Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 193–247 | Cite as

A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing



In this tutorial we present evidence that, because syntax does not fully predict the way that spoken utterances are organized, prosody is a significant issue for studies of auditory sentence processing. We describe the basic elements and principles of current prosodic theory, review the psycholinguistic evidence that supports an active role for prosodic structure in sentence representation, and provide a road map of references that contain more complete arguments about prosodic structure and prominence. Because current theories do not predict the precise prosodic shape that a particular utterance will take, it is important to determine the prosodic choices that a speaker has made for utterances that are used in an auditory sentence processing study. To this end, we provide information about practical tools such as systems for signal display and prosodic transcription, and several caveats which we have found useful to keep in mind.


Cognitive Psychology Active Role Basic Element Current Theory Significant Issue 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abercrombie, D. (1965). Syllable quantity and enclitics in English. InStudies in Phonetics and Linguistics, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abercrombie, D. (1973). A phonetician's view of verse structure. In W.E. Jones and J. Laver (eds),Phonetics in Linguistics: a book of readings, London: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Beckman, M. E. (1996). The parsing of prosody.Language and Cognitive Processes (to appear).Google Scholar
  4. Beckman, M. E., & Edwards, J. (1990). Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. In J. Kingston and M.E. Beckman (eds),Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and the Physics of Speech, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beckman, M. E., & Edwards, J. (1994). Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. In P. Keating (ed),Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form: Papers in Laboratory Phonology III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beckman, M. E., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English.Phonology Yearbook 3, 255–309.Google Scholar
  7. Berkovits, R. (1993). Utterance-final lengthening and the duration of final stop closures.J. Phonetics 21, 479–489.Google Scholar
  8. Berkovits, R. (1993a). Progressive utterance-final lengthening in syllables with final fricatives.Language and Speech 36, 89–98.Google Scholar
  9. Bickmore, L. (1990). Branching nodes and prosodic categories: Evidence from Kinyambo. In S. Inkelas and D. Zec (eds),The Phonology-Syntax Connection, U. Chicago Press, 1–18.Google Scholar
  10. Bolinger, D. (1958). A theory of pitch accents in English.Word 14, 109–149.Google Scholar
  11. Bolinger, D. (1965). Pitch accent and sentence rhythm. In Bolinger, D.L.,Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Order, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 163 ff.Google Scholar
  12. Bolinger, D. (1981).Two kinds of vowels, two kinds of rhythm. Manuscript distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, E., & Miron, M.S. (1971). Lexical and syntactic predictors of the distribution of pause time in reading.J. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10, 658–667.Google Scholar
  14. Chafe, W. (1980). ed.,The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
  15. Cheng, C.-C. (1970). Domain of phonological rule application. In J.M. Sadock and A.L. Vanek (eds),Studies Presented to Robert B. Lee by his Students, Edmonton: Linguistic Research 39–60.Google Scholar
  16. Cheng, C.-C. (1973).A Synchronic Phonology of Mandarin Chinese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968).The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  18. Clements, G. N. (1978). Tone and syntax in Ewe. In D.J. Napoli (ed),Elements of Tone, Stress and Intonation, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 21–99.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, A. M. (1991). Laryngeal and oral gestures in English /ptr/.Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Aix-en-Provence, Vol. 2, 50–53.Google Scholar
  20. Cooper, W. E., & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980).Syntax and Speech. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cruttenden, A. (1986).Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D. G., & Segui, J. (1986). The syllables differing role in the segmentation of French and English.Journal of Memory & Language 25, 385–400.Google Scholar
  23. Dilley, L., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1995). Variability in glottalization of word-onset vowels in American English.Proc XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm, Vol. 4, pp. 586–589.Google Scholar
  24. Dilley, L., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Ostendorf, M. (1994). Prosodic constraints in glottalization of vowel-initial syllables in American English.JASA 95 (5-pt. 2) 2978–2979.Google Scholar
  25. Dilley, L., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Ostendorf, M. (under revision),Glottalization of vowel-initial words as a function of prosodic structure.Google Scholar
  26. Edwards, J., Beckman, M. E., & Fletcher, J. (1991). The articulatory kinematics of final lengthening.JASA 89 (1), 369–382.Google Scholar
  27. Ewen, C., & Anderson, J. (eds.) (1987).Phonology Yearbook 4: Syntactic Conditions on Phonological Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fant, J., Krukenberg, A., & Nord, L. (1991). Stress patterns and rhythm in the reading of prose and poetry with analogies to music performance. Presented at the Music, Language, Speech, and Brain International Wenner Gren Symposium, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  29. Ferreira, F. (1991). Creation of prosody during sentence production.Psychological Review 100 (2), 233–253.Google Scholar
  30. Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974).The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Fougeron, C. (1996). Articulation of French nasal segments depending on their prosodic position. Presented at the January meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.Google Scholar
  32. Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. (1995). Demarcating prosodic groups with articulation.JASA 97 (5-pt 2), 3384 and UCLA ms.Google Scholar
  33. Garrett, M. F., Bever, T. G., & Fodor, J. A. (1966). The active use of grammar in speech perception.Perception and Psychophysics 1, 30–32.Google Scholar
  34. Gerken, L. A., Jusczyk, P. W., & Mandel, D. R. (1994). When prosody fails to cue syntactic structure: Nine-month-olds' sensitivity to phonological vs. syntactic phrases.Cognition 51, 237–265.Google Scholar
  35. Gee, J. P., & Grosjean, F. (1983). Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal.Cognitive Psychology 15, 411–458.Google Scholar
  36. Goldhor, R. S. (1976).Sentential determinants of duration in speech. MIT ms.Google Scholar
  37. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Pauses, clauses, sentences.Language and Speech 15, 103–113.Google Scholar
  38. Grosjean, F., Grosjean, L., & Lane, H. (1979). The patterns of silence: Performance structures in sentence production.Cognitive Psychology 11, 58–81.Google Scholar
  39. Gussenhoven, C. (1984).On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  40. Gussenhoven, C. (1992). Intonational phrasing and the prosodic hierarchy.Phonologica 1988, 89–99.Google Scholar
  41. Gussenhoven, C., & Reitveld, A. C. M. (1992). Intonation contours, prosodic structure and preboundary lengthening.J. Phonetics 20, 283–303.Google Scholar
  42. Haegeman, L. (1993).Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Hale, K., & Selkirk, E. O. (1987). Government and tonal phrasing in Papago.Phonology Yearbook 4: 151–183.Google Scholar
  44. Halle, M., & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1987).An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967).Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  46. 't Hart, J., Collier, R., & Cohen, A. (1990).A Perceptual Study of Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hayes, B. (1981).A metrical theory of stress rules. MIT PhD thesis, revised version distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Published by Garland Press, NY, 1985.Google Scholar
  48. Hayes, B. (1983). A grid-based theory of English meter.Linguistic Inquiry 14, 357–393.Google Scholar
  49. Hayes, B. (1984). The phonology of rhythm in English.Linguistic Inquiry 15, 33–74.Google Scholar
  50. Hayes, B. (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In P. Kiparsky and G. Youmans (eds.),Phonetics and Phonology, Vol 1: Rhythm and Meter. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 201–260.Google Scholar
  51. Hayes, B. (1989a). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology.Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253–306.Google Scholar
  52. Hayes, B. (1995).Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Free Press.Google Scholar
  53. Hayes, B., & Lahiri, A. (1991). Bengali intonational phonology.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 47–96.Google Scholar
  54. Heeman, P., & Allen, J. (1995).The TRAINS 93 Dialogues. TRAINS Technical Note 94-2, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  55. Horne, M. (1990). Empirical evidence for a deletion formulation of the rhythm rule in English.Linguistics 28, 959–981.Google Scholar
  56. Hyman, L. (1985).A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  57. Inkelas, S. (1989).Prosodicy constituency in the lexicon. U. Mass Amherst PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  58. Inkelas, S., & Zec, D. (1990). (eds),The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Inkelas, S., & Zec, D. (1993). Auxiliary reduction without empty categories: A prosodic account.Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 8, 205–253.Google Scholar
  60. Ito, J., & Mester, R.-A. (1992).Weak layering and word binarity. University of Santa Cruz ms.Google Scholar
  61. Jun, S.-A. (1993).The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. Ohio State University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  62. Jusczyk, P. W., & Aslin, R. N. (1995). Infants' detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech.Cognitive Psychology 28, 1–23.Google Scholar
  63. Kahn, D. (1976).Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Ms. distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  64. Kaisse, E. (1985).Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kaisse, E. M., & Zwicky, A. M. (1987). Introduction: Syntactic influences on phonological rules. In C. Ewen and J. Anderson (eds.),Phonology Yearbook 4, Cambridge Univesity Press.Google Scholar
  66. Katada, F. (1990). On the representation of moras: Evidence from a language game.Linguistic Inquiry 21, 641–646.Google Scholar
  67. Kelly, M. (1989). Rhythm and language change in English.J. Memory and Language 28, 690–710.Google Scholar
  68. Kenstowicz, M. (1994).Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  69. Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic.Linguistic Inquiry 10, 421–442.Google Scholar
  70. Kisseberth, C., & Abasheikh, M. K. (1974). Vowel length in Chimwi:ni—a case study of the role of grammar in phonology. In M.M.L. Galy, R.A. Fox, and A. Bruck (eds),Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  71. Klatt, D. H. (1976). Linguistics uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence.JASA 59, 1208–1220.Google Scholar
  72. Krakow, R. (1989).The articulatory organization of syllables: A kinematic analysis of labial and velic gestures. Yale University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  73. Ladd, R. (1986). Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure.Phonology Yearbook 3, 311–340.Google Scholar
  74. Ladd, R. (to appear 1996).Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Ladd, R., & Campbell, N. (1991). Theories of prosodic structure: Evidence from syllable duration.Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Aix-en-Provence, II, 290–293.Google Scholar
  76. Ladefoged, P. (1975).A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  77. Ladefoged, P., & Broadbert, D. E. (1960). Perception of sequence in auditory events.Quarterly J. of Experimental Psychology 13, 162–170.Google Scholar
  78. Lehiste, I. (1973). Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity,Glossa F, 107–121.Google Scholar
  79. Lehiste, I. (1974). Interaction between test word duration and the length of utterance.Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 17, 160–169.Google Scholar
  80. Lehiste, I., Olive, J. P., & Streeter, L. A. (1976). The role of duration in disambiguating syntactically ambiguous sentences.JASA 60, 1199–1202.Google Scholar
  81. Liberman, M. Y. (1975).The intonational system of English. MIT Linguistics PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  82. Liberman, M. Y., & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm.Linguistic Inquiry 8, 249–336.Google Scholar
  83. Lieberman, P. (1960). Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English.JASA 32, 451–454.Google Scholar
  84. Maeda, S. (1974). A characterization of fundamental frequency contours of speech.Quarterly Progress Report, MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics 114, 193–211.Google Scholar
  85. Martin, E. (1970). Toward an analysis of subjective phrase structure.Psychological Bulletin 74, 153–166.Google Scholar
  86. McCarthy, J. J. (1993). A case of surface constraint violation.Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38 (2), 169–195.Google Scholar
  87. McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1995). Prosodic morphology. In J. Goldsmith (ed),A Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  88. McCawley, J. D. (1968).The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  89. Mehler, J., Dommergues, J. Y., & Frauenfelder, U. (1981). The syllable's role in speech segmentation.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20, 298–305.Google Scholar
  90. Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986).Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  91. O'Connor, J. D., & Arnold, G. F. (1961),Intonation of Colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  92. Ostendorf, M., Price, P., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1995).The Boston University radio news corpus. Boston University ECS Technical Report ECS-95-001.Google Scholar
  93. Otake, T., Hatano, G., Cutler, A., & Mehler, J. (1993). Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese.J. Memory and Language 32, 258–278.Google Scholar
  94. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980).The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. MIT Linguistics PhD thesis. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  95. Pierrehumbert, J., & Beckman, M. B. (1988).Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  96. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds),Intentions in Communication, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Pierrehumbert, J., & Talkin, D. (1992). Lenition of /h/ and glottal stop. In G.J. Docherty and D.R. Ladd (eds),Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Pike, K. (1945).The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  99. Pilon, R. (1981). Segmentation of speech in a foreign language.J. Psycholinguistic Research, 10, 113–121.Google Scholar
  100. Pitrelli, J., Beckman, M. E., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Evaluation of prosodic transcription labelling reliability in the ToBI framework. InProceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Yokohama, Japan, VI, 123–126.Google Scholar
  101. Port, R. R., Dalby, J., & O'Dell, M. (1986). Evidence for mora timing in Japanese.JASA 81 (5), 1574–1585.Google Scholar
  102. Prevost, S., & Steedman M. (1994). Specifying intonation from context for speech synthesis.Speech Communication 15, 139–153.Google Scholar
  103. Price, P. J., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation.JASA 90, 2956–2970.Google Scholar
  104. Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid.Linguistic Inquiry 14, 19–100.Google Scholar
  105. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993).Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University and University of Colorado ms.Google Scholar
  106. Pulgram, E. (1970).Syllable, Word, Nexus, Cursus. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  107. Scott, D. R. (1982). Duration as a cue to the perception of a phrase boundary.J. Acoustical Society of America 71, 996–1007.Google Scholar
  108. Selkirk, E. O. (1972).The phrase phonology of English and French. MIT Linguistics PhD thesis, distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington Indiana, 1981.Google Scholar
  109. Selkirk, E. O. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In T. Fretheim (ed),Nordic Prosody II, Trondheim: TAPIR.Google Scholar
  110. Selkirk, E. O. (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In M. Aronoff and M.-L. Kean (eds),Juncture, Anna Libri, PO Box 876, Saratoga, Calif. 107–129.Google Scholar
  111. Selkirk, E. O. (1984).Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  112. Selkirk, E. O. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology.Phonology Yearbook 3, 371–405.Google Scholar
  113. Selkirk, E. O. (1993). Modularity in constraints on prosodic structure. Ms., presented at the ESCA Workshop on Prosody, Lund.Google Scholar
  114. Selkirk, E. O. (1993a).Accent focus and given/new: The role for focus projection. U Mass. Amherst ms.Google Scholar
  115. Selkirk, E. O. (1994).Google Scholar
  116. Selkirk, E. O. (to appear). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. Martin and K. Demuth (eds),International Conference on Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, Brown University, Providence RI, Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  117. Selkirk, E. O., & Shen, X. (1990). Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In S. Inkelas and D. Zec (eds),The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  118. Selkirk, E. O., & Tateishi, K. (1988). Constraints on minor phrase formation in Japanese.Papers from the Twenty-fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  119. Selkirk, E. O., & Tateishi, K. (1991). Syntax and downstep in Japanese. In C. Georgopoulos, and R. Ishihara (eds.),Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  120. Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1995). Acoustic correlates of grammatical class.Language and Speech 38, 57–76.Google Scholar
  121. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1988). Acoustic phonetic correlates of stress shift.JASA 84, S1, 1988.Google Scholar
  122. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1992). The role of word structure in segmental serial ordering.Cognition 42, 213–259.Google Scholar
  123. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1992a). Stress shift as pitch accent placement: Within-word early accent placement in American English. InProceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Banff, v. 1 pp. 747–750.Google Scholar
  124. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1995). The importance of phonological transcription in empirical approaches to ‘stress shift’ vs. ‘early accent.’ In B. Connell and A. Arvaniti (eds),Phonology and Phonetic Evidence: Papers in Laboratory Phonology IV, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  125. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M., & Ross, K. (1994). Stress shift and early pitch accent placement in lexical items in American English.J. Phonetics 22, 357–388.Google Scholar
  126. Shih, C.-L. (1986).The prosodic domain of tone sandhi in Chinese. UCSD PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  127. Silva, D. J. (1989). Determining the domain for intervocalic stop voicing in Korean. In S. Kunoet al. (eds.) Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  128. Silverman, K. (1987).The structure and processing of fundamental frequency contours. Cambridge University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  129. Silverman, K., Beckman, M. B., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. InProceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Banff, II, 867–870.Google Scholar
  130. Sluijter, A. M. C. (1995).Phonetic Correlates of Stress and Accent. Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics, Den Haag: CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek, University of Leyden PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  131. Sluijter, A. M. C., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Stevens, K. N., & van Heuven, V. (1995). Supralaryngeal resonance and glottal pulse shape as correlates of stress and accent in English. InProceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm, II, 630–633.Google Scholar
  132. Sluijter, A. M. C., & van Heuven, V. J. (to appear). Effects of focus distribution, pitch accent and lexical stress on the temporal organization of syllables in Dutch.Phonetica.Google Scholar
  133. Steedman, M. (1991). Structure and intonation.Language 68, 260–296.Google Scholar
  134. Stevens, K. N. (1994). Prosodic influences on glottal waveform: Preliminary data. InProceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody, Yokohama, 53–64.Google Scholar
  135. Streeter, L. (1978). Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary perception.JASA 64, 1582–1592.Google Scholar
  136. Suci, G. (1967). The validity of pause as an index of units in language.J. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6, 26–32.Google Scholar
  137. Turk, A. E., & Sawusch, J. R. (1995). The domain of the durational effects of accent.Speech Group Working Papers, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass, Vol X, 42–71.Google Scholar
  138. Vanderslice, R., & Ladefoged, P. (1972). Binary suprasegmental features and transformational word-accentuation rules.Language 48, 819–836.Google Scholar
  139. Wakefield, J. R., Doughtie, E. B., & Yom, L. (1974). Identification of structural components of an unknown language.J. Psycholinguistic Research 3, 262–269.Google Scholar
  140. Wightman, C. W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M., & Price, P. J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries.JASA 91 (3), 1707–1717.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Speech Communications GroupResearch Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusettes Institute of TechnologyCambridge
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations