File Name: falling and rising intonation .zip
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly.
By Ashley Uncategorized. Do you know the difference between rising and falling intonation? What does intonation mean? This video gives examples of rising intonation and much more I made a video a couple of weeks ago on intonation patterns in English and it seems to have gone down pretty well.
This paper presents an experimental study that provides evidence for the existence of two types of rising declaratives in English which differ systematically in their forms and their functions.
The two are labelled assertive rising declaratives and inquisitive rising declaratives, respectively. Guided by the experimental results, the paper develops a semantic analysis of them. Having as backdrop an extended Lewisian model of discourse involving a conversational scoreboard, the analysis associates assertive and inquisitive rising declaratives with distinct sets of context-changing conventions that bring about fundamentally different updates to core elements of the context.
In the process, it highlights their respective partial overlaps with the conventions for two other sentence types, falling declaratives and polar interrogatives. The analysis fully captures the experimental results presented in the paper and reconciles disparate, seemingly contradictory observations about English rising declaratives noted in previous work.
Stalnaker ; Lewis Within this tradition, there has been a growing interest in the question of how intonation interacts with these conventions. At the same time, the data involved have also revealed some complex distributional patterns that have not yet been fully accounted for. English rising declaratives highlight this complexity. They are associated with a wide range of seemingly disparate discourse effects, and characterizing the core effect that crosscuts their varied uses remains a challenge.
A central problem that underlies this issue is whether English rising declaratives comprise two or more distinct phenomena. While both types of approaches have been revealing in their own respects, the problem still remains unresolved. This paper addresses this issue and argues for the existence of two fundamentally different types of rising declaratives. The two are labeled as assertive rising declaratives and inquisitive rising declaratives abbreviated as ARDs and IRDs , respectively, and are shown to differ in form and function.
The evidence for this argument is drawn from a series of perception experiments that used stimuli representing diverse sentence types rising declaratives, falling declaratives and polar interrogatives , prosodically manipulated in their terminal contours, and systematically controlled for their content and speakers. The results demonstrate the existence of highly codependent functional effects, in which a range of contextual inferences with inquisitive shades all pattern together on the one hand, and those with assertive shades pattern together on the other.
In addition to establishing a key distinction between inquisitive and assertive interpretations, the experimental results also demonstrate a graded, more nuanced four-way functional distinction between the four sentence types. Guided by these experimental results, the paper develops a semantic and pragmatic analysis of assertive vs.
Building from this framework, assertive and inquisitive rising declaratives are analyzed as updating different elements of the conversational scoreboard, thereby giving rise to distinct commitment statuses of the interlocutors cf. Gunlogson as well as distinct expectations about future discourse trajectories. Their respective conventional effects are also shown to partially overlap in systematic ways with two other sentence types, falling declaratives and polar interrogatives.
The analysis provides an account of the full range of experimental data presented in the first half of the paper, as well as data from the previous literature. In particular, the analysis is able to capture why ARDs are often construed as tentative assertions , while IRDs are often construed as biased questions. The analysis also synthesizes different proposals from previous work that on the surface seem incompatible with each other, and demonstrates that with only minor adjustments, their respective strengths can be maintained as long as we establish a clear boundary between assertive and inquisitive rising declaratives.
On the empirical side, the resulting account reconciles disparate, potentially conflicting observations that have been made on English rising declaratives data. It also sheds light on different ways in which terminal contours interact with sentence types, content and context to modify the force of the utterance and the subsequent discourse context. Rising declaratives have been associated with various types of semantic, pragmatic and social meanings.
Contradictory Questions cf. Incredulous Questions cf. Gunlogson A: John went to the airport to pick up his sister. Uptalk building rapport; eliciting uptake; cf. Podesva A waitress in a restaurant talking to a customer.
Warren This functional heterogeneity raises the question of whether there are two or more distinct types of rising declaratives. A detailed comparison of previous approaches is postponed until section 6. Within this general approach, rising declaratives are further distinguished from falling ones by attributing the commitment to a different interlocutor to the addressee instead of the speaker; Gunlogson ; cf.
In addition to this, rising declaratives have been argued to be associated with particular kinds of speaker presumptions about the addressee Gunlogson These arguments often draw their evidence from a subset of rising declarative uses summarized in 1 , but it remains an open question whether the generalizations hold across all uses of rising declaratives. Let us therefore take a closer look at these core notions. Can we observe any significant difference between the rising declaratives in 1 with respect to the commitment status of interlocutors and speaker presumption about the addressee?
In answering this question, introducing a more controlled paradigm is helpful. While the contents of rising declaratives often introduce biases toward different uses 1 demonstrates this to a certain extent , it is possible to map the same string of words onto heterogeneous uses by embedding them in the right kinds of contexts.
Contradictory Questions A: John has a sister. We should invite her too. B: John has a sister? No way. You must be thinking of his young brother. Incredulous Questions A: John went to the airport to pick up his sister.
Confirmative Questions A is giving tips to B, who needs to interview a female relative of a friend. Unsure about a metalinguistic issue A: Do you know if John has any female relatives? But no other siblings? The adapted examples in 2 suggest that a major divide exists between contradictory, incredulous, and confirmative questions 2a—c on the one hand, and metalinguistic assertions and uptalks 2d—e on the other the same can be said for 1 as well, upon extrapolation. The two groups seem to signal fundamentally distinct statuses relating to speaker commitment and speaker presumption about addressee knowledge, with respect to the proposition that John has a sister.
With respect to speaker commitment, the intuition is that 2a—c do not signal a speaker commitment toward the proposition that John has a sister.
For 2a—b , their incredulous or contradictory flavor strongly suggest that the speaker does not yet intend to publicly commit to the belief that John has a sister until further clarification or justification from the addressee. For 2c as well, the speaker again seems to want to elicit explicit confirmation from the addressee that John has a sister, and thus does not yet seem to be publicly committed toward this information. In contrast, 2d—e do seem to signal some kind of speaker commitment toward the proposition that John has a sister.
With respect to speaker presumption about the addressee, the intuition is that 2a—c all signal that the speaker expects the addressee to have some privileged knowledge or evidence necessary to back up the proposition that John has a sister. For 2a—b , this holds because the context is such that the addressee has already explicitly said or presupposed that John has a sister. For 2c , such an explicit, pre-existing commitment from the addressee is absent, but the context is still such that the speaker expects the addressee to have more epistemic authority than the speaker to confirm that John has a sister cf.
Gunlogson ; see section 6. In contrast, 2d—e do not seem to signal such speaker presumption about the addressee. Rather, for 2d—e , it is instead the speaker that seems to have more evidence or knowledge that John has a sister than the addressee. These intuitions can be probed deeper and at least partially corroborated. Yes diagnostic is useful, as it provides us with insights about the nature of the subsequent discourse states generated by different types of linguistic expressions.
Although Gunlogson uses this diagnostic mainly to explain the discourse effects of falling declaratives, it can also be productively applied to a range of rising declarative uses, as can be seen in 3—4 which further extends a few examples in 1—2.
These reveal a clear difference in the possible follow-up responses between rising declaratives in 3 vs. Incredulous question 1b , 2b A: John went to the airport to pick up his sister. A: Yes , he does. A: Oh, I see. Confirmative question 1c , 2c B: an actor talking to a stage director So, my name is Wendy?
A: stage director Yes , we changed it from Molly, because we thought Wendy sounds friendlier. A stage director : Oh , I see. Metalinguistic uncertainty 1d , 2d A: Do you know if John has a close female relative? A: Yes, he does. Uptalk; perlocutionary politeness 1e , 2e B: Hello, my name is Wendy?
A: Oh , hi Wendy. Nice to meet you. A: Yes, it is. First, the rising declarative in 3a which has the function of an incredulous question akin to 1a—b does not allow for the Oh response. The situation is similar for the rising declarative in 3b , which has the function of a confirmatory question akin to 1c. In addition, the expectation of Yes as the most likely addressee response further supports the intuition that the addressee is construed by the speaker as having some evidence or knowledge toward the positive answer to the issue at hand, in 1a—c.
Compare this state of affairs to rising declaratives in 4. In addition, the lack of preference toward Yes as the addressee response for these cases, it even sounds infelicitous further supports the intuition that the speaker does not attribute any privileged knowledge to the addressee in confirming the verity of the relevant propositions, in 1d—e.
To recapitulate, the systematic differences in the inferences about speaker commitment, speaker presumption about the addressee and allowed follow-up responses provide an indication that there may exist two fundamentally different types of rising declaratives. The patterns observed so far suggest that the core boundary lies between 1a—c on the one hand, and 1d—e on the other likewise for 2. This core division between two types of rising declaratives is thrown into further relief by examining the systematic difference in their overlaps with two other sentence types.
While rising declaratives of the former type can all be felicitously substituted with polar interrogatives but not with falling declaratives, those of the latter type can all be felicitously substituted with falling declaratives but not with polar interrogatives. This state of affairs is summarized in 5—8 , which include examples adapted from 3—4.
The expanded axes of comparison which now include falling declaratives and polar interrogatives not only further highlight the difference between the two types of rising declaratives but also provide a window into the conventional effects that are associated with them.
The observed parallels between the former type of rising declaratives i. The overlap in the felicity patterns of Oh for each pair Oh vs. Oh also suggests that the respective shared conventional effects will likely tap into the presence vs. At the same time, the new comparison points also indicate that the two types of rising declaratives generate additional inferences that are absent in polar interrogatives and falling declaratives.
The intuition is that the rising declaratives in 1a—c often function as biased questions the exact flavor and the orientation of the bias differs from case to case; e.
In comparison, rising declaratives in 1d—e often seem to function as tentative assertions whereas falling declaratives lack such a flavor of tentativeness and often signal more authoritative assertions. In sum, not only do the two types of rising declaratives seem to contrast with each other by aligning with two different sentence types falling declaratives vs.
This state of affairs can be captured if the two sets of conventions associated with the two types of rising declaratives partially overlap with polar interrogatives on the one hand and falling declaratives on the other but also include extra conventions that are specific to each.
In linguistics , intonation is variation in spoken pitch when used, not for distinguishing words as sememes a concept known as tone , but, rather, for a range of other functions such as indicating the attitudes and emotions of the speaker, signalling the difference between statements and questions, and between different types of questions, focusing attention on important elements of the spoken message and also helping to regulate conversational interaction. The term tone is used by some British writers in their descriptions of intonation but to refer to the pitch movement found on the nucleus or tonic syllable in an intonation unit. Although intonation is primarily a matter of pitch variation, it is important to be aware that functions attributed to intonation such as the expression of attitudes and emotions, or highlighting aspects of grammatical structure, almost always involve concomitant variation in other prosodic features. David Crystal for example says that "intonation is not a single system of contours and levels, but the product of the interaction of features from different prosodic systems — tone , pitch-range , loudness , rhythmicality and tempo in particular. Most transcription conventions have been devised for describing one particular accent or language, and the specific conventions therefore need to be explained in the context of what is being described. However, for general purposes the International Phonetic Alphabet offers the two intonation marks shown in the box at the head of this article.
This paper presents an experimental study that provides evidence for the existence of two types of rising declaratives in English which differ systematically in their forms and their functions. The two are labelled assertive rising declaratives and inquisitive rising declaratives, respectively. Guided by the experimental results, the paper develops a semantic analysis of them. Having as backdrop an extended Lewisian model of discourse involving a conversational scoreboard, the analysis associates assertive and inquisitive rising declaratives with distinct sets of context-changing conventions that bring about fundamentally different updates to core elements of the context.
Posted by Tech-2 on November 3, in Uncategorized. Tags: Lesson Activity. Candis Barns.
Remember: 1. We use the rising intonation for Yes-No questions. We use the falling intonation for WH-questions. Activity 1: Direction: Thumbs up after the question which has a rising intonation and thumbs down after the question which has a falling intonation.
Rising and falling intonation patterns are an important part of American English. These intonation patterns do for your speech what punctuation does for your.
Say a sentence out loud and show them which word is stressed by. Effects of tone and intonation on spoken word recognition in early childhood a crucial component of word learning is the ability to recognize words in spite of the. Whquestions usually have falling intonation, as do simple sentences. English 4module 1 distinguishing rising and falling intonation the mobile. Punctuation that marks the end of a sentence also has specific intonation.
Он задумал способствовать распространению алгоритма, который АНБ с легкостью взломает. - Полный и всеобщий доступ, - объяснял Стратмор. - Цифровая крепость сразу же станет всеобщим стандартом шифрования.
Мидж как ни чем не бывало стояла в приемной возле двойной двери директорского кабинета и протягивала к нему руку ладонью вверх. - Ключ, Чед. Бринкерхофф покраснел до корней волос и повернулся к мониторам. Ему хотелось чем-то прикрыть эти картинки под потолком, но .
Again: Fall-Rise Intonations in English. 9 Phonetica, Vol. 2, No. 3/4, Sharp, Falling-Rising Intonation Patterns in English vation, it is my hope that.