Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-ks5gx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T10:24:57.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of pitch range in establishing intonational contrasts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2014

Joan Borràs-Comes ,
Maria del Mar Vanrell  and
Pilar Prieto
Joan Borràs-Comes
Affiliation:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra joan.borras@upf.edu
Maria del Mar Vanrell
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin mariadelmar.vanrell@fu-berlin.de
Pilar Prieto
Affiliation:
Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA) & Universitat Pompeu Fabra pilar.prieto@upf.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the unresolved issues in the field of intonational phonology is whether pitch accent range differences are used by languages to express discrete linguistic distinctions. In Catalan, as in some other Romance languages, a rising-falling nuclear pitch contour – i.e. a rising pitch accent associated with the utterance-final stressed syllable followed by a Low boundary tone – can be used to convey three different pragmatic meanings depending on its pitch range properties: information focus statements (IFSs), corrective focus statements (CFSs), and counter-expectational questions (CEQs). In order to investigate how these pragmatic meanings are distributed across the pitch range continuum and whether Catalan listeners use these tonal scaling distinctions to identify such meanings, we performed an identification task and a congruity test. The results show that CEQs differ from both IFSs and CFSs in a discrete way, yet the perceived difference between IFSs and CFSs cannot be exclusively explained by scaling differences. These findings provide further evidence that pitch range differences can be used to make intonational distinctions in some languages, and strengthen the argument that pitch range features need to be represented descriptively at the phonological level.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , April 2014 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramson, Arthur. S. 1979. The noncategorical perception of tone categories in Thai. In Lindblom, Björn & Öhman, Sven E. G. (eds.), Frontiers of speech communication research, 127–134. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aguilar, Lourdes, de-la-Mota, Carme & Prieto, Pilar (coords.). 2009. Cat_ToBI Training Materials. http://prosodia.upf.edu/cat_tobi/ (accessed 1 October 2012).Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia & Baltazani, Mary. 2004. Greek ToBI. In Jun (ed.), 84–117.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, Douglas J. & Bates, Douglas M.. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Elam, Gayle Ayers. 1997. Guidelines for ToBI labeling (version 3). Ms., The Ohio State University. [http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agus/tobi/labelling_guide_v3.pdf, accessed 1 October 2012.]Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., Díaz-Campos, Manuel, McGory, Julia Tevis & Morgan, Terrell A.. 2002. Intonation across Spanish, in the Tones and Break Indices framework. Probus 14, 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3, 255–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Stacy & Clifton, Charles Jr. 1995. Focus, accent, and argument structure effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech 38 (4), 365–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2008. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.0.09). Computer program.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1986. Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Borràs-Comes, Joan, Costa-Faidella, Jordi, Prieto, Pilar & Escera, Carles. 2012. Specific neural traces for intonational discourse categories as revealed by human evoked potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24 (4), 843–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borràs-Comes, Joan, Vanrell, Maria del Mar & Prieto, Pilar. 2010. The role of pitch range in establishing intonational contrasts in Catalan. In The Fifth International Conference on Speech Prosody, Chicago, 100103, 1–4.Google Scholar
Braun, Bettina. 2006. Phonetics and phonology of thematic contrast in German. Language and Speech 49 (4), 451–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunetti, Lisa. 2004. A unification of focus. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Sasha. 2004. Phonetic dimensions of intonational categories – the case of L+H* and H*. In Bel, Bernard & Marlien, Isabelle (eds.), Speech Prosody 2004, Nara, Japan. 103–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Aoju. 2003. Reaction time as an indicator of discrete intonational contrasts in English. In 8th EuroSpeech, Geneva, 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespo-Sendra, Verònica. 2011. Aspectes de l'entonació del valencià. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. [http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/51575, accessed 1 October 2012.]Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2011. Focalization and word order in Old Italo-Romance. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 10, 92–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhar, Ravi & Simonson, Itamar. 2003. The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research 40 (2), 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilley, Laura C. 2010. Pitch range variation in English tonal contrasts: Continuous or categorical? Phonetica 67, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva. 2009. The use and realization of accentual focus in Central Catalan with a comparison to English. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva & Prieto, Pilar. 2010. Castilian Spanish intonation. In Prieto, Pilar & Roseano, Paolo (eds.), Transcription of intonation of the Spanish language, 17–48. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2005. F0 peak height and the perception of sentence type in Castilian Spanish. Revista de Lingüística Iberoamericana 2 (6), 49–65.Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2007. The role of intonational cues in the perception of declaratives and absolute interrogatives in Castilian Spanish. Estudios de fonética experimental 16, 185–225.Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2011. Perception of Castilian Spanish intonation: Implications for intonational phonology. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L. & D'Imperio, Mariapaola. 2005. Reconsidering a focal typology: Evidence from Spanish and Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics 17 (2), 271–289.Google Scholar
Falé, Isabel & Hub Faria, Isabel. 2005. Intonational contrasts in EP: A categorical perception approach. In 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Lisboa, 1705–1708.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Usó-Juan, Esther (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues, 41–56. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Alexander L., Ciocca, Valter & Kei Chit Ng, Brenda. 2003. On the (non)categorical perception of lexical tones. Perception & Psychophysics 65 (7), 1029–1044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frota, Sónia & Prieto, Pilar (eds.). 2014. Intonational variation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, D'Imperio, Mariapaola, Savino, Michelina & Avesani, Cinzia. 2005. Towards a strategy for labeling varieties of Italian. In Jun (ed.), 55–83.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1999. Discreteness and gradience in intonational contrasts. Language and Speech 42 (2–3), 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2007. Types of focus in English. In Lee, Chungmin, Gordon, Matthew & Büring, Daniel (eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, 83–100. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, Nicholas. 2012. The intonation and signaling of declarative questions in Manchego Peninsular Spanish. Language and Speech 55 (4), 543–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heritage, John. 2013. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15 (5), 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia & Ward, Gregory. 1992. The influence of pitch range, duration, amplitude and spectral features on the interpretation of the rise-fall-rise intonation contour in English. Journal of Phonetics 20, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBM Corporation. 2010. IBM SPSS Statistics (version 19.0.0). Computer program.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2005. Prosodic models and transcription: Towards prosodic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert & Krifka, Manfred (eds.), The notions of information structure, vol. 6, 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1994. Constraints on the gradient variability of pitch range, or, pitch level 4 lives! In Keating, Patricia A. (ed.), Phonological structure and phonetic form: Papers in Laboratory Phonology III, 43–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert & Morton, Rachel. 1997. The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics 25, 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Ho-Young. 2004. H and L are not enough in intonational phonology. Eoneohag 39, 71–79.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2010. Questions and responses in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10), 2741–2755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y. & Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard T. (eds.), Language sound structure: Studies in phonology presented to Morris Halle, 157–233. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McHugh, Brian D. 1990. The phrasal cycle in Kivunjo Chaga tonology. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.), The phonology–syntax connection, 217–242. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nibert, Holly J. 2000. Phonetic and phonological evidence for intermediate phrasing in Spanish intonation. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Nurani, Lusia M. 2009. Methodological issue in pragmatic research: Is discourse completion test a reliable data collection instrument? Jurnal Sosioteknologi 17 (8), 667–678.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. Cross-language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica 40 (1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonetics and phonology of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pisoni, David B., & Tash, Jeffrey. 1974. Reaction times to comparisons within and across phonetic categories. Perception & Psycholinguistics 15 (2), 284–290.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2002. Entonació. In Solà, Joan, Lloret, Maria Rosa, Mascaró, Joan & Saldanya, Manel Pérez (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 1, 1395–1462. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2004. The search for phonological targets in the tonal space: H1 scaling and alignment in five sentence-types in Peninsular Spanish. In Face, Timothy L. (ed.), Laboratory approaches to Spanish phonology, 29–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2005. Stability effects in tonal clash contexts in Catalan. Journal of Phonetics 33 (2), 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2014. The intonational phonology of Catalan. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic Typology 2, 43–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Pilar, Aguilar, Lourdes, Mascaró, Ignasi, Torres-Tamarit, Francesc & Vanrell, Maria del Mar. 2009. L'etiquetatge prosòdic Cat_ToBI. Estudios de Fonética Experimental 18, 287–309.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar & Cabré, Teresa (coords.). 2007–2013. Atles interactiu de l'entonació del català. http://prosodia.upf.edu/atlesentonacio/ (accessed 1 October 2012).Google Scholar
Psychology Software Tools Inc. 2009. E-Prime (version 2.0). Computer program.Google Scholar
Quené, Hugo & van der Bergh, Huub. 2008. Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathcke, Tamara & Harrington, Jonathan. 2006. Is there a distinction between H+!H* and H+L* in standard German? Evidence from an acoustic and auditory analysis. In Hoffmann, Rüdiger & Mixdorff, Hansjörg (eds.), Speech Prosody 2006, 783–786. Dresden: TUDpress Verlag der Wissenschaften GmbH.Google Scholar
Rathcke, Tamara & Harrington, Jonathan. 2010. The variability of early accent peaks in Standard German. In Fougeron, Cécile, Kühnert, Barbara, D'Imperio, Mariapaola & Vallée, Nathalie (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 10, 533–555. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repp, Bruno H. 1984. Categorical perception: Issues, methods, findings. In Lass, Norman J. (ed.), Speech and Language: Advances in basic research and practice, vol. 10. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Roseano, Paolo, Vanrell, Maria del Mar & Prieto, Pilar. 2014. Intonational phonology of Friulian and its dialects. In Frota & Prieto (eds.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savino, Michelina & Grice, Martine. 2011. The perception of negative bias in Bari Italian questions. In Frota, Sónia, Prieto, Pilar & Elordieta, Gorka (eds.), Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension, 187–206. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solà, Joan. 1990. L'ordre dels mots en català. Notes pràctiques. In Solà, Joan (ed.), Lingüística i normativa, 91–124. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2010. An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10), 2772–2781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P., Bowen, Donald J. & Silva-Fuenzalida, Ismael. 1956. Spanish juncture and intonation. Language 32 (4), 641–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trager, George L. & Smith, Henry L. (1951). An outline of English structure (Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers 3). Norman, OK: Battenberg Press.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1991. The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence. The Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 7, 295–306. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar. 2006. A tonal scaling contrast in Majorcan Catalan interrogatives. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 6 (1), 147–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar. 2011. The phonological relevance of tonal scaling in the intonational grammar of Catalan. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès. [http://prosodia.upf.edu/home/arxiu/tesis/doctorat/tesi_vanrell.pdf, accessed 1 October 2012.]Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Ballone, Francesc, Schirru, Carlo & Prieto, Pilar. 2014. Sardinian intonational phonology: Logudorese and Campidanese varieties. In Frota & Prieto (eds.).Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Stella, Antonio, Gili-Fivela, Barbara & Prieto, Pilar. 2013. Prosodic manifestations of the Effort Code in Catalan, Italian and Spanish contrastive focus. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43 (2), 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory & Hirschberg, Julia. 1985. Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61, 747–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar