Research on the exploitation of prosodic information in the comprehension of spoken language is reviewed. The research falls into three main areas: the use of prosody in the recognition of spoken words, in which most attention has been paid to the question of whether the prosodic structure of a word plays a role in initial activation of stored lexical representations; the use of prosody in the computation of syntactic structure, in which the resolution of global and local ambiguities has formed the central focus; and the role of prosody in the processing of discourse structure, in which there has been a preponderance of work on the contribution of accentuation and deaccentuation to integration of concepts with an existing discourse model. The review reveals that in each area progress has been made towards new conceptions of prosody's role in processing, and in particular this has involved abandonment of previously held deterministic views of the relationship between prosodic structure and other aspects of linguistic structure.
ABERCROMBIE, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics.Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press.
2.
ABRAMS, K., & BEVER, T.G. (1969). Syntactic structure modifies attention during speech perception and recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 280–290.
3.
ALLBRITTON, D.W., McKOON, G., & RATCLIFF, R. (1996). Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 714–735.
4.
ALTMANN, G.T. M., & CARTER, D.M. (1989). Lexical stress and lexical discriminability: Stressed syllables are more informative, but why? Computer Speech and Language, 3, 265–275.
5.
AULL, A. M. (1984). Lexical stress and its application in large vocabulary speech recognition. Unpublished master's thesis, M.I.T., Massachusetts.
6.
AVESANI, C., HIRSCHBERG, J., & PRIETO, P. (1995). The intonational disambiguation of potentially ambiguous utterances in English, Italian, and Spanish. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 174–177). Stockholm.
7.
BANSAL, R. K. (1966). The intelligibility of Indian English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London, U.K.
8.
BARD, E. G., COOPER, L., KOWTKO, J., & BREW, C. (1991). Psycholinguistic studies on incremental recognition of speech: A revised and extended introduction to the messy and the sticky. DYANA Deliverable R1.3B, University of Edinburgh.
9.
BARD, E. G., LOWE, A. J., & ALTMANN, G. T. M. (1989). The effect of répetition on words in recorded dictations. In J. P. Tubach & J. J. Mariani (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 573–576). Edinburgh.
10.
BARD, E. G., SOTILLO, C., ANDERSON, A. H., DOHERTY-SNEDDON, G., & NEWLANDS, A. (1995). The control of intelligibility in running speech. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 188–191). Stockholm.
11.
BARIK, H.C. (1977). Cross-linguistic study of temporal characteristics of different types of speech materials. Language and Speech, 20, 116–126.
12.
BEACH, C.M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 644–663.
13.
BECKMAN, M.E. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17–67.
14.
BEVER, T.G., LACKNER, J.R., & KIRK, R. (1969). The underlying structures of sentences are the primary units of intermediate speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 225–234.
15.
BEVER, T.G., & MCELREE, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 35–43.
16.
BIRCH, S., & CLIFTON, C.E. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365–391.
17.
BIRCH, S.L., & GARNSEY, S.M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 232–267.
18.
BLAAUW, E. (1994). The contribution of prosodic boundary markers to the difference between read and spontaneous speech. Speech Communication, 14, 359–375.
19.
BLUTNER, R., & SOMMER, R. (1988). Sentence processing and lexical access: The influence of the focus-identifying task. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 359–367.
20.
BOCK, J.K., & MAZZELLA, J.R. (1983). Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 11, 64–76.
21.
BOLINGER, D.L. (1964). Intonation: Around the edge of language. Harvard Educational Review, 34, 282–296.
22.
BOLINGER, D.L. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mindreader). Language, 48, 633–644.
23.
BOLINGER, D.L. (1978). Intonation across languages. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 2. Phonology (pp. 471–524). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
24.
BOND, Z.S. (1981). Listening to elliptic speech: Pay attention to stressed vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 9, 89–96.
25.
BOND, Z.S., & GARNES, S. (1980). Misperceptions of fluent speech. In R. Cole (ed.), Perception and production of fluent speech (pp. 115–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
BOND, Z.S., & SMALL, L.H. (1983). Voicing, vowel and stress mispronunciations in continuous speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 470–474.
27.
BOUWHUIS, D., & de ROOIJ, J.J. (1977). Vowel length and the perception of prosodic boundaries. IPO Annual Progress Report, 12, 63–68.
28.
BROWMAN, C.P. (1978). Tip of the tongue and slip of the ear: Implications for language processing. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 42.
29.
BROWN, G. (1983). Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction. In A. Cutler, & D. R. Ladd (eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 67–77). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
30.
BROWN, G., CURRIE, K., & KENWORTHY, J. (1980). Questions of intonation.London: Croom Helm.
31.
BRUBAKER, R.S. (1972). Rate and pause characteristics of oral reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 141–147.
32.
BRUCE, G. (1982). Textual aspects of prosody in Swedish. Phonetica, 39, 274–287.
33.
BRUCE, G., GRANSTRÔM, B., GUSTAFSON, K., & HOUSE, D. (1992). Aspects of prosodic phrasing in Swedish. Second International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 109–112). Banff, Canada.
34.
BURNHAM, D., FRANCIS, E., WEBSTER, D., LUKSANEEYANAWIN, S., ATTAPAIBOON, C., LACERDA, F., & KELLER, P. (1996). Perception of lexical tone across languages: Evidence for a linguistic mode of processing. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 2514–2516). Philadelphia.
35.
BURNHAM, D., KIRKWOOD, K., LUKSANEEYANAWIN, S., & PANSOTTEE, S. (1992). Perception of Central Thai tones and segments by Thai and Australian adults.Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of Language and Linguistics (pp. 546–560). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
36.
BUTTERWORTH, B. (1975). Hesitation and semantic planning in speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 57–87.
37.
BUXTON, H. (1983). Temporal predictability in the perception of English speech. In A. Cutler, & D. R. Ladd (eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 111–121). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
38.
CARLSON, R., GRANSTRÖM, B., LINDBLOM, B., & RAPP, K. (1972). Some timing and fundamental frequency characteristics of Swedish sentences: Data, rules, and a perceptual evaluation. Speech Transmission Laboratory (Stockholm):Quarterly Progress and Status Report, 4, 11–19.
39.
CARTER, D.M. (1987). An information-theoretic analysis of phonetic dictionary access. Computer Speech & Language, 2, 1–11.
40.
CASSIDY, K.W., & KELLY, M.H. (1991). Phonological information for grammatical category assignments. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 348–369.
41.
CHAFE, W. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111–133.
42.
CHEN, H.-C., & CUTLER, A. (in press). Auditory priming in spoken and printed word recognition. In H.-C. Chen (Ed.), The Cognitive Processing of Chinese and Related Asian Languages. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
43.
CHING, Y.C. (1985). Lipreading Cantonese with voice pitch. Paper presented to the 109th meeting, Acoustical Society of America, Austin (Abstract). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, Supplement 1, S39–40).
44.
CHING, Y.C. (1988). Voice pitch information for the deaf. Proceedings of the First Asian-Pacific Regional Conference on Deafness (pp. 340–343). Hong Kong.
45.
CLARK, H.H., & HAVILAND, S.E. (1977). Comprehension and the Given-New contract. In R. O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1–40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
46.
CLOITRE, M., & BEVER, T.G. (1988). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 293–322.
47.
COLE, R.A., & JAKIMIK, J. (1980). How are syllables used to recognize words? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 965–970.
48.
COLE, R.A., JAKIMIK, J., & COOPER, W.E. (1978). Perceptibility of phonetic features in fluent speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 44–56.
49.
COLLIER, R., & 't HART, J. (1975). The role of intonation in speech perception. In A. Cohen, & S. G. Nooteboom (eds.), Structure and process in speech perception (pp. 107–121). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
50.
COLLIER, R., de PIJPER, J.R., & SANDERMAN, A.A. (1993). Perceived prosodic boundaries and their phonetic correlates. Proceedings of the DARPA Workshop on Speech and Natural Language pp. 341–345). Princeton, NJ, March 21–24.
51.
CONNINE, C.M., CLIFTON, C.E., & CUTLER, A. (1987). Lexical stress effects on phonetic categorization. Phonetica, 44, 133–146.
52.
COOPER, W.E. (1976). The syntactic control of timing in speech production: A study of complement clauses. Journal of Phonetics, 4, 151–171.
53.
COOPER, W.E., & PACCIA-COOPER, J. (1980). Syntax and speech.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
COOPER, W.E., & SORENSEN, J.M. (1977). Fundamental frequency contours at syntactic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62, 682–692.
55.
COOPER, W.E., & SORENSEN, J.M. (1981). Fundamental frequency in sentence production.New York: Springer-Verlag.
56.
CROFT, W. (1995). Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics, 33, 839–882.
57.
CRYSTAL, D., & DAVY, D. (1969). Investigating English style.London: Longman.
58.
CRYSTAL, T.H., & HOUSE, A.S. (1988). Segmental durations in connected-speech signals: Syllabic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 1574–1585.
59.
CRYSTAL, T.H., & HOUSE, A.S. (1990). Articulation rate and the duration of syllables and stress groups in connected speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 101–112.
60.
CUTLER, A. (1976). Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour. Perception and Psychophysics, 20, 55–60.
61.
CUTLER, A. (1982). Prosody and sentence perception in English. In J. Mehler, E.C. T. Walker, & M. Garrett (eds.), Perspectives on mental representation (pp. 201–216). London: LEA.
62.
CUTLER, A. (1986). Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech, 29, 201–220.
63.
CUTLER, A. (1987). Components of prosodic effects in speech recognition. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 84–87). Tallinn, Estonia.
64.
CUTLER, A. (1991). Linguistic rhythm and speech segmentation. In J. Sundberg, L. Nord, & R. Carlson (eds.), Music, language, speech, and brain (pp. 157–166). London: Macmillan.
65.
CUTLER, A. (1995). Spoken word recognition and production. In J.L. Miller, & P. D. Eimas (eds.), Speech, language and communication (pp. 97–136). [Vol. 11 of E.C. Carterette, & M. P. Friedman (eds.), Handbook of Perception and Cognition]. NY: Academic Press.
66.
CUTLER, A., & BUTTERFIELD, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 218–236.
67.
CUTLER, A., & CARTER, D.M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech & Language, 2, 133–142.
68.
CUTLER, A., & CHEN, H.-C. (1995). Phonological similarity effects in Cantonese word recognition. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 106–109). Stockholm.
69.
CUTLER, A., & CHEN, H.-C. (1997). Lexical tone in Cantonese spoken-word processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 165–179.
70.
CUTLER, A., & CLIFTON, C.E. (1984). The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In H. Bouma, & D. G. Bouwhuis (eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 183–196). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
71.
CUTLER, A., & DARWIN, C.J. (1981). Phoneme-monitoring reaction time and preceding prosody: effects of stop closure duration and of fundamental frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 217–224.
72.
CUTLER, A., & FODOR, J.A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49–59.
73.
CUTLER, A., & FOSS, D.J. (1977). On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Language and Speech, 20, 1–10.
74.
CUTLER, A., MEHLER, J., NORRIS, D.G., & SEGUI, J. (1986). The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 385–400.
75.
CUTLER, A., MEHLER, J., NORRIS, D.G., & SEGUI, J. (1992). The monolingual nature of speech segmentation by bilinguals. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 381–410.
76.
CUTLER, A., & NORRIS, D.G. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113–121.
77.
CUTLER, A., & OTAKE, T. (1994). Mora or phoneme? Further evidence for language-specific listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 824–844.
78.
CUTLER, A., & OTAKE, T. (1996). The processing of word prosody in Japanese. Proceedings of the Sixth Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology (pp. 599–604). Adelaide.
79.
CUTLER, A., & PEARSON, M. (1986). On the analysis of prosodic turn-taking cues. In C. Johns-Lewis (ed.), Intonation in Discourse (pp. 139–155). London: Croom Helm.
80.
DAHAN, D. (1994). Etude de la Prosodie du Francais en Parole Continue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paris V, Paris.
81.
DAHAN, D. (1996). The role of rhythmic groups in the segmentation of continuous French speech. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1185–1188). Philadelphia.
82.
DAHAN, D., & BERNARD, J.M. (1996). Interspeaker variability in emphatic accent production in French. Language and Speech, 39, 341–374.
83.
DARWIN, C.J. (1975). On the dynamic use of prosody in speech perception. In A. Cohen & S. G. Nooteboom (eds.), Structure and process in speech perception (pp. 178–193). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
84.
DONSELAAR, W. van (1991). The function of prosody in speech perception. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 466–469). Aix-en-Provence, Université de Provence.
85.
DONSELAAR, W. van (1995a). Listeners' use of the “information-accentuation” interdependence in processing implicit and explicit references. Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 979–982). Madrid.
86.
DONSELAAR, W. van (1995b). Effects of accentuation and given/new information on word processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
87.
DONSELAAR, W. van, KOSTER, M., & CUTLER, A. (in preparation). Voornaam is not a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch.
88.
DONSELAAR, W. van, & LENTZ, J. (1994). The function of sentence accents and given/new information in speech processing: Different strategies for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners? Language and Speech, 37, 375–391.
89.
DONZEL, M.E. van, & KOOPMANS-van BEINUM, F.J. (1996). Pausing strategies in discourse in Dutch. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1029–1032). Philadelphia.
90.
DUPOUX, E., & MEHLER, J. (1990). Monitoring the lexicon with normal and compressed speech: Frequency effects and the prelexical code. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 316–335.
91.
DUPOUX, E., PALLIER, C., SEBASTIAN, N., & MEHLER, J. (1997). A destressing deafness in French? Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 406–421.
92.
EADY, S.J., & COOPER, W.E. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 402–415.
93.
EEFTING, W. (1991). The effect of “information value” and “accentuation” on the duration of Dutch words, syllables and segments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 412–424.
94.
EPSTEIN, W. (1961). The influence of syntactical structure on learning. American Journal of Psychology, 74, 80–85.
95.
FEAR, B.D., CUTLER, A., & BUTTERFIELD, S. (1995). The strong/weak syllable distinction in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1893–1904.
96.
FELLOWES, J. M., REMEZ, R. E., & RUBIN, P. E. (in press). Perceiving the sex and identity of a talker without natural vocal timbre. Perception & Psychophysics.
97.
FERREIRA, F. (1993). Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review, 100, 233–253.
98.
FERREIRA, F., ANES, M.D., & HORINE, M.D. (1996). Exploring the use of prosody during language comprehension using the auditory moving window technique. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 273–290.
99.
FODOR, J.A., & BEVER, T.G. (1965). The psychological reality of linguistic segments. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 414–420.
100.
FOWLER, C.A. (1988). Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech, 31, 307–319.
101.
FOWLER, C.A., & HOUSUM, J. (1987). Talkers' signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 489–504.
102.
FOX, R.A., & UNKEFER, J. (1985). The effect of lexical status on the perception of tone. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 13, 69–90.
103.
FRAZIER, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies.Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
104.
FRAZIER, L., & FODOR, J.D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
105.
FRAZIER, L., & RAYNER, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 505–526.
106.
GANDOUR, J. (1981). Perceptual dimensions of tone: Evidence from Cantonese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 9, 20–36.
107.
GANDOUR, J. (1983). Tone perception in Far Eastern languages. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 149–175.
108.
GANONG, W.F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 110–125.
109.
GARRETT, M. (1964). Structure and sequence in judgments of auditory events. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
110.
GARRETT, M., BEVER, T., & FODOR, J. (1965). The active use of grammar in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 30–32.
111.
GARRO, L., & PARKER, F. (1982). Some suprasegmental characteristics of relative clauses in English. Journal of Phonetics, 10, 149–161.
112.
GARROD, S., FREUDENTHAL, D., & BOYLE, E. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 39–68.
113.
GEE, J.P., & GROSJEAN, F. (1983). Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 411–458.
114.
GEERS, A.E. (1978). Intonation contour and syntactic structure as predictors of apparent segmentation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 4, 273–283.
115.
GERKEN, L.A. (1994). Young children's representation of prosodic structure: Evidence from English-speakers' weak syllable omissions. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 19–38.
116.
GERKEN, L.A. (1996). Phonological and distributional cues to syntax acquisition. In J. Morgan, & K. Demuth (eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 411–425). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
GOLDMAN-EISLER, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiment in spontaneous speech.London: Academic Press.
119.
GRABE, E., & WARREN, P. (1995). Stress shift: Do speakers do it or do listeners hear it? In B. Connell & A. Arvaniti (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology IV.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
120.
GRABE, E., WARREN, P., & NOLAN, F. (1994). Resolving category ambiguities --- evidence from stress shift. Speech Communication, 15, 101–114.
121.
GRABE, E., WARREN, P., & NOLAN, F. (1995). Prosodic disambiguation of coordination structures. Paper presented to Eighth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Tucson, Arizona, March 16–18.
122.
GROSJEAN, F. (1983). How long is the sentence? Prediction and prosody in the on-line processing of language. Linguistics, 21, 501–529.
123.
GROSJEAN, F., & GEE, J. (1987). Prosodic structure and spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 135–155.
124.
GROSJEAN, F., & HIRT, C. (1996). Using prosody to predict the end of sentences in English and French: Normal and brain-damaged subjects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 107–134.
125.
GROSZ, B., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1992). Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 429–432). Banff, Canada.
126.
GROSZ, B., HIRSCHBERG, J., & NAKATANI, C.H. (1994). A study of intonation and discourse structure in directions. Working papers of the Workshop on the Integration of Natural Language and Speech Processing, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 124–131.
127.
GROSZ, B.J., & SIDNER, C.L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204.
128.
GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1991). The English rhythm rule as an accent deletion rule. Phonology, 8, 1–35.
129.
HALLIDAY, M.A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244.
130.
HARRIS, M.S., & UMEDA, N. (1974). Effect of speaking mode on temporal factors in speech: Vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 56, 1016–1018.
131.
't HART, J., COLLIER, R., & COHEN, A. (1990). A perceptual study of intonation.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
132.
HAWKINS, S., & WARREN, P. (1994). Phonetic influences on the intelligibility of conversational speech. Journal of Phonetics, 22, 493–511.
133.
HENDERSON, A., GOLDMAN-EISLER, F., & SKARBEK, A. (1966). Sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 9, 207–216.
134.
HEUVEN, V.J. van (1985). Perception of stress pattern and word recognition: Recognition of Dutch words with incorrect stress position. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78, s21.
135.
HEUVEN, V.J. van (1988). Effects of stress and accent on the human recognition of word fragments in spoken context: Gating and shadowing. Proceedings of Speech '88, 7th FASE symposium (pp. 811–818). Edinburgh.
136.
HEUVEN, V.J. van, & HAGMAN, P.J. (1988). Lexical statistics and spoken word recognition in Dutch. In P. Coopmans & A. Hulk (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988 (pp. 59–68). Dordrecht: Foris.
137.
HIRSCHBERG, J. (1993). Studies of intonation and discourse. Working papers 41, ESCA workshop on prosody (pp. 90–95). Lund.
138.
HIRSCHBERG, J., & NAKATANI, C.H., (1996). A prosodic analysis of discourse segments in direction-giving monologues. Proceedings of the Thirty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 286–293). Santa Cruz.
139.
HIRSCHBERG, J., & PIERREHUMBERT, J. (1986). The intonational structuring of discourse. Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 134–144).
140.
HIRSCHBERG, J., & WARD, G. (1991). Accent and bound anaphora. Cognitive Linguistics, 2–2, 101–121.
141.
HIRST, D. (1993). Detaching intonational phrases from syntactic structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 781–788.
142.
HOUSE, D. (1990). Tonal perception in speech.Lund: Lund University Press.
143.
HUNNICUTT, S. (1985). Intelligibility vs. redundancy --- conditions of dependency. Language and Speech, 28, 47–56.
144.
HUTTENLOCHER, D.P., & ZUE, V.W. (1983). Phonotactic and lexical constraints in speech recognition. Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (pp. 172–176).
145.
INKELAS, S., & ZEC, D. (1990). The phonology-syntax connection.Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.
146.
JONGENBURGER, W. (1996). The role of lexical stress during spoken-word processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
147.
JONGENBURGER, W., & van HEUVEN, V.J. (1995a). The role of linguistic stress in the time course of word recognition in stress-accent languages, Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 1695–1698). Madrid.
148.
JONGENBURGER, W., & van HEUVEN, V.J. (1995b). The role of lexical stress in the recognition of spoken words: prelexical or postlexical?, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 368–371). Stockholm.
149.
JUN, S.A., & OH, M. (1996). A prosodic analysis of three types of wh-phrases in Korean. Language and Speech, 39, 37–61.
150.
KELLY, M.H. (1988). Phonological biases in grammatical category shifts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 343–358.
151.
KELLY, M.H. (1992). Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review, 99, 349–364.
152.
KELLY, M.H., & BOCK, J.K. (1988). Stress in time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 389–403.
153.
KENNEDY, A., MURRAY, W.S., JENNINGS, F., & REID, C. (1989). Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 51–76.
154.
KLATT, D.H. (1974). The duration of [s] in English words. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 51–63.
155.
KLATT, D.H. (1975). Vowel lengthening is syntactically determined in a connected discourse. Journal of Phonetics, 3, 129–140.
156.
KLATT, D.H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 1208–1221.
157.
KOLINSKY, R., MORAIS, J., & CLUYTENS, M. (1995). Intermediate representations in spoken word recognition: Evidence from word illusions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 19–40.
158.
KONG, Q.M. (1987). Influence of tones upon vowel duration in Cantonese. Language and Speech, 30, 387–399.
159.
KOOPMANS-van BEINUM, F.J., & BERGEM, D.R. van (1989). The role of “given” and “new” in the production and perception of vowel contrasts in read text and in spontaneous speech. Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 113–116). Edinburgh.
160.
KOSTER, M., & CUTLER, A. (1997). Segmental and suprasegmental contributions to spoken-word recognition in Dutch. Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (2167–2170). Rhodes.
161.
KOWAL, S., O'CONNELL, D., O'BRIEN, E.A., & BRYANT, E.T. (1975). Temporal aspects of reading aloud and speaking: Three experiments. American Journal of Psychology, 88, 549–569.
162.
KRATOCHVIL, P. (1971). An experiment in the perception of Peking dialect tones. In I.-L. Hansson (ed.), A Symposium on Chinese Grammar (pp. 7–31). Lund: Curzon Press.
163.
KREIMAN, J. (1982). Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries in natural conversation. Journal of Phonetics, 10, 163–175.
164.
KUTIK, E.J., COOPER, W.E., & BOYCE, S. (1983). Declination of fundamental frequency in speakers' production of parenthetical and main clauses. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73, 1731–1738.
165.
LADD, D.R. (1980). The Structure of intonational meaning.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
166.
LADD, D.R. (1988). Declination “reset” and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 530–544.
167.
LADD, D.R. (1996). Intonational phonology.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
168.
LADD, D.R., & CUTLER, A. (1983). Models and measurements in the study of prosody. In A. Cutler & D. R. Ladd (eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 1–10). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
169.
LAGERQUIST, L.M. (1980). Linguistic evidence from paranomasia. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 185–191.
170.
LARKEY, L.S., & DANLY, M. (1983). Fundamental frequency and sentence comprehension. MIT Speech Communication Group Working Papers, 2, 25–39.
171.
LEE, L., & NUSBAUM, H.C. (1993). Processing interactions between segmental and suprasegmental information in native speakers of English and Mandarin Chinese. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 157–165.
172.
LEE, Y.-S., VAKOCH, D.A., & WURM, L.H. (1996). Tone perception in Cantonese and Mandarin: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 527–542.
173.
LEHISTE, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
174.
LEHISTE, I. (1972). Timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 2018–2024.
175.
LEHISTE, I. (1973). Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa, 7, 107–122.
176.
LEHISTE, I. (1979). Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries, In B. Lindblom & S. Oehman (eds.), Frontiers of speech communication research (pp. 191–201). New York: Academic Press.
177.
LEHISTE, I. (1980). Phonetic characteristics of discourse. Acoustical Society of Japan, Transactions of the Committee on Speech Research, 25–38.
178.
LEHISTE, I., OLIVE, J.P., & STREETER, L. (1976). Role of duration in disambiguating syntactically ambiguous sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 1199–1202.
179.
LEHISTE, I., & WANG, W.S.-Y. (1977). Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries with and without semantic information. In W. U. Dressler & O. E. Pfeiffer (eds.), Phonologica 1976 (pp. 277–283). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
180.
LEONARD, L.B. (1974). The role of intonation in the recall of various linguistic stimuli. Language and Speech, 16, 327–335.
181.
LEVIN, H., SCHAFFER, C.A., & SNOW, C. (1982). The prosodic and paralinguistic features of reading and telling stories. Language and Speech, 25, 43–54.
182.
LEYDEN, K. van, & HEUVEN, V.J. van (1996). Lexical stress and spoken word recognition: Dutch vs. English. In C. Cremers & M. den Dikken (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996 (pp. 159–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
183.
LIBERMAN, M., & PRINCE, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 249–336.
184.
LIEBERMAN, P. (1963). Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech, 6, 172–187.
185.
LIEBERMAN, P. (1967). Intonation, perception, and language.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
186.
LIN, H.-B., & REPP, B.H. (1989). Cues to the perception of Taiwanese tones. Language and Speech, 32, 25–44.
187.
MacDONALD, M.C., PEARLMUTTER, N.J., & SEIDENBERG, M.S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
188.
MacLAY H., & OSGOOD, C.E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15, 19–44.
189.
MARSLEN-WILSON, W.S., TYLER, L.K., WARREN, P., GRENIER, P., & LEE, C.S. (1992). Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 73–87.
190.
MARTIN, J.G. (1968). Temporal word spacing and the perception of ordinary, anomalous, and scrambled strings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 7, 154–157.
191.
MARTIN, J.G. (1972). Rhythmic (hierarchical) versus serial structure in speech and other behavior. Psychological Review, 79, 487–509.
192.
MARTIN, J.G. (1979). Rhythmic and segmental perception are not independent. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 65, 1286–1297.
193.
MATTYS, S.L., & SAMUEL, A.G. (1997). How lexical stress affects speech segmentation and interactivity: Evidence from the migration paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 87–116.
194.
MAZUKA, R., MISONO, Y., TADAHISA, K., & KIRITANI, S. (1997). Levels of informativeness of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Paper presented at the 10th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Santa Monica, CA.
195.
McALLISTER, J. (1991). The processing of lexically stressed syllables in read and spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 34, 1–26.
196.
McKOON, G., & RATCLIFF, R. (1980). The comprehension processes and memory structures involved in anaphoric reference. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 668–682.
197.
McQUEEN, J.M. (1991). The influence of the lexicon on phonetic categorization: Stimulus quality in word-final ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 433–443.
198.
McQUEEN, J.M., NORRIS, D.G., & CUTLER, A. (1994). Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 621–638.
199.
MEHLER, J., DOMMERGUES, J.-Y., FRAUENFELDER, U., & SEGUI, J. (1981). The syllable's role in speech segmentation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 298–305.
200.
MEHTA, G., & CUTLER, A. (1988). Detection of target phonemes in spontaneous and read speech. Language and Speech, 31, 135–156.
201.
MELTZER, R.H., MARTIN, J.G., MILLS, C.B., IMHOFF, D.L., & ZOHAR, D. (1976). Reaction time to temporally displaced phoneme targets in continuous speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 277–290.
202.
MENN, L., & BOYCE, S. (1982). Fundamental frequency and discourse structure. Language and Speech, 25, 341–383.
203.
MENS, L., & POVEL, D. (1986). Evidence against a predictive role for rhythm in speech perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A, 177–192.
204.
MILLER, G.A., & ISARD, S.D. (1963). Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 2, 217–228.
205.
MILLER, J.L. (1978). Interactions in processing segmental and suprasegmental features of speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 175–180.
206.
MISONO, Y., MAZUKA, R., KONDO, T., & KIRITANI, S. (1997). Effects and limitations of prosodic and semantic biases on syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 229–245.
207.
MITCHELL, D.C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp 375–409). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
208.
MONNIN, P., & GROSJEAN, F. (1993). Les structures de performance en français: caractÈrisation et prédiction. L'Année Psychologique, 93, 9–30.
209.
MURRAY, W. S., WATT, S. M., & KENNEDY, A. (submitted). Parsing ambiguities: Modality, processing options, and the garden path.
210.
NAGEL, H.N., SHAPIRO, L.P., & NAWY, R. (1994). Prosody and the processing of filler-gap sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23 (6), 473–485.
211.
NAKATANI, L.H., & SCHAFFER, J.A. (1978). Hearing “words” without words: Prosodic cues for word perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 63, 234–245.
212.
NEEDHAM, W.P. (1990). Semantic structure, information structure, and intonation in discourse production. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 455–468.
213.
NESPOR, M., & VOGEL, I. (1983). Prosodic structure above the word. In A. Cutler & D. R. Ladd (eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 123–140). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
214.
NESPOR, M., & VOGEL, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology.Dordrecht: Foris.
215.
NICOL, J.L. (1996). What can prosody tell a parser? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 179–192.
216.
NICOL, J.L., FODOR, J.D., & SWINNEY, D. (1994). Using cross-modal lexical decision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1229–1238.
217.
NICOL, J.L., & PICKERING, M.J. (1993). Processing syntactically ambiguous sentences: Evidence from semantic priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 207–237.
218.
NISHINUMA, Y. (1994). How do the French perceive tonal accent in Japanese? Experimental evidence. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1739–1742). Yokohama.
219.
NISHINUMA, Y., ARAI, M., & AYUSAWA, T. (1996). Perception of tonal accent by Americans learning Japanese. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 646–649). Philadelphia.
220.
NOOTEBOOM, S.G. (1995). Limited lookahead in speech production. In F. Bell-Berti & L. J. Raphael (eds.), Producing speech: Contemporary issues --- for Katherine Safford Harris (pp. 1–18). Woodbury, NY: AIP Press.
221.
NOOTEBOOM, S.G. (1997). The prosody of speech: Melody and rhythm. In W. J. Hardcastle & J. Laver (eds.), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 640–673). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
222.
NOOTEBOOM, S.G., BROKX, J.P. L., & ROOIJ, J.J. de (1978). Contributions of prosody to speech perception. In W. J. M. Levelt & G. B. Flores d'Arcais (eds.), Studies in the perception of language (pp. 75–107). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
223.
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.
224.
NOOTEBOOM, S.G., & TERKEN, J.M. B. (1982). What makes speakers omit pitch-accents? An experiment. Phonetica, 39, 317–336.
225.
O'CONNELL, D.C., TURNER, E.A., & ONUSKA, L.A. (1968). Intonation, grammatical structure, and contextual association in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 7, 110–116.
226.
OLLER, D.K. (1973). The effect of position in utterance on speech segment duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 1235–1246.
227.
O'SHAUGHNESSY, D. (1979). Linguistic features in fundamental frequency patterns. Journal of Phonetics, 7, 119–145.
228.
OTAKE, T., HATANO, G., CUTLER, A., & MEHLER, J. (1993). Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 358–378.
229.
OTAKE, T., HATANO, G., & YONEYAMA, K. (1996). Speech segmentation by Japanese listeners. In T. Otake & A. Cutler (eds.), Phonological structure and language processing: Cross-linguistic studies. (pp. 183–201). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
230.
OTAKE, T., YONEYAMA, K., CUTLER, A., & van der LUGT, A. (1996). The representation of Japanese moraic nasals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 3831–3842.
231.
PALLIER, C., SEBASTIAN-GALLÉS, N., FELGUERA, T., CHRISTOPHE, A., & MEHLER, J. (1993). Attentional allocation within the syllabic structure of spoken words. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 373–389.
232.
PERETZ, I., LUSSIER, I., & BÉLAND, R. (1996). The roles of phonological and orthographic code in word stem completion. In T. Otake & A. Cutler (eds.), Phonological structure and language processing: Cross-linguistic studies (pp. 217–226). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
233.
PERROT, J. (1978). Fonctions syntaxiques, enonciation, informatìon. Bulletin de la Societe Linguistique de Paris, 53, 85–101.
234.
PIERREHUMBERT, J., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–323). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
235.
PIJPER, J.R. de, & SANDERMAN, A.A. (1994). On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2037–2047.
236.
PIKE, K.L. (1945). The intonation of American English.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
237.
PITT, M.A., & SAMUEL, A.G. (1990). The use of rhythm in attending to speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 564–573.
238.
PORT, R.F., REILLY, W.T., & MAKI, D.P. (1988). Use of syllable-scale timing to discriminate words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 265–273.
239.
PRICE, P., & OSTENDORF, M. (1996). Combining linguistic with statistical methods in modeling prosody. In J. L. Morgan & K. Demuth (eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 67–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
240.
PRICE, P.J., OSTENDORF, M., SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S., & FONG, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 2956–2970.
241.
PRINCE, E.F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic Press.
242.
PYNTE, J., & PRIEUR, B. (1996). Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 165–191.
243.
QUENÉ, H. (1987). Perceptual relevance of acoustical word boundary markers. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 79–82). Tallinn, Estonia.
244.
QUENÉ, H. (1989). The influence of acoustic-phonetic word boundary markers on perceived word segmentation in Dutch. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
245.
QUENÉ, H. (1992). Durational cues for word segmentation in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 331–350.
246.
QUENÉ, H. (1993). Segment durations and accent as cues to word segmentation in Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 2027–2035.
247.
READ, C., KRAAK, A., & BOVES, L. (1980). The interpretation of ambiguous who-questions in Dutch: The effect of intonation. In W. Zonneveld & F. Weerman (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1977–1979 (pp. 389–410). Dordrecht: Foris.
248.
REMEZ, R.E., FELLOWES, J.M., & RUBIN, P.E. (1997). Talker identification based on phonetic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 651–666.
249.
REMEZ, R.E., RUBIN, P.E., PISONI, D.B., & CARRELL, T.D. (1981). Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science, 212, 947–950.
250.
REPP, B.H., & LIN, H.-B. (1990). Integration of segmental and tonal information in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 18, 481–495.
251.
RICE, K.D. (1987). On defining the intonational phrase: evidence from Slave. Phonology Yearbook, 4, 37–59.
252.
RIETVELD, A.C. M. (1980). Word boundaries in the French language. Language and Speech, 23, 289–296.
253.
ROBINSON, G.M. (1977). Rhythmic organization in speech processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 83–91.
254.
ROOIJ, J.J. de (1975). Prosody and the perception of syntactic boundaries. IPO Annual Progress Report, 10, 36–39.
255.
ROOIJ, J.J. de (1976). Perception of prosodic boundaries. IPO Annual Progress Report, 11, 20–24.
256.
SAGISAKA, Y., CAMPBELL, N., & HIGUCHI, N. (1997). Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech.New York: Springer-Verlag.
257.
SANDERMAN, A. (1996). Prosodic phrasing: Production, perception, acceptability, and comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
258.
SANTEN, J.P. H. van, & OLIVE, J.P. (1990). The analysis of contextual effects on segmental duration. Computer Speech & Language, 4, 359–390.
259.
SCHAFER, A. (1995). The role of optional prosodic boundaries. Paper presented to the Eighth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Tucson, Arizona. March 16–18.
260.
SCHAFER, A., CARTER, J., CLIFTON J.R. C., & FRAZIER, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135–163.
261.
SCHOLES, R.J. (1971). On the spoken disambiguation of superficially ambiguous sentences. Language and Speech, 14, 1–11.
262.
SCHREUDER, R., & BAAYEN, R.H. (1994). Prefix stripping re-revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 357–375.
263.
SCOTT, D.R. (1982). Duration as a cue to the perception of a phrase boundary. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 996–1007.
264.
SCOTT, D.R., & CUTLER, A. (1984). Segmental phonology and the perception of syntactic structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 450–466.
265.
SEDIVY, J., TANENHAUS, M., SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M., EBERHARD, K., & CARLSON, G. (1995). Using intonationally-marked presuppositional information in on-line language processing: Evidence from eye movements to a visual model.Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375–380). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
266.
SEGUI, J., FRAUENFELDER, U.H., & MEHLER, J. (1981). Phoneme monitoring, syllable monitoring and lexical access. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 471–477.
267.
SELKIRK, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax: the relation between sound and structure.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
268.
SELKIRK, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371–405.
SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S., & TURK, A.E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 193–247.
271.
SHEN, X.S., & LIN, M. (1991). A perceptual study of Mandarin tones 2 and 3. Language and Speech, 34, 145–156.
272.
SHIELDS, J.L., McHUGH, A., & MARTIN, J.G. (1974). Reaction time to phoneme targets as a function of rhythmic cues in continuous speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 250–255.
273.
SHILLCOCK, R., BARD, E.G., & SPENSLEY, F. (1988). Some prosodic effects on human word recognition in continuous speech. Proceedings of Speech '88, 7th FASE Symposium (pp. 827–834). Edinburgh.
274.
SILVERMAN, K.E. A. (1987). The structure and processing of fundamental frequency contours. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
275.
SILVERMAN, K.E. A., KALYANSWAMY, A., SILVERMAN, J., BASSON, S., & YASHCHIN, D. (1993). Synthesiser intelligibility in the context of a name-and-address information service. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp.2169–2172). Berlin.
276.
SLOWIAZCEK, L.M. (1990). Effects of lexical stress in auditory word recognition. Language and Speech, 33, 47–68.
277.
SLUIJTER, A., & TERKEN, J.M. B. (1993). Beyond sentence prosody: Paragraph intonation in Dutch. Phonetica, 50, 180–188.
278.
SON, R.J. J. H. van & SANTEN, J.P. H. van (1997). Strong interaction between factors influencing consonant duration. Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (319–322). Rhodes.
279.
SORIN, C. (1981). Functions, roles, and treatments of intensity in speech. Journal of Phonetics, 9, 359–374.
280.
SORIN, C., & Le BRAS, J. (1983). Role of FO contours on sentence identification in noise. Abstracts of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (p. 587). Dordrecht: Foris.
281.
SPEER, S.R., CROWDER, R.G., & THOMAS, L.M. (1993). Prosodic structure and sentence recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 336–358.
282.
SPEER, S.R., KJELGAARD, M.M., & DOBROTH, K.M. (1996). The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 247–268.
283.
SPEER, S.R., SHIH, C.-L., & SLOWIACZEK, M.L. (1989). Prosodic structure in language understanding: Evidence from tone sandhi in Mandarin. Language and Speech, 32, 337–354.
284.
STEEDMAN, M. (1990). Syntax and intonational structure in a combinatory grammar. In G. T. M. Altmann (ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 457–482). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
285.
STEEDMAN, M. (1991). Structure and intonation. Language, 67, 260–296.
286.
STIRLING, L., & WALES, R. (1996). Does prosody support or direct sentence processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 193–212.
287.
STRANGE, W. (1989). Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels spoken in sentence context. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 2135–2153.
288.
STRAUB, K.A. (1996). Prosodic cues in syntactically ambiguous strings: An interactive speech planning mechanism. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1640–1643). Philadelphia.
289.
STREETER, L.A. (1978). Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary location. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 1582–1592.
290.
SUOMI, K., McQUEEN, J.M., & CUTLER, A. (1997). Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 422–444.
291.
SVENSSON, S.G. (1971). A preliminary study of the role of prosodic parameters in speech perception. Speech Transmission Laboratory (Stockholm): Quarterly Progress and Status Report, 2–3, 24–42.
292.
SVENSSON, S.G. (1974). Prosody and grammar in speech perception. Monographs from the Institut of Linguistics, University of Stockholm, 2.
293.
SWERTS, M. (1997). Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strengths. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 514–521.
294.
SWERTS, M., BOUWHUIS, D.G., & COLLIER, R. (1994). Melodic cues to the perceived “finality” of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2064–2075.
295.
SWERTS, M., & GELUYKENS, R. (1993). The prosody of information units in spontaneous monologue. Phonetica, 50, 189–196.
296.
SWERTS, M., & GELUYKENS, R. (1994). Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech, 37 (1), 21–43.
297.
SWERTS, M., WICHMANN, A., & BEUN, R.-J. (1996). Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1033–1036). Philadelphia.
298.
SWINNEY, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659.
299.
TAFT, L. (1984). Prosodic constraints and lexical parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts.
300.
TAFT, M., & CHEN, H.-C. (1992). Judging homophony in Chinese: The influence of tones. In H.-C. Chen, & O. J. L. Tzeng (eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 151–172). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
301.
TERKEN, J., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing “given” information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech, 37, 125–145.
302.
TERKEN, J., & LEMEER, G. (1988). Effects of segmental quality and intonation on quality judgments for texts and utterances. Journal of Phonetics, 16, 453–457.
303.
TERKEN, J., & 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.
304.
THORSEN, N.G. (1985). Intonation and text in Standard Danish. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 1205–1216.
305.
TSANG, K.K., & HOOSAIN, R. (1979). Segmental phonemes and tonal phonemes in comprehension of Cantonese. Psychologia, 22, 222–224.
306.
TYLER, L.K., & WARREN, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 638–657.
307.
UMEDA, N. (1975). Vowel duration in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58, 434–445.
308.
UMEDA, N. (1977). Consonant duration in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 846–858.
309.
VAISSIÈRE, J. (1974). On French prosody. Quarterly Progress Report, M.I.T, 114, 212–223.
310.
VAISSIÈRE, J. (1975). Further note on French prosody. Quarterly Progress Report, M.I.T, 115, 251–262.
311.
VAISSIÈRE, J. (1983). Language-independent prosodic features. In A. Cutler & D. R. Ladd (eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 53–66). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
312.
VALLDUVÍ, E. (1992). The informational component.New York: Garland Press.
313.
VANCE, T.J. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology.Albany: SUNY Press.
314.
VENDITTI, J.J., JUN, S.-A., & BECKMAN, M.E. (1996). Prosodic cues to syntactic and other linguistic structures in Japanese, Korean, and English. In J.L. Morgan, & K. Demuth (eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 287–311). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
315.
VENDITTI, J.J., & SWERTS, M. (1996). Intonational cues to discourse structure in Japanese. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 725–728). Philadelphia.
316.
VENDITTI, J.J., & YAMASHITA, H. (1994). Prosodic information and processing of temporarily ambiguous constructions in Japanese. Proceedings of the International Conference of Speech and Language Processing (pp. 1147–1150). Yokohama, Japan.
317.
VROOMEN, J., ZON, M. van, & GELDER, B. van (1996). Cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperceptions and word spotting. Memory and Cognition, 24, 744–755.
318.
WAIBEL, A. (1988). Prosody and speech recognition.London: Pitman.
319.
WALES, R., & TONER, H. (1979). Intonation and ambiguity. In W.E. Cooper, & E. C. T. Walker (eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 135–158). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
320.
WALSH DICKEY, L. (1996). Limiting-domains in lexical access: Processing of lexical prosody. In M. Dickey & S. Tunstall (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 19: Linguistics in the Laboratory (pp. 133–155).
321.
WARREN, P. (1985). The temporal organization and perception of speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
322.
WARREN, P., GRABE, E., & NOLAN, F. (1995). Prosody, phonology, and parsing in closure ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 457–486.
323.
WATT, S.M., & MURRAY, W.S. (1996). Prosodic form and parsing commitments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 291–318.
WIGHTMAN, C.W., SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S., OSTENDORF, M., & PRICE, P.J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 1707–1717.
326.
WINGFIELD, A. (1975a). The intonation-syntax interaction: Prosodic features in perceptual processing of sentences. In A. Cohen & S. G. Nooteboom (eds.), Structure and process in speech perception (pp. 146–160). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
327.
WINGFIELD, A. (1975b). Acoustic redundancy and the perception of time-compressed speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18, 96–104.
328.
WINGFIELD, A., & KLEIN, J.F. (1971). Syntactic structure and acoustic pattern in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 23–25.
329.
WINGFIELD, A., BUTTET J., & SANDOVAL, W. (1979). Intonation and intelligibility of time-compressed speech. Supplementary report: English vs. French. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 22, 708–716.
330.
YUEN, I. (1995). An exploratory study of FO height in Cantonese tone perception. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K.
331.
ZURIF, E.B., & MENDELSOHN, M. (1972). Hemispheric specialization for the perception of speech sounds: The influence of intonation and structure. Perception & Psychophysics, 11, 329–332.
