Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Alternative Sets in Language Processing pp 123–138Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Contrastive Pitch Accents and Focus Particles

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 281 Accesses

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition ((PSPLC))

Abstract

This chapter looks at the role of focus intonation in the retrieval of alternatives. In Experiment 5, I investigate the recognition of mentioned alternatives across different pitch accent types, contrastive and non-contrastive ones. [Experiment 5 appeared in the Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (see Gotzner, Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, pp. 2434–2440, Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, 2013). The experiment was designed and analyzed by myself.] In addition, I explore how the combination of two information-structural cues, contrastive pitch accenting and focus particles, affects the retrieval of alternatives. The results suggest that contrastive pitch accents help in identifying contextual alternatives while focus particles introduce an additional element of competition among members of the alternative set.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Moreover, recent phonetic studies cast doubt on the categorical distinction between H* and L+H* accent s, suggesting that there is no special contrastive L+H* accent (see especially Kügler & Gollrad, 2015 as well as Repp, to appear for an overview).

  2. 2.

    Note also that a rating study presented in Gotzner and Spalek (2014) revealed that focus particles are equally felicitous with contrastive and non-contrastive pitch accents in the current item structure.

References

  • Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1024–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byram-Washburn, M. (2013). Narrowing the Focus: Experimental Studies on Exhaustivity and Contrast. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, S. (2009). What makes a word contrastive? Prosodic, semantic and pragmatic perspectives. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehé & A. Wichmann (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface (Studies in pragmatics) (Vol. 8, pp. 53–78). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view in subject and topic. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraundorf, S., Watson, D., & Benjamin, A. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how contrastive contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory & Language, 63, 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A.M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotzner, N., & Spalek, K. (2014). Exhaustive inferences and additive presuppositions; the interplay of focus operators and contrastive intonation. In Proceedings of the European Summer School of Language, Logic and Computation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotzner, N., Spalek, K., & Wartenburger, I. (2013). How pitch accents and focus particles affect the recognition of contextual alternatives. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35 th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2434–2440). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husband, E. M., & Ferreira, F. (2016). The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2001). On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication, 34, 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kügler, F., & Gollrad, A. (2015). Production and perception of contrast: The case of the rise-fall contour in German. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repp, S. (to appear). Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara (Eds.), OUP handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Gunlogson, C., & Tanenhaus, M. (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in on-line comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science, 32, 1232–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

    Nicole Gotzner

Authors
  1. Nicole Gotzner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gotzner, N. (2017). Contrastive Pitch Accents and Focus Particles. In: Alternative Sets in Language Processing. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52761-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52761-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52760-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52761-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation