The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Acoustic correlates of information structure
Open accessAbstract
This paper reports three studies aimed at addressing three questions about the acoustic correlates of information structure in English: (1) do speakers mark information structure prosodically, and, to the extent they do; (2) what are the acoustic features associated with different aspects of information structure; and (3) how well can listeners retrieve this information from the signal? The information structure of subject–verb–object sentences was manipulated via the questions preceding those sentences: elements in the target sentences were either focused (i.e., the answer to a wh-question) or given (i.e., mentioned in prior discourse); furthermore, focused elements had either an implicit or an explicit contrast set in the discourse; finally, either only the object was focused (narrow object focus) or the entire event was focused (wide focus). The results across all three experiments demonstrated that people reliably mark (1) focus location (subject, verb, or object) using greater intensity, longer duration, and higher mean and maximum F0, and (2) focus breadth, such that narrow object focus is marked with greater intensity, longer duration, and higher mean and maximum F0 on the object than wide focus. Furthermore, when participants are made aware of prosodic ambiguity present across different information structures, they reliably mark focus type, so that contrastively focused elements are produced with greater intensity, longer duration, and lower mean and maximum F0 than noncontrastively focused elements. In addition to having important theoretical consequences for accounts of semantics and prosody, these experiments demonstrate that linear residualisation successfully removes individual differences in people's productions thereby revealing cross-speaker generalisations. Furthermore, discriminant modelling allows us to objectively determine the acoustic features that underlie meaning differences.
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
Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models
Jaeger, T. F. (2008) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 · Cited by 3,317 · cited 2×
“In the current studies, we combine data across subjects while simultaneously removing variance due to individual differences using linear regression modelling (eg, Jaeger, 2008 ).”
Stalnaker, R. (2002) · Linguistics and Philosophy · doi:10.1023/a:1020867916902 · Cited by 1,293
A Perceptual Study of Intonation: An Experimental-Phonetic Approach to Speech Melody
Hart, J. T., Collier, R., & Cohen, A. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511627743 · Cited by 558
Cited by
The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure
(2016) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.001.0001 · Cited by 423
Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English
Katz, J., & Selkirk, E. (2011) · Language · doi:10.1353/lan.2011.0076 · Cited by 326
Metadata
- Authors
- Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E.
- Venue
- Language and Cognitive Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 7-9
- Pages
- 1044-1098
- ISSN
- 0169-0965 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0732
- OpenAlex
- W2019597205
- Cited by
- 430
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 15.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Acoustic correlates of information structure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
- The paper
- Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
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.