Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In order to explore the influence of context on the phonetic design of talk-in-interaction, we investigated the pitch characteristics of short turns (insertions) that are produced by one speaker between turns from another speaker. We investigated the hypothesis that the speaker of the insertion designs her turn as a pitch match to the prior turn in order to align with the previous speaker’s agenda, whereas non-matching displays that the speaker of the insertion is non-aligning, for example to initiate a new action. Data were taken from the AMI meeting corpus, focusing on the spontaneous talk of first-language English participants. Using sequential analysis, 177 insertions were classified as either aligning or non-aligning in accordance with definitions of these terms in the Conversation Analysis literature. The degree of similarity between the pitch contour of the insertion and that of the prior speaker’s turn was measured, using a new technique that integrates normalized F0 and intensity information. The results showed that aligning insertions were significantly more similar to the immediately preceding turn, in terms of pitch contour, than were non-aligning insertions. This supports the view that choice of pitch contour is managed locally, rather than by reference to an intonational lexicon.

Keywords

conversational alignment pitch contour pitch matching prosodic repetition prosodic similarity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barth-Weingarten

(2011). Double sayings of German JA: More observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(2), 157–185.

Boersma

Weenink

(2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/

Cooke

M. P.

(1993). Modelling auditory processing and organisation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Couper-Kuhlen

(1996). The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In Couper-Kuhlen

Selting

(Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 366–405). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

de Cheveigné

Kawahara

. (2002). YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1917–1930.

Drew

(1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69–101.

Edlund

Heldner

Al Moubayed

Gravano

Hirschberg

(2010). Very short utterances in conversation. In Schötz

Ambrazaitis

(Eds.), Proceedings from Fonetik 2010 (pp. 11–16). Lund, Sweden: Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.

French

Local

(1983). Turn-competitive incomings. Journal of Pragmatics, 7(1), 17–38.

Gardner

(1997). The conversation object mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(2), 131–156.

10.

Gardner

(2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 92). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

11.

Geluykens

(1987). Intonation and speech act type: An experimental approach to rising intonation in queclaratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(4), 483–494.

12.

Goodwin

(1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Social Inquiry, 50(3–4), 272–302.

13.

Harris

J. D.

(1947). The effect of sensation level upon pitch discrimination in a continuous thermal noise mask. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19(4), 733.

14.

Heldner

Edlund

Hirschberg

(2010). Pitch similarity in the vicinity of backchannels. Proceedings Interspeech 2010 (pp. 3054–3057). Makuhari: ISCA.

15.

Jefferson

(1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mmhm’. Papers in Linguistics, 17(2), 197–216.

16.

Jefferson

(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner

G. H.

(Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

17.

Kaimaki

(2011). Transition relevance and the phonetic design of English call openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2130–2147.

18.

Kurtić

Brown

G. J.

Wells

(2009). Fundamental frequency height as a resource for the management of overlap in talk-in-interaction. In Barth-Weingarten

Dehé

Wichmann

(Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics (Studies in Pragmatics 8) (pp. 183–204). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

19.

Lerner

G. H.

(2004). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 151–184.

20.

Levelt

W. J.

(1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

21.

Local

Walker

(2005). Methodological imperatives for investigating the phonetic organization and phonological structures of spontaneous speech. Phonetica, 62, 120–130.

22.

Local

Wootton

(1995). Interactional and phonetic aspects of immediate echolalia in autism: A case study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 9(2), 155–194.

23.

Mann

H. B.

Whitney

D. R.

(1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60.

24.

Moore

Kronenthal

Ashby

(2005). Guidelines for AMI speech transcriptions. Switzerland: IDIAP; Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh. http://www.amiproject.org/

25.

Müller

F. E.

(1996). Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. In Couper-Kuhlen

Selting

(Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 131–176). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Pöppel

(2009). Pre-semantically defined temporal windows for cognitive processing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1887–1896.

27.

Schegloff

E. A.

(1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen

(Ed.), Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics,1981. Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

28.

Schegloff

E. A.

(1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs

Schegloff

E. A.

Thompson

(Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Schegloff

E. A.

(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Selting

(1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive signalling cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished questions’ In repair-initiation. In Couper-Kuhlen

Selting

(Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 231–270). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Steensig

Drew

(2008). Introduction: Questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies, 10(5), 5–15.

32.

Steensig

Larsen

(2008). Affiliative and disaffiliative uses of you say x questions. Discourse Studies, 10(5), 113–133.

33.

Stivers

(2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.

34.

Szczepek Reed

. (2004). Turn-final intonation in English. In Couper-Kuhlen

Ford

C. E.

(Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 97–118). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

35.

Szczepek Reed

. (2006). Prosodic orientation in English conversation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

36.

Szczepek Reed

. (2009). Prosodic orientation: A practice for sequence organization in broadcast telephone openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(6), 1223–1247.

37.

Tarplee

(1996). Working on young children’s utterances: Prosodic aspects of repetition during picture labelling. In Couper-Kuhlen

Selting

(Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 406–435). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Walker

(2004). The phonetic design of turn endings, beginnings, and continuations in conversation (PhD thesis). University of York, York, UK.

39.

Wells

(2010). Tonal repetition and tonal contrast in English carer-child interaction. In Barth-Weingarten

Reber

Selting

(Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 243–262). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.40 MB

Pitch Contour Matching and Interactional Alignment across Turns: An Acoustic Investigation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material