The intonation systems of many languages apparently allow gradient linguistic categories by the side of discrete or categorial contrasts. It is argued that these gradient meanings arise when the intonational phonology leaves a certain amount of unused phonetic space, which may be exploited by speakers to convey “meanings” which are naturally associated with nonlinguistic pitch variation. Because these meanings are often similar to the linguistic meanings attached to the phonological intonational categories, the issue of gradience versus discreteness is more difficult inintonation than in other linguistic domains. Three experimental techniques that can be used to investigate the gradient or discrete nature of intonational differences, the “semantic task,” the “imitation task,” and the “pitch range task,” are discussed and evaluated. In addition, it is pointed out, following an earlier discussion by Newport, that categorical perception is a sufficient, but not a necessary, property of phonological discreteness.
Anderson, S.R. (1993). Linguistic expression and its relation to modality . In G. R. Coulter (Ed.), Phonetics and phonology 3: Current issues in ASL phonology (pp. 273-290). San Diego: Academic Press.
2.
Bakkes, P. (1996). Variatie in verandering in het Montforts: Taalstructurele en sociolinguistische aspecten van een veranderend dorpsdialect. Amsterdam: P. J. Meertens Instituut voor Dialectologie, Volkskundeen Naamkunde.
3.
Beckman, M., & Edwards, J. (1994). Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. In A. P. Keating (Ed.), Phonological structure andphonetic form: Papers in laboratoryphonology III (pp. 7-33). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-310.
5.
Bolinger, D. (1961). Generality, gradience, and the all-or-none. The Hague: Mouton.
6.
Bolinger, D. (1982). Non declaratives from anintonational stand point. papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives. Chicago Linguistic Society.
7.
Bruce, G. (1977). Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Lund: Gleerup.
8.
Cruttenden, A. (1994). Intonation. Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press.
9.
Cutting, J., Rosner, B., & Foard, C. (1976). Categories and boundaries in speech and music . Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28,361-378.
10.
Grabe, E. (1998). Comparative intonationalphonology: English and German. Nijmegen, Max Planck Institute : MPI Series in Psycholinguitics.
11.
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Distributed by IULC, published 1979 byGarland Press, New York.
12.
Grnnum, N. (1995). Superposition and subordination in intonation: A nonlinear approach. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol 2 (pp.124-131).
13.
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents . Dordrecht: Foris.
14.
Gussenhoven, C. (1991).The English Rhythm Rule as an accent deletion rule . Phonology, 8, 1- 35.
15.
Gussenhoven, C. (1991a).Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch. In T.F. Shannon & J.P. Snapper (Eds.), The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp. 139-155). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
16.
Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, A.C.M. (1991). An experimental evaluation of two nucleartone taxononmies. Linguistics, 29, 423-449.
17.
Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, T. (1992). A target-interpolation model for the intonation of Dutch. ICSLP2. 1235-1238.
18.
Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, T. (1997). Empirical evidencefor the contrast between H* and L* in Dutch rising contours. In A. Botinis , G. Kouroupetroglou & G. Carayiannis (Eds.), Intonation: Theory, models and applications. Proceedings of an ESCA workshop. Athens, Grenoble: ESCA.
19.
Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, T. (1998). On the speaker-dependence of the perceived prominence of F0 peaks. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 371-380.
20.
Haan, J., Van Heuven, V.J. , Pacilly, J.A., & Van Bezooijen, R. (1997). An anatomy of Dutch question intonation. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997 (pp. 97 -108). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
21.
Hart, J., Collier, R., & Cohen, A. (1991 ). A perceptual study of intonation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Hirschberg, J., & Ward, G. (1992). The influence of pitch range, duration, amplitude and spectral features on the interpretation of the rise-fall-rise intonation contour in English. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 241-251.
23.
Inkelas, S., & Leben, W. (1990). Register tone in Hausa.In M. E. Beckman & J. Kingston (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology: Between the grammar and physics of speech (pp. 17-34). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Kingston, J. (1999) (this issue). Extrapolating from spoken to signed prosody via laboratory phonology. Language and Speech, 42(2&3), 251-281.
Ladd, D.R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
27.
Ladd, D.R. (1983). Phonological features of intonational peaks. Language, 59, 721-759.
28.
Ladd, D.R. (1996).Intonational phonology. Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Ladd, D.R., & Morton, R. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics ,25,313-342.
30.
Laver, J. (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Liberman, A.M., Harris, K.S., Hoffman, H.S., & Griffith, B.C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 379-388.
32.
Liberman, A.M., Cooper, F.S., Shankweiler, D.P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
33.
Liberman, M.Y. & Pierrehumbert, J.B. (1984).Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In M. Aronoff & R. T. Oehrle (Eds.), Language sound structure: Studies in phonology presented to Morris Halle (pp. 157 - 233). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Nash, R., & Mulac, A. (1980). The intonation of verifiability. In L. R. Waugh & C. H. van Schooneveld (Eds.), The melody of Language: Intonation and prosody (pp. 219 - 241 ) . Baltimore: University Park Press.
35.
Nespor, M., & Sandler, W. (1999)(thisissue). Prosody in Israeli Sign Language, Language and Speech, 42(2&3), 143-176.
36.
Newport, E.L. (1982). Task specificity in language learning? Evidence from speech perception and American Sign Language. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp.450-486). Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Ohala, J.J. (1984). An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica, 41, 1-16.
39.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Published byGarland Press , New York, 1990.
40.
Pierrehumbert, J., & Beckman, M. (1988). Japanese tone Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
Pierrehumbert, J.B., & Steele, S.A. (1989). Categories of tonal alignment in English. Journal ofPhonetics, 46, 181-196.
42.
Remijsen, B., & Heuven, V.van (1999). Gradient and categorical pitch dimension in Dutch: Diagnostic test. Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences,Vol.3 (pp. 1865-1868). San Francisco .
43.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1991). Acoustic correlates of stress shift. Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 4 (pp. 266-269). Aix-en-Provence.
44.
Stokoe, W.C., Casterline, D.C., & Croneberg, C.G. (1976). A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok.
45.
Supalla, T., & Newport, E.L. (1975). In search of categorical perception in sign. University of California. Working Paper.
46.
Uyechi, L. (1996). The geometry of visual phonology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
