Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-htx7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-11T21:25:07.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variability, Overlap, and Cue Trading in Intonation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Amalia Arvaniti ,
Argyro Katsika  and
Na Hu
Amalia Arvaniti*
Affiliation:
Radboud University
Argyro Katsika*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Na Hu*
Affiliation:
Radboud University
*
Arvaniti & Hu, CLS, Radboud University, Postbus 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, NL, [amalia.arvaniti@ru.nl], [na.hu@ru.nl]
Katsika, Department of Linguistics, UC Santa Barbara, South Hall 3513, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3100, [akatsika@linguistics.ucsb.edu]
Arvaniti & Hu, CLS, Radboud University, Postbus 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, NL, [amalia.arvaniti@ru.nl], [na.hu@ru.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We modeled the Greek H*, L+H*, and H*+L pitch accents using functional principal component analysis, followed by statistical modeling and curve reconstruction. The accents were distinguished by F0 height and shape. The data also exhibited cue trading between F0 and duration, as well as systematic context-driven variation and general variability, which led to category overlap comparable to that reported for vowel contrasts. These findings indicate that intonation categories are more similar to segmental categories than previously thought, supporting the view that the study of intonation phonetics and phonology should follow the same principles as the study of segments.

Keywords

intonationvariabilityvariationF0functional principal component analysiscue tradingcategory overlap

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , June 2024 , pp. 265 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © 2024 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We thank our participants, who generously donated their time to this project, Georg Lohfink and Yang Li for preliminary data processing and analysis, Katherine Marcoux for data analysis and the recordings of our English examples, and Mary Baltazani for sharing her F0 error detection script with us. We also thank two anonymous referees, and Andries Coetzee, Shelome Gooden, and Anne-Michelle Tessier for their helpful comments and suggestions. The financial support of the European Science Foundation through grant #ERC-ADG-835263 to Amalia Arvaniti, and intramural support from the University of Kent to Amalia Arvaniti in the early stages of this work, is hereby gratefully acknowledged.

References

Ahn, Byron, Veilleux, Nanette, Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie; and Brugos, Alejna. 2021. Embarking on PoLaR explorations: A framework for intonational annotation and analysis. Online: https://osf.io/cj4av/.Google Scholar
Albert, Aviad, Cangemi, Francesco; and Grice, Martine. 2018. Using periodic energy to enrich acoustic representations of pitch in speech: A demonstration. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2018, Poznań, 804–8. DOI: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-162.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-162.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-162.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2007. On the relationship between phonology and phonetics (or why phonetics is not phonology). Proceedings of the16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Saarbrücken, 19–24. Online: http://www.icphs2007.de/conference/Papers/1740/1740.pdf.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2016. Analytical decisions in intonation research and the role of representations: Lessons from Romani. Laboratory Phonology 7(1):6. DOI: 10.5334/labphon.14.10.5334/labphon.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2022a. The autosegmental-metrical model of intonational phonology. In Barnes & Shattuck-Hufnagel, 25–63. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0004.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0004.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0004.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2022b. Author response to the commentary: Prosodic typology and the handling of variability in intonation. In Barnes & Shattuck-Hufnagel, 76–83. DOI; 10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0017.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, and Baltazani, Mary. 2005. Intonational analysis and prosodic annotation of Greek spoken corpora. In Jun 2005, 84–117. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0004.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, and Garding, Gina. 2007. Dialectal variation in the rising accents of American English. Laboratory phonology 9, ed. by Cole, Jennifer and Hualde, José Ignacio, 547–76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, and Ladd, D. Robert. 2009. Greek wh-questions and the phonology of intonation. Phonology 26(1). 43–74. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675709001717.10.1017/S0952675709001717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, and Ladd, D. Robert. 2015. Underspecification in intonation revisited: A reply to Xu, Lee, Prom-on and Liu. Phonology 32(3). 537–41. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675715000305.10.1017/S0952675715000305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert; and Mennen, Ineke. 1998. Stability of tonal alignment: The case of Greek prenuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 26(1). 3–25. DOI: 10.1006/jpho.1997.0063.10.1006/jpho.1997.0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert; and Mennen, Ineke. 2000. What is a starred tone? Evidence from Greek. Papers in laboratory phonology 5: Acquisition and the lexicon, ed. by Broe, Michael and Pierrehumbert, Janet, 119–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert; and Mennen, Ineke. 2006a. Phonetic effects of focus and ‘tonal crowding’ in intonation: Evidence from Greek polar questions. Speech Communication 48(4). 667–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2005.09.012.10.1016/j.specom.2005.09.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert; and Mennen, Ineke. 2006b. Tonal association and tonal alignment: Evidence from Greek polar questions and contrastive statements. Language and Speech 49(4). 421–50. DOI: 10.1177/00238309060490040101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Żygis, Marzena; and Jaskuła, Marek. 2017. The phonetics and phonology of the Polish calling melodies. Phonetica 73(3–4). 338–61. DOI: 10.1159/000446001.10.1159/000446001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asano, Yuki, and Gubian, Michele. 2018. ‘Excuse meeee!!‘: (Mis)coordination of lexical and paralinguistic prosody in L2 hyperarticulation. Speech Communication 99. 183–200. DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2017.12.011.10.1016/j.specom.2017.12.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atterer, Michaela, and Ladd, D. Robert. 2004. On the phonetics and phonology of ‘segmental anchoring’ of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics 32(2). 177–97. DOI: 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00039-1.10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00039-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltazani, Mary, Coleman, John, Passoni, Elisa; and Przedlacka, Joanna. 2022. Echoes of past contact: Venetian influence on Cretan Greek intonation. Language and Speech. DOI: 10.1177/00238309221091939.10.1177/00238309221091939.10.1177/00238309221091939.10.1177/00238309221091939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltazani, Mary, Gryllia, Stella; and Arvaniti, Amalia. 2020. The intonation and pragmatics of Greek wh-questions. Language and Speech 63(1). 56–94. DOI: 10.1177/0023830918823236.10.1177/0023830918823236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, Jonathan, Brugos, Alejna, Veilleux, Nanette; and Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2021. On (and off) ramps in intonational phonology: Rises, falls, and the tonal center of gravity. Journal of Phonetics 85:101020. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2020.101020.10.1016/j.wocn.2020.101020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan, Veilleux, Nanette, Brugos, Alejna; and Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2010. Turning points, tonal targets, and the English L- phrase accent. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7–9). 982–1023. DOI: 10.1080/01690961003599954.10.1080/01690961003599954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan, and Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie (eds.) 2022. Prosodic theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10413.001.0001.10.7551/mitpress/10413.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartoń, Kamil. 2022. MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.46.0. Online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben; and Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology 3. 255–310. DOI: 10.1017/S095267570000066X.10.1017/S095267570000066XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., and Venditti, Jennifer J.. 2010. Tone and intonation. The handbook of phonetic sciences, ed. by Hardcastle, William J., Laver, John, and Gibbon, Fiona E., 603–32. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781444317251.ch16.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David. 2018. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Online: https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1964. Around the edge of language: Intonation. Harvard Educational Review 34(2). 282–96. DOI: 10.17763/haer.34.2.4474051q78442216.10.17763/haer.34.2.4474051q78442216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1978. Intonation across languages. Universals of human language, vol. 2, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph, 471–524. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1986. Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Borràs-Comes, Joan, Sichel-Bazin, Rafèu; and Prieto, Pilar. 2015. Vocative intonation preferences are sensitive to politeness factors. Speech Communication 58(1). 68–83. DOI: 10.1177/0023830914565441.Google ScholarPubMed
Braun, Bettina, and Tagliapietra, Lara. 2011. On-line interpretation of intonational meaning in L2. Language and Cognitive Sciences 26(2). 224–35. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.486209.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49(3–4). 155–80. DOI: 10.1159/000261913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruce, Gösta. 1977. Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Lund: Lund University dissertation. Online: https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/swedish-word-accents-in-sentence-perspective.Google Scholar
Bürki, Audrey. 2018. Variation in the speech signal as a window into the cognitive architecture of language production. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 25. 1973–2004. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1423-4.10.3758/s13423-017-1423-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calhoun, Sasha. 2010. The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language 86(1). 1–42. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0197.10.1353/lan.0.0197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbary, Kathleen, Brown, Meredith, Gunlogson, Christine, McDonough, Joyce M., Fazlipour, Aleskandra; and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2015. Anticipatory deaccenting in language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(1–2). 197–211. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2014.885534.10.1080/23273798.2014.885534CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Aoju, and Boves, Lou. 2018. What's in a word: Sounding sarcastic in British English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 48(1). 57–76. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100318000038.10.1017/S0025100318000038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 1969. Review of Intonation and grammar in British English, by M. A. K. Halliday. Language 45(2). 378–93. DOI: 10.2307/411669.10.2307/411669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilley, Laura C., and Breen, Mara. 2022. Commentary on chapter 4: An enhanced autosegmental-metrical theory (AM+) facilitates phonetically transparent prosodic annotation. In Barnes & Shattuck-Hufnagel, 182–203. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0018.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0018.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Janet. 2014. Intonation and prosody in Dalabon. In Jun 2014, 252–72. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0009.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0009.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0009.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Janet, Stoakes, Hywel, Singer, Ruth; and Loakes, Deborah. 2016. Intonational correlates of subject and object realisation in Mawng (Australian). Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2016, Boston, 188–92. DOI: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-39.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-39.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-39.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Robert Allen, and Jacewicz, Ewa. 2009. Cross-dialectal variation in formant dynamics of American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126(5). 2603–18. DOI: 10.1121/1.3212921.10.1121/1.3212921CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, Valerie. 2021. Vague eggs and tags: Prevelar merger in Seattle. Language Variation and Change 33(1). 57–80. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394521000028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frota, Sónia. 2014. The intonational phonology of European Portuguese. In Jun 2014, 6–42. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujisaki, Hiroya. 1983. Dynamic characteristics of voice fundamental frequency in speech and singing. The production of speech, ed. by MacNeilage, Peter, 39–55. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_3.10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, Roxana S. Y., and Lee, Chris K. C.. 2019. Tone mergers in Hong Kong Cantonese: An asymmetry of production and perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 146(5).EL424–EL430. DOI: 10.1121/1.5133661.10.1121/1.5133661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, and Skopeteas, Stavros. 2010. Projective vs. interpretational properties of nuclear accents and the phonology of contrastive focus in Greek. The Linguistic Review 27. 319–46. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2010.012.10.1515/tlir.2010.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, Esther, Kochanski, Greg; and Coleman, John. 2007. Connecting intonation labels to mathematical descriptions of fundamental frequency. Language and Speech 50(3). 281–310. DOI: 10.1177/00238309070500030101.10.1177/00238309070500030101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, Martine, Ritter, Simon, Niemann, Henrik; and Roettger, Timo B.. 2017. Integrating the discreteness and continuity of intonational categories. Journal of Phonetics 64. 90–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2017.03.003.10.1016/j.wocn.2017.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine, Vella, Alexandra; and Bruggeman, Anna. 2019. Stress, pitch accent, and beyond: Intonation in Maltese questions. Journal of Phonetics 76:100913. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2019.100913.10.1016/j.wocn.2019.100913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine, Wehrle, Simon, Krüger, Martina, Spaniol, Malin, Cangemi, Francesco; and Vogeley, Kai. 2023. Linguistic prosody in autism spectrum disorder—An overview. Language and Linguistics Compass 17(5):e12498. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12498.10.1111/lnc3.12498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gryllia, Stella, Baltazani, Mary; and Arvaniti, Amalia. 2018. The role of pragmatics and politeness in explaining prosodic variability. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2018, Poznań, 158–62. DOI: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-32.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-32.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-32.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, Wentao, Hirose, Keikichi; and Fujisaki, Hiroya. 2007. Analysis of tones in Cantonese speech based on the command-response model. Phonetica 64. 29–62. DOI: 10.1159/000100060.10.1159/000100060CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gubian, Michele, Harrington, Jonathan, Stevens, Mary, Schiel, Florian; and Warren, Paul. 2019. Tracking the New Zealand English near/square merger using functional principal components analysis. Proceedings of Interspeech 2019, 297–300. DOI: 10.21437/Interspeech.2019-2115.10.21437/Interspeech.2019-2115.10.21437/Interspeech.2019-2115.10.21437/Interspeech.2019-2115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gubian, Michele, Torreira, Francisco; and Boves, Lou. 2015. Using functional data analysis for investigating multidimensional dynamic phonetic contrasts. Journal of Phonetics 49. 16–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Illustrations of the IPA: Dutch. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 22(1–2). 45–47. DOI: 10.1017/S002510030000459X.10.1017/S002510030000459XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511616983.10.1017/CBO9780511616983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos, and van, Marco Ven, de. 2020. Categorical perception of lexical tone contrasts and gradient perception of the statement-question intonation contrast in Zhumadian Mandarin. Language and Cognition 12(4). 614–48. DOI: 10.1017/langcog.2020.14.10.1017/langcog.2020.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111357447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1994. ‘Gesture’ in prosody: Comments on the paper by Ladd. Papers in laboratory phonology III, ed. by Keating, Patricia, 64–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hellbernd, Nele, and Sammler, Daniela. 2018. Neural bases of social communicative intentions in speech. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 13(6). 604–15. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsy034.10.1093/scan/nsy034CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirschberg, Julia. 2004. Pragmatics and intonation. The handbook of pragmatics, ed. by Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, 515–37. London: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470756959.ch23.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel, and Di Cristo, Albert F.. 1998. A survey of intonation systems. Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, ed. by Hirst, Daniel and Di Cristo, Albert F., 1–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henriksen, Nicholas. 2013. Style, prosodic variation, and the social meaning of intonation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43(2). 153–93. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100313000054.10.1017/S0025100313000054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, Nicole R. 2019. Variation in question intonation in the Corpus of Regional African American Language. American Speech 94(1). 110–30. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-7308038.10.1215/00031283-7308038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Na, and Arvaniti, Amalia. 2023. Individual variation in the use of non-F0 cues in the realization of accentual contrasts. Paper presented at the Acoustical Society of America fall meeting, Sydney.10.1121/10.0023264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José, Ignacio, , and Prieto, Pilar. 2016. Towards an International Prosodic Alphabet (IPrA). Laboratory Phonology 7(1):5. DOI: 10.5334/labphon.11.10.5334/labphon.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Phonetic Association. 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Paul C. D. 2014. Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth's R2 GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5(9). 944–46. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.) 2005. Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.) 2014. Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2022. Author response to the commentary: ToBI is not designed to be phonetically transparent (Response to Dilley & Breen). In Barnes & Shattuck-Hufnagel, 204–11. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0019.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0019.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0019.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah, and Cha, Jihyeon. 2015. High-toned [il] in Korean: Phonetics, intonational phonology, and sound change. Journal of Phonetics 51. 93–108. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.05.002.10.1016/j.wocn.2015.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlin, Robin. 2018. Towards an articulatory model of tone: A cross-linguistic investigation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation. DOI: 10.7298/0a3x-9m84.Google Scholar
Karlin, Robin. 2022. Expanding the gestural model of lexical tone: Evidence from two dialects of Serbian. Laboratory Phonology 13(1). DOI: 10.16995/labphon.6443.10.16995/labphon.6443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsika, Argyro. 2016. The role of prominence in determining the scope of boundary-related lengthening in Greek. Journal of Phonetics 55. 149–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.12.003.10.1016/j.wocn.2015.12.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katsika, Argyro, Krivokapić, Jelena, Mooshammer, Christine, Tiede, Mark; and Goldstein, Louis. 2014. The coordination of boundary tones and its interaction with prominence. Journal of Phonetics 44. 62–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.03.003.10.1016/j.wocn.2014.03.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katsika, Argyro, and Tsai, Karen. 2021. The supralaryngeal articulation of stress and accent in Greek. Journal of Phonetics 88:101085. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawahara, Hideki, de Cheveigné, Alain, Banno, Hideki, Takahashi, Toru; and Irino, Toshio. 2005. Nearly defect-free F0 trajectory extraction for expressive speech modifications based on STRAIGHT. Proceedings of Interspeech 2005, 537–40. DOI: 10.21437/Interspeech.2005-335.10.21437/Interspeech.2005-335.10.21437/Interspeech.2005-335.10.21437/Interspeech.2005-335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Matthew C., and Tucker, Benjamin V.. 2020. A comparison of four vowel overlap measures. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147(1). 137–45. DOI: 10.1121/10.0000494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, Abdul Qadir, Xu, Yi; and Sohail, Ayesha. 2020. Multidimensionality of tone in Pahari. Lingua 245:102923. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102923.10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jiseung, Hu, Na, Orrico, Riccardo, Gryllia, Stella; and Arvaniti, Amalia. 2023. The phonetics and pragmatics of H* and L+H* in British English. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Tone and Intonation (TAI 2023), Singapore.Google Scholar
Knight, Rachael-Anne. 2008. The shape of nuclear falls and their effect on the perception of pitch and prominence: Peaks vs. plateau. Language and Speech 51(3). 223–44. DOI: 10.1177/0023830908098541.10.1177/0023830908098541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kottmann, Tabea, Wanner, Maren; and Wermke, Kathleen. 2023. Fundamental frequency contour (melody) of infant vocalizations across the first year. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 75(3). 177–87. DOI: 10.1159/000528732.10.1159/000528732CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krivokapić, Jelena. 2022. Prosody in articulatory phonology. In Barnes & Shattuck-Hufnagel, 213–36. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0008.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0008.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0008.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurumada, Chigusa, and Roettger, Timo B.. 2022. Thinking probabilistically in the study of intonational speech prosody. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 13(1):e1579. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1579.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per B.; and Christensen, Rune H. B.. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). 1–26. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13.10.18637/jss.v082.i13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511808814.10.1017/CBO9780511808814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2014. Simultaneous structure in phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670970.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670970.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert, Mennen, Ineke; and Schepman, Astrid. 2000. Phonological conditioning of peak alignment in rising pitch accents in Dutch. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107(5). 2685–96. DOI: 10.1121/1.428654.10.1121/1.428654CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenth, Russell V. 2021. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.6.0. Online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y., and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. Language sound structure: Studies in phonology presented to Morris Halle, ed. by Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard T., 157–233. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lucero, Jorge C., Munhall, Kevin G., Gracco, Vincent L.; and Ramsay, James O.. 1997. On the registration of time and the patterning of speech movements. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40. 1111–17. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4005.1111.10.1044/jslhr.4005.1111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machač, Pavel, and Skarnitzl, Radek. 2009. Principles of phonetic segmentation. Praha: Epocha.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrea E. 2016. Language processing as cue integration: Grounding the psychology of language in perception and neurophysiology. Frontiers in Psychology 7:120. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00120.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maskikit-Essed, Raechel, and Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2016. No stress, no pitch accent, no prosodic focus: The case of Ambonese Malay. Phonology 33(2). 353–89. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675716000154.Google Scholar
McMurray, Bob, and Jongman, Allard. 2011. What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychological Review 118(2). 219–46. DOI: 10.1037/a0022325.10.1037/a0022325CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nadeu, Marianna, and Prieto, Pilar. 2011. Pitch range, gestural information, and perceived politeness in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3). 841–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.015.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakagawa, Shinichi, and Schielzeth, Holger. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(2). 133–42. DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x.10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakai, Satsuki, and Scobbie, James M.. 2016. The VOT category boundary in word-initial stops: Counter-evidence against rate normalization in English spontaneous speech. Laboratory Phonology 7(1):13. DOI: 10.5334/labphon.49.10.5334/labphon.49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Ralli, Angela. 1996. Morphology-phonology interface: Phonological domains in Greek compounds. The Linguistic Review 13(3–4). 357–82. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.1996.13.3-4.357.10.1515/tlir.1996.13.3-4.357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver. 2012. At the edge of intonation: The interplay of utterance-final F0 movements and voiceless fricative sounds. Phonetica 69(1–2). 7–21. DOI: 10.1159/000343171.10.1159/000343171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niebuhr, Oliver, D'Imperio, Mariapaola, Fivela, Barbara Gili; and Cangemi, Francesco. 2011. Are there ‘shapers’ and ‘aligners‘? Individual differences in signalling pitch accent category. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Hong Kong, 120–23. Online: https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2011/OnlineProceedings/SpecialSession/Session4/Niebuhr/Niebuhr.pdf.Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis. 2022. The rise and fall of the British School of intonation analysis. In Barnes & Shattuck-Hufnagel, 319–49. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0012.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0012.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0012.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, J. D., and Arnold, G. F.. 1973. Intonation of colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Parker, Ellen M., Diehl, Randy L.; and Kluender, Keith R.. 1986. Trading relations in speech and nonspeech. Perception & Psychophysics 39. 129–42. DOI: 10.3758/BF03211495.10.3758/BF03211495CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/16065.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory phonology 7, ed. by Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha, 101–39. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110197105.1.101.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2016. Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics 2. 33–52. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125050.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2022. Commentary on chapter 11: Comparing the PENTA model to autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Barnes & Shattuck-Hufnagel, 408–24. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0021.10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Beckman, Mary. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Intentions in communication, ed. by Cohen, Phillip R., Morgan, Jerry L., and Pollack, Martha E., 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0016.10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1945. The intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2014. The intonational phonology of Catalan. In Jun 2014, 43–80. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0003.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0003.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0003.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Pilar, and Roseano, Paolo. 2021. The encoding of epistemic operations in two Romance languages: The interplay between intonation and discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 172. 146–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.008.10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prom-on, Santitham, Xu, Yi, Gu, Wentao, Arvaniti, Amalia, Nam, Hosung; and Whalen, D. H.. 2016. The Common Prosody Platform (CPP)—where theories of prosody can be directly compared. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2016, Boston, 1–5. DOI: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-1.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-1.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-1.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Ramsay, James O. 2005. Functional data analysis. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science, ed. by Everitt, Brian and Howell, David. DOI: 10.1002/0470013192.bsa239.10.1002/0470013192.bsa239.10.1002/0470013192.bsa239.10.1002/0470013192.bsa239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, James O., Graves, Spencer; and Hooker, Giles. 2020. fda: Functional data analysis. R package version 5.1.9. Online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fda.Google Scholar
Ramsay, James O., and Silverman, Bernard W.. 2005. Functional data analysis. 2nd edn. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/b98888.10.1007/b98888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathcke, Tamara V. 2017. How truncating are ‘truncating languages‘? Evidence from Russian and German. Phonetica 73. 194–228. DOI: 10.1159/000444190.10.1159/000444190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raviv, Limor, Lupyan, Gary; and Green, Shawn C.. 2022. How variability shapes learning and generalization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 26(6). 462–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.03.007.10.1016/j.tics.2022.03.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Repp, Bruno H. 1982. Phonetic trading relations and context effects: New experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception. Psychological Bulletin 92(1). 81–110. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.81.10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roessig, Simon, and Mücke, Doris. 2019. Modeling dimensions of prosodic prominence. Frontiers in Communication 4. DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00044.10.3389/fcomm.2019.00044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roettger, Timo B. 2017. Tonal placement in Tashlhiyt: How an intonation system accommodates to adverse phonological environments. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.814472.Google Scholar
Roettger, Timo B., and Grice, Martine. 2019. The tune drives the text: Competing information channels of speech shape phonological systems. Language Dynamics and Change 9(2). 265–98. DOI: 10.1163/22105832-00902006.10.1163/22105832-00902006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schertz, Jessamyn, and Clare, Emily J.. 2020. Phonetic cue weighting in perception and production. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 11(2):e1521. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1521.Google ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, Elaine, Pérez, Ana, Cilibrasi, Luca; and Tsimpli, Ianthi. 2020. Prosody facilitates memory recall in L1 but not in L2 in highly proficient listeners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42(1). 223–38. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263119000433.10.1017/S0272263119000433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scobbie, James M. 2007. Interface and overlap in phonetics and phonology. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 17–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0002.Google Scholar
Shue, Yen-Liang. 2010. The voice source in speech production: Data, analysis and models. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. Online: http://www.seas.ucla.edu/spapl/paper/shue_dissertation.pdf.Google Scholar
Shue, Yen-Liang, Keating, Patricia, Vicenik, Chad; and Yu, Kristine. 2011. Voice-Sauce: A program for voice analysis. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Hong Kong, 1846–49. Online: https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2011/OnlineProceedings/RegularSession/Shue/Shue.pdf.Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim E. A., and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1990. The timing of prenuclear high accents in English. Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. by Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary, 72–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511627736.005.10.1017/CBO9780511627736.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smiljanić, Rajka. 2006. Early vs. late focus: Pitch-peak alignment in two dialects of Serbian and Croatian. Laboratory phonology 8, ed. by Goldstein, Louis, Whalen, Douglas H., and Best, Catherine T., 495–518. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110197211.3.495.10.1515/9783110197211.3.495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4). 649–89. DOI: 10.1162/002438900554505.10.1162/002438900554505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffman, Jeremy, and Jun, Sun-Ah. 2019. Perceptual integration of pitch and duration: Prosodic and psychoacoustic influences in speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 146(3).EL251–EL257. DOI: 10.1121/1.5126107.10.1121/1.5137600CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, Kenneth N., and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1989. Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language 65(1). 81–106. DOI: 10.2307/414843.10.2307/414843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, Winifred, Weber, Andrea, Levy, Erika S., Shafiro, Valeriy, Hisagi, Miwako; and Nishi, Kanae. 2007. Acoustic variability within and across German, French, and American English vowels: Phonetic context effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122(2). 1111–29. DOI: 10.1121/1.2749716.10.1121/1.2749716CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
't Hart, Johan, René, Collier; and Cohen, Antonie. 1990. A perceptual study of intonation: An experimental phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511627743.10.1017/CBO9780511627743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Lei, Gussenhoven, Carlos; and Liang, Jie. 2020. How to pronounce a low tone: A lesson from Kaifeng Mandarin. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 50(2). 199–219. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100318000270.10.1017/S0025100318000270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Yaru, Adda-Decker, Martine; and Lamel, Lori. 2023. Mandarin lexical tone duration: Impact of speech style, word length, syllable position and prosodic position. Speech Communication 146. 45–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2022.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2023. Tonal context influences tone-duration interaction: Evidence from Cantonese. JASA Express Letters 3:035203. DOI: 10.1121/10.0017517.10.1121/10.0017517CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Yubin, and Kirby, James. 2020. The role of F 0 and phonation cues in Cantonese low tone perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 148(1).EL40–EL45. DOI: 10.1121/10.0001523.Google ScholarPubMed
Zheng, Xiaoju. 2006. Voice quality variation with tone and focus in Mandarin. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages (TAL 2006), 132–36. Online: https://www.isca-archive.org/tal_2006/zheng06_tal.html.Google Scholar