Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Structural and Referent-Based Effects on Prosodic Expression in Russian

Luchkina T.a · Cole J.S.b

Author affiliations

aCentral Connecticut State University, New Britain, Conn., and bNorthwestern University, Evanston, Ill., USA

Related Articles for ""

Phonetica 2016;73:279-313

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: March 17, 2015
Accepted: August 10, 2016
Published online: February 23, 2017
Issue release date: February 2017

Number of Print Pages: 35
Number of Figures: 10
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0031-8388 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0321 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHO

Abstract

This study examines prosody in read productions of two published narratives by 15 Russian speakers. Two distinct sources of variation in acoustic-prosodic expression are considered: structural and referent-based. Structural effects refer to the particular linearization of words in a sentence or phrase. Referent-based effects relate to the semantic and pragmatic characteristics of the discourse referent of a word, and to grammatical roles that are partially dependent on referent characteristics. Here, we examine referent animacy and the related grammatical function of subjecthood, and the relative accessibility or information status of a word. We document patterns of prosodic augmentation and prosodic reduction due to structural and referent-based factors, as evident from change in values of acoustic-prosodic measures mean intensity, duration and f0 range. Prosodic augmentation due to structural effects is observed for words positioned ex-situ, independent of their semantic, grammatical or pragmatic features. Prosodic augmentation due to referent-based effects is observed for words that are grammatical subjects with animate referents. Prosodic expression is further affected by referent information status. Discourse-given and discourse-new information show greater prosodic augmentation than inferable information. A closer look at individual speakers' production styles reveals that structural and referent-based variations occur in combination and interact.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Afifi A, Clark V, May S (2004): Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis, ed 4. Boca Raton, Chapman & Hall/CRC.
  2. Antão C, Arantes P, Cunha Lima ML (2013): Interrelation between subjecthood, referential status and prosody. Presentation at DGfS 2013 workshop ‘Prosody and Information Status in Typological Perspective'. http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/dgfs-2013/AGs/slides/ag1_antao_etal.pdf (accessed from December 21, 2014).
  3. Arnold JE, Losongco A, Wasow T, Ginstrom R (2000): Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76:28-55.
  4. Arvaniti A, Adamou E (2011): Focus expression in Romani. Proceedings of the 28th West Coast conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  5. Aylett M, Turk A (2004): The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: a functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Lang Speech 47(pt 1):31-56.
  6. Baltazani M (2003): Pragmatics, intonation, and word order in Greek. Proceedings of Interfaces Prosodiques IP, pp 14-18.
  7. Baltazani M, Jun S-A (1999): Focus and topic intonation in Greek. Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, vol 2, pp 1305-1308.
  8. Baumann S, Riester A (2012): Referential and lexical givenness: semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects; in Elordieta G, Prieto P (eds): Prosody and Meaning. Berlin, New York, Mouton De Gruyter.
  9. Baumann S, Riester A (2013): Coreference, lexical givenness and prosody in German. Lingua 136:16-37.
  10. Bailyn JF (2004): Generalized inversion. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 22:1-50.
  11. Birner BJ (1994): Information status and word order: an analysis of English inversion. Language 70:233-259.
  12. Bivon R (1971): Element Order. Studies in the Modern Russian Language, 7. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  13. Bock JK, Warren RK (1985): Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21:47-67.
  14. Boersma P, Weenink D (2016): Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.21.
  15. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M (2009): The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: a cross-linguistic approach. Lang Linguist Compass 3:19-58.
  16. Botinis A, Themistocleous C, Kostopoulos Y, Nikolaenkova·(2005): Syntactic and tonal correlates of focus in Greek and Russian. Proceedings Fonetik 2005, the XVIIIth Swedish Phonetics Conference. Goteborg, Sweden.
  17. Branigan HP, Feleki E (1999): Conceptual accessibility and serial order in Greek language production. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver.
  18. Branigan HP, Pickering MJ, Tanaka M (2008): Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 118:172-189.
  19. Breen M, Fedorenko E, Wagner M, Gibson E (2010): Acoustic correlates of information structure. Lang Cogn Process 25:1044-1098.
  20. Bresnan J, Dingare S, Manning CD (2001): Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the LFG '01 Conference. CSLI Publications.
  21. Brun D (2001): Information structure and the status of NP in Russian. Theor Linguist 27:109-135.
  22. Bush LK, Hess U, Wolford G (1993): Transformations for within-subject designs: a Monte Carlo investigation. Psychol Bull 113:566-579.
  23. Calhoun S (2015): The interaction of prosody and syntax in Samoan focus marking. Lingua 165:205-229.
  24. Chafe WL (1976): Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view; in Li C (ed): Subject and Topic. New York, Academic Press.
  25. Chafe WL (1994): Discourse, Consciousness and Time. Chicago/London, The University of Chicago Press.
  26. Cho T (2016): Prosodic boundary strengthening in the phonetics-prosody interface. Lang Linguist Compass 10:120-141.
  27. Clark E, Clark H (1978): Universals, relativity, and language processing; in Greenberg JH (ed): Universals of Human Language. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
  28. Clifton C, Frazier L (2004): Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Mem Cogn 32:886-895.
  29. Cole J, Mo Y, Hasegawa-Johnson M (2010): Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Lab Phonol 1:425-452.
  30. Comrie B (1989): Linguistic Universals in Language Typology, ed 2. Oxford, Blackwell.
  31. Cruttenden A (2006): The deaccenting of given information: a cognitive universal; in Bernini G, Schwartz M (eds): Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp 311-356.
  32. de Ruiter LE (2015): Information status marking in spontaneous vs. read speech in story-telling tasks - evidence from intonation analysis using GToBI. J Phon 48:29-44.
  33. de Swart P (2007): Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking. LOT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  34. Féry C, Krifka M (2008): Information structure: notional distinctions, ways of expression; in van Sterkenburg P (ed): Unity and Diversity of Languages. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
  35. Genzel S, Kügler F (2010): The prosodic expression of contrast in Hindi. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Chicago, IL, USA.
  36. Genzel S, Ishihara S, Surányi B (2015): The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: a production study of Hungarian. Lingua 165:183-204.
  37. Halliday M (1967): Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
  38. Haviland S, Clark H (1974): What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav 13:512-521.
  39. Hinterhölzl R (2009): Information structure and unmarked word order in (Older) Germanic; in Zimmermann M, Féry C (eds): Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  40. Hoeks JC, Stowe LA, Doedens G (2004): Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 19:59-73.
  41. Hróarsdóttir T (2009): Information structure and OV order; in Zimmermann M, Féry C (eds): Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  42. Ionin T, Luchkina T (Under revision): Focus on Russian Scope: An Experimental Investigation of the Relationship between Quantifier Scope, Prosody, and Information Structure. Manuscript under review.
  43. Işsever S (2003): Information structure in Turkish: the word order-prosody interface. Lingua 113:1025-1053.
  44. Jasinskaja K (2013): Information Structure in Slavic; in Féry C, Ishihara S (eds): Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  45. Kaland CCL, Krahmer EJ, Swerts MGJ (2011): Contrastive intonation: speaker- or listener-driven; in Lee W-S, Zee E (eds): Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp 1006-1009.
  46. Kallestinova E (2007): Aspects of word order in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa University.
  47. King T (1995): Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Stanford, CSLI Publications: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
  48. Ladd RD (2008): Intonational Phonology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  49. Lambrecht K (1994): Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  50. Lobanova A (2011): The role of prominence scales for the disambiguation of grammatical functions in Russian. Russian Linguist 35:125-142.
  51. Luchkina T, Cole J (2014): Structural and prosodic correlates of prominence in free word order language discourse. Proceedings of the 2014 Meeting of the Speech Prosody Conference (SP 7), Dublin, Ireland.
  52. Luchkina T, Puri V, Jyothi P, Cole J (2015): Prosodic and structural correlates of perceived prominence in Russian and Hindi. Proceedings of International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, Scotland.
  53. Mak WM, Vonk W, Schriefers H (2002): The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. J Mem Lang 47:50-68.
  54. McDonald JL, Bock K, Kelly MH (1993): Word and world order: semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cogn Psychol 25:188-230.
  55. Mo Y, Cole J, Lee E (2008): Native listeners' prominence and boundary perception. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Campinas, Brazil.
  56. Morgan JL, Meier RP, Newport EL (1987): Structural packaging in the input to language learning: contributions of prosodic and morphological marking of phrases to the acquisition of language. Cogn Psychol 19:498-550.
  57. Neeleman A, Titov E (2009): Focus, contrast, and stress in Russian. Linguistic Inquiry 40:514-524.
  58. Nakayama M (1995): Scrambling and probe recognition; in Mazuka R, Nagai N (eds): Japanese Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, pp 257-273.
  59. Patil U, Kentner G, Gollrad A, Kügler F, Féry C, Vasishth S (2008): Focus, word order, and intonation in Hindi. J South Asian Linguist 1:53-70.
  60. Pierrehumbert J, Hirschberg J (1990): The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse; in Cohen P, Morgan J, Pollack M (eds): Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 271-311.
  61. Prat-Sala M (1997): The production of different word orders: a psycholinguistic and developmental approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh.
  62. Prat-Sala M, Branigan HP (2000): Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: a crosslinguistic study in English and Spanish. J Mem Lang 42:168-182.
  63. Prince E (1981): Toward a taxonomy of given/new information; in Cole P (ed): Radical Pragmatics. New York, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 223-254.
  64. Sekerina I (2003): Scrambling processing: dependencies, complexity, and constraints; in Karimi S (ed): Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford, Blackwell, Malden, MA, USA, pp 301-324.
  65. Sirotinina OB (1965/2003): Porjadok slov v russkom jazyke (‘Word order in Russian') (ed 2). Moscow, Editorial URSS.
  66. Sityaev D (2000): The relationship between accentuation and information status of discourse referents: a corpusbased study. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12:285-304.
  67. Slioussar N (2010): Russian data call for relational information structure notions; in Zybatow G, et al (eds): Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics. Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, vol 7, pp 329-344.
  68. Slioussar N (2011): Grammar and Information Structure: A Novel View Based on Russian Data. Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS and St. Petersburg State University.
  69. Slioussar N (2011a): Processing of a free word order language: the role of syntax and context. J Psycholinguist Res 40:291-306.
  70. Svetozavora N (1998): Russian intonation; in Hirst D, Di Cristo A (eds): Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  71. Swerts M, Strangert E, Heldner M (1996): F0 declination in spontaneous and read-aloud speech. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP). Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 1501-1504.
  72. Traxler M, Williams RS, Blozis SA, Morris RK (2005): Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. J Mem Lang 53:204-224.
  73. Traxler MJ, Morris RK, Seely RE (2002): Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements. J Mem Lang 47:69-90.
  74. Vainio M, Järvikivi J (2006): Tonal features, intensity, and word order in the perception of prominence. J Phon 34:319-342.
  75. van Nice KY, Dietrich R (2003): Task sensitivity of animacy effects: evidence from German picture descriptions. Linguistics 41:825-849.
  76. Verhoeven E (2009): Subjects, agents, experiencers, and animates in competition: modern Greek argument order. Linguistische Berichte 219:355-376.
  77. Verhoeven E (2014): Thematic prominence and animacy asymmetries. Evidence from a cross-linguistic production study. Lingua 143:129-161.
  78. Watson D, Arnold JA, Tanenhaus MK (2008): Tic Tac TOE: effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition 106:1548-1557.
  79. Watson DG (2010): The many roads to prominence: understanding emphasis in conversation; in Ross B (ed): The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Burlington, Academic Press, pp 163-183.
  80. Xu Y (1999): Effects of tone on the formation and alignment of f0 contours. J Phon 27:22-106.
  81. Xu Y, Xu CX (2005): Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. J Phonetics 33:159-197.
  82. Yamashita H (1997): The effects of word-order and case-marking information on the processing of Japanese. J Psycholinguist Res 26:163-188.
  83. Yokoyama·(1986): Discourse and word order. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: March 17, 2015
Accepted: August 10, 2016
Published online: February 23, 2017
Issue release date: February 2017

Number of Print Pages: 35
Number of Figures: 10
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0031-8388 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0321 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHO


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.