Recent studies in the field of intonational phonology have shown that information-seeking questions can be distinguished from confirmation-seeking questions by prosodic means in a variety of languages (Armstrong, 2010, for Puerto Rican Spanish; Grice & Savino, 1997, for Bari Italian; Kügler, 2003, for Leipzig German; Mata & Santos, 2010, for European Portuguese; Vanrell, Mascaró, Prieto, & Torres-Tamarit, 2010, for Catalan). However, all these studies have relied on production experiments and little is known about the perceptual relevance of these intonational cues. This paper explores whether Majorcan Catalan listeners distinguish information- and confirmation-seeking questions by means of two distinct nuclear falling pitch accents. Three behavioral tasks were conducted with 20 Majorcan Catalan subjects, namely a semantic congruity test, a rating test, and a classical categorical perception identification/discrimination test. The results show that a difference in pitch scaling on the leading H tone of the H+L* nuclear pitch accent is the main cue used by Majorcan Catalan listeners to distinguish confirmation questions from information-seeking questions. Thus, while a ¡H+L* pitch accent signals an information-seeking question (i.e., the speaker has no expectation about the nature of the answer), the H+L* pitch accent indicates that the speaker is asking about mutually shared information. We argue that these results have implications in representing the distinctions of tonal height in Catalan. The results also support the claim that phonological contrasts in intonation, together with other linguistic strategies, can signal the speakers’ beliefs about the certainty of the proposition expressed.
ArmstrongM. (2010). Puerto Rican Spanish intonation. In PrietoP.RoseanoP. (Eds.), Transcription of intonation of the Spanish language (pp. 155–189). München, Germany: LINCOM Studies in Phonetics.
3.
ArvanitiA.BaltazaniM. (2005). Greek ToBI. In JunS. A. (Ed.), Prosodic models and transcription: Towards prosodic typology (pp. 84–117). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
BüringD.GunlogsonC. (2000). Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same?Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, Chicago. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles and University of California, Santa Cruz. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1802/1432
10.
CalhounS. (2004). Phonetic dimensions of intonational categories: The case of L+H* and H*. In BelB.MarlienI. (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004 (pp. 103–106). Nara, Japan, March 23–26.
11.
CarlettaJ.IsardA.IsardS.KowtkoJ.Doherty-SneddonG.AndersonA. (1995). The coding of dialogue structure in a corpus. In AndernachJ. A.vanS. P.Burgtdevan der HoevenJ. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twente Workshop on Language Technology: Corpus-based approaches to dialogue modeling (pp. 25–34). Enschede, The Netherlands: Universiteit Twente.
12.
ChenA. (2003). Reaction time as an indicator of discrete intonational contrasts in English. Proceedings of Eurospeech (pp. 97–100). Geneva, Switzerland, September 1–4. Retrieved from http://www.let.ru.nl/gep/carlos/AojuEurospeech2003.pdf
CrowderR. G. (1978). Mechanisms of auditory backward masking in the stimulus suffix effect. Psychological Review, 85, 502–524.
15.
CrowderR. G. (1981). The role of auditory memory in speech perception and discrimination. In MyersT.LaverJ.AndersonJ. (Eds.), The cognitive representation of speech (pp. 167–179). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Co.
16.
CrowderR. G. (1982). Decay of auditory information in vowel discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 8, 153–162.
17.
CuencaM. J. (1997). Form-use mappings for tag questions. In LiebertW. A.RedekerG.WaughL. (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 3–19). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
18.
CumminsF.DohertyC.DilleyL. (2006). Phrase-final pitch discrimination in English. In HoffmannR.MixdorffH. (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody (pp. 5467–5470). Dresden, Germany: TUDpress Verlag der Wissenschaften GmbH.
19.
De HaanF. (2001). The relation between modality and evidentiality. In MüllerR.ReisM. (Eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 9. Hamburg, Germany: H. Buske.
20.
DilleyL. C. (2010). Pitch range variation in English tonal contrasts: Continuous or categorical? Phonetica, 67, 63–81.
21.
D’ImperioM.HouseD. (1997). Perception of questions and statements in Neapolitan Italian. In KokkinakisG.FakotakisN.DermatasE. (Eds.), Proceedings of Eurospeech 1997 (pp. 251–254). Rhodes, Greece: ISCA Archive.
22.
Escandell-VidalV. (1996). Introducción a la pragmática. Barcelona, Spain: Ariel Lingüística.
23.
Escandell-VidalV. (1998). Intonation and procedural encoding: The case of Spanish interrogatives. In RouchotaV.JuckerA. (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp. 169–203). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
24.
FaceT. L. (2005). F0 peak height and the perception of sentence type in Castilian Spanish. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana (RILI), III, 49–66.
25.
FaléI.Hub FariaI. (2006). Categorical perception of intonational contrasts in European Portuguese. In HoffmannR.MixdorffH. (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody (pp. 69–72). Dresden, Germany: TUDpress Verlag der Wissenschaften GmbH.
26.
FrancisA.CioccaV. (2003). Stimulus presentation order and the perception of lexical tones in Cantonese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1611–1621.
27.
FrancisA.CioccaV.Kei Chit NgB. (2003). On the (non)categorical perception of lexical tones. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 1029–1044.
28.
FrotaS. (in press). A focus intonational morpheme in European Portuguese: Production and perception. In ElordietaG.PrietoP. (Eds.), Prosody and meaning. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
29.
Gili-FivelaB. (2008). Intonation in production and perception: The case of Pisa Italian. Memorie del Laboratorio di Linguistica della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Alessandria, Italy: Edizioni dell’Orso.
30.
Gili-FivelaB. (2009). From production to perception and back: An analysis of two pitch accents. In FuchsS.LœvenbruckH.PapeD.PerrierP. (Eds.), Some aspects of speech and the brain (pp. 363–405). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH.
31.
GravanoA.BenusS.HirschbergJ.Sneed GermanE.WardG. (2008). The effect of contour type and epistemic modality on the assessment of speaker certainty. In BarbosaP. A.MadureiraS.ReisC. (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008 (pp. 401–404). Campinas, Brazil, May 6–9.
32.
GriceM.SavinoM. (1997). Can pitch accent type convey information-status in yes-no questions? In KaiA.PirkerH.FinklerW. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACL 97 Workshop on Concept-to-Speech Generation Systems (pp. 29–38). Madrid, Spain, July 11.
33.
GriceM.SavinoM. (2003). Question type and information structure in Italian. In MettouchiA.FerréG. (Eds.), Proceedings of Prosodic Interfaces (IP2003) (pp. 117–122). Nantes, France, March 27–29.
34.
GriceM.BaumannS.BenzmüllerR. (2005). German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Sun-AhJ. (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 55–83). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
GunlogsonC. (2001). True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English (Dissertation). University of California, Santa Cruz.
36.
GussenhovenC.RietveldA. (1988). Fundamental frequency declination in Dutch: Testing three hypotheses. Journal of Phonetics, 16, 355–369.
37.
HaanJ. (2001). Speaking of questions: An exploration of Dutch question intonation (Dissertation). Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
38.
HernanzM. L.RigauG. (2006). Variación dialectal y periferia izquierda. In FernándezB.LakaD. (Eds.), Andolin Gogoan: Essays in honour of Professor Eguzkitza. Bilbao, Spain: Universidad del País Vasco, Servicio Editorial.
KohlerK. J. (1987). Categorical pitch perception. In ViksU. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 331–333). Tallinn, Estonia, August 1–7.
41.
KohlerK. (2006). Paradigms in experimental prosodic analysis: From measurements to function. In SudhoffS.LenertovaD.MeyerR.PappertS.AugurzkyP.MleinekI.RichterN.SchliesserJ. (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 123–152). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
42.
KüglerF. (2003). Do we know the answer? Variation in yes-no question intonation. In FischerS.vanR.VijverdeVogelR. (Eds.), Linguistics in Potsdam, 21 (pp. 9–29). Potsdam, Germany: Universitätsbibliothek Publikationsstelle.
43.
LaddD. R.MortonR. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical?Journal of Phonetics, 25, 313–342.
44.
LeeH.-Y. (2003). H and L are not enough in intonational phonology. In SoléM. J.RecasensD.RomeroJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 2277–2279). Barcelona: Causal Productions Pty Ltd.
45.
MacmillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
NadeuM.PrietoP. (2011). Pitch range, gestural information, and perceived politeness in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 841–854.
48.
NiebuhrO.KohlerK. (2004). Perception and cognitive processing of tonal alignment in German. In BelB.MarlienI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages: Emphasis on Tone Languages (TAL) (pp. 155–158). Beijing, China: The Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
49.
PalmerF. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (1979). The perception of fundamental frequency declination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 363–369.
51.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation. New York: Garland Press.
52.
PierrehumbertJ. B.BeckmanM. E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
PisoniD.TashB. J. (1974). Reaction times to comparisons within and across phonetic categories. Perception and Psychophysics, 15, 285–290.
54.
PostB. (2000). Tonal and phrasal structures in French intonation. The Hague, The Netherlands: Holland Academic Graphics.
PrietoP. (2004). The search for phonological targets in the tonal space: H1 scaling and alignment in five sentence-types in Peninsular Spanish. In FaceT. L. (Ed.), Laboratory approaches to Spanish phonology (pp. 29–59). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
57.
PrietoP. (in press). The intonational phonology of Catalan. In JunS.-A. (Ed.), Prosodic typology 2: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
58.
PrietoP.RigauG. (2007). The syntax-prosody interface: Catalan interrogative sentences headed by que. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 6(2), 29–59.
59.
PrietoP.AguilarL.MascaróI.Torres-TamaritF.VanrellM. M. (2009). L’etiquetatge prosòdic Cat_ToBI. Estudios de Fonética Experimental, XVIII, 287–309.
60.
PrietoP.Torres-TamaritF.VanrellM. M. (2008). Categorical perception of mid boundary tones in Catalan. Paper presented at the Third TIE Conference on Tone and Intonation 2008 (TIE). Lisboa, Portugal, September 15–17. Retrieved from http://optimitza.cat/mvanrell/presentacions.html
61.
Psychology Software Tools Inc. (2009). E-Prime (version 1.2) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.pst-net.com/
62.
RathckeT.HarringtonJ. (2010). The variability of early accent peaks in Standard German. In FougeronC.KühnertB.D’ImperioM.ValléeN. (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 10 (pp. 533–555). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
63.
RemijsenB.van HeuvenV. (1999). Categorical pitch dimensions in Dutch: Diagnostic test. In OhalaJ. J.HasagawaY.OhalaM.GranvilleD.BaileyA. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1865–1868). San Francisco, USA, August 1–7.
64.
RigauG. (2002). La posición del sujeto en catalán. In BrañasJ. M.ChoiN.-W.ShinC.-Y. (Eds.), Conexiones de la Sociedad Coreana y la Española: I Congreso Internacional de Coreanología (pp. 71–82). Barcelona, Spain: UAB / Universitat Nacional de Chonbuk, Publicaciones Digitales S.A.
65.
SáizD.BaquésJ.delaFuenteJ.PousadaM.VeraJ. A. (2008). Psicologia de l’atenció i de la memòria: Material docent de la UOC. Barcelona, Spain: EdiUOC.
66.
SavinoM.GriceM. (2007). The role of pitch range in realising pragmatic contrasts: The case of two question types in Italian. In TrouvainJ.BarryW. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1037–1040). Saarbrücken, Germany, August 6–10.
67.
SavinoM.GriceM. (2011). The perception of negative bias in Bari Italian questions. In FrotaS.PrietoP.ElordietaG. (Eds.), Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension (pp. 187–206). London, UK: Springer Verlag.
68.
SchellenbergE. G. (2002). Asymmetries in the discrimination of musical intervals: Going out-of-tune is more noticeable than going in-tune. Music Perception, 19, 223–248.
69.
SchneiderK.LinftertB. (2003). Categorical perception of boundary tones in German. In SoléM. J.RecasensD.RomeroJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 631–634). Barcelona, Spain: Causal Productions Pty Ltd.
70.
SchneiderK.DogilG.MöbiusB. (2009). German boundary tones show categorical perception and a perceptual magnet effect when presented in different contexts. Proceedings of Interspeech (pp. 2519–2522). Brighton, UK, September 6–10.
71.
SwertsM.KrahmerE. (2008). Facial expressions and prosodic prominence: Comparing modalities and facial areas. Journal of Phonetics, 36(2), 219–238.
72.
VanrellM. M. (2006). The phonological role of tonal scaling in Majorcan Catalan interrogatives (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona. Retrieved from http://webs2002.uab.es/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/Vanrell.pdf
73.
VanrellM. M.MascaróI.PrietoP.Torres-TamaritF. (2010). Preguntar per saber i preguntar per confirmar: l’entonació de les interrogatives absolutes informatives i confirmatòries en català central i balear. Randa, 64, 77–95.
74.
WilsonD. (1974). Suena grammar. Workpapers in Papua New Guinean Languages, 8. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
75.
WongP. C. M. (1999). The effect of downdrift in the production and perception of Cantonese level tone. In OhalaJ. J.HasagawaY.OhalaM.GranvilleD.BaileyA. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 2395–2398). San Francisco, USA, August 1–7.
