The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts
Abstract
A series of experiments was conducted to examine the influence of contrastive stress on intonational patterns of duration and fundamental voice frequency (F0). In a preliminary study, intonational patterns in spontaneous speech were compared with the patterns in oral reading of the transcribed spontaneous material. In both circumstances, a general declination of F0 peaks throughout the course of a sentence was not regularly observed, contrary to earlier findings with oral reading of isolated sentences. Two experiments were then conducted to examine the possibility that the general absence of declination observed here might be due to the influence of sentence focus, following previous results from Swedish showing that declination was not observed consistently in isolated sentences until after the site of focus. In experiment 1, we found no evidence of this restriction on declination in the oral reading of English declaratives. Declination was observed both before and after the focused item in a sentence. Furthermore, our analyses revealed that focus (as manifested by contrastive stress) is generally accompanied by an increase in duration on the focused word and by a sharp drop in F0 following the focused item. In experiment 2, these effects were replicated and extended using longer sentences. In both experiments, the influence of focus was strictly localized to the site of focus in the case of duration, but not F0. The results for both duration and F0 indicate that the influence of focus assignment on these attributes varies systematically as a function of the focus location in the sentence. Finally, the combined elongation effects for focus and utterance-final lengthening were less than would be predicted by an additive model, suggesting the operation of an expandability constraint on segmental lengthening in speech production.
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
Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of f0contours
Xu, Y. (1999) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1006/jpho.1999.0086 · Cited by 786
Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation
Xu, Y., & Xu, C. X. (2005) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001 · Cited by 517
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
Prosodic typology: by prominence type, word prosody, and macro-rhythm
(2014) · Prosodic Typology II · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0017 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, W. E., Eady, S. J., & Mueller, P. R.
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1985-06-01
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2142-2156
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W1980605799
- Cited by
- 442
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.49
- 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: Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1121/1.392372
- The paper
- Cooper, W. E., Eady, S. J., & Mueller, P. R. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372
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.