1986
DOI: 10.1017/s095267570000066x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intonational structure in Japanese and English

Abstract: Comparisons between Japanese and English prosodics have usually either focused on the strikingly apparent phonetic differences between the stress patterns of English and the tonal accent patterns of Japanese or concentrated upon formal similarities between the abstract arrangements of the stresses and tones. A recent investigation of tone structure in Japanese (Pierrehumbert & Beckman forthcoming), however, has convinced us that if the proper prosodic phenomena are compared, far more pervasive similarities… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

21
684
0
47

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 980 publications
(752 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(20 reference statements)
21
684
0
47
Order By: Relevance
“…For English, there are at least two categories above the word level although further additional categories have been proposed. We follow Beckman & Pierrehumbert [20] and refer to these two categories as the intermediate phrase (ip) and intonation phrase (IP). A schematic representation of the hierarchy is given in figure 1.…”
Section: The Prosodic Hierarchymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For English, there are at least two categories above the word level although further additional categories have been proposed. We follow Beckman & Pierrehumbert [20] and refer to these two categories as the intermediate phrase (ip) and intonation phrase (IP). A schematic representation of the hierarchy is given in figure 1.…”
Section: The Prosodic Hierarchymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Within one approach, they are determined based predominantly on syntactic structure [18,19], whereas another approach identifies them based on intonational properties (e.g. [20,21]; see [22,23] for a discussion of these two approaches).…”
Section: The Prosodic Hierarchymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The common view is that the focused word receives a pitch accent while the defocused counterpart is de-accented (e.g., Beckman & Pierrehumbert, 1986) especially if following the focused item. Alternatively, the type of pitch accent employed may differ between focused and defocused constituents (e.g., Baumann et al, 2006 for German).…”
Section: Prosodic Marking Of Narrow Focus Across Languagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Phonetic markers of narrow (or contrastive) focus include the raising of the phrase-initial pitch and a higher F 0 peak in the prosodic phrase (Féry, 2001). In Japanese, which has lexical pitch accent, dephrasing or prosodic subordination seems to occur in relation to focal structure (e.g., Beckman & Pierrehumbert, 1986;Gussehnhoven, 2004). For instance, Venditti et al (2008) discuss a variety of intonational means to mark focus in Japanese, including pitch range expansion, F 0 reset at the left edge of the focused constituent which may co-occur with the insertion of the IP boundary at the beginning of the focused constituent, dephrasing (i.e., post-focal prosodic subordination), and boundary pitch movement (H%, HL%).…”
Section: Prosodic Marking Of Narrow Focus Across Languagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In speech synthesis application, the use of syllable vectors mainly targets at F0 prediction. For English speech, the F0 trajectory is the acoustic realization of pitch accent while the pitch accent is usually associated with the stressed syllable [29]. When the stress information is not available for acoustic modeling (e.g., the R N system in Sect.…”
Section: Motivation For Using Embedded Vector Of Various Linguistic Umentioning
confidence: 99%