Disentangling emphasis from pragmatic contrastivity in the English H* ~ L+H* contrast

A. Arvaniti, Stella Gryllia, Cong Zhang, K. Marcoux
{"title":"Disentangling emphasis from pragmatic contrastivity in the English H* ~ L+H* contrast","authors":"A. Arvaniti, Stella Gryllia, Cong Zhang, K. Marcoux","doi":"10.21437/speechprosody.2022-170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"English H* and L+H* indicate new and contrastive information respectively, though some argue the difference between them is solely one of phonetic emphasis. We used (modified) Rapid Prosody Transcription to test these views. Forty-seven speakers of Standard Southern British English (SSBE) listened to 86 SSBE utterances and marked the words they considered prominent or emphatic. Accents (N = 281) were independently coded as H* or L+H* using phonetic criteria, and as contrastive or non-contrastive using pragmatic criteria. If L+H* is an emphatic H*, all L+H*s should be more prominent than H*s. If the accents mark pragmatic information, contrastivity should drive responses. Contrastive accents and L+H*s were considered more prominent than non-contrastive accents and H*s respectively. Individual responses showed different strategies: for some participants, all L+H*s were more prominent than H*s, for others, contrastive accents were more prominent than non-contrastive accents, and for still others, there was no difference between categories. These results indicate that a reason for the continuing debate about English H* and L+H* may be that the two accents form a weak contrast which some speakers acquire and attend to while others do not.","PeriodicalId":442842,"journal":{"name":"Speech Prosody 2022","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Speech Prosody 2022","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21437/speechprosody.2022-170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

English H* and L+H* indicate new and contrastive information respectively, though some argue the difference between them is solely one of phonetic emphasis. We used (modified) Rapid Prosody Transcription to test these views. Forty-seven speakers of Standard Southern British English (SSBE) listened to 86 SSBE utterances and marked the words they considered prominent or emphatic. Accents (N = 281) were independently coded as H* or L+H* using phonetic criteria, and as contrastive or non-contrastive using pragmatic criteria. If L+H* is an emphatic H*, all L+H*s should be more prominent than H*s. If the accents mark pragmatic information, contrastivity should drive responses. Contrastive accents and L+H*s were considered more prominent than non-contrastive accents and H*s respectively. Individual responses showed different strategies: for some participants, all L+H*s were more prominent than H*s, for others, contrastive accents were more prominent than non-contrastive accents, and for still others, there was no difference between categories. These results indicate that a reason for the continuing debate about English H* and L+H* may be that the two accents form a weak contrast which some speakers acquire and attend to while others do not.
英语H* ~ L+H*对比中强调与语用对比的分离
英语中的H*和L+H*分别表示新信息和对比信息,尽管有人认为它们之间的区别仅仅是语音重音的不同。我们使用(修改后的)快速韵律转录来测试这些观点。47名标准英国南部英语(SSBE)的使用者听了86个标准英国南部英语的发音,并标记出他们认为突出或强调的单词。使用语音标准将N = 281个口音独立编码为H*或L+H*,使用语用标准将其编码为对比或非对比。如果L+H*是一个强调的H*,那么所有L+H*应该比H*更突出。如果重音标志着语用信息,对比应该驱动反应。对比口音和L+H*s分别被认为比非对比口音和H*s更突出。个体的反应表现出不同的策略:对一些参与者来说,所有的L+H*都比H*更突出,对另一些人来说,对比口音比非对比口音更突出,还有一些人,类别之间没有差异。这些结果表明,关于英语H*和L+H*的持续争论的一个原因可能是,这两种口音形成了一种微弱的对比,一些人掌握并注意到了这种对比,而另一些人则没有。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信