GRToBI

GRToBI is a system for the prosodic annotation of Greek spoken corpora

developed jointly with Mary Baltazani. The annotation system is based on

(i) general design principles of ToBI systems and (ii) the autosegmental-metrical (AM) understanding of prosody. The phonological (AM) model used in GRToBI is the first fully developed model of the Greek prosodic system.

GREEK TONES AND BREAK INDICES: A BRIEF MANUAL

Disclaimer

Please note this page provides downloadable files, and includes some updates to the system but it is by necessity brief and should not be considered a substitute of the published papers on GRToBI. For a list of papers, see Resources.

What is GRToBI?

GRToBI is a tool for the annotation of Greek spoken corpora; it provides a system for annotating intonational, prosodic and (limited) phonetic information, though users can add tiers that encode other types of information as well. The audio and annotation files can be read in Praat. You can download them from this site.

GRToBI is not a transcription system for Greek intonation, i.e. it is not equivalent to a list of IPA symbols for Greek intonation. This is so for two related reasons.

First, GRToBI assumes a particular view of prosody and of the relationship between phonetics and phonology. In particular, GRToBI is based on the autosegmental-metrical framework of intonational phonology (AM for short) which assumes a principled distinction between phonetics and phonology. The analysis on which GRToBI is based is phonological; that is, GRToBI is not meant to be a surface phonetic faithfull representation of F0 contours. Thus, the annotation labels may not always be phonetically transparent, and are not intended to capture all possible variations in phonetic realization. Since this is phonological representation, the differences indicated by the autosegmental representations are meant to be meaningful, that is to reflect pragmatic differences related to the melody.

Second, GRToBI has been designed to represent the prosodic system of Greek as spoken in Athens. Thus the tonal inventory may include phonological entities (e.g. pitch accents) not attested in other varieties of Greek and may not include entities that are attested in those varieties. Further, the phonetic realization of the same tonal unit may differ between the Athenian variety assumed here and other varieties of Greek. Finally, it is quite possible that certain configurations (e.g. the combinations of phrasal tones described below) do not occur in all varieties of Greek or if they do occur they have different pragmatics; differences in pragmatics may have to do with the implicatures that a melody conveys or with the ways it can encode focus. Recent research on the variation of melodies used with polar and wh-questions in Greek from Corfu, Crete, Cyprus and among L3 and heritage communities (Thrace Roma and heritage speakers in the US and Germany respectively) supports these distinctions (Tsiplakou et al. 2011; Gryllia et al. 2011).

In terms of design, GRToBI is similar to the original ToBI system for American English or MAE ToBI (MAE stands for Mainstream American English; see Silverman et al., 1992; Beckman et al. 2005). GRToBI has been adapted from this original design so that prosodic phenomena requiring special attention in Greek, such as sandhi, can be more easily annotated.

The prosodic and intonational analyses assumed in GRToBI have been based

(a) on existing research on various aspects of Greek prosody (see Bibliography); since new findings are continuously added to this body of research, it is natural that particular aspects of the phonological analysis assumed in GRToBI may be revised in the light of new evidence. For example, Baltazani, Gryllia & Arvaniti (2011) show that there are two standard melodies used with wh-questions in Greek, each with its own pragmatics.

(b) on the transcription of a corpus of spoken Standard Greek that includes data from several speakers using a variety of styles (read text, news broadcasting, interviews, spontaneous speech).

Uses of GRTOBI

GRToBI has been used to develop a publicly available corpus of annotated utterances. Prosodically annotated corpora are an important language resource; e.g. corpora-based research can contribute to the better understanding of prosody (see e.g. Arvaniti & Pelekanou 2002). The importance of prosody in speech production, speech perception and language acquisition is undisputable.

Further, GRToBI is based on an analysis of Greek prosodic structure. This analysis, developed on the basis of existing research and the annotation of the GRToBI corpus itself, is the first systematic description of Greek prosody and, as such, useful for theoretical reasons.

Thus, the GRToBI database and prosodic analysis system can be used for the following purposes:

conducting research on the phenomena encoded in the GRToBI tiers (or other phenomena that specific sites may wish to annotate in additional tiers by searching the corpus;
obtaining quantitative results by using the corpus as an annotated database;
teaching Greek prosody both to students of linguistics and to second language learners, by adopting the prosodic analysis used in GRToBI and using GRToBI annotated utterances as examples;
using the prosodic analysis and quantitative data derived from GRToBI for modeling prosody for speech synthesis.

The GRToBI annotation system

A GRToBI annotated file consists of an audio recording of the utterance (in wav format) and an annotation file (in the PRAAT textgrid format). When the wav and textgrid files are opened together the following appear: the waveform of the utterance, the spectrogram and pitch contour of the utterance (in Hz), as well as the five GRToBI annotation tiers (see Figure 1 for an example):

The Tone Tier for the intonational analysis

The Prosodic Words Tier for phonetic transcription

The Words Tier for the text in romanization

The Break Index Tier for indices of cohesion

The Miscellaneous Tier for other information

Acknowledgments

The development of GRToBI largely took place while the first author was a visitor at the Ohio State University Linguistics Laboratory. We would like to thank the members of the Laboratory, particularly Mary Beckman, Julia McGory, Shu-hui Peng, Amanda Miller and Mariapaola D'Imperio for their encouragement and input during the development of GRToBI, and also for long distance technical support. Thanks are also due to Georgios Tserdanelis for providing wav files for this site, and to the students in Mary Beckman's and Julie's ToBI course for useful feedback at a first presentation of GRToBI. We are grateful to Sun-Ah Jun who brought us together, suggested we develop the system and played devil's advocate at the early stages of its gestation. Finally, we will always remain deeply indebted to Jenny and Peter Ladefoged for their kind hospitality to Amalia during her stay in Los Angeles.

THE TONE TIER

We recognize three types of tonal events, pitch accents, phrase accents, and boundary tones, and two levels of phrasing, the intermediate phrase (ip) and the intonational phrase (IP).

Pitch Accents

A pitch accent is a melody that is phonologically associated with a metrically strong syllable. Phonetically, a pitch accent co-occurs (more or less) with the stressed syllable it is phonologically associated with. Pitch accents are "prominence cueing" (a term coined by Francis Nolan) in that they indicate that the syllable with which they co-occur is meant to be construed as being metrically prominent (i.e. stressed). In Greek there is typically one prominent syllable in each content word; its position is lexically specified. Most function words do not have prominent syllables (though they may carry orthographic accent), but some do, such as the word ka'ta when it means "against". In some cases, Greek words may carry two pitch accents: this happens when a word is stressed on the antepenult and is followed by an enclitic (e.g. [to afto'cini'to mu] "the car my"), or when a word is stressed on the penult and is followed by two enclitics (e.g. ['fere 'mu to] "bring me it"). In such cases, both stressed syllables can be accented; if there is only one accent, this falls on the rightmost stressed syllable of the entire group. Thus, in Greek we can distinguish between (i) unstressed syllables, such as [re] in ['fere 'mu to], (ii) stressed but unaccented syllables, such as [fe] in ['fere 'mu to] (with one pitch accent on [mu]), and (iii) stressed and accented syllables, such as [fe] and [mu] in ['fere 'mu to] (with pitch accents on [fe] and [mu]).

Our research suggests that in Greek we can distinguish five pitch accents: H*, L*, L*+H, L+H*, H* and H*+L. The typical distribution and phonetic realization of these accents is described below and shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4. Each utterance has at least one pitch accent, but typically more, since in Greek most stressed syllables are also accented. Thus, while an English phrase such as Mary loves John is most likely uttered without an accent on loves, in a similar Greek phrase, such as [i ma'ria mi'lai sto 'mano] "Maria is talking to Manos", all three content words are accented. The last accent of an utterance is called the nucleus. By default, the nucleus falls on the last content word of an utterance (if it is a declarative, but it may occur on an earlier word under narrow or contrastive focus. Changes in the position of the nucleus also obtain in questions and other types of utterances (on which more below).

H* is mostly used as a nuclear accent in declarative utterances and it contrasts with L+H*: a L+H* nuclear accent signals narrow or contrastive focus (Arvaniti et al. 2006, LgSp), whereas H* signals broad focus (Baltazani 2003). The H* accent lacks the initial dip associated with the L tone of the L+H* (Arvaniti et al. 2006, LgSp) and its peak is probably aligned earlier in the accented vowel, though quantitative data on this point are not yet available.

L* is realized as a low plateau. This accent appears in nuclear position before a "continuation rise" (Baltazani & Jun 1999), in yes-no questions (Arvaniti et al. 2006, SpeCom; Baltazani & Jun 1999; Baltazani 2007b), and in the "suspicious" calling contour (that is, when the vocative is to be interpreted as "is that you?")

L*+H is the default accent in pre-nuclear position; it may also occur in nuclear position in calls, imperatives, negative declaratives (Baltazani 2006c), and wh-questions (Arvaniti & Ladd 2009). Typically, the L tone is aligned at or slightly before the onset of the accented syllable, and the H tone is aligned at the beginning of the first post-accentual vowel (Arvaniti & Ladd, 1995; Arvaniti et al. 1998). The realization of L*+H is different in contexts showing tonal crowding (Arvaniti et al. 2000). In non-focal position, L+H* is used for metrical purposes (so it is used to highlight both new and old information).

L+H* signals narrow focus in declaratives and other types of utterance (Arvaniti et al. 2006, LgSp; Baltazani & Jun 1999). The realizational difference between L+H* and L*+H lies in the alignment of the H tone: the H tone of L+H* is well within the accented vowel, whereas the H tone of the L*+H aligns early in the first post-accentual vowel.

H*+L also contrasts with H* in nuclear position. The H* is manifested as a small rise on the accented syllable, while the H*+L is manifested as a fall throughout this syllable (see the last accent in Figure 9). In terms of meaning, the use of H*+L conveys a sense of "stating the obvious" that is, the implication that the addressee should have known or expected the answer (i.e. that the speaker considers the information they impart by their utterance to be part of the common ground).

Downstep: All accents can be downstepped, i.e. scaled lowered than typically expected; examples of downstepped accents can be found in Figure 2, Figure 5, Figure 8, and Figure 9. At this stage, it is not clear whether there is any particular meaning associated with downstep, or with particular downstepped accents.

Phrase Accents

GRToBI uses three phrase accents, H-, L- and !H-. As mentioned earlier, our analysis suggests that Greek has two levels of phrasing, the intermediate and intonational phrase (ip and IP respectively); it is further assumed here that phrase accents demarcate the right edge of intermediate phrases and boundary tones demarcate the right edge of intonational phrases.

This analysis is based on the following observations. Tones associated with ips typically show simple F0 movements, unlike those associated with IPs which can show complex pitch configurations. Further there is a difference in scaling between ips and IPs, in cases where both have similar pitch movements, with ip boundaries exhibiting less extreme F0 values than IP boundaries (i.e. a H- is scaled lower than a H-H% configuration). In addition, the pauses after IPs (even non-final ones) are longer and more frequent than those for ips. Recent research also suggests that left ip and IP boundaries are associated with prosodic strengthening manifested as lengthening of ip and IP initial consonants (Kastrinaki 2003). Non-final intermediate phrases typically have a H- or L-phrase accent at their right edge. !H-, on the other hand, is used only in certain types of stylized intonation and then only in utterance-final ips (i.e. it is always followed by a boundary tone).

Arvaniti et al. (2006, SpeCom) have shown that the melody of Greek polar questions is difficult to accommodate with this inventory of phrase accents, and suggest that the phrase accent of these questions is a bitonal L+H-. In addition, this phrase accent does not always co-occur with the right edge of the intermediate phrase it is associated with; rather, when the nucleus of the polar question is on a non-final word, the L+H- phrase accent aligns with the last stressed syllable of the question. The two patterns of alignment of the L+H- used in Greek polar questions are illustrated in Figure 4.

Boundary Tones

GRToBI includes three boundary tones, H%, L%, and !H%. These boundary tones demarcate the right edges of intonational phrases. They combine with most phrase accents into configurations which are frequently interpreted in the ways shown below (the list is only indicative; the interpretation of a contour depends also on the utterance and the context in which it is used).

Possible combinations of phrase accent and boundary tone and their usages

L-L%: declaratives, negative declaratives, imperatives, wh-questions

L-H%: "involved" continuation rise, "suspicious" calls

H-L%: yes-no questions, requesting calling contour

(note: according to Arvaniti et al. 2006a this combination is L+H-L%)

H-H%: continuation rise, questioning calling contour

L-!H%: "involved" wh-questions, negative declaratives (showing reservation), requesting imperatives

H-!H%: stylized continuation rise

!H-!H%: stylized call, incredulous questions

!H-H%: polite stylized call

OTHER TIERS:

Prosodic words, Words, Break Indices, Miscellaneous

The Prosodic Words Tier

The Prosodic Words (PrWords) Tier is a phonetic transcription using ASCII characters. This tier facilitates the analysis of sandhi (connected speech phenomena, such as segment assimilations and deletions across word boundaries), and fast speech rules, by encoding their outcome. Like all transcriptions, this tier has its limitations, and is not meant to be a substitute for acoustic analysis; rather, it allows annotators to flag instances of sandhi for more detailed acoustic analysis. The PrWords Tier provides information about stress, since this information cannot be deduced from the transliteration in the Words Tier or derived from a dictionary (e.g., as mentioned, content Greek monosyllables, as well as some function words, are normally stressed and pitch accented in speech, but not in orthography; in contrast, disyllabic function words are orthographically accented, but most do not normally carry stress in speech). In this tier, each prosodic word (defined as a sequence of items showing total cohesion) is transcribed as one label.

The Words Tier

This tier can be a transliterated version of the text, equivalent to the Orthographic Tier in MAEToBI; for systems that support Greek fonts (like Praat) transliterations can be replaced by Greek orthography (as in the figures).

The Break Index Tier

There are four break indices, 0, 1, 2, and 3. Break indices mark cohesion (or the lack thereof) between constituents in an utterance.

BI 0 is used to mark total cohesion between orthographic words (e.g., clitics and their hosts). Orthographic words separated by BI 0 constitute a PrWord that may bear only one pitch accent (with the noted exception of hosts and clitics with two accents). Several types of sandhi may occur across a BI 0 boundary, however, sandhi is not necessary for a BI 0 to be used. For example, a proclitic particle like /na/ and the following verb are perceived as one PrWord by native speakers, but no sandhi can occur between /na/ and a consonant-initial verb.

BI 1 marks boundaries between PrWords. Items separated by BI 1 should carry at most one pitch accent each, although a PrWord need not be accented (e.g., all PrWords following an early focus are de-accented ; Baltazani & Jun, 1999; Botinis, 1998). In general, if an item is accented, then it should be considered a separate PrWord. On the other hand, the absence of accent, as mentioned, does not constitute evidence that an item is not an independent PrWord in Greek.

BI 2 marks the boundaries of ips (intermediate phrases).

BI 3 marks the boundaries of IPs (Intonational Phrases).

Break Index Tier Diacritics

Four diacritics are used to provide more details on the prosodic structure of utterances.

s is used with all break indices when there is evidence of sandhi (Figure 2, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 9, Figure 10). At present there is no coherent description of the sandhi rules for Greek (see Nespor & Vogel, 1986; Kaisse, 1985; for a different point of view, see Arvaniti, 1991, and results in Baltazani 2006b; for a review of the relevant literature, see Arvaniti 2007). Our corpus confirmed previous studies that used naturally occurring data (e.g. Fallon, 1994) in showing that sandhi can apply across larger constituents than postulated by, e.g., Nespor & Vogel (1986); see Figure 7 and Figure 9 for sandhi across PrWords, Figure 6 for sandhi across an ip boundary. Further annotation of the GRToBI corpus has also shown that some of the sandhi rules of Greek are better described as gradient gestural overlap (Pelekanou, 2000; Arvaniti & Pelekanou 2002; Baltazani 2006b). Since the presence of sandhi does not necessarily signal cohesion, we have decided to use the diacritic s for sandhi at all prosodic levels, and thus provide an easy way of searching the database for such instances. We believe that the sandhi phenomena will be better understood if a large corpus of natural spoken data is investigated.

m is used for mismatch between the break index and the prosodic or tonal cues to this index. This diacritic should be used with BI 0 to mark cases in which the context for sandhi exists but nevertheless sandhi does not take place. For example if a sequence like /ton 'pono/ "the pain. Acc." is pronounced [ton 'pono] it should be marked as 0m, since in general it should be pronounced [to'mbono] or [to'bono]. The m diacritic should be used with BIs 1, 2, and 3 to mark the presence of a boundary without the tonal events that normally accompany it.

p should be used to mark pause at a given boundary.

? should be used to mark uncertainty about the strength of a boundary (the highest of the two candidates should be marked).

The Miscellaneous Tier

This tier allows researchers to annotate non-structural information that may be useful in interpreting the file, such as coughing, disfluency, pitch halving or rate of speech.

RESOURCES

GRToBI CORPUS

Download the annotated corpus (with Praat textgrids) - forthcoming; in the meantime, you can download the database from Amalia's GRToBI Kent site

Download the entire corpus (not annotated) - forthcoming; in the meantime, you can download the database from Amalia's GRToBI Kent site

Please note:
(a) the most complete description of GRToBI currently available is Arvaniti & Baltazani (2005)
(b) if you want to know more about Greek prosody, please consult the brief bibliography we have compiled

Summary bibliography on Greek prosody

Arvaniti, A. (1992) Secondary stress: evidence from Modern Greek. In G. J. Docherty & D. R. Ladd [editors], Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody. Cambridge University Press, 398-423.
Arvaniti, A. (1994) Acoustic features of Greek rhythmic structure. Journal of Phonetics 22: 239-268.
Arvaniti, A. (1997) Greek "emphatic stress": a first approach. In Greek Linguistics 95: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Greek Linguistics, vol. I: 13-24. The Department of Linguistics, University of Salzburg.
Arvaniti, A. (2000) The acoustics of stress in Modern Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 9-39.
Arvaniti, A. (2003). Peak scaling in Greek and the role of declination. Proceedings of XVth ICPhS, pp. 2269-2272. Barcelona, 4-9 August 2003.
Arvaniti, A. (2007) Greek Phonetics: The State of the Art. Journal of Greek Linguistics 8: 97-208.
Arvaniti, A. (2009) Greek intonation and the phonology of prosody: polar questions revisited. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, pp. 14-29. (available also at the conference site
Arvaniti, A. & M. Baltazani (2005) Intonational analysis and prosodic annotation of Greek spoken corpora In Sun-Ah Jun [ed],Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford University Press. 84-117.
Arvaniti, A. & S. Godjevac (2003) The origins and scope of final lowering in English and Greek. Proceedings of XVth ICPhS, pp.1077-1080. Barcelona, 4-9 August 2003.
Arvaniti, A. & D. R. Ladd (1995) Tonal alignment and the representation of accentual targets. In Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Stockholm, vol. 4: 220-223.
Arvaniti, A., D. R. Ladd (2009) Greek wh-questions and the phonology of intonation. Phonology 26: 43-74.
Arvaniti, A., D. R. Ladd & I. Mennen (1998) Stability of tonal alignment: the case of Greek prenuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 26: 3-25.
Arvaniti, A., D. R. Ladd & I. Mennen (2000) What is a starred tone? Evidence from Greek. In M. Broe & J. Pierrehumbert [editors], Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 119-131.
Arvaniti, A., D. R. Ladd & I. Mennen (2006a) Phonetic effects of focus and “tonal crowding” in intonation: Evidence from Greek polar questions. Speech Communication 48: 667-696.
Arvaniti, A., D. R. Ladd & I. Mennen (2006b) Tonal association and tonal alignment: evidence from Greek polar questions and contrastive statements. Language and Speech 49: 421-450.
Arvaniti, A. & T. Pelekanou (2002) Postlexical rules and gestural overlap in a Greek spoken corpus. Recherches en linguistique grecque, vol. I: 71-74. Paris: L' Harmattan.
Baltazani, M. (2002) Quantifier scope and the role of intonation in Greek. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
Baltazani, M. (2003) Broad Focus across sentence types in Greek . Proceedings of Eurospeech-2003, Geneva, Switzerland.
Baltazani, M. (2004) The prosodic structure of quantificational sentences in Greek. Proceedings of the 38th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
Baltazani, M. (2006a) On /s/-voicing in Greek . Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, York, UK.
Baltazani, M. (2006b) Focusing, prosodic phrasing and Hiatus resolution in Greek. In L. Goldstein, D. Whalen and C. Best (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 8, pp. 473-494. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baltazani, M. (2006c) Intonation and pragmatic interpretation of negation in Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, Issue 10, p. 1658-1676, Elsevier.
Baltazani, M. (2007a) Prosodic rhythm and the status of vowel reduction in Greek. In Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics from the 17th International Symposium on Theoretical & Applied Linguistics, Volume 1, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Salonica, p. 31-43.
Baltazani, M. (2007b) Intonation of polar questions and the location of nuclear stress in Greek. In C. Gussenhoven & T. Riad (Eds.), Tones and Tunes,Volume II, Experimental Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody, pp. 387-405. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baltazani, M. & Jun S. (1999) Focus and topic intonation in Greek. Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2: 1305-8. San Fransisco.
Botinis, A. (1998) Intonation in Greek. In Hirst, D. & A. DiCristo (eds) Intonation Systems, 288-310. Cambridge University Press.
Chorianopoulou, E. (2002) Evaluating Prosody Prediction in Synthesis With Respect to Modern Greek Prenuclear Accents.M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Condoravdi, C. (1990) Sandhi Rules of Greek and Prosodic Theory. Phonology-Syntax Connection ed. by Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec, 63-84. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dauer, R. M. (1980) Stress and Rhythm in Modern Greek. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Dauer, R. M. (1983) Stress-timing and Syllable-timing Reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics 11.51-62.
Fallon, P. (1994) Naturally occurring hiatus in Modern Greek. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis and M. Sifianou (Eds.),Themes in Greek Linguistics, pp. 217-224. London: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Fourakis, M. (1986) An Acoustic Study of the Effects of Tempo and Stress on Segmental Intervals in Modern Greek . Phonetica 43:172-188.
Fourakis, M., A. Botinis & M. Katsaiti (1999) Acoustic characteristics of Greek vowels . Phonetica 56:28-43.
Georgiafentis, M. & A. Sfakianaki (2004) Syntax Interacts with Prosody: The VOS Order in Greek . Lingua 114:935-961.
Grabe, E. & E. L. Low (2002) Acoustic Correlates of Rhythm Class . In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7, 515-546. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grice, M., D. R. Ladd & A. Arvaniti (2000) On the place of "phrase accents" in intonational phonology. Phonology 17:143-185.
Kainada, E. (2007) Prosodic Boundary Effects on Durations and Vowel Hiatus in Modern Greek . In Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 1225-1228. Saarbrücken: Uneversität des Saarlandes.
Kaisse, E. M. (1985) Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology. Academic Press.
Kastrinaki, A. (2003)The Temporal Correlates of Lexical and Phrasal Stress in Greek, Exploring Rhythmic Stress: Durational Patterns for the Case of Greek Words. M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Katsika, A. (2007) Duration and Pitch Anchoring as Cues to Word Boundaries in Greek. In Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 929-932. Saarbrücken: Uneversität des Saarlandes.
Ladd, D. R. (2008) Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malikouti-Drachman, A. & G. Drachman (1981) Slogan Chanting and Speech Rhythm in Greek. In W. Dressler, O. E. Pfeiffer & J. R. Rennison (eds.)Phonologica 1980, 283-292. Innsbruck.
Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki & G. Drachman (1989) Τονισμός στα Ελληνικά [Stress in Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics9.127-143.
Malikouti-Drachman, A. & G. Drachman (1992a) Greek Clitics and Lexical Phonology . In W. U. Dressler, H. C. Luschutzky, O. E. Pfeiffer & J. R. Rennison (eds.) Phonologica 1988, 197-206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malikouti-Drachman, A. & G. Drachman (1992b) Θεωρητικά Προβλήματα του Τονισμού των Κλιτικών στα Νέα Ελληνικά [Theoretical Problems of Clitic Accentuation in Modern Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 12.83-104.
Mennen, I. & E. Den Os (1994) On the Intonation of Several Modern Greek Sentences. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis & M. Sifianou (eds.) Themes in Greek Linguistics, 233-239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mennen, I. (2004) Bi-directional Interference in the Intonation of Dutch Speakers of Greek . Journal of Phonetics 32.4:543-563.
Micros, G. (1997) Radio News and Phonetic Variation in Modern Greek. In. Drachman, A. Malikouti-Drachman, J. Fykias & C. Klidi (eds.), Greek Linguistics ’95: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Greek Linguistics, 35-44. The Department of Linguistics, University of Salzburg.
Nespor, M. (1986) Ο Αποδιαπλασιασμός στα Ελληνικά [Degemination in Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 7.21-28.
Nespor, M. (1987) Vowel Degemination and Fast Speech Rules. Phonology 4.61-85.
Nespor, M. (1988) Ρυθμικά Χαρακτηριστικά της Ελληνικής [Rhythmic Features of Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 9.165-183.
Nespor, N. & I. Vogel (1986) Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Nespor, M. & I. Vogel (1989) On Clashes and Lapses. Phonology 6.69-116.
Nespor, M. & I. Vogel (2007)Prosodic Phonology (2nd edition). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pelekanou, T. (2000) Greek Sandhi Rules: Evidence from Naturally Occuring Data. MSc Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Revithiadou, A. (1999) Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic Form in Lexical Accent Systems. LOT Dissertation Series 15 (HIL/Leiden Universiteit). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Theophanopoulou-Kontou, D. (1973) Fast Speech Rules and Some Phonological Processes of Modern Greek: A Preliminary Investigation. Yearbook of the School of Philosophy, University of Athens 1972-1973: 372-390.
Tramboulis, T. (1997) Stress and Katathesis Within Spontaneous Oral Greek Narration. In A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou & C. Carayannis (eds.) ESCA Workshop on Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications, 305-308.
Tserdanelis, G. (2003) Phonetic Variation in Syntactically Ambiguous Sentences. Studies in Greek Linguistics 23.931-942.
Tserdanelis, G. (2005) The Role of Segmental Sandhi in the Parsing of Speech: Evidence from Greek. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Tsiartsioni E. (2003) The Acquisition of Features of Rhythm and Stop Voicing in Greek and English L2. M.Phil. in Applied Linguistics, Trinity College Dublin.
Tsiartsioni E. (2011)The Acquisition of Speech Rhythm and Stop Voicing by Greek Learners of English: A Pedagogical and Linguistic Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Waring, H. (1976) The intonation of Modern Greek. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.