The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production
Abstract
In this paper, we evaluate several theories of how syntactic/semantic structure influences the placement of intonational boundaries in language production (Cooper & Paccia-Cooper, 1980; Gee & Grosjean, 1983; Ferreira, 1988). Although the theories that we tested are shown to be quite successful, they are complex, and furthermore, they are incompatible with recent evidence for incrementality in sentence production. In light of these problems, we propose a simpler incremental model called the Left hand side/Right hand side Boundary hypothesis (LRB). According to this hypothesis, two factors that underlie the successful performance of the algorithms from the literature contribute to the likelihood of producing intonational boundaries at word boundaries: (1) the size of the recently completed syntactic constituent at a word boundary; and (2) the size of the upcoming syntactic constituent. These factors are further constrained by syntactic argument relationships. We demonstrate that the LRB performs as well as previous models with respect to the data from Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, we present evidence that the LRB outperforms previous models in certain instances. In Experiment 3, we demonstrate that the discourse status of relative clauses is an additional factor in intonational boundary placement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Speaking: From Intention to Articulation
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001 · Cited by 4,804
Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances
Ferreira, F. (1991) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(91)90004-4 · Cited by 288
Cited by
Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension
FRAZIER, L., CARLSON, K., & CLIFTONJR, C. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.002 · Cited by 462
Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review
Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G. (2010) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690961003589492 · Cited by 425
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Watson, D., & Gibson, E.
- Venue
- Language and Cognitive Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 713-755
- ISSN
- 0169-0965 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0732
- OpenAlex
- W2095730093
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01690960444000070
- The paper
- Watson, D., & Gibson, E. (2004). The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000070
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.