Prenuclear L∗+H Activates Alternatives for the Accented Word

Frontiers in Psychology 10:440224 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Previous processing studies have shown that constituents that are prosodically marked as focus lead to an activation of alternatives. We investigate the processing of constituents that are prosodically marked as contrastive topics. In German, contrastive topics are prosodically realized by prenuclear L*+H accents. Our study tests a) whether prenuclear accents (as opposed to nuclear accents) are able to activate contrastive alternatives, b) whether they do this in the same way as constituents prosodically marked as focus with nuclear accents do, which is important for semantic modeling and c) whether the activation of alternatives is caused by pitch accent type (prenuclear L*+H as contrastive accent vs. prenuclear L+H* as non-contrastive accent) or by differences in F0-excursion (related to prominence). We conducted two visual-world eye-tracking studies, in which German listeners heard declarative utterances (e.g., The swimmer wanted to put on flappers) and watched displays that depicted four printed words: one that was a contrastive alternative to the subject noun (e.g., diver), one that was non-contrastively related to it (e.g., sports), the object (e.g., flappers), which had to be clicked, and an unrelated distractor. Experiment 1 presented participants with two naturally produced intonation conditions, a broad focus control condition with a prenuclear L+H* accent on the subject and a contrastive topic condition with a prenuclear L*+H accent. The results showed that participants fixated more on the contrastive alternative when the subject was produced with an L*+H accent, with the same effect size and timing as reported for focus constituents. Experiment 2 resynthesized the stimuli so that peak height and F0-excursion were the same across intonation conditions. The effect was the same, but the time course was slightly later. Our results suggest that prenuclear L*+H immediately leads to the activation of alternatives during online processing, and that the F0-excursion of the accent lends little. The results are discussed with regard to the processing of contrastive focus accents and theories of contrastive topic.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Focus Below the Word Level.Ron Artstein - 2004 - Natural Language Semantics 12 (1):1-22.
Free choice of alternatives.Anamaria Fălăuş - 2014 - Linguistics and Philosophy 37 (2):121-173.
Tractatus Sociologico-Philosophicus.Ernest Gellner - 1984 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Lecture Series 17:247-259.
Constraining the derivation of alternatives.Tue Trinh & Andreas Haida - 2015 - Natural Language Semantics 23 (4):249-270.
Tractatus Sociologico-Philosophicus.Ernest Gellner - 1984 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Lecture Series 17:247-259.
Alternatives.Gunnar Björnsson - 2008 - Philosophical Communications.
On the characterization of alternatives.Danny Fox Roni Katzir - 2011 - Natural Language Semantics 19 (1):87-107.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-09-24

Downloads
10 (#1,168,820)

6 months
6 (#512,819)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A theory of focus interpretation.Mats Rooth - 1992 - Natural Language Semantics 1 (1):75-116.
Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar.Ray S. Jackendoff - 1975 - Foundations of Language 12 (4):561-582.

View all 13 references / Add more references