Ambiguity pervades language. The sentence “My office is really hot” could be interpreted as a complaint about the temperature or as an indirect request to turn on the air conditioning. How do comprehenders determine a speaker’s intended interpretation? One possibility is that speakers and comprehenders exploit prosody to overcome the pragmatic ambiguity inherent in indirect requests. In a pre-registered behavioral experiment, we find that human listeners can successfully determine whether a given utterance was intended as a request at a rate above chance (55%), above and beyond the prior probability of a given sentence being interpreted as a request. Moreover, we find that a classifier equipped with seven acoustic features can detect the original intent of an utterance with 65% accuracy. Finally, consistent with past work, the duration, pitch, and pitch slope of an utterance emerge both as significant correlates of a speaker’s original intent and as predictors of comprehenders’ pragmatic interpretation. These results suggest that human and machine comprehenders alike can use prosody to enrich the meaning of ambiguous utterances, such as indirect requests.
AijmerK. (2014). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. Routledge.
2.
AllbrittonD. W.McKoonG.RatcliffR. (1996). Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 714–735.
3.
AttardoS.EisterholdJ.HayJ.PoggiI. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–260.
4.
BanuaziziA.CreswellC. (1999). Is that a real question? final rises, final falls, and discourse function in yes-no question intonation. CLS, 35, 1–14.
5.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.
8.
BeachC. M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 644–663.
9.
BeckmanM. E.HirschbergJ. B.Shattuck-HufnagelS. (2004). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In S. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic models and transcription: Towards prosodic typology (pp. 9–54).
10.
BergenL.GoodmanN. D. (2015). The strategic use of noise in pragmatic reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 336–350.
BriggsG.WilliamsT.ScheutzM. (2017). Enabling robots to understand indirect speech acts in task-based interactions. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 6(1), 64–94.
13.
BryantG. A.Fox TreeJ. E. (2002). Recognizing verbal irony in spontaneous speech. Metaphor & Symbol, 17(2), 99–119.
14.
BryantG. A.Fox TreeJ. E. (2005). Is there an ironic tone of voice?Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277.
15.
CaballeroJ. A.VergisN.JiangX.PellM. D. (2018). The sound of im/politeness. Speech Communication, 102, 39–53.
16.
CheangH. S.PellM. D. (2008). The sound of sarcasm. Speech Communication, 50(5), 366–381.
17.
CulpeperJ. (2011). “It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!”: Prosody and impoliteness. Discursive Approaches to Politeness, 8, 57–83.
18.
CulpeperJ.BousfieldD.WichmannA. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1545–1579.
19.
de LeeuwJ. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
20.
DeliensG.AntoniouK.ClinE.KissineM. (2017). Perspective-taking and frugal strategies: Evidence from sarcasm detection. Journal of Pragmatics, 119, 33–45.
21.
DeliensG.AntoniouK.ClinE.OstashchenkoE.KissineM. (2018). Context, facial expression and prosody in irony processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 35–48.
22.
D’ImperioM.HouseD. (1997). Perception of questions and statements in Neapolitan Italian [Conference session]. Fifth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Rhodes, Greece, September 1997.
23.
FernaldA.TaeschnerT.DunnJ.PapousekM.de Boysson-BardiesB.FukuiI. (1989). A cross-language study of prosodic modifications in mothers’ and fathers’ speech to preverbal infants. Journal of Child Language, 16(3), 477–501.
24.
FerreiraV. S. (2008). Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 49, 209–246.
25.
FerreiraV. S. (2019). A mechanistic framework for explaining audience design in language production. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 29–51.
26.
FlöckI. (2016). Requests in American and British English: A contrastive multi-method analysis (Vol. 265). John Benjamins.
27.
GeluykensR. (1988). On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 467–485.
GibbsR. W.Jr. (1981). Your wish is my command: Convention and context in interpreting indirect requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(4), 431–444.
30.
GibbsR. W.Jr. (1986). What makes some indirect speech acts conventional?Journal of Memory and Language, 25(2), 181–196.
31.
GibbsR. W.Jr. (1987). Mutual knowledge and the psychology of conversational inference. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(5), 561–588.
32.
GibsonE.BergenL.PiantadosiS. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(20), 8051–8056.
33.
GoldschmidtM. M. (1998). Do me a favor: A descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(2), 129–153.
34.
HedbergN.SosaJ. M.GörgülüE. (2014). The meaning of intonation in yes-no questions in American English: A corpus study. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(2), 321–368.
35.
HellberndN.SammlerD. (2016). Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 70–86.
36.
HirschbergJ. (2017). Pragmatics and prosody. In HuangY. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 532–549). Oxford University Press.
37.
HirstW.LeDouxJ.SteinS. (1984). Constraints on the processing of indirect speech acts: Evidence from aphasiology. Brain and Language, 23(1), 26–33.
38.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
39.
HoltgravesT. (1994). Communication in context: Effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1205–1218.
40.
HoltgravesT. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 624–637.
41.
HoltgravesT.Joong-NamY. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 719–729.
42.
HoltgravesT.YangJ. N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 246–256.
43.
HouseD. (2003). Hesitation and interrogative Swedish intonation. Phonum (Reports in Phonetics, University of Umeå), 9, 185–188.
44.
JadoulY.ThompsonB.De BoerB. (2018). Introducing parselmouth: A Python interface to Praat. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 1–15.
45.
JiangX.PellM. D. (2017). The sound of confidence and doubt. Speech Communication, 88, 106–126.
46.
KellyS. D. (2001). Broadening the units of analysis in communication: Speech and nonverbal behaviours in pragmatic comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 28(2), 325–349.
47.
KellyS. D.BarrD. J.ChurchR. B.LynchK. (1999). Offering a hand to pragmatic understanding: The role of speech and gesture in comprehension and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(4), 577–592.
48.
LaddD. R.SilvermanK. E.TolkmittF.BergmannG.SchererK. R. (1985). Evidence for the independent function of intonation contour type, voice quality, and F0 range in signaling speaker affect. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78(2), 435–444.
49.
Le PairR. (1996). Spanish request strategies: A cross-cultural analysis from an intercultural perspective. Language Sciences, 18(3–4), 651–670.
50.
PellM. D.MonettaL.PaulmannS.KotzS. A. (2009). Recognizing emotions in a foreign language. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(2), 107–120.
51.
PellM. D.VergisN.CaballeroJ.MauchandM.JiangX. (2018). Prosody as a window into speaker attitudes and interpersonal stance. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(3), 1840–1840.
52.
PerraultC. R.AllenJ. F. (1980). A plan-based analysis of indirect speech acts. Computational Linguistics, 6(3–4), 167–182.
53.
PierrehumbertJ.HirschbergJ. B. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In CohenP. R.MorganJ. L.JerryM.PollackM. E. (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). A Bradford Book.
54.
PriceP. J.OstendorfM.Shattuck-HufnagelS.FongC. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90(6), 2956–2970.
55.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
56.
RocheJ. M.MorganS. D.Fissel BrannickS.BryndelK. (2019). Acoustic correlates of female confidence: A production and comprehension study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 145(6), 3410–3426.
57.
SchaferA. J.SpeerS. R.WarrenP.WhiteS. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 169–182.
58.
SchaferA. J.SpeerS. R.WarrenP. (2005). Prosodic influences on the production and comprehension of syntactic ambiguity in a game-based conversation task. Approaches to Studying World-Situated Language Use, 209–225.
59.
SearleJ. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Speech acts (pp. 59–82). Brill.
60.
ShribergE.BatesR.StolckeA.TaylorP.JurafskyD.RiesK.CoccaroN.MartinR.MeteerM.Van Ess-DykemaC. (1998). Can prosody aid the automatic classification of dialog acts in conversational speech?Language and Speech, 341(4), 443–492.
61.
SnedekerJ.TrueswellJ. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 103–130.
TrottS.BergenB. (2020). When do comprehenders mentalize for pragmatic inference?Discourse Processes, 57(10), 900–920.
67.
TrottS.ReedS.FerreiraV.BergenB. (2019). Prosodic cues signal the intent of potential indirect requests. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Montreal, Canada (pp. 1142–1148).
68.
VaissièreJ. (1983). Language-independent prosodic features. In BrownG. (Ed.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 53–66). Springer.
69.
WardG.HirschbergJ. (1985). Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language, 61, 747–776.
70.
WardN. G. (2019). Prosodic patterns in English conversation. Cambridge University Press.
71.
WardN. G.CarlsonJ. C.FuentesO. (2018). Inferring stance in news broadcasts from prosodic-feature configurations. Computer Speech & Language, 50, 85–104.
72.
WardN. G.CarlsonJ. C.FuentesO.CastanD.ShribergE.TsiartasA. (2017, August). Inferring Stance from Prosody. In INTERSPEECH (pp. 1447–1451). Stockholm, Sweden.
73.
WichmannA. (2000, September). The attitudinal effects of prosody, and how they relate to emotion. In ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop (ITRW) on Speech and Emotion, Newcastle, Northern Island.
74.
WichmannA. (2002, April). Attitudinal intonation and the inferential process [Conference session]. Speech Prosody 2002, International Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France.
75.
WichmannA. (2004). The intonation of please-requests: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1521–1549.
76.
WilliamsT.ThamesD.NovakoffJ.ScheutzM. (2018, March). Thank you for sharing that interesting fact!: Effects of capability and context on indirect speech act use in task-based human-robot dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, (pp. 298–306). ACM, Chicago, IL.
77.
Yaeger-DrorM. (2002). Register and prosodic variation, a cross language comparison. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1495–1536.
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.
