Part of
Crossroads Semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar
Edited by Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn and Rint Sybesma
[Not in series 210] 2017
► pp. 155176
References (35)
References
Adriaens, Leon M. H. 1991. Ein Modell Deutscher Intonation. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven dissertation.Google Scholar
Auran, Cyril & Rudy Loock. 2006. Appositive relative clauses and their prosodic realization in spoken discourse: A corpus study of phonetic aspects in British English. In Candy Sidner, John Harpur, Anton Benz & Peter Kühnlein (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Constraints in Discourse, 117–124.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2002. Headed relatives in generative syntax – Part 2. Glot International 6. 1–13.Google Scholar
Birkner, Karin. 2008. Relativ(satz)konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Syntaktische, prosodische, semantische und pragmatische Aspekte. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2008. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.43). [URL].
Brandt, Margareta. 1990. Weiterführende Nebensätze. Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Chen, Aoju. 2007. Language-specificity in the perception of continuation intonation. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Tomas Riad (eds.), Tones and tunes II: Phonetic and behavioural studies in word and sentence prosody, 107–142. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, William E. & Jeanne Paccia-Cooper. 1980. Syntax and speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirksen, Arthur & Ludmila Menert. 1999. Fluency Speech Editor (Version 1.3). Utrecht: Fluency Speech Technology. [URL].
Emmonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fon, Yee-Jean J. 2002. A cross-linguistic study on syntactic and discourse boundary cues in spontaneous speech. Columbus OH: Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Garro, Luisa & Frank Parker. 1982. Some suprasegmental characteristics of relative clauses in English. Journal of Phonetics 10. 149–161.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther. 1998. Comparative intonational phonology: English and German. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen dissertation.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos, Toni Rietveld, Joop Kerkhoff & Jacques Terken. 2003. ToDI: Transcription of Dutch Intonation. [URL].
Haan, Judith. 2001. Speaking of questions. An exploration of Dutch question intonation (LOT dissertation series 52). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Hart, Johan ’t, René Collier & Antonie Cohen. 1990. A perceptual study of intonation, an experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirst, Daniel. 1993. Peak, boundary and cohesion characteristics of prosodic grouping. Working Papers of Lund University 41. 32–37.Google Scholar
Holler, Anke. 2005. Weiterführende Relativsätze. Empirische und theoretische Aspekte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1988. Plaatsing van zinsaccenten en pauzes in spraak [Location of sentence accents and pauses in speech]. In Marcel P. R. van den Broecke (ed.), Ter sprake: Spraak als betekenisvol geluid in 36 hoofdstukken, 416–427. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn C. L. & Vincent J. van Heuven. 2010. The structure-prosody interface of restrictive and appositive relative clauses in Dutch and German. Chicago IL: Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010 100064, 1–4.Google Scholar
Kan, Seda. 2009. Prosodic domains and the syntax-prosody mapping in Turkish. Bebek/Istanbul: Boğaziçi University MA Thesis.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Moulines, Eric & Werner Verhelst. 1995. Time-domain and frequency-domain techniques for prosodic modification of speech. In W. Bastiaan Kleijn & Kuldip K. Paliwal (eds.), Speech coding and synthesis, 519–555. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Neijt, Anneke. 1991. Universele fonologie. Een inleiding in de klankleer [Universal phonology. An introduction to sound structure]. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1985. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, Sibout G., Brokx, Jan P. L. & Jacobus J. de Rooij. 1978. Contributions of prosody to speech perception. In Willem J. M. Levelt & Giovanni B. Flores d’Arcais (eds.), Studies in the perception of language, 75–107. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2003. The logic of conventional implicatures. Los Angeles CA: University of California Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie. 2007. Question prosody: an African perspective. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Tomas Riad (eds.), Tunes and Tones, Volume 1: Typological studies in word and sentence prosody, 35–62. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rijpma, Enneus. & Schuringa, Frans G. 1972. Nederlandse spraakkunst. (24th ed.). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Rooij, Jacobus J. de. 1979. Speech punctuation. Utrecht: Utrecht University dissertation.Google Scholar
Schaffranietz, Brigitte. 1999. Relativsätze in aufgabenorientierten Dialogen: Funktionale Aspekte ihrer Prosodie und Pragmatik in Sprachproduktion und Sprachrezeption. Bielefeld: Universität Bielefeld dissertation.Google Scholar
Schubö, Fabian, Anna Roth, Viviana Haase & Caroline Féry. 2015. Experimental investigations on the prosodic realization of restrictive and appositive relative clauses in German. Lingua 154. 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2005. Comments on Intonational Phrasing in English. In Sonia Frota, Marina Vigario & M. João Freitas (eds.), Prosodies: Selected papers from the Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia Conference 2003, 11–58. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203. 273–296.Google Scholar
Vries, Mark de. 2000. Appositive relative clauses. In Helen de Hoop & Ton van der Wouden (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2000 (Linguistics in the Netherlands 17), 221–231. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar