Cover not available
Part of
Intonational Grammar in Ibero-Romance: Approaches across linguistic subfields
Edited by Meghan E. Armstrong, Nicholas Henriksen and Maria del Mar Vanrell
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 6] 2016
► pp. 207–226

Declarative utterances in Buenos Aires Spanish

| Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Argentina, Proyecto SYPCE (Semántica Procedimental y Contenido Explícito) III & Proyecto FFI2015-63497-P (La interfaz Semántica | Pragmática y la resolución de los desajustes interpretativos)

This chapter aims to explore an aspect of the interface between prosody and pragmatics by examining the contribution of intonation to the process of utterance interpretation in spontaneous speech. Buenos Aires Spanish has three nuclear pitch accent + boundary tone configurations associated with declarative utterances: (a) high-falling (H+L L%); (b) low (L L%); (c) risingfalling (L+H+L L%). All three can be used to assert a given state of affairs, but each encodes a different pragmatic meaning, associated with the strength and emphasis with which the state of affairs is communicated and with the type of cognitive effect to be achieved by the utterance. The prosodic analysis is carried out using the Autosegmental-Metrical approach, and the pragmatic analysis follows Relevance Theory.

Keywords: falling intonation, intonation, pragmatics, relevance
Published online: 31 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.6.10lab
References
Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J
(1986) Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D
(1987) Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenick, P
(2010)  Praat: Doing phonetics y computer . Retrieved from [URL]
Clark, B
(2007) ‘Blazing a trail’: Moving from natural to linguistic meaning in accounting for the tones of English. In R.A. Nilsen, N.A. Appiah Amfo & K. Borthen (Eds.), Interpreting utterances: Pragmatics and its interfaces. Essays in honour of Thorstein Fretheim (pp. 69-81). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Colantoni, L., & Gurlekian, J
(2004) Convergence and intonation. Historical evidence from Buenos Aires Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 197-119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V
(1998) Intonation and procedural encoding: The case of Spanish interrogatives. In V. Rouchota & A.H. Jucker (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp. 169-204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Echo-syntax and metarepresentations. Lingua, 112, 871-900. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011a) Prosodia y pragmática. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 4(1), 193-208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b)  Verum focus y prosodia: Cuando la duración (sí que) importa. Oralia, 14, 181-201.Google Scholar
Espinal, T., & Prieto, P
(2011) Intonational encoding of double nagation in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2392-2410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Face, T
(2003) Intonation in Spanish declaratives: Differences between lab speech and spontaneous speech. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 2, 115-131.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I., Pešková, A., Kireva, E. & Gabriel
C (2011) Categorical perception of Porteño nuclear accents. In Proceedings of the 17 th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII) (pp. 116-119).Google Scholar
Gabriel, C., Feldhausen, I., & Pešková, A
(2011) Prosodic phrasing in Porteño Spanish. In C. Gabriel & C. Lleó (Eds.), Intonational phrasing in Romance and Germanic. Cross-linguistic and bilingual studies (pp. 153-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, C., Feldhausen, I., Pešková, A., Colantoni, L., Lee, S.A., Arana, V
. & Labastía, L. (P. Prieto & P. Roseano2010) Argentinian Spanish intonation. In (Eds.), Transcription of intonation of the Spanish language (pp. 285-317). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C
(2002) Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Speech Prosody 2002, An International Conference (pp. 47-57). Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage, CNRS and Université de Provence.Google Scholar
(2004) The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L
(1984) Towards a new taxonomy of pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp.11-42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
House, J
(1990) Intonation structures and pragmatic interpretation. In S. Ramsaran (Ed.), Studies in the Pronunciation of English (pp. 38-57). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (10), 1542-1558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hualde, J.I., & Prieto, P
(2015) Intonational variation in Spanish: European and American varieties. In S. Frota & P. Prieto (Eds.), Intonational variation in Romance (pp. 350-391). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, H
(2001) The long fall: An intonational melody of Argentinian Spanish. In J. Herschensohn, E. Mallen & K. Zagona (Eds.) Features and interfaces in Romance (pp. 148-160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labastía, L
(2006) Prosodic prominence in Argentinian Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (10), 1677-1705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Procedural encoding and tone choice in Buenos Aires Spanish. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives (pp. 383-413). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Ladd, D.R
(2008) Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M., & Escandell-Vidal, V
(2004) Semántica conceptual/semántica procedimental. In M. Villayandre Llamazares (Ed.), Actas del 5° Congreso de Lingüística General (pp.1727-1738). Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J
(1980)  The phonology and phonetics of English intonation . Unpublished PhD dissertation. MIT.
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J
(1990) The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan & M.E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp.271-311). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prieto, P
(2014) The intonational phonology of Catalan. In S.-A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 43-80). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto, P., & Roseano, P
(2010) Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Searle, J
(1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wharton, T
(2009) Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D
(1994) Relevance and understanding. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjær, A. Pollitt & J. Williams (Eds.), Language and understanding (pp. 37-58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D
(1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1-25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Relevance theory. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2012) Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 210-229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Wharton, T
(2006) Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559-1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar