* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 22.3818

Sat Oct 01 2011

Calls: Phonetics, Phonology/Germany

Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee <alisonlinguistlist.org>


LINGUIST is pleased to announce the launch of an exciting new feature: Easy Abstracts! Easy Abs is a free abstract submission and review facility designed to help conference organizers and reviewers accept and process abstracts online. Just go to: http://www.linguistlist.org/confcustom, and begin your conference customization process today! With Easy Abstracts, submission and review will be as easy as 1-2-3!
Directory
        1.     Sabine Zerbian , GLOW 35 Workshop: Prosodic Information Structure


Message 1: GLOW 35 Workshop: Prosodic Information Structure
Date: 30-Sep-2011
From: Sabine Zerbian <sabine.zerbianuni-potsdam.de>
Subject: GLOW 35 Workshop: Prosodic Information Structure
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: GLOW 35 Workshop: Prosodic Information Structure

Date: 27-Mar-2012 - 27-Mar-2012
Location: Potsdam, Germany
Contact Person: Sabine Zerbian
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Web Site: http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~glow/workshop2.html

Linguistic Field(s): Phonetics; Phonology

Call Deadline: 15-Nov-2011

Meeting Description:

This workshop on the production and perception of prosodically-encoded information structure precedes the 35th GLOW Colloquium which will take place on March 28-30, 2012 in Potsdam, Germany. The workshop is jointly organised by Frank Kügler & Sabine Zerbian.

In many (though not in all) languages, information-structural context, e.g. focus, influences the prosodic form of an utterance. Information structure may be prosodically encoded by different acoustic parameters, such as the commonly found increase in intensity, duration and fundamental frequency for focus, but also by differences in pitch register scaling of tones or phrasing. The prosodic encoding of information structure may be based on universal aspects of pitch (Gussenhoven 2004) or driven by communication-oriented processes as a deviation from a neutral register/voice (Kügler 2011). Many studies have investigated the prosodic encoding of information structure in a variety of languages, as e.g. presented at last year's GLOW-workshop on the phonological marking of focus and topic.

The workshop wants to continue this research by turning to the perceptual relevance of the prosodic encoding of information structure. It is therefore interested in the combination of production and perception studies. It aims at dealing with the questions whether listeners perceive prosodic differences related to information structure and how they decode this information at the interface of phonetics, phonology and semantics/pragmatics. E.g. studies by Wu & Xu (2010) have shown that listeners can reliably point out the 'prominent' element in a sentence in a language that marks focus prosodically. Swerts et al. (2002) have shown that Dutch listeners are able to reconstruct previous discourse on the basis of prosodic information. Common experimental tasks used to elicit perception and interpretation data include prominence ratings, context matching, and appropriate judgments.

Particular emphasis will be on work that addresses these issues in lesser studied languages and varieties (including contact varieties and learner varieties) in order to gain insight into the existing variation concerning not only production but also perception of prosodically-encoded information structure and therefore reach at a better understanding of the phenomenon as such.

Call for Papers:

Core issues are:

- Which prosodic cues to information structure do we find in the languages of the world? Are certain cues more prevalent in one type of language than in another?
- Are prosodic cues to information structure found in production studies perceived and parsed to such an extent that they influence the interpretation of the meaning of a sentence?
- Are gradual changes in prosodic cues to information structure perceived categorically?
- If information structure is encoded by means of different prosodic cues such as F0, duration, intensity or phrasing, do listeners make use of all the cues, or which cues are most important in the perception and interpretation of information structure?
- If in speech production evidence for speaker-specific strategies to prosodically mark information structure is found, how do listeners deal with speaker variation?
- Does information structure have a direct or indirect effect on the phonetic realization of the intonation contour and/or phrasing?
- Are there further case studies that provide evidence for a communication-oriented approach in the phonetic encoding of information structure?
- What are important methodological issues in the study of perception and interpretation of prosodically-encoded information structure?

We invite abstracts for 30 + 15 minute talks. Abstracts are to be submitted via EasyChair. Please consult the abstract guidelines before submitting (http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~glow/submit.html).

Deadline for submission of abstracts: 15 November 2011

References:

Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kügler, F. 2011. The prosodic expression of focus in typologically unrelated languages. Habilitationsschrift, University of Potsdam.
Swerts, M., Krahmer, E., Avesani, C. 2002. Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics 30:4, p. 629-654.
Wu, W. L. & Xu, Y. 2010. Prosodic focus in Hong Kong Cantonese without post-focus compression. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago.



Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 01-Oct-2011

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.