Article published in:
Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental linguistics and phonetics
Edited by Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller and Ellen van Zanten
[Not in series 189] 2014
► pp. 71–82

How prosody is both mandatory and optional

| University of Western Sydney
Speech signals originate as a sequence of linguistic units selected by speakers, but these units are necessarily realised in the suprasegmental dimensions of time, frequency and amplitude. For this reason prosodic structure has been viewed as a mandatory target of language processing by both speakers and listeners. In apparent contradiction, however, prosody has also been argued to be ancillary rather than core linguistic structure, making processing of prosodic structure essentially optional. In the present tribute to one of the luminaries of prosodic research for the past quarter century, we review evidence from studies of the processing of lexical stress and focal accent which reconciles these views and shows that both claims are, each in their own way, fully true.
Published online: 10 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.06cut
References

References

Akker, E., & Cutler, A.
(2003) Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 81–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D.L.
(1964) Around the edge of language: Intonation. Harvard Educational Review, 34, 282–296.Google Scholar
Braun, B., & Chen, A.
(2010) Intonation of ‘now’ in resolving scope ambiguity in English and Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 431–444. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L.
(2010) The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1024–1043. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Connine, C.M., Clifton, C.E., & Cutler, A.
(1987) Effects of lexical stress on phonetic categorization. Phonetica, 44, 133–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, N., Cutler, A., & Wales, R.
(2002) Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: Evidence from native and nonnative listeners. Language and Speech, 45, 207–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A.
(1976) Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 55–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986)  Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech, 29, 201–220.Google Scholar
(1987) Components of prosodic effects in speech recognition. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 1(pp. 84–87). Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR, Institute of Language and Literature.
(2005) Lexical stress. In D.B. Pisoni & R.E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 264–289). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Greater sensitivity to prosodic goodness in non-native than in native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3522–3525. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., & Clifton, C.
(1984) The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In H. Bouma & D.G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 183–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Darwin, C.J.
(1981) Phoneme-monitoring reaction time and preceding prosody: Effects of stop closure duration and of fundamental frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 217–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., & Van Donselaar, W.
(2001)  Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech, 44, 171–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., & Fodor, J.A.
(1979) Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Norris, D., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
(2004) Phonemic repertoire and similarity within the vocabulary. In S.H. Kin & M. Jin Bae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Jeju Island, Korea, Vol. 1 (pp. 65–68).Seoul: Sunjin Printing Co. [CD-ROM].Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Pasveer, D.
(2006) Explaining cross-linguistic differences in effects of lexical stress on spoken-word recognition. In R. Hoffmann & H. Mixdorff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Speech Prosody, Dresden (pp. 237–240). Dresden: TUDpress.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Wales, R., Cooper, N., & Janssen, J.
(2007) Dutch listeners’ use of suprasegmental cues to English stress. In J. Trouvain & W.J. Barry (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrucken (pp. 1913–1916). Dudweiler: Pirrot.Google Scholar
Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Chambers, C.G.
(2002) Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Pijper, J.
(1983) Modelling British English intonation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dogil, G., & Williams, B.
(1999) The phonetic manifestation of word stress in Lithuanian, Polish and German. In H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp. 273–334). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fear, B.D., Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S.
(1995) The strong/weak syllable distinction in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1893–1904. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C.
(1983) On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
He, X., Hanssen, J., Van Heuven, V.J.J.P, & Gussenhoven, C.
(2011) Phonetic implementation must be learnt: Native versus Chinese realization of focal accent in Dutch. In W-S. Lee & E. Zee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 843–846). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Jesse, A., & McQueen, J.M.
2014). Suprasegmental lexical stress cues in visual speech can guide spoken-word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 793–808. 10.1080/17470218.2013.834371 Crossref
Jongenburger, W.
(1996) The role of lexical stress during spoken-word processing. PhD dissertation,University of Leiden. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Jongenburger, W., & Van Heuven, V.J.J.P.
(1995) The role of lexical stress in the recognition of spoken words: Prelexical or postlexical? In K. Elenius & P. Branderud (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 368–371). Stockholm: KTH and Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Koster, M., & Cutler, A.
(1997) Segmental and suprasegmental contributions to spoken-word recognition in Dutch. In G. Kokkinakis, N. Fakotakis, & E. Dermatas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH’97), Rhodes(pp. 2167–2170). Patras, Greece: WCL, University of Patras.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I.
(1970) Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinisch, E., Jesse, A., & McQueen, J.M.
(2010) Early use of phonetic information in spoken word recognition: Lexical stress drives eye movements immediately. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 772–783. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Remijsen, A.C.L., & Van Heuven, V.J.J.P.
(2005) Stress, tone and discourse prominence in the Curaçao dialect of Papiamentu. Phonology, 22, 205–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Introduction: between stress and tone. Phonology, 23, 121–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slowiaczek, L.M.
(1990) Effects of lexical stress in auditory word recognition. Language and Speech, 33, 47–68.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Stress and context in auditory word recognition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 465–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sluijter A.M.C., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Stevens, K.N., & Van Heuven, V.J.J.P.
(1995) Supralaryngeal resonance and glottal pulse shape as correlates of prosodic stress and accent in American English. In K. Elenius & P. Branderud (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 630–633). Stockholm: KTH and Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Sluijter, A.M.C., & Van Heuven, V.J.J.P.
(1996) Acoustic correlates of stress and accent in Dutch and American English. In H.T. Bunnell & W. Idsardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 630–633).Philadelphia: University of Delaware and A. I. duPont Institute. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Small, L.H., Simon, S.D., & Goldberg, J.S.
(1988) Lexical stress and lexical access: Homographs versus nonhomographs. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 272–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sulpizio, S., & McQueen, J.M.
(2012) Italians use abstract knowledge about lexical stress during spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 177–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Hulst, H.G.
(1999) Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Donselaar, W., Koster, M., & Cutler, A.
(2005) Exploring the role of lexical stress in lexical recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 251–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, V.J.J.P.
(1988) Effects of stress and accent on the human recognition of word fragments in spoken context: Gating and shadowing. In W.A. Ainsworth & J.N. Holmes (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech ’88, 7th FASE symposium (pp. 811–818). Edinburgh: Institute of Acoustics.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, V.J.J.P, & Van Donzel, M.
(1995) Structural conditioning and phonetic implementation of Dutch stress retraction. In K. Elenius & P. Branderud (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 638–641). Stockholm: KTH and Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, V.J.J.P, & Hagman, P.
(1988) Lexical statistics and spoken word recognition in Dutch. In P. Coopmans & A. Hulk (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988 (pp. 59–68). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, V.J.J.P, & de Jonge, M.
(2011) Spectral and temporal reduction as stress cues in Dutch. Phonetica, 68, 120–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, V.J.J.P, & Jongenburger, W.
(1995) The role of linguistic stress in the time course of word recognition in stress-accent languages. In J.M. Pardo (Ed.), Proceedings of Eurospeech 1995 (pp. 1695–1698). Madrid: Universidad Politecnica.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, V.J.J.P, & Sluijter, A.M.C.
(1995a) Effects of focus distribution, pitch accent and lexical stress on the temporal organisation of syllables in Dutch. Phonetica, 55, 71–89.Google Scholar
(1995b) Intensity and vocal effort as cues in the perception of linguistic stress. In J.M. Pardo (Ed.), Proceedings of Eurospeech 1995 (pp. 941–944). Madrid: Universidad Politecnica.Google Scholar
(1996a) Notes on the phonetics of word prosody. In R. Goedemans, H. Van der Hulst, & E. Visch (Eds.), Stress patterns of the world, part 1: background (pp. 233–269). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
(1996b) Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2471–2485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Leyden, K., & Van Heuven, V.J.J.P.
(1996) Lexical stress and spoken word recognition: Dutch vs. English. In C. Cremers & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996 (pp. 159–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Zanten-Wervelman, E.A., & Van Heuven, V.J.J.P.
(1998) Word stress in Indonesian: Its communicative relevance. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania, 154, 129–149.Google Scholar
(2004) Word stress in Indonesian: Fixed or free? NUSA, 53, 1–20.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Kember, Heather, Jiyoun Choi, Jenny Yu & Anne Cutler
2019. The Processing of Linguistic Prominence. Language and Speech ► pp. 002383091988021 ff. Crossref logo
Yenkimaleki, Mahmood & Vincent J. van Heuven
2019. Effects of prosody awareness training on the intelligibility of Iranian interpreter trainees in English. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 8:2 ► pp. 291 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.