The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Phonetic Disambiguation of Syntactic Ambiguity
Abstract
It has been frequently claimed that the meaning of syntactically ambiguous sentences (such as “Visiting relatives can be a nuisance”) can be made explicit by phonetic means such as stress and intonation. This study describes some ways in which such disambiguation can be accomplished. Fifteen ambiguous sentences were first read by four speakers. The ambiguities were then pointed out, and each speaker stated which meaning he had intended to produce. Each sentence was then produced again twice, the speaker making a conscious effort to differentiate between the two potential meanings. Thirty listeners tried to identify the meaning which the speakers had intended. In 10 out of 15 cases, listeners performed at better than chance level, which implies that the intention of the speakers was successfully communicated to the listeners. The suprasegmental patterns employed by the speakers in successful disambiguation were established by acoustic analysis. While stress and intonation play a part, timing seems to have been the principal means by which the two meanings of the sentence were differentiated.
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
Cited by
Structure Dependence in Grammar Formation
Crain, S., & Nakayama, M. (1987) · Language · doi:10.2307/415004 · Cited by 402
The semantics of prosody: acoustic and perceptual evidence of prosodic correlates to word meaning
Nygaard, L. C., Herold, D. S., & Namy, L. L. (2009) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01007.x · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Lehiste, I.
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1973-01-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1_Supplement
- Pages
- 380-380
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W2028103435
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 0
- Type
- conference abstract
- 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
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.