean, François. 1983. Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology 15: 411–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genzel, Susanne. 2013. Lexical and Post-lexical Tones in Akan. PhD dissertation, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Ghini, Mirco. 1993. Ø-formation in Italian: A new proposal. In Dyck, Carrie (ed.), Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 41–78. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd. 1998. Intonation in German. In Hirst, Daniel & Di Cristo, Albert (eds.), Intonation Systems: Survey of Twenty Languages, 78–95. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1992. English Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. PhD thesis. MIT. Distributed by IULC 1976. New York: Garland Press. 1979.Google Scholar
Gomez-Imbert, Elsa & Kenstowicz, Michael. 2000. Barasana tone and accent. International Journal of American Linguistics 66: 419–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2003. The phonology of pitch accents in Chickasaw. Phonology 20: 173–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2005. A perceptually-driven account of onset-sensitive stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 595–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2014. Disentangling stress and pitch-accent: A typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In Hulst, Harry van der (ed.), Word Stress. Theoretical and Typological Issues, 83–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, Esther. 1998a. Comparative Intonational Phonology: English and German, PhD thesis, University of Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute Series in Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther. 1998b. Pitch realization in English and German. Journal of Phonetics 26: 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine & Baumann, Stefan. 2002. Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191: 267–298.Google Scholar
Grønnum, Nina & Basbøll, Hans. 2001. Consonant length, stød and morae in Standard Danish. Phonetica 58: 230–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gryllia, Stella, Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank. 2014. Pitch Accents and Relative Clause Attachment in German. University of Potsdam: Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güneş, Güliz. 2012. Prosodic Parentheticals and Prosodic Integration: A Case Study in Turkish. University of Groningen: Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Güneş, Güliz. 2013a. Limits on syntax-prosody mapping in Turkish prosody of finite and non-finite clausal parentheticals. In Erguvanlı Taylan, Eser (ed.), Journal of Linguistics Research (Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi), Special Issue Updates in Turkish Phonology, 1–49. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar
Güneş, Güliz. 2013b. On the role of prosodic constituency in Turkish. In Özge, Umut (ed.), Proceedings of WAFL8 MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 115–128. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983a. A Semantic Analysis of the Nuclear Tones of English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (IULC). Reprinted in Carlos Gussenhoven 1984.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983b. Stress shift and the nucleus. Linguistics 21: 303–39. Reprinted in Carlos Gussenhoven 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1991. The English rhythm rule as an accent deletion rule. Phonology 8: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. In Roca, Iggy (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, 79–106. Berlin: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2000. The boundary tones are coming: On the non-peripheral natural of boundary tones. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon, 132–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2006. The prosody of Nubi between stress and tone. Phonology 23: 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Bruce, Gösta. 1999. Word prosody and intonation. In Hulst, Harry van der (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, 233–271. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Peters, Jörg. 2004. A tonal analysis of Cologne Schärfung. Phonology 21: 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & van der Vliet, Peter. 1999. The phonology of tone and intonation in the Dutch dialect of Venlo. Journal of Linguistics 35: 99–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. 1973. Deep-surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: An Australian example. In Sebeok, A. (ed.), Linguistics in Oceania. Current Trends in Linguistics 11, 401–458. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1987. Government and tonal phrasing in Papago. Phonology Yearbook 4: 151–183Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Idsardi, William. 1995. General properties of stress and metrical structure. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 403–484. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivities and theme in English. Journal of linguistics 3.Part 1: 37–81. Part 2: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague Grammar. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima. 2009. Focus, contrast and the syntax-phonology interface: The case of French cleft sentences. In Current Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages: Collection of the Papers Selected from the 18th International Congress of Linguistics 2008. Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima, Coridun, Sascha & Féry, Caroline. 2012. Expression prosodique du focus et du donné au sein des groupes nominaux [N A] du français. Proceedings of Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 12, Lyon.Google Scholar
Harnsberger, James D. and Judge, Jasmeet. 1996. Pitch range and focus in Hindi. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99: 2493.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, O. K. Yue. 1972. Studies in Yue Dialects 1: Phonology of Cantonese, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, André-George. 1954a. Comment reconstruire le chinois archaique. Word 10: 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haudricourt, André-George. 1954b. De l’origine des tons en vietnamien. Journal Asiatique 242: 69–82.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1967. On the rules of Norwegian tonality. Language 43: 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam & Tecumseh Fitch, W.. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did It evolve? Science 298: 2769–2779.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1980 . A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253–306.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1990. Precompiled phrasal phonology. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.), Phonology-Syntax-Interface, 85–108. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Lahiri, Aditi (1991) Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 47–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, Sosa, Juan M. and Görgülü, Emrah. 2014. The meaning of intonation in yes-no questions in American English: A corpus study. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Online Publication.Google Scholar
Hermans, Ben. 1985. Het Limburgs en het Litouws als metrisch gebonden toontalen. Spektator 14: 48–70.Google Scholar
Hermans, Ben. 1999. In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.), Word Prosodic System in the Languages of Europe, 633–658. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hirose, Yuki. 2003. Recycling prosodic boundaries. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32: 167–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirst, Daniel & Di Cristo, Albert. 1996. Y a-t-il des unités tonales en français? In Actes des XXIèmes journées d’étude sur la parole: 223–226.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. 1990. The Pierrehumbert-Hirschberg theory of intonational meaning made simple: Comments on Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E. (eds.), Intentions in Communication, 313–323. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilmann N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Jacobs, Joachim (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik (= Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 4), 112–141.Google Scholar
Hombert, Jean-Marie, Ohala, John J. & Ewan, William G.. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55: 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, Merle. 1990. Empirical evidence for a deletion analysis of the rhythm rule in English. Linguistics 28: 959–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 1999. Basque accentuation. In Hulst, Harry van der (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, 947–993. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, Elordieta, Gorka & Elordieta, Arantzazu. 1994. The Basque Dialect of Lekeitio. Bilbao: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, , I. Gaminde Elordieta & Smiljanić, Rajka. 2002. From pitch-accent to stress-accent in Basque. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7, 547–584. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der (ed.). 1999. Word Prosodic System in the Languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der (ed.). 2014. Word Stress. Theoretical and Typological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der, Goedemans, Rob & van Zanten, Ellen. 2010. A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in the Languages of the World. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1977. On the nature of linguistic stress. In Hyman, Larry M., (ed.), Studies in Stress and Accent, 37–82. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted 2003 with an introduction. Stanford, CA: Center for the study of Language and information (CSLI).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2011a. The representation of tone. In Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J, Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 4, 1078–1102. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2011b. Does Gokana really have no syllable? Or: What’s so great about being universal? Phonology 28: 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2013. Issues in the phonology-morphology interface in African languages. Proceedings of 43rd Annual Conference of African Linguistics, Tulane University, New Orleans, 16–25. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William James. 1992. The Computation of Prosody. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1999. Exceptional stress-attracting suffixes in Turkish: Representations vs. The grammar. In Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), The Prosody-Morphology Interface, 134–187. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.). 1990. Phonology-Syntax-Interface. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
İpek, Canan. 2011. Phonetic realization of focus with no on-focus pitch range expansion in Turkish. In International Conference of Phonetic Science XVII, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
İpek, Canan & Sun, Ah Jun. 2013. Towards a model of intonational phonology of Turkish: Neutral intonation. In Proceedings of Meeting on Acoustics 19. Montreal. Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
İpek, Canan & Sun, Ah Jun. 2014. Distinguishing phrase-final and phrase-medial high tone on finally stressed words in Turkish. In Proceedings of the 7th Speech Prosody International Conference, Dublin.Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2004. Prosody by Phase: Evidence from Focus Intonation–Wh-Scope Correspondence in Japanese. In Ishihara, Shinishiro, Schmitz, M. & Schwarz, A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies in Information Structures 1. Working Papers of the SFB 632, 77–119. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation and multiple spell-out (MaP, FI, MSO). The Linguistic Review 24: 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2011. Japanese focus prosody revisited: Freeing focus from prosodic phrasing. Lingua 121: 1870–1889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2015. Syntax–phonology interface. In Kubozono, Haruo (ed.), Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology, 569–620. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Takeshi. 2003. A phonological effect on tonal alignment in Tokyo Japanese. In Proceedings of 15th ICPhS, Barcelona 1: 615–618.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2007. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. In Miyamoto, Y. & Ochi, M. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL 4, 97–111. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Borowsky, T., Kawahara, S., Shinya, T. & Sugahara, M. (eds.), Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, 280–303. London: Equinox Publishers.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko 2015. Word formation and phonological processes. In Kubozono, H (ed.), Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology, 363–395. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Kiwako & Speer, Shari R.. 2006. Using interactive tasks to elicit natural dialogue. In Augurzky, P. & Lenertova, D. (eds.), Methods in Empirical Prosody Research, 229–257. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ito, Kiwako 2008. Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 541–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39: 641–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, S. 1996. An Acoustic Study of Sentence Stress in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished PhD thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K. 1982. The role of mutual beliefs in question-answer systems. In Smith, Neil (ed.), Mutual Knowledge, 181–197. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1993. The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean, Unpublished PhD thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1996. Influence of microprosody on macroprosody: A case of phrase initial strengthening. University of California Los Angeles Working Papers in Phonetics 92: 97–116.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1998. The accentual phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology 15: 189–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2002. Syntax over focus. In Hansen, John H. L. & Pellom, B. (eds.), Proceedings of ICSLP, Denver, CO, 2281–2284.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic Typology. The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 201–229. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Fougeron, Cécile. 2000. A phonological model of French intonation. In Botinis, A. (ed.), Intonation: Analysis, 209–242. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Fougeron, Cécile. 2002. The realizations of the accentual phrase in French intonation. Probus 14: 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Hee-Sun, Kim. 2007. VP focus and narrow focus in Korean. In Proceedings of International Conference of Phenetic Science XVI, Saarbrücken, 1276–1279.Google Scholar
Jyothi, Preethi, Cole, Jennifer, Hasegawa-Johnson, Mark & Puri, Vandana. 2014. An Investigation of Prosody in Hindi Narrative Speech. In Proceedings of the 7th Speech Prosody International Conference, Dublin.Google Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Vogel, Irene. 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18: 315–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. A Textbook. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi & Trueswell, John C.. 2004. The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition 94: 113–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamali, Beste. 2011. Topics at the PF Interface of Turkish. Unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kamali, Beste & Truckenbrodt, Hubert. in prep. Elements of Intonation in Turkish. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Kan, Seda. 2009. Prosodic Domains and the Syntax–Prosody Mapping in Turkish. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bogaziçi University.Google Scholar
Kanerva, Jonni M. 1990. Focusing on phonological phrases in Chicheŵa. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.), Phonology-Syntax-Interface, 145–161. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kidda, Mairo. 1987. The obligatory contour principle and Tangale phonology. In Odden, David (ed.), Current Approaches to African Linguistics 4, 223–238. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kentner, Gerrit. 2012. Linguistic rhythm guides parsing decisions in written sentence comprehension. Cognition 123: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kentner, Gerrit & Féry, Caroline. 2013. A new approach to prosodic grouping. The Linguistic Review 2013 30: 277–311.Google Scholar
Khan, Sameer. 2007. Phrasing and focus in Bengali. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS). Saarbrücken, Germany.Google Scholar
Kingston, John. 2011. Tonogenesis. In Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2304–2333. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical Phonology and Morphology. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1994. On domains. In Cole, Jennifer and Charles W. Kisseberth (eds.), Perspectives in Phonology, 133–166. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles & Abasheikh, Mohammad Imam. 1974. Vowel length in Chi-Mwi:ni: a case study of the role of grammar in phonology. In Bruck, Anthony, Fox, Robert A. & La Galy, Michael W. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, 193–209. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles & Odden, David. 2003. Tone. In Nurse, Derek & Philippson, Gérard (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 59–70. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kjelgaard, Margaret M. &Speer, Shari R.. 1999. Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 153–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & von Stutterheim, Cristiane. 1987. Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen. Linguistische Berichte 109: 163–183Google Scholar
Kodzasov, Sandro. 1999. Russian. In Hulst, Harry van der (ed.), Word Prosodic System in the Languages of Europe, 852–869. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J. 1990. Macro and micro F0 in the synthesis of intonation. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, 115–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn. 2016. Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone-accent dialects. Phonology 33: 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, Y. & Bradley, D.. 2007. Non-syntactic factors in processing the ‘Not-Because’ ambiguity in English. In Proceedings of the 8th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (TCP2007). Tokyo, Hituzi Syobo, 187–212.Google Scholar
Konrot, Ahmet. 1981. Physical correlates of linguistic stress in Turkish. In University of Essex Language Centre Occasional Papers, 26–53. University of Essex Language Centre.Google Scholar
Kraljic, Tanya & Brennan, Susan E.. 2005. Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology 50: 194–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristoffersen, Gjert. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1989a. The mora and syllable structure in Japanese: Evidence from speech errors. Language and Speech, 32: 249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1989b. Syntactic and rhythmic effects on downstep in Japanese. Phonology 6: 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1999. Mora and syllable. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.), The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 31–61. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 2008. Japanese accent. In Miyagawa, Shigeru (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195307344.013.0007.Google Scholar
Kügler, Frank. 2007. The Intonational Phonology of Swabian and Upper Saxon. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kügler, Frank. 2015. Phonological phrasing and ATR vowel harmony in Akan. Phonology 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kügler, Frank & Féry, Caroline. In press. Postfocal Downstep in German. Language and Speech.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kügler, Frank & Gollrad, Anja. 2015. Production and perception of contrast: The case of the fall-rise contour in German. Frontiers in Psychology 6–1254. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kügler, Frank, Skopeteas, Stavros & Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Encoding information structure in Yucatec Maya: On the interplay of prosody and syntax. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 8. Potsdam. 187–208.Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy. 2007. Effects of phonological structure on syntactic structure. The Linguistic Review 24: 201–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta & Hillyard, Steven A.. 1980. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic anomaly. Science 34: 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1983a. Phonological features of intonational peaks. Language 59: 721–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1983b. Peak features and overall slope. In Cutler, Anne & Ladd, D. Robert (eds.), Prosody: Models and Measurements, 39–52. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3: 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1988. Declination ‘reset’ and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of Acoustics Society of America (JASA) 84: 530–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1990. Metrical representation of pitch register. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1: Between the Grammar and the Physics of Speech, 35–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996/2008. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2014. Simultaneous Structure in Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert, Faulkner, D., Faulkner, H. & Schepman, Astrid. 1999. Constant segmental anchoring of F0 movements under changes in speech rate. Journal of the American Acoustic Association 106: 1543–1554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, D. Robert, Mennen, Ineke & Schepman, Astrid. 2000. Phonological conditioning of peak alignment in rising pitch accents in Dutch. Journal of the American Acoustic Association 107: 2685–2696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, D. Robert & Monaghan, Alex. 1987. Modelling rhythmic and syntactic effects on accent in long noun phrases. In Laver, J. & Jack, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Technology 2, 29–32. Edinburgh: CEP Consultants.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Johnson, Keith. 2005/2011. A Course in Phonetics. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, 329–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, Wetterlin, Allison & Jönsson-Steiner, Elisabet. 2005. Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28. 61–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laniran, Yetunde O. 1992. Intonation in Tone Languages: The Phonetic Implementation of Tones in Yoruha. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Laniran, Yetunde O. & Clements, G. N.. 2003. Downstep and high raising: interacting factors in Yoruba tone production. Journal of Phonetics 31: 203–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, Sam-po. 1990. The Syntax and Phonology of Cantonese Sentence-Final Particles. Unpublished PhD thesis, Boston University.Google Scholar
Leben, William R. 1978. The representation of tone. In Fromkin, V. A. (ed.), Tone: A Linguistic Survey, 177–219. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leben, William R. 2002. Tonal feet. In Gut, Ulrike & Gibbon, Dafydd (eds.), Typology of African Prosodic Systems, 27–40. Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1973. Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa 7: 107–122.Google Scholar
Léon, Pierre R. 1972. Prononciation du français standard. Aide mémoire d’orthoépie à l’usage des étudiants étrangers. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah. 2002. Intonation in Turkish: The Realization of Noun Compounds and Genitive Possessive NPs. Unpublished manuscript. University of Washington.Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah. 2005. Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35: 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Juliette. 1985. A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y. 1978. The Intonational System of English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds.), Language Sound Structure, 157–233. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y. & Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y. & Sag, Ivan. 1974. Prosodic form and discourse function. In Papers from the 10th regional meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society, 416–427.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 1967. Intonation, Perception, and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip & Michaels, Sheldon. 1962. Some aspects of fundamental frequency and envelope amplitude as belated to the emotional content of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34: 922–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Jianping. 2002. Xianggang Yueyu Judiao Yanjiu: A Study on Sentence Intonation in Hong Kong Cantonese. PhD dissertation, Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Lin, Jowang. 1994. Lexical government and tone group formation in Xiamen Chinese. Phonology 11: 237–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2016. Verum focus. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 290–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Amherst: Ms University of Massachusetts & Waltham: Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1993a. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Amherst: Ms. University of Massachusetts & New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1993b. Generalized alignment. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCawley, James J. 1978. What is a tone language? In Fromkin, Victoria (ed.), Tone: A Linguistic Survey, 113–131. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHugh, Brian 1999. Cyclicity in the Phrasal Phonology of KiVunjo Chaga. Munich: LINCOM Europe.Google Scholar
Makarova, Veronika. 2007. The effect of pitch peak alignment on sentence type identification in Russian. Language and Speech 50: 385–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, Mitshell & Hindle, Donald. 1995. Description theory and intonation boundaries. In Altmann, G. (ed.), Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives, 483–512. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D., Tyler, Lorraine K., Warren, Paul, Grenier, P. & Lee, C.S.. 1992. Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 45: 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Philippe. 1975. Analyse phonologique de la phrase française. Linguistics 146: 35–67.Google Scholar
Martin, Philippe. 1980. Sur les principes d’une théorie syntaxique de l’intonation. In Rossi, Léon (ed.), Problèmes de Prosodie 1. Studia Phonetica 17, 91–101. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Mchombo, Sam. 2004. The Syntax of Chichewa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meeussen, Achilles 1970. Tone typologies for West African languages. African Language Studies 11: 266–271.Google Scholar
Mei, Tsu-lin. 1970. Tones and prosody in Middle Chinese and the origin of the Rising tone. Harvard Journal of Asian Studies 30: 86–100.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, Pierre. 1990. Intonation. In Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Bilger, Mireille, Rouget, Christine & van den Eynde, Karel (eds.), Recherches le français parlé, 159–176. Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
Mo, Y., Cole, J. & Lee, E-K. 2008. Naïve listeners’ prominence and boundary perception. Proceedings of the 4th Speech Prosody, Campinas, Brazil- 735–736.Google Scholar
Moore, Robert R. 1965. A Study of Hindi Intonation. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Myrberg, Sara. 2010. The Intonational Phonology of Stockholm Swedish. Acta Unversitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Series in Scandinavian Philology. New Series 53.Google Scholar
Myrberg, Sara & Riad., Tomas 2016. On the expression of focus in the metrical grid and in the prosodic hierarchy. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 441–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nagahara, Hiroyuki. 1994. Phonological Phrasing in Japanese. Unpubished PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Nash, Jay A. 1992–94. Underlying low tones in Ruwund. Studies in African Linguistics 23: 223–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted 2007 by Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G. & Kruyt, J. G.. 1987. Accents, focus distribution, and the perceived distribution of given and new information: An experiment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82: 1512–1524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connor, J. D. & Arnold, G. F.. 1961. Intonation of Colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
O’Connor, J. D. & Arnold, G. F.. 1973. Intonation of Colloquial English, 2nd ed. London: Longman,Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1981. Problems in Tone Assignment in Shona. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1982. Tonal phenomena in KiShambaa. Studies in African Linguistics 13: 177–208.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1984. Stem tone assignment in Shona. In Clements, George N. & Goldsmith, J. (eds.), Autosegmental Studies in Bantu Tone, 255–280. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odden, David. 1987. Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. Phonology Yearbook 4. 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odden, David. 1995. Tone: African languages. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory, 444–475. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 2005. Introducing Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John. 1983. Cross-language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica 40: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osser, Henry A. 1964. A Distinctive Features Analysis of the Vocal Communication of Emotion. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Osterhout, Lee & Holcomb, Phillip J.. 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 3: 785–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özçelik, Öner. 2014. Prosodic faithfulness to foot edges: the case of Turkish stress. Phonology, 31: 229–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Harold Edward. 1922. English Intonation with Systematic Exercises. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall. 1999. Focus, quantification, and semantics–pragmatics issues. In Bosch, Peter & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, 213–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patil, Umesh, Kentner, Gerrit, Gollrad, Anja, Kügler, Frank, Féry, Caroline & Vasishth, Shravan. 2008. Focus, word order and intonation in Hindi. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 1: 53–70.Google Scholar
Peng Shu-hui, K.M. Marjorie, Chan, Chiu-yu Tseng, Huang, Tsan, Lee, Ok Joo & Beckman, Mary E.. 2005. Towards a pan-Mandarin system for prosodic transcription. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic Typology. The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 230–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1995. Phonological quantity and multiple association. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 307–317. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Philippson, Gérard. 1998. Tone reduction vs. metrical attraction in the evolution of Eastern Bantu tone systems. In Hyman, Larry M. & Kisseberth, (eds.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Tone, 315–29. Stanford, CA: Center for the study of Language and information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published by New York: Garland Press. 1990.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Beckman, Mary E.. 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J. & Pollock, M. (eds.), Intentions in Communications, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Steele, Shirley. 1989. Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica 46: 181–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pike, Kenneth L. 1945. The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Portes, Cristel, Beyssade, Claire, Michelas, Amandine, Marandin, Jean-Marie and Champagne-Lavau, Maud. 2014. The dialogical dimension of intonational meaning: Evidence from French. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 74.15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poser, William J. 1984. The Phonetics and Phonology of Tone and Intonation in Japanese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Post, Brechtje. 2000. Tonal and Phrasal Structures in French Intonation. The Hague: Thesus (Subsidiary of Holland Academic Graphic).Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Patti J., Ostendorf, S., Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Fong, C.. 1991. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 9: 2956–2970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Pilar, Shih, Chilin & Nibert, Holly. 1996. Pitch downtrend in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 24: 445–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Pilar & Torreira, Francisco. 2007. The segmental anchoring hypothesis revisited. Syllable structure and speech rate effects on peak timing in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 35: 473–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223–256. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1962. The consonantal system of Old Chinese. Asia Major, Series 2: 58–144, 206–265.Google Scholar
Puri, Vandana. 2013. Intonation in Indian English and Hindi Late and Simultaneous ilinguals. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign.Google Scholar
Pynte, Joel & Prieur, B.. 1996. Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reetz, Henning & Jongman, Allard. 2009. Phonetics: Transcription, Acoustics, and Perception. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reeves, Carolyn, Schmauder, A. René & Morris, Robin K. 2000. Stress grouping improves performance on an immediate serial list recall task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 26: 1638–1654.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remijsen, Bert. 2002. Lexically contrastive stress accent and lexical tone in Ma’ya. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Natasha, Warner (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7, 585–614. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 1998a. Towards a Scandinavian tone accent typology. In Kehrein, W. & Wiese, R. (eds.), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Linguistische Arbeiten 386, 77–109. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 1998b. The origin of Scandinavian tone accents. Diachronica 15: 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 2000. The origin of the Danish stød. In Lahiri, Aditi (ed.), Analogy, Leveling, Markedness: Principles of Change in Phonology and Morphology, 261–300. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 2003. Diachrony of the Scandinavian accent typology. In Fikkert, Paula & Jacobs, Haike (eds.). Development in Prosodic Systems, 91–144. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rialland, Annie. 2007. Question prosody: An African perspective. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Riad, T. (eds.), Tones and Tunes I: Typological Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody, 35–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rialland, Annie. 2009. The African lax question prosody: Its realisation and geographical distribution. Lingua 119: 928–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rialland, Annie & Aborobongui, Martial Embanga. 2015. How Intonations Interact with Tones in Embosi (Bantu C25), a Two-Tone Language without Downdrift. Paris. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Rietveld, A. C. M. & Gussenhoven, Carlos 1995. Aligning pitch targets in speech synthesis: Effects of syllable structure. Journal of Phonetics 23: 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rischel, Jørgen. 1974. Topics in West Greenlandic Phonology. Regularities Underlying the Phonetic Appearance of Word Forms in a Polysynthetic Language. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Yoon, J. H. & Kathol, Andreas (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics, 91–136.Google Scholar
Roca, Iggy. 1999. Stress in the Romance languages. In Hulst, Harry van der (ed.), 1999. Word Prosodic System in the Languages of Europe, 659–811. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roll, Mikael. 2014. Brain network for tones cuing grammatical structure: Talk given at Tone and Iintonation in Europe (TIE) 2.Utrecht.Google Scholar
Roll, Mikael & Horne, Merle. 2011. Interaction of right-and left-edge prosodic boundaries in syntactic parsing. Brain Research 1402: 93–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roll, Mikael, Horne, Merle & Lindgren, Magnus. 2009. Left-edge boundary tone and main clause verb effects on syntactic processing in embedded clauses – An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolland, Guillaume and Loevenbruck, Hélène. 2002. Characteristics of the accentual phrase in French: An acoustic, articulatory and perceptual study. In Bel, Bernard & Marlien (eds, Isabelle.), Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, Aix-en-Provence, 611–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Associations with Focus. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 2016. Alternative semantics. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 19–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, Mario. 1980. Le français, langue sans accent? In Fónagy, Ivan & Léon, Pierre P. (eds.),. L’accent en français contemporain, 13–51. Studia Phonetica 15. Montréal: Didier.Google Scholar
Rossi, Mario. 1985. L’intonation et l’organisation de l’énoncé. Phonetica 42: 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan & Liberman, Mark Y.. 1975. The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts. In Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 487–497.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1999a. The origin of Chinese tones. In Kaji, Shigeki (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Studies of Tonal Phenomena: Tonogenesis, Typology, and Related Topics, 91–103. Tokyo: The Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA).Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1999b. The Roots of Old Chinese. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2005. Prosody-syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 687–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, Amy, Carlson, Katy, Clifton, Charles Jr. & Frazier, Lyn. 2000. Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech 43: 75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, Amy, Carter, Juli, Clifton, Charles, Jr. & Frazier, Lyn. 1996. Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 135–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, Amy, Speer, Shari R., Warren, Paul & White, S. David. 2000. Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 169–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schepman, Astrid, Lickley, Robin & Ladd, D. Robert. 2006. Effects of vowel length and right context on the alignment of Dutch nuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 34: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Klaus R. 2000. A cross-cultural investigation of emotion inferences from voice and speech: Implications for speech technology. In Yuan, B., Huang, T. & Tang, X. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 2, 379–382. Beijing: China Military Friendship Publishers.Google Scholar
Scherer, Klaus R., Johnstone, Tom & Klasmeyer, Gudrun. 2003. Vocal expression of emotioin. In Davidson, R. J., Goldsmith, H. & Scherer, K. H. (eds.), Handbook of the Affective Sciences, 443–456. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. 1976. Aspects of English Sentence Stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen Erich. 1986. Die Mittelfränkische Tonakzente. Rheinische Akzentuierung. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563–605.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1996. The prosodic structure of function words. In Morgan, James L. & Katherine Demuth, (eds.), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, 187–213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Horne, Merle (ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment, 231–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2011. The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, J. & Yu, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory 2, 435–484. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. & Shen, Tong. 1990. Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.), Phonology-Syntax-Interface, 313–337. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. & Tateishi, Koichi. 1991. Syntax and downstep in Japanese. In Georgopoulos, Carol & Ishihara, Roberta (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 519–543. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sezer, Engin. 1983. On non-final stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies 5: 61–69.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stephanie, Ostendorf, Mari and Ross, Ken. 1994. Stress shift and early pitch accent placement in lexical items in American English. Journal of Phonetics 22: 357–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Turk, Alice E.. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 193–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, Chilin. 1988. Tone and intonation in Mandarin. Working Papers, Cornell. Phonetics Laboratory 3: 83–109.Google Scholar
Shih, Chilin. 1997. Mandarin third tone sandhi and prosodic structure. In Wang, Jialing & Smith, Norval (eds.), Studies in Chinese Phonology, 81–123. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1901. Grundzüge der Phonetik zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprache, 5th ed. (1st ed. 1876). Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.Google Scholar
Silva, David J. 2006. Acoustic evidence for the emergence of tonal contrast in contemporary Korean. Phonology 23: 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Kim E. 1987. The Structure and Processing of Fundamental Frequency Contours. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim E., Beckman, Mary E., Pitrelli, John, Ostendorf, Mori, Wightman, Colin, Price, Patti, Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1992. To BI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Processing of Spoken Language, 867–870.Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1990. The timing of pre-nuclear high accents in English. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary. E. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, 72–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Féry, Caroline. 2016. Focus and intonation in Georgian. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, Féry, Caroline & Asatiani, Rusudan. 2009. Word order and intonation in Georgian. Lingua 119: 102–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, Fiedler, Ines, Hellmuth, Sam, Schwarz, Anne, Stoel, Ruben, Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline & Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Questionnaire on Information Structure. ISIS, Vol. 4. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Sluijter, Agaath M. C. & van Heuven, Vincent J.. 1996. Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. JASA 100(4): 2471–2485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slowiaczek, Maria L. 1981. Prosodic Units as Processing Units. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Snedeker, Jesse & Casserly, Elizabeth. 2010. Is it all relative? Effects of prosodic boundaries on the comprehension and production of attachment ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 1234–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedeker, Jesse Snedeker, Jesse & Trueswell, John. 2003. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity? Journal of Memory and Language 48: 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snider, Keith. 1999. The Geometry and Features of Tone. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Speer, Shari R. & Blodgett, Allison 2006. Prosody. In Traxler, Matthew & Gernsbacher, Morton (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 505–538. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speer, Shari R., Kjelgaard, Margaret & Dobroth, Kathryn M.. 1996. The influence of prosodic strucuture on the resolution of temporary syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, Milton & Unger, Peter (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 649–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2014. The surface-compositional semantics of English intonation. Language 90: 2–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, Karsten, Alter, Kai & Friederici, Angela D.. 1999. Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature 2: 191–196.Google ScholarPubMed
Stewart, John M. 1966. The typology of the Twi tone system. Bulletin of the Institute of African Studies 1.Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley & Wales, Roger. 1996. Does prosody support or direct sentence processing? Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 193–212.Google Scholar
Sturges, Persis T. and Martin, James G. 1974. Rhythmic structure in auditory pattern perception and immediate memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 102(3): 77–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sudhoff, Stefan, Lenertová, Denisa, Meyer, Roland, Pappert, Sandra, Augurzky, Petra, Mleinek, Ina, Richter, Nicole & Schließer, Johannes, eds. 2006. Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suomi, Kari. 2009. Durational elasticity for accentual purposes in Northern Finnish. Journal of Phonetics 37: 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1989. Tonogenetic mechanisms in northern Mon-Khmer. Phonetica 46: 60–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svantesson, Jan-Olof & House, David (2006). Tone production, tone perception and Kammu tonogenesis. Phonology 23: 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sybesma, Rint & Li, Boya. 2007. The dissection and structural mapping of Cantonese sentence final particles. Lingua 117: 1739–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taff, Alice. 1997. Intonation patterns in Unangan. In Botinis, A., Kouroupetroglou, G. & Carayannis, G. (eds.), Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications, 301–304. Proceedings of an ESCAWorkshop, Athens (Greece). ESCA and University of Athens, Department of Informatics.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J., Eberhard, Kathleen. M. & Sedivy, Julie C.. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268: 1632–1634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terken, Jaques & Hirschberg, Julia. 1994. Deaccentuation of words representing given information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech 37: 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terken, Jaques & Nooteboom, S. G.. 1987. Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for Given and New information. Language and Cognitive Processes 2: 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
’t Hart, J., Collier, R. & Cohen, A.. 1990. A Perceptual Study of Intonation: An Experimental-Phonetic Approach to Speech Melody, 141–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2010. Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In Zimmermann, Malte & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Information Structure, 115–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Topintzi, Nina. 2010. Onsets: Suprasegmental and Prosodic Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touati, Paul. 1987. Structures prosodiques du suédois et du français. Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Trager, George L. & Smith, Henry Lee Jr.. 1951. An Outline of English Structure. Norman, OK: Battenburg Press. Reprinted by the American Council of Learned Societies, Washington, 1957.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergejewitsch. 1939. Grundzüge der phonologie. Prag (=TCLP 7) (Published again 1958 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen).Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus and Prominence. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2002. Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19: 77–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2004. Final lowering in non-final position. Journal of Phonetics 32: 313–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203: 273–296.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. Phrasal stress. In Brown, Keith (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, 2nd ed., 572–579. Oxford. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007. Upstep on edge tones and on nuclear accents. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Riad, Tomas (eds.), Tones and Tunes: Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody 2, 349–386. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2012. Semantics of intonation. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3, 2039–2969. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2016. Focus, intonation and tonal height In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 463–482. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert & Féry, Caroline. 2015. Hierarchical organization and tonal scaling. Phonology 32: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uldall, Elizabeth. 1964. Dimensions of meaning in intonation. In David, Abercrombie, Fry, D. B., McCarthy, P. A. D., Scott, N. C. & Trim, J. L. M. (eds.), In Honour of Daniel Jones, 271–279. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Vance, Timothy J. 2008. The Sounds of Japanese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1992. Syllable Structure and Simplex Accent in Modern Standard German. Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol 2: 399–412.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth & Kügler, Frank. 2015. Accentual preferences and predictability. An acceptability study on split intransitivity in German. Lingua 165(B): 298–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.09.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicente, Luis. 2006. Negative short replies in Spanish. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23, 199–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vigário, Marina. 2014. Prosodic structure between the Prosodic Word and the Phonological Phrase: recursive nodes or an independent domain? The Linguistic Review 24.4: 485–530.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael & Watson, Duane. 2010. Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 905–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Bei & Féry, Caroline. 2015. Dual-focus Intonation in Standard Chinese. In Conference proceedings of the 18th Oriental COCOSDA/CASLRE Conference. Shanghai, Jiao Tong University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Bei 2016. Dual focus in German. Submitted. Minzu University of China in Beijng and University of Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Wang, B. & Yang, Nuoyi. 2014. A preliminary study of tonal influence on weak syllables in Mandarin. In 4th International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages (TAL-2014). www.isca-speech.org/archive.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory & Hirschberg, Julia. 1985. Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61: 747–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Paul, Grabe, Esther & Nolan, Francis. 1995. Prosody, phonology and parsing in closure ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Duane & Gibson, Edward. 2004. The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 19: 713–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Duane G., Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Gunlogson, Christine A.. 2008. Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L+ H*. (Methode: visual world eye-tracking) Cognitive Science 32: 1232–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Sheila M. & Murray, Wayne S.. 1996. Prosodic form and parsing commitments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 291–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welby, Pauline. 2006. French intonational structure: Evidence from tonal alignment. Journal of Phonetics 34: 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welmers, William E. 1959. Tonemics, morphotonemics, and tonal morphemes. General Linguistics 4: 1–9.Google Scholar
Wightman, Colin W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, Ostendorf, Mari & Price, Patti J.. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. JASA 91(3): 1707–1717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, Karina. 1988. Prosodic structure and Lardil phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 25–34.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1976. Underlying tone in Margi and Igbo. Linguistc Inquiry 7: 463–484.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 2016. Ellipsis and information structure. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 359–382. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, Wai Yi, Chan, Marjorie & Beckman, Mary E.. 2005. An autosegmental-metrical analysis and prosodic annotation conventions for Cantonese. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 271–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi. 1998. Fundamental frequency peak delay in Mandarin. Phonetica 58: 26–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 27: 55–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi 2005. Speech melody as articulatorily implemented communicative functions. Speech Communication 46: 220–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi 2009. Timing and coordination in tone and intonation – An articulatory-functional perspective. Lingua 119: 906–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi Xu, Yi & Xu, Ching X.. 2005. Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics 33: 159–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1980. The Tonal Phonology of Chinese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, Moira. 2007. Tone. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 229–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, T-J., Chavarría, S., Cole, J. & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. 2004. Intertranscriber reliability of prosodic labeling on telephone conversation using ToBI. Proceedings of Interspeech 2004: 2729–2732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. Understanding near mergers: The case of morphological tone in Cantonese. Phonology 24: 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanten, Ellen van, Goedemans, Rob & Pacilly, Jos. 2003. The status of word stress in Indonesian. In Weijer, Jeroen van de, van Heuven, Vincent J. & van der Hulst, Harry (eds.), The Phonological Spectrum 2. Suprasegmental Structure, 151–175. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanten, Ellen van & van Heuven, Vincent J.. 1998. Word stress in Indonesian: Its communicative relevance. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 154: 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanten, Ellen van, Stoel, Ruben & Remijsen, Bert. 2010. Stress types in Austronesian languages. In Hulst, Harry van der, Goedemans, Rob & van Zanten, Ellen (eds.), A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in the Languages of the World, 87–112. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2006. Expression of Information Structure in the Bantu Language Northern Sotho. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University of Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2007a. Phonological phrasing in Northern Sotho. The Linguistic Review 24: 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2007b. The subject/object asymmetry in Northern Sotho. In Schwabe, K. & Winkler, S. (eds.), Information Structure and the Architecture of Grammar: A Typological Perspective, 323–345. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2016. Predicate focus. In Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 314–335. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar