Staff View
Prosodic disambiguation of scopally ambiguous sentences in a discourse context

Descriptive

TypeOfResource
Text
TitleInfo
Title
Prosodic disambiguation of scopally ambiguous sentences in a discourse context
Name (authority = orcid); (authorityURI = http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/orcid.html); (type = personal); (valueURI = http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3773-3035)
NamePart (type = family)
Syrett
NamePart (type = given)
Kristen
Affiliation
Linguistics, Rutgers University
Role
RoleTerm (authority = marcrt); (type = text)
author
Name (type = personal)
NamePart (type = family)
Simon
NamePart (type = given)
Georgia
Affiliation
Rutgers University
Role
RoleTerm (authority = marcrt); (type = text)
author
Name (type = personal)
NamePart (type = family)
Nisula
NamePart (type = given)
Kirsten
Affiliation
The Ohio State University
Role
RoleTerm (authority = marcrt); (type = text)
author
Name (authority = RutgersOrg-Department); (type = corporate)
NamePart
Linguistics
Name (authority = RutgersOrg-School); (type = corporate)
NamePart
School of Arts and Sciences (SAS) (New Brunswick)
Genre (authority = RULIB-FS)
Article, Refereed
Genre (authority = NISO JAV)
Accepted Manuscript (AM)
Note (type = peerReview)
Peer reviewed
OriginInfo
DateIssued (encoding = w3cdtf); (keyDate = yes); (qualifier = exact)
2014
Language
LanguageTerm (authority = ISO 639-3:2007); (type = text)
English
PhysicalDescription
InternetMediaType
application/pdf
Extent
35 p.
Extension
DescriptiveEvent
Type
Citation
DateTime (encoding = w3cdtf)
2014
AssociatedObject
Name
Journal of Linguistics
Type
Journal
Relationship
Has part
Detail
453-493
Identifier (type = volume and issue)
50(2)
Reference (type = url)
https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226714000012
Abstract (type = abstract)
Researchers have long sought to determine the strength of the relation between prosody and the interpretation of scopally ambiguous sentences in English involving quantification and negation (e.g. All the men didn’t go). While Jackendoff (1972) proposed a one-to-one mapping between sentence-final contour and the scope of negation (falling contour: narrow scope, fall-rise contour: wide scope), in subsequent work, researchers (e.g. Ladd 1980; Ward & Hirschberg 1985; Kadmon & Roberts 1986) disentangled the link between prosody and scope. Even though these pragmatic accounts predict variability in production, they still allow for some correlation between scope and prosody. To date, we lack systematic evidence to bear on this discussion. Here, we present findings from two perception experiments aimed at investigating whether prosodic information – including, but not limited to, sentence final contour – can successfully disambiguate such sentences. We show that when speakers provide consistent auditory cues to sentential interpretation, hearers can successfully recruit these cues to arrive at the correct interpretation as intended by the speaker. In light of these results, we argue that psycholinguistic studies (including language acquisition studies) investigating participants’ ability to access multiple interpretations of scopally ambiguous sentences – quantificational and otherwise – should carefully control for prosody.
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Quantification (Linguistics)
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Language processing
Subject (authority = LCSH)
Topic
Grammar, Comparative and general--Quantifiers
Subject (authority = LCSH)
Topic
Prosodic analysis (Linguistics)
RelatedItem (type = host)
TitleInfo
Title
Syrett, Kristen
Identifier (type = local)
rucore30141300001
Location
PhysicalLocation (authority = marcorg); (displayLabel = Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)
NjNbRU
Identifier (type = doi)
doi:10.7282/T30G3N55
Genre (authority = ExL-Esploro)
Accepted Manuscript
Back to the top

Rights

RightsDeclaration (AUTHORITY = FS); (ID = rulibRdec0004)
Copyright for scholarly resources published in RUcore is retained by the copyright holder. By virtue of its appearance in this open access medium, you are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. Other uses, such as reproduction or republication, may require the permission of the copyright holder.
Copyright
Status
Copyright protected
Availability
Status
Open
Reason
Permission or license
RightsEvent
Type
Permission or license
AssociatedObject
Type
License
Name
Multiple author license v. 1
Detail
I hereby grant to Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (Rutgers) the non-exclusive right to retain, reproduce, and distribute the deposited work (Work) in whole or in part, in and from its electronic format, without fee. This agreement does not represent a transfer of copyright to Rutgers.Rutgers may make and keep more than one copy of the Work for purposes of security, backup, preservation, and access and may migrate the Work to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation and access in the future. Rutgers will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this agreement, to the Work.I represent and warrant to Rutgers that the Work is my original work. I also represent that the Work does not, to the best of my knowledge, infringe or violate any rights of others.I further represent and warrant that I have obtained all necessary rights to permit Rutgers to reproduce and distribute the Work and that any third-party owned content is clearly identified and acknowledged within the Work.By granting this license, I acknowledge that I have read and agreed to the terms of this agreement and all related RUcore and Rutgers policies.
Back to the top

Technical

RULTechMD (ID = TECHNICAL1)
ContentModel
Document
CreatingApplication
DateCreated (point = end); (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact)
2016-11-01T04:12:00
DateCreated (point = end); (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact)
2016-11-02T16:59:00
ApplicationName
Microsoft Office Word
Version
16.0000
Back to the top
Version 8.3.13
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2020