CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prosodic Adaptation in Language Learning

Nilsenová, Marie, Swerts, Marc·2012·Educational Linguistics
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_6

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Atterer, M., and D.R. Ladd. 2004. On the phonetics and phonology of “segmental anchoring” of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics 32: 177–197. · DOI
  2. Babel, M. 2009. Phonetic and social selectivity in speech accommodation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  3. Bavelas, J.B., A. Black, C.R. Lemery, S. Macinnis, and J. Mullet. 1986. Experimental methods for studying “elementary motor mimicry”. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 10: 102–119. · DOI
  4. Bolinger, D. 1978. Intonation across languages. In Universals of human language. Vol II: Phonology, ed. J. Greenberg, 471–524. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
  5. Branigan, H.P., M.J. Pickering, J. Pearson, and J.F. McLean. 2010. Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2355–2368. · DOI
  6. Brent, M.R., and J.M. Siskind. 2001. The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition 81: B33–B44. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Bruce, G., and I. Thelander. 2001. A pitch accent journey in southern Sweden. Working Papers 49, 14–17, Department of Linguistics, Lund University.
  8. Chartrand, T.L., and J.A. Bargh. 1999. The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 893–910. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Chen, A. 2004. Universal and language-specific perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning. PhD thesis, LOT dissertation series, 102.
  10. Cheng, C.M., and T.L. Chartrand. 2003. Self-monitoring without awareness: Using mimicry as a nonconscious affiliation strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86: 1170–1179. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Collier, R. 1991. Multi-language intonation synthesis. Journal of Phonetics 19: 61–73. · DOI
  12. Costa, A., M.J. Pickering, and A. Sorace. 2008. Alignment in second language dialogue. Language & Cognitive Processes 23(4): 528–556. · DOI
  13. Coulston, R., S. Oviatt, and C. Darves. 2002. Amplitude convergence in children’s conversational speech with animated personas. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Denver, 2689–2692. · DOI
  14. Cruttenden, A. 1993. The de-accenting and re-accenting of repeated lexical items. In Proceedings of the ESCA Workshop on Prosody, Lund, Sweden, Sept 1993.
  15. Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  16. den Os, E. 1988. Rhythm and tempo of Dutch and Italian: A contrastive study. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  17. Dijksterhuis, A., and J.A. Bargh. 2001. The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in Experimental Psychology 33: 1–40. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Fernald, A. 1989. Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: Is the melody the message? Child Development 60: 1497–1510. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Fernald, A. 1992. Human vocalizations to infants as biologically relevant signals: An evolutionary perspective. In Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, ed. J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, 365–388. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  20. Fernald, A., T. Taeschner, J. Dunn, M. Papoušek, B. Boysson-Bardies, and I. Fukui. 1989. A cross-language study of prosodic modifications in mothers’ and fathers’ speech to preverbal infants. Journal of Child Language 16: 477–501. · DOI
  21. Frome Loeb, D., and G.D. Allen. 1993. Preschoolers’ imitation of intonation contours. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36: 4–13. · DOI
  22. Gregory, S.W. 1994. Sounds of power and deference: Acoustic analysis of macro social constraints on micro interactions. Social Perspectives 37: 497–526. · DOI
  23. Gregory, S.W., and S. Webster. 1996. A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 1231–1240. · DOI
  24. Gregory, S.W., K. Dagan, and S. Webster. 1997. Evaluating the relation of vocal accommodation in conversation partners’ fundamental frequencies to perceptions of communication quality. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 21: 23–43. · DOI
  25. Gregory, S.W., Jr. and T.J. Gallagher. 2002. Spectral analysis of candidates’ nonverbal vocal communication: Predicting U.S. presidential election outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly 65: 298–308. · DOI
  26. Grice, M., M. D’Imperio, M. Savino, and C. Avesani. 2005. Strategies for intonation labeling across varieties of Italian. In Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, ed. S.-A. Jun, 362–389. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI
  27. Guitar, B., and L. Marchinkoski. 2001. Influence of mothers’ slower speech on their children’s speech rate. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44: 853–861. · DOI
  28. Gussenhoven, C. 2002. Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In Proceedings of speech and prosody’02, Aix-en-Provence, ed. B. Bel and I. Marlien. · DOI
  29. Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  30. Haas, A., and S.W. Gregory. 2005. The impact of physical attractiveness on women’s social status and interactional power. Sociological Forum 20: 449–471. · DOI
  31. Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. · DOI
  32. Hart, J.T., R. Collier, and A.A. Cohen. 1990. A perceptual study of intonation: An experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Irino, T., and R.D. Patterson. 2002. Segregating information about the size and shape of the vocal tract using a time-domain auditory model: The stabilized wavelet-mellin transform. Speech Communication 36: 181–203. · DOI
  34. Juslin, P.N., and P. Laukka. 2003. Communication of emotions in vocal expression and music performance: Different channels, same code? Psychological Bulletin 129(5): 770–814. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Kunzel, H. 1989. How well does average fundamental frequency correlate with speaker height and weight? Phonetica 46: 117–125. · DOI
  36. Ladd, D.R. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. LaFrance, M. 1982. Posture mirroring and rapport. In Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communicative behavior, ed. M. Davis, 279–298. New York: Human Sciences Press.
  38. LaFrance, M., and M. Broadbent. 1976. Group rapport: Posture sharing as a nonverbal indicator. Group and Organization Studies 1: 328–333. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Lakin, J.L., and T.L. Chartrand. 2003. Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science 14: 334–339. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Leon, P.R., and P. Martin. 1972. Applied linguistics and the teaching of intonation. The Modern Language Journal 56: 139–144. · DOI
  41. Levis, J., and L. Pickering. 2004. Teaching intonation in discourse using speech visualization technology. System 32: 505–524. · DOI
  42. Lieberman, P. 1984. The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  43. Liberman, M., and J. Pierrehumbert. 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Langauge sound structure, ed. M. Aronoff and R. Oehrle, 157–233. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
  44. McRoberts, G.W., and C.T. Best. 1997. Accommodation in mean f0 during mother-infant and father-infant vocal interactions: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Child Language 24: 719–736. · DOI
  45. Meltzoff, A.N., and M.K. Moore. 1977. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science 198: 75–78. · DOI
  46. Mertens, P. 2004. The Prosogram: Semi-automatic transcription of prosody based on a tonal perception model, In Proceedings of speech prosody 2004, Nara, Japan, 23–26.
  47. Moltholt, G. 1988. Computer-assisted instruction in pronunciation for Chinese speakers of American English. TESOL Quarterly 22: 91–111. · DOI
  48. Nilsenová, M., and P. Nolting. 2010. Linguistic adaptation in semi-natural dialogues: Age comparison. In Text, speech and dialogue, ed. P. Sojka, A. Horák, I. Kopeček, and K. Pala. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
  49. Nilsenová, M., M. Swerts, V. Houtepen, and H. Dittrich. (2009) Pitch adaptation in different age groups: Boundary tones versus global pitch. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2009: 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, ed. M. Uther, R. Moore, and S. Cox, 1015–1018. Brighton: ISCA. · DOI
  50. Ohala, J. 1983. Cross-language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica 40: 1–18. · DOI
  51. Ohala, J. 1984. An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 in voice. Phonetica 41: 1–16. · DOI
  52. Papoušek, M., H. Papoušek, and B.J. Harris. 1987. The emergence of play in parent-infant interactions. In Curiosity, imagination, and play: On the development of spontaneous cognitive and motivational processes, ed. D. Görlitz and J.F. Wohlwill. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  53. Papoušek, M., and H. Papoušek. 1989. Forms and functions of vocal matching in interactions between mothers and their precanonical infants. First Language 9: 137–157. · DOI
  54. Pardo, J. 2006. On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(4): 2382–2393. · DOI
  55. Parrill, F., and I. Kimbara. 2006. Seeing and hearing double: The influence of mimicry in speech and gesture on observers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 30: 157–166. · DOI
  56. Pickering, M., and S. Garrod. 2004. Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–190.
  57. Rietveld, A., and C. Gussenhoven. 1987. Perceived speech rate and intonation. Journal of Phonetics 15: 273–285. · DOI
  58. Ryalls, B.O., and D.B. Pisoni. 1997. The effect of talker variability on word recognition in preschool children. Developmental Psychology 33: 441–452. · DOI
  59. Scherer, K. 1989. Vocal correlates of emotional arousal and affective disturbance. In Handbook of social psychophysiology, ed. H. Wagner and A. Manstead, 165–197. New York: Wiley.
  60. Siegel, G.M., M. Cooper, J.L. Morgan, and R. Brenneise-Sarshad. 1990. Imitation of intonation by infants. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 33: 9–15. · DOI
  61. Snow, C. 1995. Issues in the study of input: Fine-tuning, universality, individual and developmental differences and necessary causes. In The handbook of child language, ed. P. Fletcher and B. MacWhinney, 180–194. Oxford: Blackwell.
  62. Sluijter, A.M.C., and J.M.B. Terken. 1993. Beyond sentence prosody: paragraph intonation in Dutch. Phonetica 50: 180–188. · DOI
  63. Soderstrom, M., M. Blossom, R. Foygel, and J.L. Morgan. 2008. Acoustical cues and grammatical units in speech to two preverbal infants. Journal of Child Language 35: 869–902. · DOI
  64. Spaai, G.W.G., and D.J. Hermes. 1993. A visual display for the teaching of intonation. CALICO Journal 10: 19–30. · DOI
  65. Staum Casasanto, L., K. Jasmin, and D. Casasanto. 2010. Virtually accommodating: Speech rate accommodation to a virtual interlocutor. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. S. Ohlsson and R. Catrambone, 127–132. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
  66. Swerts, M. 2007. Contrast and accent in Dutch and Romanian. Journal of Phonetics 35: 380–397. · DOI
  67. Swerts, M., and S. Zerbian. 2010. Intonational differences between L1 and L2 English in South Africa. Phonetica 67: 127–146. · DOI
  68. Swerts, M., E. Krahmer, and C. Avesani. 2002. Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics 30: 629–654. · DOI
  69. Termine, N.T., and C.E. Izard. 1988. Infants’ response to their mothers’ expressions of joy and sadness. Developmental Psychology 24: 223–229. · DOI
  70. Vallduví, E. 1992. The information component. New York: Garland Press.
  71. Verhoeven, J.De, G. Pauw, and H. Kloots. 2004. Speech rate in a pluricentric language: A comparison between Dutch in Belgium and the Netherlands. Language and Speech 47: 297–308. · DOI
  72. von Kriegstein, K., J.D. Warren, D.T. Ives, R.D. Patterson, and T.D. Griffiths. 2006. Processing the acoustic effect of size in speech sounds. NeuroImage 32: 368–375. · DOI
  73. Ward, A., and D. Litman. 2007. Dialog convergence and learning. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts that Work, Los Angeles, CA, 262–269.
  74. Wichmann, A. 2010. Intonational meaning in institutional settings: The role of syntagmatic relations. Cultural Studies of Science Education 5: 849–857. · DOI
  75. Willems, N.J., R. Collier, and J. ‘t Hart. 1988. A synthesis scheme for British English intonation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84: 1250–1261. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 9

Metadata

Authors
Nilsenová, M., & Swerts, M.
Venue
Educational Linguistics
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published
2012
Pages
77-94
ISSN
1572-0292
DOI
10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_6
Cited by
9
References
4
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review