[
Bardovi-Harlig, K., 1986. Pragmatic determinants of English sentence stress. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Beckman, M. E. and Ayers, G., 1997. Guidelines for ToBI labelling. The OSU Research Foundation, vol. 3, no. 30, pp. 255-309.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bolinger, D., 1972. Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind-reader). Language, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 633-644.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Blutner, R., Bezuidenhout, A., Breheny, R., Glucksberg, S. and Happé, F., 2004. Optimality theory and pragmatics. Camden, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bresnan, J., 2000. Optimal syntax. In J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, and J. van de Weijer, eds. Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 334-385.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brinton, L. J., 2008. The comment clause in English. New York: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brown, G. and Yule, G., 1985. Discourse analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Celce-Murcia, M, Brinton, D. M. and Goodwin, J. M., 2010. Teaching pronunciation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chen, Y. and Gussenhoven, C., 2008. Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 724-746.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M., 1968. Sound pattern of English. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Costa, J., 2001. The emergence of unmarked word order. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, and S. Vikner, eds. Optimality-theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 171-204.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cruttenden, A., 1986. Intonation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
De Looze, C., Yanushevskaya, I., Kane, J. and Chasaide, A. N., 2014. Pitch range declination and reset in turn-taking organisation. Speech Prosody, vol. 7, pp. 1100-1104.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Derwing, T. M. and Munro, M. J., 1997. Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-16.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Desrochers, R., 1998. The role of parameters in phonology: A critical account. Language Sciences, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 369-397.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Diaz, M. T. and Swaab, T. Y., 2007. Electrophysiological differentiation of phonological and semantic integration in word and sentence contexts. Brain Research, vol. 1146, pp. 85-100.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Duffy, S. A., 1986. Role of expectations in sentence integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 208-219.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Estebas-Vilaplana, E., 2014. The evaluation of intonation. In G. Thompson and L. Alba-Juez, eds. Evaluation in Context. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 179-194.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Erteschik-Shir, N., 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Erteschik-Shir, N., 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Field, J., 2005. Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 399-423.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Flack, K., 2007. Templatic morphology and indexed markedness constraints. Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 749-758.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gernsbacher, M. A., 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Giegerich, H. J., 2004. Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-24.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Goldberg, A., 1995. Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gundel, J. K., 1999. On different kinds of focus. In P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, eds. Focus. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 293-305.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gussenhoven, C., 2016. Foundations of intonational meaning: Anatomical and physiological factors. Topics in Cognitive Science, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 425-434.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gussenhoven, C., 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gussenhoven, C., 1999. On the Limits of Focus Projection in English. In P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, eds., Focus. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43-55.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gussenhoven, C., 1985. Two views of accent–a reply. Journal of Linguistics, vol. 21, pp. 125-38.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hansen, M.-B. M., 1998. The function of discourse particles. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hirschberg, J., 2004. Pragmatics and intonation. In L. R. Horn and G. Ward, eds. The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 515-537.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hirschberg, J., 1993. Pitch accent in context predicting intonational prominence from text. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 305-340.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hauser, M. D. and Fowler, C. A., 1992. Fundamental frequency declination is not unique to human speech: Evidence from nonhuman primates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 363-369.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Keller, F. and Alexopoulou, T., 2001. Phonology competes with syntax: Experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of Information Structure. Cognition, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 301-372.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kim, O.-Y., 2007. An acoustic study of English sentence stress and rhythm produced by Korean speakers. Speech Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 121-135.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kintsch, W., 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kiss, K., 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, vol. 74, pp. 245-273.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
König, E., 1991. The meaning of focus particles. New York: Routledge.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kratzer, A. and Selkirk, E., 2020. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-53.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kreidler, C., 1997. Describing spoken English: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ladd, D. R., 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ladefoged, P., 2015. A course in phonetics, 7th ed. New York: Cengage Learning.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lee, J.-K., 2007. The phonology and phonetics of the stress patterns of English compounds and noun phrases. Speech Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 21-35.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lee, K., 2001. Teaching discourse stress to Asian students. KOTESOL Proceedings 2001. Seoul, Korea: KOTESOL, pp. 103-116.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lee, K., 2013. Sentence stress in information structure. Oenoehak [Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea], vol. 66, pp. 3-30.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lehman, C., 1977. A re-analysis of givenness: stress in discourse. Papers from the thirteenth regional meeting, 316-324. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Liberman, M. and Sproat, R., 1992. The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In I. A. Sag and A. Szabolcsi, eds. Lexical matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 131-181.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McCarthy, J. J., 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M. and Cai, Z., 2014. Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Miller, J., 1996. Clefts, particles and word order. Language Sciences, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 111-125.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nathan, G. S., 2008. Phonology: A cognitive grammar introduction, Vol. 3. Oxfordshire, UK: John Benjamins Publishing.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nespor, M. and Vogel, I., 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Odden, D., 2014. Rules v. Constraints. In J. A. Goldsmith, J. Riggle and A. C. L. Yu, eds. Handbook of phonological theory (Vol. 2). Malden, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-39.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Polyanskaya, L., Samuel, A. G. and Ordin, M., 2019. Regularity in speech rhythm as a social coalition signal. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1453, no. 1, pp. 153-165.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rochemont, M., 2016. Givenness. In C. Féry and S. Ishihara, eds. The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 41-63.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rooth, M., 2008. Notions of focus anaphoricity. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, vol. 55, no. 3-4, pp. 277-285.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Selkirk, E., 1995. Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing. In J. Goldsmith, ed. The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Ltd, pp. 550-569.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Szwedek, A., 1987. The role of category membership in the structure of the sentence. Folia Linguistica, vol. 21, no. 2-4, pp. 249-260.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Szwedek, A., 2011. More evidence on the primacy of the noun over the verb. A cognitive explanation. In Z. Wąsik, ed. Languages in contact 2011. Wrocław, Poland: Philological School of Higher Education in Wrocław Publishing, pp. 213-224.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Szwedek, A., 2017. When do nouns control sentence stress placement? Philological School of Higher Education, 6, 145-176.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tajsner, P., 2008. Aspects of the grammar of focus: A minimalist view (Vol. 24). Bern: Peter Lang.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Terken, J. and Hermes, D., 2000. The perception of prosodic prominence. In M. Horne, ed. Prosody: Theory and experiment. Dordrecht, Holland: Springer, pp. 89-127.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Um, H.-Y., 2004. The English intonation of native speakers and Korean learners: A comparative study. Speech Sciences, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 117-130.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
van den Brink, D., Brown, C. M. and Hagoort, P., 2006. The cascaded nature of lexical selection and integration in auditory sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 364-372.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wennerstrom, A., 1998. Intonation as cohesion in academic discourse: A study of Chinese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-25.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wennerstrom, A., 1994. Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of nonnative speakers. Applied Linguistics, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 399-420.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Walker, M. A., Joshi, A. K. and Prince, E. F., 1998. Centering in naturally occurring discourse: An overview. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi and E. F. Prince, eds. Centering Theory in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-28.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yavaş, H., 2011. Applied English phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Välimaa-Blum, R., 2004. On nominal and intonational frame anaphora. Cycnos, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 31-47.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Xu, Z. and Aronoff, M., 2010. A realization optimality-theoretic approach to full and partial identity of forms. Morphology, vol. 20, pp. 381-411.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zwaan, R. A. and Radvansky, G. A., 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 162-185.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zubizarreta, M. L., 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Linguistic Inquiry monograph #33. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
