Abstract
Prosodic boundaries can be used to disambiguate the syntactic structure of coordinated name sequences (coordinates). To answer the question whether disambiguating prosody is produced in a situationally dependent or independent manner and to contribute to our understanding of the nature of the prosody-syntax link, we systematically explored variability in the prosody of boundary productions of coordinates evoked by different contextual settings in a referential communication task. Our analysis focused on prosodic boundaries produced to distinguish sequences with different syntactic structures (i.e., with or without internal grouping of the constituents). In German, these prosodic boundaries are indicated by three major prosodic cues: f0-range, final lengthening, and pause. In line with the Proximity/Anti-Proximity principle of the syntax-prosody model by Kentner and Féry (2013), speakers clearly use all three cues for constituent grouping and prosodically mark groups within and at their right boundary, indicating that prosodic phrasing is not a local phenomenon. Intra-individually, we found a rather stable prosodic pattern across contexts. However, inter-individually speakers differed from each other with respect to the prosodic cue combinations that they (consistently) used to mark the boundaries. Overall, our data speak in favour of a close link between syntax and prosody and for situational independence of disambiguating prosody.
Highlights
Syntactic ambiguities, like the internal grouping of sequences, see example (1), are a common phenomenon in many languages
As our study investigates the prosody of coordinates, we will briefly review some relevant models on prosodic phrasing in coordinates which have been proposed in the past
We argue that the issues of within-speaker situational in/dependence and of betweenspeaker in/variability are related to the underlying nature of the prosody-syntax link: If there is a fixed relationship between prosody and syntax, we would predict that speakers ‘automatically’ produce prosodic boundaries in a rather fixed or stable manner to disambiguate the syntactic structure, irrespective of the situation they are confronted with
Summary
Like the internal grouping of sequences, see example (1), are a common phenomenon in many languages. In spoken language, such ambiguities can be resolved by prosodic phrasing, phonetically indicated by modified prosodic cues. Were (1), the lexical string alone would not clearly indicate whether there will be one, or two, or three bikes This is because the phrase has three possible readings depending on the grouping of the coordinated names: One bike could be brought by all three persons together, or two of them could bring one bike together and another person brings a second bike, or each of them could bring their own bike, respectively.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
