Speech Communication

Contains reports on five research projects.C.J. LeBel FellowshipKurzweil Applied IntelligenceNational Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NS07040)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS04332)National Science Foundation (Grant 1ST 80-17599)Systems Development FoundationU.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-82-K-0727

Speech Communication

Contains reports on eight research projects.C.J. LeBel FellowshipSystems Development FoundationNational Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NS 07040-08)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS 04332-20)National Science Foundation (Grant 1ST 80-1759)National Science Foundation (Grant 1ST 80-17599 and MCS-8112899)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-82-K-0727

Speech Communication

Contains reports on eight research projects.C.J. LeBel FellowshipSystems Development FoundationNational Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NS07040)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS04332)National Science Foundation (Grant 1ST 80-17599)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-82-K-0727

Speech Communication

Contains reports on four research projects.C.J. LeBel FellowshipKurzweil Applied IntelligenceNational Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NS07040)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS04332)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS84-18733)Systems Development FoundationU.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-82-K-0727

Speech rhythm: a metaphor?

Is speech rhythmic? In the absence of evidence for a traditional view that languages strive to coordinate either syllables or stress-feet with regular time intervals, we consider the alternative that languages exhibit contrastive rhythm subsisting merely in the alternation of stronger and weaker elements. This is initially plausible, particularly for languages with a steep ‘prominence gradient’, i.e. a large disparity between stronger and weaker elements; but we point out that alternation is poorly achieved even by a ‘stress-timed’ language such as English, and, historically, languages have conspicuously failed to adopt simple phonological remedies that would ensure alternation. Languages seem more concerned to allow ‘syntagmatic contrast’ between successive units and to use durational effects to support linguistic functions than to facilitate rhythm. Furthermore, some languages (e.g. Tamil, Korean) lack the lexical prominence which would most straightforwardly underpin prominence alternation. We conclude that speech is not incontestibly rhythmic, and may even be antirhythmic. However, its linguistic structure and patterning allow the metaphorical extension of rhythm in varying degrees and in different ways depending on the language, and that it is this analogical process which allows speech to be matched to external rhythms

Speech Communication

Contains research objectives and summary of research on six research projects and reports on three research projects.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS04332-13)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F22 MH5825-01)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 T32 NS07040-01)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F22 NS007960)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F22 HD019120)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F22 HD01919-01)U. S. Army (Contract DAAB03-75-C-0489)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS04332-12

Timing in talking: What is it used for, and how is it controlled?

In the first part of the paper, we summarize the linguistic factors that shape speech timing patterns, including the prosodic structures which govern them, and suggest that speech timing patterns are used to aid utterance recognition. In the spirit of optimal control theory, we propose that recognition requirements are balanced against requirements such as rate of speech and style, as well as movement costs, to yield (near-)optimal planned surface timing patterns; additional factors may influence the implementation of that plan. In the second part of the paper, we discuss theories of timing control in models of speech production and motor control. We present three types of evidence that support models of speech production that involve extrinsic timing. These include (i) increasing variability with increases in interval duration, (ii) evidence that speakers refer to and plan surface durations, and (iii) independent timing of movement onsets and offsets

Speech Communication

Contains reports on two research projects.National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 ROl1 NS04332)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07040)C.J. LeBel FellowshipsNational Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-26871

Contrastive prosody and the subsequent mention of alternatives during discourse processing

Linguistic research has long viewed prosody as an important indicator of information structure in intonationally rich languages like English. Correspondingly, numerous psycholinguistic studies have shown significant effects of prosody, particularly with respect to the immediate processing of a prosodically prominent phrase. Although co-reference resolution is known to be influenced by information structure, it has been less clear whether prosodic prominence can affect decisions about next mention in a discourse, and if so, how. We present results from an open-ended story continuation task, conducted as part of a series of experiments that examine how prosody influences the anticipation and resolution of co-reference. Overall results from the project suggest that prosodic prominence can increase or decrease reference to a saliently pitch-accented phrase, depending on additional circumstances of the referential decision. We argue that an adequate account of prosody’s role in co-reference requires consideration of how the processing system interfaces with multiple levels of linguistic representation