Advertisement

Meaning, Intonation And Negation

  • Marc Swerts
  • Emiel Krahmer
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 83)

Keywords

Prosodic Feature Pitch Accent Perception Experiment Chicago Linguistic Society Metalinguistic Negation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bos, J.: 2002, Underspecification and resolution in discourse semantics. Ph.D. Thesis, Saarland University, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  2. Atlas, J.: 1977, Negation, Ambiguity and Presupposition, Linguistics and Philosophy 1:321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver, D.: 1997, Presupposition, in: Handbook of Logic and Language, J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 939–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaver, D. and E. Krahmer: 2001, A Partial Account of Presupposition Projection Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10:147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaver, D.: 2004, The Optimization of Discourse Anaphora, Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(1): 3–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beun, R.J.: 1990, The recognition of Dutch declarative questions, Journal of Pragmatics 14: 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bochvar, D.: 1939, Ob odnom trehznachom iscislenii i ego primeneii k analizu paradoksov klassicskogo rassirennogo funkcional ‘nogo iscislenija’. In: Matematiciskij sbornik, 4(English translation)1981): On a Three-valued Logical Calculus and Its Applications to the Analysis of the Paradoxes of the Classical Extended Functional Calculus, History and Philosophy of Logic 2:87–112).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boersma, P.: 1998, Functional Phonology, doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Boersma, P. and B. Hayes: 2001, Empirical Tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolinger, D.: 1986, Intonation and its Parts, London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, H. and E. Scheffer: 1989, Contributing to Discourse, Cognitive Science 13:259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutler, A.: 1977, The Context-dependence of “Intonational Meanings”, Papers from the 13th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 104–115.Google Scholar
  13. Fodor, J.D.: 2002, Prosodic Disambiguation in Silent Reading, Proceedings of NELS 32, M. Hirotani (ed.] Amherst, MA, pp. 113–132.Google Scholar
  14. Gazdar, G.: 1977, Pragmatics, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Groenendijk, J., M. Stokhof and F. Veltman: 1996, Coreference and Modality in the Context of Multi-speaker Discourse, in Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning, H. Kamp and B. Partee (eds.), Stuttgart: IMS, pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
  16. ’t Hart, H., R. Collier and A. Cohen: 1990, A Perceptual Study of Intonation: An Experimental-phonetic Approach to Speech Melody, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases,doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  18. Hendriks, H.: 2002, Information Packaging: From Cards to Boxes, in: Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation, K. van Deemter and R. Kibble (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
  19. Geluykens, R.: 1987, Intonation and Speech Act Type, Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 483–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hendriks, P. and H. de Hoop: 2001, Optimality Theoretic Semantics, Linguistics and Philosophy 24:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herman, R. and J. McGory: 2002, The Conceptual Similarity of Intonational Tones and its Effects on Intertranscriber Reliability, Language and Speech 45(1):1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hockey, B., D. Rossen-Knill, B. Spejewski, M. Stone and S. Isard: 1997, Can You Predict Answers to Y/N Questions? Yes, no and stuff, in: Proceedings Eurospeech, Rhodos, Greece, pp. 2267–2270.Google Scholar
  23. Horn, L.: 1985, Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity, Language, 61:121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krahmer, E. and M. Swerts: 2001, On the Alleged Existence of Contrastive Accents, Speech Communication, 34:391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krahmer, E., M. Swerts, M. Theune and M. Weegels: 2002, The Dual of Denial: Two Uses of Disconfirmations in Dialogue and Their Prosodic Correlates, Speech Communication, 36(1-2):133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ladd, D.: 1983, Phonological Features of Intonational Meaning, Language 59: 721–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liberman, M. and I. Sag: 1974, Prosodic Form and Discourse Function, Papers from the 10th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 402–415.Google Scholar
  28. McCarthy, J. & A. Prince: 1993, Generalized Alignment, in: Yearbook of Morphology, G. Booy and J. van Marle (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 79–153.Google Scholar
  29. Pierrehumbert, J.: 1980, The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation, doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Pierrehumbert, J. and J. Hirschberg: 1990, The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse, in: Intentions in Communication,Google Scholar
  31. P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (eds.), Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 342–365.Google Scholar
  32. Russell, B.: 1905, On Denoting, Mind 14:479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Safarova, M. and M. Swerts: 2004, On recognition of declarative questions in English, Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Nara, Japan, pp. 313–316.Google Scholar
  34. Schwarzschild, R. : 1999, GIVENness, Avoid F and other Constraints on the Placement of Focus, Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shimojima, A., Y. Katagiri, H. Koiso and M. Swerts: 2001, The Informational and Dialogue-coordinating Functions of Prosodic Features of Japanese Echoic Responses. Speech Communication, 36(1-2): 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silverman, K., M. Beckman, J. Pitrelli, M. Ostendorf, C. Wightman, P. Price, J. Pierrehumbert and J. Hirschberg: 1992, ToBI: A Standard for Labelling English Prosody, Proceedings of Second International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Banff, Canada, vol. II, pp. 867–870.Google Scholar
  37. Steedman, M.: 2000, Information Structure and the Syntax Phonology Interface, Linguistic Inquiry, 31(4): 649–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swerts, M., D. Litman and J. Hirschberg: 2000, Corrections in Spoken Dialogue Systems, Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Beijing, China, vol. II, pp. 615–619.Google Scholar
  39. Swerts, M., E. Krahmer and C. Avesani: 2002, Prosodic Marking of Information Status in Italian and Dutch: A comparative analysis, Journal of Phonetics, 30(4): 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vallduví, E.: 1992, The Informational Component, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  41. Weegels, M.: 2002, Users’ Conceptions of Voice-Operated Information Services, Journal of Speech Technology 3(2): 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Swerts
  • Emiel Krahmer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations