Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBreen, Mara
dc.contributor.authorWatson, Duane
dc.contributor.authorGibson, Edward A.
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-15T19:15:59Z
dc.date.available2012-10-15T19:15:59Z
dc.date.issued2010-09
dc.date.submitted2010-07
dc.identifier.issn0169-0965
dc.identifier.issn1464-0732
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/73986
dc.description.abstractThis paper evaluates two classes of hypotheses about how people prosodically segment utterances: (1) meaning-based proposals, with a focus on Watson and Gibson's (2004) proposal, according to which speakers tend to produce boundaries before and after long constituents; and (2) balancing proposals, according to which speakers tend to produce boundaries at evenly spaced intervals. In order to evaluate these proposals, we elicited naïve speakers’ productions of sentences systematically varying in the length of three postverbal constituents: a direct object, an indirect object (a prepositional phrase), and a verb phrase modifier, as in the sentence, The teacher assigned the chapter (on local history) to the students (of social science) yesterday/before the first midterm exam. Mixed-effects modelling was used to analyse the pattern of prosodic boundaries in these sentences, where boundaries were defined either in terms of acoustic measures (word duration and silence) or following the ToBI (Tones and Break Indices) prosodic annotation scheme. Watson and Gibson's (2004) meaning-based proposal, with the additional constraint that boundary predictions are evaluated with respect to local sentence context rather than the entire sentence, significantly outperformed the balancing alternatives.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Science Foundation (U.S.) (Grant No. 0218605)en_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis Groupen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.508878en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/en_US
dc.sourceGibson via Courtney Crummetten_US
dc.titleIntonational phrasing is constrained by meaning, not balanceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationBreen, Mara, Duane G. Watson, and Edward Gibson. “Intonational Phrasing Is Constrained by Meaning, Not Balance.” Language and Cognitive Processes 26.10 (2011): 1532–1562. Web.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciencesen_US
dc.contributor.approverGibson, Edward A.
dc.contributor.mitauthorGibson, Edward A.
dc.relation.journalLanguage and Cognitive Processesen_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's final manuscripten_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dspace.orderedauthorsBreen, Mara; Watson, Duane G.; Gibson, Edwarden
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5912-883X
mit.licenseOPEN_ACCESS_POLICYen_US
mit.metadata.statusComplete


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record