Cover not available
Part of
Evaluation in Context
Edited by Geoff Thompson † and Laura Alba-Juez
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 242] 2014
► pp. 179–194

The evaluation of intonation: pitch range differences in English and in Spanish

This chapter investigates evaluation with respect to the hearer and it shows how evaluation permeates the phonological level of linguistic description. In particular, it examines how interlocutors of different cultural backgrounds, namely, English and Spanish, perceive and evaluate certain utterances as polite or rude based on their pitch range. A perception test was designed by means of which 15 native hearers of each language evaluated different productions of the word mandarins/mandarinas which only differed with respect to their F0 scaling. The results confirmed that pitch range differences have an effect on the evaluation of sentences cross-linguistically. Whereas low pitch range productions were interpreted as “polite” in Spanish and as “rude” in English, utterances with a high pitch displacement were judged as “over-excited” in Spanish and as “polite” in English. The results corroborate the status of intonation as an off-record strategy used to signal attitude.

Published online: 4 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.09est
References
André, Carine, Ghio, Alain, Cavé, Christian and Teston, Bernard.
1995-2003 PERCEVAL: PERCeption EVALuation Auditive & Visuelle, Université d’Aix-en-Provence. Available at [URL] .
Alba-Juez, Laura.
2009 Perspectives on Discourse Analysis. Theory and Practice. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars PublishingGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. and Pierrehumbert, Janet.
1986 “Intonational structure in Japanese and English”. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul and Weenink, David.
2010 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer.   Available at [URL]
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C.
1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Aoju.
2003 “Reaction time as an indicator of discrete intonational contrasts in English”. Eurospeech 2003 Genève. Available at [URL] Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan.
1986 Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David.
1969 Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Pijper, Jan R.
1983 Modelling British English Intonation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dolson, Mark.
1994 “The pitch of speech as a function of linguistic community”. Music Perception 11: 321–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Hartwig and Laver, John.
1994 Menschen und ihre Stimmen: Aspekte der vokalen Kommunikation. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva.
2009 Teach Yourself English Pronunciation. A Coruña: Netbiblo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva and Prieto, Pilar.
2008 “La notación prosódica del español: una revisión del Sp_ToBI.” Estudios de Fonética Experimental 17: 265–265.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce.
1990 “Perspectives on politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd.
1998 “German intonation”. In Intonation Systems, Daniel Hirst and Albert di Cristo (eds), 78–95. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M.
1989 Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul.
1975 “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos.
2004 The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K.
1967 Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert.
1994 “Constraints on the gradient variability of pitch range, or, Pitch level 4 lives!” In Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form. Papers in Laboratory Phonology III, Paul A. Keating (ed.), 42–63. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert and Morton, Rachel.
1997 “The perception of intonational emphasis: continuous or categorical?” Journal of Phonetics 25: 313–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey.
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. Singapore: Longman.Google Scholar
Méndez, Jorge.
2009 “El scaling tonal como herramienta prosódica de distinción fonológica: un caso de español caraqueño”. (Trabajo de Fin de Módulo). Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar
Mennen, Ineke, Chen, Aoju and Karlsson, Fredrik.
2010 “Characterising the internal structure of learner intonation and its development over time”. In Proceedings of New Sounds 2010: The sixth international symposium on the acquisition of second language speech. Poznan University.Google Scholar
Mennen, Ineke, Schaeffler, Felix and Docherty, Gerard.
2007 “Pitching it differently: a comparison of the pitch ranges of German and English speakers”. In Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Jürgen Trouvain and William J. Barry (eds), 1769–1772. Saarbrücken, Germany. Pirrot GmbH: Dudweiler.Google Scholar
2008 “A methodological study into the linguistic dimensions of pitch range differences between German and English”. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Speech Prosody. Campinas (Brasil), 527–530.Google Scholar
Navarro Tomás, Tomás.
1974 Manual de Entonación Española. Madrid: Guadarrama. (First edition 1944. New York: Spanish Institute in the United States).Google Scholar
O’Connor, Joseph D. and Arnold, Gordon.
1973 The Intonation of Colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet.
1980 The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. MIT, Massachusetts: PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Quilis, Antonio.
1993 Tratado de Fonología y Fonética Españolas. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Savino, Michaelina and Grice, Martine.
2007 “The role of pitch range in realising pragmatic contrasts: the case of two question types in Italian”. In Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Jürgen Trouvain and William J. Barry (eds.), 1037–1040. Saarbrücken, Germany. Pirrot GmbH: Dudweiler.Google Scholar
Scherer, Klaus R.
2000 “A cross-cultural investigation of emotion inferences from voice and speech: implications for speech technology”. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Vol. 2, B. Yuan, T. Huang, and X. Tang (eds.), 379–382. Beijing: China Military Friendship Publish.Google Scholar
Van Bezooijen, Renee.
1995 “Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women”. Language and Speech 38: 253–65.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar.
2006 The Phonological Role of Tonal Scaling in Majorcan Catalan Interrogatives. (Research Project). Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
2007 “Effect of utterance length on F0 scaling”. In Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Jürgen Trouvain and William J. Barry (eds.), 1165–1168. Saarbrücken, Germany. Pirrot GmbH: Dudweiler.Google Scholar
Wells, John C.
2006 English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Alvarado, Covadonga Sánchez & Meghan Armstrong
2022. Prosodic Marking of Object Focus in L2 Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Bogach, Natalia, Elena Boitsova, Sergey Chernonog, Anton Lamtev, Maria Lesnichaya, Iurii Lezhenin, Andrey Novopashenny, Roman Svechnikov, Daria Tsikach, Konstantin Vasiliev, Evgeny Pyshkin & John Blake
2021. Speech Processing for Language Learning: A Practical Approach to Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Teaching. Electronics 10:3 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Kučiš, Vlasta & Simona Majhenič
2018. Cultural and stress-related manifestations of political controversial language in the European Parliament from the view of interpreters. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 64:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Kent
2023. A comparative analysis of English nuclear stress principles in conversation. Topics in Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
Pennington, Martha C. & Pamela Rogerson-Revell
2019. The Nature of Pronunciation. In English Pronunciation Teaching and Research [Research and Practice in Applied Linguistics, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sánchez-Alvarado, Covadonga, Alba Arias, Eduardo García Fernández, Isaac McAlister & Meghan E. Armstrong
2018. Chapter 13. Mothers’ use of F0 after the first year of life in American English and Peninsular Spanish. In Contemporary Trends in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 15], ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Sánchez-Mompeán, Sofía
2019. Chapter 9. More than words can say. In Reassessing Dubbing [Benjamins Translation Library, 148], ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.