In conversation, speakers can mobilize a variety of prosodic cues to signal a switch in topics. This paper uses a mixed-methods approach combining Conversation Analysis and Instrumental Prosody to investigate the prosody of topic transition in American English, and analyzes the ways in which speakers can play on register level and on register span. A cluster of three prosodic parameters was found to be predictive of transitions: a higher maximum fundamental frequency (F0), a higher median F0 (key), and an expanded register span. Relative to speakers’ habitual profiles, the mobilization of such prosodic cues corresponds to a marked upgraded prosodic design. This finding is consistent with the general assumption that continuation constitutes the norm in conversation, and that departing from it, as in the case of a topic transition, requires a marked action and marked linguistic design. The disjunctive action of opening a new topic corresponds to the use of a marked prosodic cue.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7, retrieved from http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4
2.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2012). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.23, retrieved from http://www.praat.org/ in November2013.
R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer program]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Version 3.0.2 (2013-09-25), retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
5.
BerthoudA. C. (1996). Paroles à propos: Approche énonciative et interactive du topic. Paris, France; Gap, France: Technip Ophrys Editions.
6.
BerthoudA. C.MondadaL. (1995). Traitement du topic, processus énonciatifs et séquences conversationnelles. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 16, 205–228.
7.
BrazilD. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BybeeJ. L.HopperP. J. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam, Netherlands; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
9.
ChafeW. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago; London, UK: University of Chicago Press.
10.
ClaymanS. E. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 150–166). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
11.
Couper-KuhlenE. (1993). English speech rhythm: Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
12.
Couper-KuhlenE. (1996). The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In SeltingM.Couper-KuhlenE. (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 366–405). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Couper-KuhlenE. (2001a). Intonation and discourse: Current views from within. In SchiffrinD.TannenD.HamiltonH. E. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 13–34). Malden, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
14.
Couper-KuhlenE. (2001b). Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns. Language in Society, 30(1), 29–53.
15.
Couper-KuhlenE. (2014). Prosody as dialogic interaction. In Barth-WeingartenD.ReedB. S., (Éds.), Prosodie und Phonetik in der Interaktion. Prosody and phonetics in interaction (p. 221–251). Mannheim, Germany: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
16.
CruttendenA. (1997). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
D’AlessandroC. (2006). Voice source parameters and prosodic analysis. In SudhoffS. (Ed.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 63–88). Berlin, Germany; New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
18.
De LoozeC. (2010). Analyse et interprétation de l’empan temporel des variations prosodiques en Français et en Anglais (PhD Dissertation). Aix-Marseille Université, France.
19.
De LoozeC.HirstD. J. (2008). Detecting changes in key and range for the automatic modelling and coding of intonation. In BarbosaP. A.MadureiraS.ReisC. (Eds.), Speech Prosody 2008. Fourth Conference on Speech Prosody, May 6–9, Campinas, Brazil, Proceedings. (pp. 135–138). Campinas, Brazil: ISCA Archive.
20.
De LoozeC.HirstD. J. (2010). L’échelle OME (Octave-MEdiane): une échelle naturelle pour la mélodie de la parole. Proceedings of the XXVIIIème Journées d’Etude Sur La Parole (JEP 2010), Mons, Belgium.
21.
De LoozeC.SchererS.VaughanB.CampbellN. (2014). Investigating automatic measurements of prosodic accommodation and its dynamics in social interaction. Speech Communication, 58, 11–34.
22.
Di CristoA.AuranC.BertrandR.ChanetC.PortesC.RégnierA. (2004). Outils prosodiques et analyse du discours. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain, 28, 27–84.
23.
Du BoisJ. W. (2003). Discourse and grammar. In TomaselloM. (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 47–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24.
Du BoisJ. W.ChafeW. L.MeyerC.ThompsonS. A.EnglebretsonR.MarteyN. (2000–2005). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
25.
FletcherJ.HarringtonJ. (2001). High-rising terminals and fall-rise tunes in Australian English. Phonetica, 58(4), 215–229.
26.
FreeseJ.MaynardD. W. (1998). Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation. Language in Society, 27(2), 195–219.
27.
FriesP. H. (1995). Themes, methods of development, and texts. In HasanR.FriesP. H. (Eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (pp. 317–359). Amsterdam, Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
28.
FordC. E.FoxB. A.ThompsonS. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In FordC. E.FoxB. A.ThompsonS. A. (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (p. 14–38). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
GlynnD. (2014). Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. In GlynnD.RobinsonJ. (Ed.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (p. 307–341). Amsterdam, Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
30.
GoutsosD. (1997). Modeling discourse topic : Sequential relations and strategies in expository text. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31.
GroszB. J.WeinsteinS.JoshiA. K. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225.
32.
GundelJ. K.HedbergN.ZacharskiR. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307.
33.
GünthnerS. (1999). Polyphony and the “layering of voices” in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(5), 685–708.
34.
GussenhovenC. (1999). Discreteness and gradience in intonational contrasts. Language and Speech, 42(2–3), 283–305.
35.
GussenhovenC. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
HallidayM. A. K.MatthiessenC. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
37.
HepburnA.BoldenG. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
38.
HirschbergJ.GroszB. (1992). Intonational features of local and global discourse structure. In Proceedings of 5th workshop on speech and natural language (pp. 441–446). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
39.
HoltE.DrewP. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(1), 35–61.
40.
JeffersonG. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (p. 191–222). Cambridge, UK; Paris, France: Cambridge University Press; Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
41.
JeffersonG. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In LernerG. H. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
42.
KurticE.BrownG. J.WellsB. (2009). Fundamental frequency height as a resource for the management of overlap in talk-in-interaction. In Barth-WeingartenD.DehéN.WichmannA. (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics (pp. 183–203). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
43.
LaddD. R. (1998). Intonational phonology (Second Edition). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
LambrechtK. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY; Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
45.
LevinsonS. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
LevinsonS. C. (2006a). On the human « interaction engine ». In EnfieldN. J.LevinsonS. C. (Eds.), Roots of human sociality. culture, cognition and interaction (p. 39–69). Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Berg.
47.
LevinsonS. C. (2006b). Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 85–93.
48.
LocalJ.WalkerG. (2004). Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1375–1403.
49.
MaynardD. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica, 30(3–4), 263–290.
50.
MondadaL. (2001). Gestion du topic et organisation de la conversation. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos, 41, 7–35.
51.
NakajimaS.AllenJ. F. (1993). A study on prosody and discourse structure in cooperative dialogues. Phonetica, 50, 197–210.
52.
PierrehumbertJ. B.SteeleS. A. (1989). Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica, 46(4), 181–196.
53.
PlugL. (2014). On (or not on) the ‘upgrading–downgrading continuum’: The case of ‘prosodic marking’ in self-repair. In Barth-WeingartenD.ReedB. S. (Eds.), Prosodie und Phonetik in der Interaktion. Prosody and phonetics in interaction (p. 70–86). Mannheim, Germany: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
54.
PortesC.Di CristoA. (2003). Pitch range in spontaneous speech: semi-automatic approach versus subjective judgment. Presented at the15th International Conference on Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), 3–9 August 2003, Barcelona, Spain.
55.
PostB.NolanF.StamatakisE.HudsonT. (2009). Categories and gradience in intonation: Evidence from linguistics and neurobiology. Proceedings of Interspeech 2009 Brighton, 2307–2310.
56.
RiouM. (2015). A methodology for the identification of topic transitions in interaction. Discours [online], 16. https://discours.revues.org/8997
57.
SacksH.SchegloffE.JeffersonG. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language50, 696–735.
58.
SchegloffE. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “Coherence” in Talk-in-Interaction. In DorvalB. (Ed.), Conversational Organization and its Development (pp. 51–77). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
59.
SchegloffE. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Volume 1, a primer in conversation analysis I (Vol. 1–1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60.
SchegloffE.SacksH. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7(4), 289–327.
61.
SeltingM. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29(04), 477–517.
62.
SicoliM. A.StiversT.EnfieldN. J.LevinsonS. C. (2015). Marked initial pitch in questions signals marked communicative function. Language and Speech, 58(2), 204–223.
63.
Szczepek ReedB. (2011a). Analysing conversation: An introduction to prosody. Basingstoke, UK; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
64.
Szczepek ReedB. (2011b). Beyond the particular: Prosody and the coordination of actions. Language and Speech, 55(1), 13–34.
65.
ThompsonS.FoxB. A.Couper-KuhlenE. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk. Building responsive actions. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
66.
VaissièreJ. (2008). Perception of intonation. In PisoniD.RemezR. (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception, (pp. 236–263). Malden, MA; Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
67.
van DijkT. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London, UK: Longman.
68.
WarrenP. (2016). Uptalk: The phenomenon of rising intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
69.
WichmannA. (2000). Intonation in text and discourse. Beginnings, middles, and ends. Harlow, UK: Longman.
70.
YuleG. (1980). Speakers’ topics and major paratones. Lingua, 52, 3–47.
71.
ZellersM. (2011). Prosodic detail and topic structure in discourse (PhD Dissertation). University of Cambridge, UK.
72.
ZellersM. (2013). Prosodic variation for topic shift and other functions in local contrasts in conversation. Phonetica, 69(4), 231–253.
73.
ZellersM.OgdenR. (2014). Exploring interactional features with prosodic patterns. Language and Speech, 57(3), 285–309.
74.
ZellersM.PostB. (2012). Combining formal and functional approaches to topic structure. Language and Speech, 55(1), 119–139.
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.
