Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Parallel Encoding of Focus and Interrogative Meaning in Mandarin Intonation

Liu, F., Xu, Y.·2005·Phonetica

Abstract

Despite much research, disagreements abound regarding the detailed charac-teristicsof question intonation in different languages or even in the same language.The present study investigates question intonation in Mandarin by also consideringthe role of focus that is frequently ignored in previous research. In experiment 1,native speakers of Mandarin produced statements, yes/no questions, particle ques-tions,wh-questions, rhetorical questions and confirmation questions with narrowfocus on the initial, medial or final word of the sentence, or on none of the words.Detailed F0 contour analyses showed that focus generated the same pitch rangemodification in questions as in statements, i.e., expanding the pitch range of thefocused word, suppressing (compressing and lowering) that of the post-focuswords, but leaving that of the pre-focus words largely unaffected. When the effects offocus (as well as other functions also potentially present) were controlled by sub-tractingstatement F0 contours from those of the corresponding yes/no questions,the resulting difference curves resembled exponential or even double-exponentialfunctions. Further F0 analyses also revealed an interaction between focus andinterrogative meaning in the form of a boost to the pitch raising by the question start-ingfrom the focused word. Finally, subtle differences in the amount of pitch raisingwere also observed among different types of questions, especially at the sentence-finalposition. Experiment 2 investigated whether listeners could detect both focusand question in the same utterance. Results showed that listeners could identifyboth in most cases, indicating that F0 variations related to the two functions could besimultaneously transmitted. Meanwhile, the lowest identification rates were foundfor neutral focus in questions and for statements with final focus. In both cases, theconfusions seemed to arise from the competing F0 adjustments by interrogativemeaning and focus at the sentence-final position. These findings are consistent withthe functional view of intonation, according to which components of intonation aredefined and organized by individual communicative functions that are independentof each other but are encoded in parallel.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000090090

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Liu, F., & Xu, Y.
Venue
Phonetica
Published
2005-12-01
Volume
62
Issue
2-4
Pages
70-87
ISSN
  • 0031-8388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0321
OpenAlex
W2038276123
Cited by
278
References
16
FWCI
6.25
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: Parallel Encoding of Focus and Interrogative Meaning in Mandarin Intonation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000090090
The paper
Liu, F., & Xu, Y. (2005). Parallel Encoding of Focus and Interrogative Meaning in Mandarin Intonation. Phonetica. https://doi.org/10.1159/000090090

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.