Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context

By Jesse Snedeker, John C. Trueswell. 2003

407 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bfc7db0f53c1c4e1e3e9876401f6aa4b7d3c2f86

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Is it all relative? Effects of prosodic boundaries on the comprehension and production of attachment ambiguities (2010, unknown): “To begin exploring this question we re-examined the production data from Snedeker and Trueswell (2003).”
Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity (2006, background): “This tendency can manifest itself in decisions about experimental designs; for example, Snedeker and Trueswell (2003) did not include conditions which would have constituted over-descriptions for fear that their participants would view them as pragmatically odd.”
The communicative function of ambiguity in language. (2011, unknown): “Such information could be prosodic (e.g. Mims & Trueswell, 1999; Snedeker & Trueswell, 2003; Kraljic & Brennan, 2005) (though see Allbritton et al., 1996), or it may be given by context, meaning that in real language use there is rarely much need to actively choose linguistic forms which are…”
Consequences of the Now-or-Never bottleneck for signed versus spoken languages (2015, background): “This information may be further combined with other probabilistic sources of information such as prosody (e.g., Kraljic & Brennan 2005; Snedeker & Trueswell 2003) to resolve potential ambiguities within a minimal temporal window.”
Analog acoustic expression in speech communication (2006, background): “Research on prosody has mainly focused on the information it conveys about the speaker’s internal state (e.g., emotion, Banse & Scherer, 1996; Cosmides, 1983; Scherer, Ladd, & Silverman, 1984; or attitude, Bryant & Fox Tree, 2002; Rockwell, 2000), intended syntactic structure (e.g., Beach, 1991; Car”
The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production (2004, background): “Note that the difference in LRB values between (19a) and (19b) at the critical points is greater than in the structures used by Snedeker and Trueswell (2003).”
Prosody in context: a review (2015, result): “Here we consolidate findings from numerous studies that demonstrate the prosodic marking of linguistic constituent boundaries, starting from the word level and going up to the level of the discourse unit.”
Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes (2008, background): “Even though these processes are sometimes influenced by addressee needs (see Haywood, Pickering, & Branigan, 2005 ; Lockridge & Brennan, 2002 ; Snedeker & Trueswell, 2003 ), the point here is that under some circumstances there appear to be limits to addressee-oriented processes.”
Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review (2010, background): “A speaker-centred explanation may explain the seemingly inconsistent results of Snedeker and Trueswell (2003).”