Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:08:43.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Intonation

from Section II - Prosodic Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2021

By
Paul Warren  and
Sasha Calhoun
Edited by
Rachael-Anne Knight  and
Jane Setter
Rachael-Anne Knight
Affiliation:
City, University of London
Jane Setter
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Get access

Summary

This chapter gives an overview of critical issues in contemporary research on the phonetics of intonation, arising from a survey of historical and recent trends in the field. We begin with a brief introduction to some of the key concepts to be used in the description of intonation in the chapter, which is based primarily on the Autosegmental Metrical framework. In the subsequent historical overview, we place this tone-based framework in its historical context, comparing it with the British tune-based tradition, before outlining more recent developments arising out of studies of typological variation of intonation, which have influenced our understanding of both the forms and the meanings of intonation. Three critical issues in the study of intonation are then reviewed: defining the phonetic variables of intonation, the relationship of intonation to other linguistic structures, and intonational variation and change. A sampling of recent research subsequently highlights work that relates to these critical issues. Key considerations for the teaching of intonation are then reviewed, before some closing comments on future directions for intonation research.

Keywords

intonationstresspitch accentprosodic phrasingintonational meaningAutosegmental Metrical analysisToBIhistory of intonation researchintonational variation and changeteaching intonational analysis
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics , pp. 209 - 236
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

8.7 References

Arvaniti, A. (2016). Analytical decisions in intonation research and the role of representations: Lessons from Romani. Laboratory Phonology, 7(1), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, A., Ladd, D. R. & Mennen, I. (1998). Stability of tonal alignment: The case of Greek prenuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 3–25.Google Scholar
Astruc, L., Prieto, P., Payne, E., Post, B. & Vanrell, M. d. M. (2009). Acquisition of tonal targets in Catalan, Spanish, and English. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 5, 1–14.Google Scholar
Atterer, M. & Ladd, D. R. (2004). On the phonetics and phonology of ‘segmental anchoring’ of f0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 177–97.Google Scholar
Bänziger, T. & Scherer, K. (2005). The role of intonation in emotional expressions. Speech Communication, 46, 252–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M. & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255–310.Google Scholar
Beckman, M., Hirschberg, J. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Jun, S.-A., ed., Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 9–54.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2020). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [computer program]. Version 6.1.30, www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1978). Intonation across languages. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. A., eds., Universals of Human Language. Volume II: Phonology. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 471–524.Google Scholar
Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M. & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 1044–98.Google Scholar
Bruce, G. (1977). Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Bruce, G. & Gårding, E. (1978). A prosodic typology for Swedish dialects. In Gårding, E., Bruce, G. & Bannert, R., eds., Nordic Prosody. Lund: Gleerup, pp. 219–28.Google Scholar
Brugos, A., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Veilleux, N. (2006). Transcribing Prosodic Structure of Spoken Utterances with ToBI. MIT Open Courseware. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-911-transcribing-prosodic-structure-of-spoken-utterances-with-tobi-january-iap-2006/.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2009). Towards a typology of focus realization. In Féry, C. & Zimmermann, M., eds., Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, S. (2007). Information Structure and the Prosodic Structure of English: a Probabilistic Relationship. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Calhoun, S. (2010). The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language, 86(1), 1–42.Google Scholar
Calhoun, S. (2015). The interaction of prosody and syntax in Samoan focus marking. Lingua, 165(B), 205–29.Google Scholar
Calhoun, S. & Schweitzer, A. (2012). Can intonation contours be lexicalised? Implications for discourse meanings. In Elordieta, G. & Prieto, P., eds., Prosody and Meaning (Interface Explorations 25). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 271‒327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. & Gussenhoven, C. (2008). Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics, 36(4), 724–46.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Lee, P. P.-L. & Pan, H. (2016). Topic and focus marking in Chinese. In Féry, C. & Ishihara, S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Carlson, K. & Frazier, L. (2002). Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech, 45(2), 87–114.Google Scholar
Cole, J. (2015). Prosody in context: A review. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(1–2), 1‒31.Google Scholar
Cole, J. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2016). New methods for prosodic transcription: Capturing variability as a source of information. Laboratory Phonology, 7(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J., Mo, Y. & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. (2010). Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology, 1(2), 425–52.Google Scholar
Cooper, W., Eady, S. & Mueller, P. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 2142–56.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cruz, M., Swerts, M. & Frota, S. (2017). The role of intonation and visual cues in the perception of sentence types: Evidence from European Portuguese varieties. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1990). Exploiting prosodic probabilities in speech segmentation. In Altmann, G. T. M., ed., Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 105–21.Google Scholar
D’Imperio, M., Nguyen, N. & Munhall, K. G. (2003). An articulatory hypothesis for the alignment of tonal targets in Italian. In Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J., eds., Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Rundle Mall: Causal Productions, pp. 253–6.Google Scholar
D’Imperio, M., Cangemi, F. & Grice, M. (2016). Introducing advancing prosodic transcription. Laboratory Phonology, 7(1), 4.Google Scholar
Dalton, M. & Ní Chasaide, A. (2005). Tonal alignment in Irish dialects. Language and Speech, 48, 441‒64.Google Scholar
Dominguez, M., Farrus, M. & Wanner, L. (2016). An automatic prosody tagger for spontaneous speech. In COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Osaka, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 377–86.Google Scholar
Downing, L. J. & Pompino-Marschall, B. (2013). The focus prosody of Chichewa and the Stress-Focus constraint: a response to Samek-Lodovici (2005). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 31(3), 647–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eady, S. & Cooper, W. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80(2), 402–15.Google Scholar
Eady, S., Cooper, W., Klouda, G., Mueller, P. & Lotts, D. (1986). Acoustical characteristics of sentential focus: Narrow vs. broad and single vs. dual focus environments. Language and Speech, 29, 233–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elfner, E. (2012). Syntax–Prosody Interactions in Irish. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.Google Scholar
Féry, C. (2013). Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31(3), 683–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, C. & Schubö, F. (2010). Hierarchical prosodic structures in the intonation of center-embedded relative clauses. The Linguistic Review, 27, 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frota, S. (2002). Tonal association and target alignment in European Portuguese nuclear falls. In Gussenhoven, C. & Warner, N., eds., Laboratory Phonology 7, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 387–418.Google Scholar
Fujisaki, H. (1983). Dynamic characteristics of voice fundamental frequency in speech and singing. In MacNeilage, P. F., ed., The Production of Speech. New York: Springer, pp. 39–55.Google Scholar
Grabe, E. (1998). Pitch accent realization in English and German. Journal of Phonetics, 26(2), 129‒43.Google Scholar
Grice, M., Ladd, D. R. & Arvaniti, A. (2000). On the place of phrase accents in intonational phonology. Phonology, 17, 143‒85.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2002). Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In Bel, B. & Marlien, I., eds., Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage, pp. 47‒57.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and Grammar in British English. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hanssen, J. (2017). Regional Variation in the Realisation of Intonation Contours in the Netherlands. Utrecht: LOT dissertations.Google Scholar
’t Hart, J., Collier, R. & Cohen, A. (1990). A Perceptual Study of Intonation: An Experimental-Phonetic Approach to Speech Melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hermes, D. J. (2006). Stylization of pitch contours. In Sudhoff, S., Lenertova, D., Meyer, R., Pappert, S., Augurzky, P., Mleinek, I., Richter, N. & Schließer, J., eds., Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 29–62.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. & Ladd, D. R. (2008). Prosodic description: An introduction for fieldworkers. Language Documentation & Conservation, 2(2), 244–74.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J. & Ward, G. (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, 241–51.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. J. (2005). Form and function in the representation of speech prosody. Speech Communication, 46(3–4), 334–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, D. J. & Di Cristo, A. (1998). A survey of intonation systems. In Hirst, D. J. & Di Cristo, A., eds., Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I. (1999). Basque accentuation. In van der Hulst, H., ed., Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 947–93.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I. & Prieto, P. (2016). Towards an International Phonetic Alphabet (IPrA). Laboratory Phonology, 7(1), 5.Google Scholar
Ipek, C. (2015). The Phonology and Phonetics of Turkish Intonation. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, USA.Google Scholar
Ito, K., Turnbull, R. & Speer, S. (2017). Allophonic tunes of contrast: Lab and spontaneous speech lead to equivalent fixation responses in museum visitors. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 6.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, A. (2016). A first look at declarative rises as markers of ethnicity in Sydney. In Barnes, J., Brugos, A., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Vieilleux, N., eds., Speech Prosody 2016. Boston, MA, pp. 143–7.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (1998). The accentual phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology, 15, 189–226.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (2005a). Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In Jun, S.-A., ed., Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 201–29.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A., ed. (2005b). Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (2014a). Prosodic typology: By prominence type, word prosody and macro-rhythm. In Jun, S.-A., ed., Prosodic Typology II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 520–40.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A., ed. (2014b). Prosodic Typology II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S.-A. & Kim, H.-S. (2007). VP focus and narrow focus in Korean. In Trouvain, J. & Barry, W. J., eds., Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 1277–80.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. & Lee, H.-J. (1998). Phonetic and phonological markers of corrective focus in Korean. In Mannell, R. H. & Robert-Ribes, J., eds., Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP-98). Sydney: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association, pp. 1295–8.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. & Prieto, P. (2018). Usages and advantages of categorical phonetic transcription of prosody: Toward the development of an IPrA (International Prosodic Alphabet). In Speech Prosody 2018, Poznań, Poland. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/ipra_workshop/.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A., Hualde, J. & Prieto, P. (2015). Workshop on Developing an International Prosodic Alphabet (IPrA) within the AM framework., International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/ipra_workshop/.Google Scholar
Kakouros, S. & Räsänen, O. (2016). Perception of sentence stress in speech correlates with the temporal unpredictability of prosodic features. Cognitive Science, 40(7), 1739–74.Google Scholar
Kim, S., Broersma, M. & Cho, T. (2012). The use of prosodic cues in learning new words in an unfamiliar language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 415–44.Google Scholar
Krivokapić, J., Tiede, M. K. & Tyrone, M. E. (2017). A kinematic study of prosodic structure in articulatory and manual gestures: Results from a novel method of data collection. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 3.Google Scholar
Kügler, F. & Calhoun, S. (2020). Prosodic encoding of information structure: a typological perspective. In Gussenhoven, C. & Chen, A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 454–467.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational Phonology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Pierrehumbert, J. (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, M. & Oerhle, R., eds., Language Sound Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 157–233.Google Scholar
Mattys, S., White, L. & Melhorn, J. (2005). Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 477–500.Google Scholar
Mo, Y. (2010). Prosody Production and Perception with Conversational Speech. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/18560.Google Scholar
Möhler, G. & Conkie, A. (1998). Parametric modeling of intonation using vector quantization. In Proceedings of the 3rd ESCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis, pp. 311–16.Google Scholar
Nenkova, A., Brenier, J., Kothari, A., Calhoun, S., Whitton, L., Beaver, D. & Jurafsky, D. (2007). To memorize or to predict: Prominence labelling in conversational speech. In Human Language Technologies: NAACL, Rochester, NY, pp. 9–16.Google Scholar
O’Connor, J. D. & Arnold, G. F. (1961). The Intonation of Colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1983). Cross-language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica, 40, 1‒18.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1984). An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of f0 in voice. Phonetica, 41, 1‒16.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1994). The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice of pitch. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. & Ohala, J. J., eds., Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 325–47.Google Scholar
Peng, S.-H., Chan, M. K. M., Tseng, C.-Y., Huang, T., Lee, O. J. & Beckman, M. E. (2005). Towards a Pan-Mandarin system for prosodic transcription. In Jun, S.-A., ed., Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD thesis, MIT, published by Indiana Linguistics Club, 1987.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2000). Tonal elements and their alignment. In Horne, M., ed., Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Studies Presented to Gösta Bruce. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 11‒36.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2016). Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2(1), 33–52.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E., eds., Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 271‒311.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1945). The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Prieto, P. (2015). Intonational meaning. WIREs Cognitive Science, 6(4), 371–81.Google Scholar
Prieto, P., D’Imperio, M. & Gili Fivela, B. (2005). Pitch accent alignment in Romance: Primary and secondary associations with metrical structure. Language and Speech, 48, 359–96.Google Scholar
Queen, R. M. (2001). Bilingual intonation patterns: Evidence of language change from Turkish–German bilingual children. Language in Society, 30(1), 55–80.Google Scholar
Reichel, U. D. & Salveste, N. (2015). Pitch elbow detection. In Wirsching, G., ed., Elektronische Sprachverarbeitung. Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation, 78, Dresden: TUDpress, pp. 143–9.Google Scholar
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Roy, J., Cole, J. & Mahrt, T. (2017). Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 22.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. (2005). Prosody–syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 687–755.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, K., Walsh, M., Calhoun, S., Schütze, H., Möbius, B., Schweitzer, A. & Dogil, G. (2015). Exploring the relationship between intonation and the lexicon: Evidence for lexicalised storage of intonation. Speech Communication, 66, 65–81.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J. & Yu, A., eds., The Handbook of Phonological Theory. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd ed., pp. 435–84.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Turk, A. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 193–247.Google Scholar
Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P. et al. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Banff, Canada, pp. 867‒70.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A. & Lin, P. M. S. (2017). Production of ambiguous idioms in English: A reading aloud study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1) 58–70.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S., Fielder, I., Hellmuth, S., Schwarz, A., Fanselow, G., Féry, C. & Krifka, M. (2006). Questionnaire on Information Structure (QUIS): Reference Manual, Potsdam, Germany: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Speer, S. R., Warren, P. & Schafer, A. J. (2011). Situationally independent prosodic phrasing. Laboratory Phonology, 2(1), 39‒98.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax–phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(4), 649–89.Google Scholar
Syrdal, A. K., Hirschberg, J., McGory, J. & Beckman, M. (2001). Automatic ToBI prediction and alignment to speed manual labeling of prosody. Speech Communication, 33, 135–51.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. (2000). Analysis and synthesis of intonation using the Tilt model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 1697–714.Google Scholar
Trager, G. & Smith, H. (1951). An Outline of English Structure. Washington: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Turk, A. (2011). The temporal implementation of prosodic structure. In Cohn, A., Fougeron, C. & Huffman, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 242–53.Google Scholar
Vroomen, J., Tuomainen, J. & de Gelder, B. (1998). The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 133–49.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. (2015). Phonological evidence in syntax. In Kiss, T. & Alexidou, A., eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter, Vol. 2, pp. 1154–98.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 905–45.Google Scholar
Wakefield, J. C. (2010). The English Equivalents of Cantonese Sentence-Final Particles: A Contrastive Analysis. PhD thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Wakefield, J. C. (2012). A floating tone discourse morpheme: The English equivalent of Cantonese ‘lo1’. Lingua, 122(14), 1739–62.Google Scholar
Ward, G. & Hirschberg, J. (1985). Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language, 61, 747–76.Google Scholar
Warren, P. (2005a). Issues in the study of intonation in language varieties. Language and Speech, 48(4), 345‒58.Google Scholar
Warren, P. (2005b). Patterns of late rising in New Zealand English: Intonational variation or intonational change? Language Variation and Change, 17(2), 209‒30.Google Scholar
Warren, P. (2016). Uptalk: The Phenomenon of Rising Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, P. (2017). The interpretation of prosodic variability in the context of accompanying sociophonetic cues. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 11.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (2006). English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (1999). Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of f0 contours. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 55–105.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (2005). Speech melody as articulatorily implemented communicative functions. Speech Communication, 46, 220–51.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×