The Grammar of Dutch Intonation (GDI) provides a description of the possible intonation contours of Dutch. The GDI distinguishes accent-lending and nonaccent-lending pitch configurations, but refrains from further functional statements. This paper describes an experimental attempt to verify meaning hypotheses for four Dutch single-accent pitch patterns as postulated in the linguistic literature. The four pitch accent types were realized on proper names; the abstract meanings, in terms of the manipulation of an element of the background shared between speaker and listener, were incorporated in situational contexts, distinguishing between a “default” and a vocative use of the proper name (“orientation”). Listeners ranked the four melodic shapes from most to least appropriate in their specific context. After revision of part of the materials a second perception experiment was conducted, in which subjects had to rank four contexts from most to least appropriate for a specific pitch accent type. Results show a distinct effect of “orientation” on the appropriateness of two of the investigated pitch accent types in the various context types; the other two pitch accent types are associated with the predicted context types (and vice versa) well above chance, indicating the viability of at least two of the linguistic proposals.
Bolinger, D.L.( 1975).Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
2.
Bolinger, D.L.( 1986).Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. London: Edward Arnold.
3.
Bolinger, D.L.( 1989). Intonation and uses: Melody in grammar and discourse .London: Edward Arnold.
4.
Brazil, D.( 1975). Discourse in tonation I. English Language Research, Birmingham University.
5.
Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., & Johns, C. (1980). Discourse in tonation and laanguage teaching. London: Longman.
6.
Caspers, J.( 1994). Pitch movements under time pressure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
7.
Caspers, J. (1997). Testing the meaning of four Dutch pitch accent types. In G. Kokkinakis, N. Fakotakis, & E. Dermatas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 863-866). Patras: University of Patras.
8.
Caspers, J. (1998). Who's next? The melodic marking of question versus continuation in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41, 371-394.
9.
Caspers, J.( 1999). An experimental investigation of meaning differences between the "early" and the "late" accent-lending fall in Dutch. In R. van Bezooijen & R. Kager (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1999 (pp.27-39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10.
Caspers, J., & Van Heuven, V.J. ( 1995). Effects of time pressure on the choice of accent-lending and boundary-marking pitch configurations in Dutch. In J. M. Pardo, E. Enríquez, J. Ortega, J. Ferreiros, J. Macías , & F.J. Falverde(Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp.1001-1004), Madrid.
11.
Caspers, J., Van Heuven, V.J., & Van Zwol, N. (1998).An experimental investigation of meaning differences between the "pointed hat" contour and the accent-lending fall in Dutch. In R. van Bezooijen & R. Kager (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1998 (pp. 65-79). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12.
Collier, R. (1989). On the phonology of Dutch in tonation. In F. J. Heyvaert & F. Steurs (Eds.), Worlds behind words (pp.245-259). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
13.
Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Cutler, A. (1977). The context-dependence of "intonational meanings." In W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, & S. Philosoph (Eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.104-115). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
15.
Cutler, A.( 1991 ). Prosody in situations of communication: Salience and segmentation. Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 1(pp. 264-270). Aix-en-Provence, Université de Provence.
16.
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech , 40, 141-201.
17.
Gibbon, D. (1976). Perspectives of intonation analysis. Bern: Lang.
18.
Grabe, E., Gussenhoven, C., Haan, J., Marsi, E., & Post, B. (1998). Preaccentual pitch and speaker-attitude in Dutch . Language and Speech, 41, 63-85.
19.
Grice, M.L.( 1995).The intonation of interrogationin Palermo Ialian: Implications for intonation theory. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
20.
Grosz, B.J., & Sidner, C.L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse . Computational Linguistics, 12, 175-204.
21.
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents . Dordrecht: Foris.
22.
Gussenhoven, C. ( 1988 ). Adequacy in intonation analysis: The case of Dutch. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), Autosegmental studies on pitch accent (pp. 95 - 121). Dordrecht: Foris.
23.
Gussenhoven, C.( 1991).Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch. In T.F. Shannon & J.P. Snapper (Eds.), The Berkely Conference on Dutch Linguistics, 1989 (pp. 139- 155). Lanham MD: University Press of America.
24.
Gussenhoven, C. (1993). The Dutch foot and the chanted call. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 37-63.
25.
Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, A.C.M. (1991). An experimental evaluation of two nuclear-tone taxonomies. Linguistics, 29, 423-449.
26.
Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, A.C.M. (1997). Empirical evidence for the contrast between L* and H* in Dutch rising contours. In A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou ,& G. Carayiannis (Eds.), Intonation: Theory, models, and applications ( Proceedings of an ESCA Workshop, pp. 169- 172). Athens: ESCA and University of Athens.
27.
Haan, J., Van Heuven, V.J., Pacilly, J.J.A., & Van Bezooijen, R. (1997a). An anatomy of Dutch question intonation. In J. Coerts & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1997 (pp. 97-108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28.
Haan, J., Van Heuven, V.J., Pacilly, J.J.A., & Van Bezooijen, R. (1997b). Intonational characteristics of declarativity and interrogativity in Dutch: A comparison. In A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou , & G. Carayiannis (Eds.), Intonation: Theory, models, and applications ( Proceedings of an ESCA Workshop, pp. 173 - 176). Athens: ESCA and University of Athens.
29.
't Hart, J., & Collier, R. (1975). Integrating different levels of intonation analysis . Journal of Phonetics, 3, 235-255.
30.
't Hart, J., Collier, R., & Cohen, A. (1990). A perceptual study of intonation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Keijsper, C.E. (1984). Vorm en betekenis in Nederlandsetoonhoogtecontouren[`Form and meaning in Dutch pitch contours']. Forum der Letteren , 25, 20-37, 113-126.
32.
Keijsper, C. *E.(1985).Information structure. Amsterdam : Rodopi.
33.
Kirsner, R.S., & Van Heuven, V.J. (1996). Boundary tones and the semantics of the Dutch final particles hè, hoor, zeg and joh. In M. den Dikken & C. Cremers (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1996 (pp.133-146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34.
Kirsner, R.S., Van Heuven, V.J., & Van Bezooijen, R. (1994).Interaction of particle and prosody in the interpretation of factual Dutch sentences. In R. Bok-Bennema & C. Cremers (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1994 (pp.107-118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35.
Kohler, K.J. (1991). Terminal intonation patterns in single-accent utterances of German: Phonetics, phonology and semantics. Arbeitsberichte Institut für Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung Universität Kiel, 25, 115-185.
36.
Kowtko, J.C. (1996). The function of intonation in task-oriented dialog . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh .
37.
Kraayeveld, J.( 1997).Idiosyncrasy in prosody. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.
38.
Ladd, D.R. (1978). Stylized intonation. Language , 54, 517-540.
39.
Ladd, D.R.( 1980).The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
40.
Ladd, D.R. (1983). Phonological features of intonational peaks. Language, 59, 721-759.
41.
Ladd, D.R. (1992). An introduction to intonational phonology. In G. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody (pp. 321-334). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Ladd, D.R. (1996).Intonational phonology. Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Ladd, D.R., Scherer, K.R., & Silverman, K. (1986). An integrated approach to studying intonationand attitude. In C. Johns-Lewis (Ed.), Intonation in discourse (pp. 125-138).London: Croom Helm.
44.
Liberman, M. (1979). The intonational system of English. New York: Garland.
45.
Pierrehumbert, J.B., & 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: MIT Press.
46.
Pierrehumbert, J.B., & Steele, S.A. (1989). Categories in tonal alignment in English. Phonetica, 46, 181-196.
47.
Rietveld, T., & Gussenhoven, C. (1995). Aligning pitch targets in speech synthesis: Effects of syllable structure. Journal of Phonetics, 23, 375-385.
48.
Sanders, M.J.( 1996). Intonation contour choice in English. Utrecht: Research Institute for Language and Speech .
49.
Selting, M. (1996). On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics, 6, 357-388.
50.
Tench, P. (1996). The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell.
51.
Terken, J.M. (1993). Human and synthetic intonation. In V.J. van Heuven & L. C. W. Pols(Eds.), Analysis and synthesis of speech (pp.241-259). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
52.
Uldall, E. (1972). Dimensions of meaning in intonation. In D. Bolinger (Ed.), Intonation (pp. 250- 259). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
53.
Van Den Berg, R., Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, T. (1992). Downstep in Dutch: Implications fora model.In G. J. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody (pp. 335 - 359). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
54.
Vismans, R.M. (1994). Modal articles in Dutch directives: A study in functional grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
