The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English
Open accessAbstract
The results of a production experiment show that English speakers distinguish elements under contrastive focus from elements that are merely new in the discourse. A novel paradigm eliciting both contrastively focused and merely discourse-new elements in the same sentence avoids differences in information structure and pitch accenting in the context surrounding the target elements that were confounds in previous studies on the topic. Elements under contrastive focus show greater duration, relative intensity, and F0 movement with respect to other elements in the utterance than elements that are new in the discourse but not under contrastive focus. We argue that the phonetic differences revealed here cannot be explained in terms of systematic manipulation of pitch-accent type or phrasal boundaries, and should instead be analyzed as differences in phrase-level phonological prominence for contrastively focused and merely discourse-new elements.
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
Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 · Cited by 8,540
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968) · Cited by 5,162
Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar
Freidin, R., & Jackendoff, R. S. (1975) · Language · doi:10.2307/413161 · Cited by 4,615
Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure
Selkirk, E. O. (1984) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,374
Self-citationA theory of focus interpretation
Rooth, M. (1992) · Natural Language Semantics · doi:10.1007/bf02342617 · Cited by 3,194
Ladd, D. R. (1996) · Cited by 2,742
The phonology and phonetics of English intonation
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1987) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 2,378
Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967) · Journal of Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0022226700016613 · Cited by 2,090
Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies
Hayes, B. (1995) · Cited by 1,919
Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View
Chafe, W. (2026) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003766667-2 · Cited by 1,850
Cited by
The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure
(2016) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.001.0001 · Cited by 423
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
Steffman, J., & Chow, C. (2026) · Language and Speech · doi:10.1177/00238309261461547
Metadata
- Authors
- Katz, J., & Selkirk, E.
- Venue
- Language
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 771-816
- ISSN
- 0097-8507 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-0665
- OpenAlex
- W2064905083
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 70
- FWCI
- 25.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1353/lan.2011.0076
- The paper
- Katz, J., & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0076
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.