The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Centrality of Metrical Structure in Signaling Information Structure: A Probabilistic Perspective
Abstract
This article introduces a new way to explain how information structure is signaled prosodically in English. I claim that METRICAL STRUCTURE plays a central role (Ladd 2008, Truckenbrodt 1995). Information structure (defined as in Steedman 1991 and Vallduví & Vilkuna 1998) places strong constraints on the PROBABIILISTIC mapping of words onto metrical prosodic structure—that is, foci usually align with nuclear accents and theme/rheme units with prosodic phrases, and themes are less metrically prominent than rhemes. It is shown that focus position, scope, and pragmatic interpretation are then derived by manipulating EXPECTED PROMINENCE within metrical structure. Broadly, the more prominent a word than expected, the more likely a contrastive reading; the less prominent, the more likely a givenness reading. Both constructed and naturally occurring examples from the Switchboard corpus are used.
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
SWITCHBOARD: telephone speech corpus for research and development
Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. C., & McDaniel, J. (1992) · [Proceedings] ICASSP-92: 1992 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.1992.225858 · Cited by 2,134
Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition
Chater, N., & Manning, C. D. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.006 · Cited by 411
The Role of Lexical Frequency in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution
Trueswell, J. C. (1996) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0030 · Cited by 277
Cited by
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
- Calhoun, S.
- Venue
- Language
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-42
- ISSN
- 0097-8507 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-0665
- OpenAlex
- W1988604523
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.59
- 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
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.