Titlebook: Acoustic Cues in the Disambiguation of Polysemous Strings; Maja Gwó?d? Book 2024 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under ex

carotenoids

ALLEY

ostensible

Book 2024nd subsequent statistical tests revealed that there is almost no difference in the duration, pitch, or intensity in literal and figurative interpretations. However, the analysis of relative clauses and quotations demonstrated that speakers are more likely to use acoustic cues to differentiate betwee

BRINK

Nikolay Kuznetsov,Volker Reitmannding words) of ditropic pairs reported in Gwó?d? (2017) indicated no statistically significant differences (save for the duration of . and the words ., ., therein, but the statistical difference disappeared after the multiple–comparison correction had been applied). This finding alone contradicted t

整潔漂亮

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50987-3 the purposes of the pilot study discussed in Gwó?d? (2017) and for the present experiment involved nine ditropic pairs, five restrictive and non–restrictive relative clauses, and six quoted versus unquoted strings (limited to two words). While the experiment was conducted in highly–controlled labor

死貓他燒焦

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46680-9automatic speech disambiguation; speech processing; experimental phonetics; polysemous strings; automati

低能兒

978-3-031-46682-3The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerl

故意釣到白楊

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71225-1Do strings that look the same sound the same? While this query may appear trivial, questioning the validity of seemingly incontestable phonetic truths has proved a fruitful heuristics for advancing our understanding of some common phenomena.

Instantaneous

絕種