Discrepancies in length throw constituents off balance , and so prosodic phrasing will cross constituent boundaries in order to give the phrases similar lengths ; this is the case in Chickens were eating II the remaining green vegetables , where the subject-predicate boundary finds no prosodic correspondent .4 The most explicit version of this approach is the analysis presented in Gee and Grosjean ( 1983 ) ( henceforth G&G ) .
performance structures a psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal
J P Gee F Grosjean
Thus syntactic and prosodic structure match when the major constituents of a sentence are roughly equal in length ; for example , the main prosodic phrase break corresponds to the subject-predicate boundary in Waiters who remember well II serve orders correctly . Discrepancies in length throw constituents off balance , and so prosodic phrasing will cross constituent boundaries in order to give the phrases similar lengths ; this is the case in Chickens were eating II the remaining green vegetables , where the subject-predicate boundary finds no prosodic correspondent .4 The most explicit version of this approach is the analysis presented in Gee and Grosjean ( 1983 ) ( henceforth G&G ) . Drawing on the psycholinguistic studies mentioned above and on aspects of the grammar of prosody outlined in Selkirk ( 1984 ) , G&G propose an algorithm for mapping syntactic structure onto a hierarchical representation of phrasing ; the rules they present accomplish this by integrating syntactic information ( e.g. constituent structure , left-toright ordering ) with information about constituent length .
Discrepancies in length throw constituents off balance , and so prosodic phrasing will cross constituent boundaries in order to give the phrases similar lengths ; this is the case in Chickens were eating II the remaining green vegetables , where the subject-predicate boundary finds no prosodic correspondent .4 The most explicit version of this approach is the analysis presented in @@CITATION ( henceforth G&G ) .