The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production

243 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Is it all relative? Effects of prosodic boundaries on the comprehension and production of attachment ambiguities (2010, unknown): “Some take on the whole problem, providing an algorithm for converting any syntactic structure into a prosodic structure (Cooper & Paccia-Cooper, 1980; Gee & Grosjean, 1983; Ferreira,1988; Watson & Gibson, 2004).”
Prosody in context: a review (2015, background): “Works on English include Nespor and Vogel (1986/2007); Selkirk (1984, 1986); Frazier et al. (2004); Watson and Gibson (2004); and Breen, Watson, et al., 2010.”
Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review (2010, methodology): “However, note that Watson and Gibson (2004a) found that in acceptability surveys, (3a) and (3b) were both unacceptable compared to a sentence in which no boundary occurred.”
Mandarin Prosodic Phrase Prediction based on Syntactic Trees (2016, unknown): “The most related one is [14].”
Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech (2012, background): “The Buckeye corpus is not currently annotated for syntactic or prosodic structure, both of which affect word duration and possibly other aspects of pronunciation (Warren, 1996; Watson & Gibson, 2004).”