Intonation

doi:10.1017/9781108644198.009

8 - Intonation

from Section II - Prosodic Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2021

Paul Warren and

Sasha Calhoun

Edited by

Rachael-Anne Knight and

Jane Setter

Show author details

Rachael-Anne Knight: Affiliation:
City, University of London
Jane Setter: Affiliation:
University of Reading

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter gives an overview of critical issues in contemporary research on the phonetics of intonation, arising from a survey of historical and recent trends in the field. We begin with a brief introduction to some of the key concepts to be used in the description of intonation in the chapter, which is based primarily on the Autosegmental Metrical framework. In the subsequent historical overview, we place this tone-based framework in its historical context, comparing it with the British tune-based tradition, before outlining more recent developments arising out of studies of typological variation of intonation, which have influenced our understanding of both the forms and the meanings of intonation. Three critical issues in the study of intonation are then reviewed: defining the phonetic variables of intonation, the relationship of intonation to other linguistic structures, and intonational variation and change. A sampling of recent research subsequently highlights work that relates to these critical issues. Key considerations for the teaching of intonation are then reviewed, before some closing comments on future directions for intonation research.

Keywords

intonation stress pitch accent prosodic phrasing intonational meaning Autosegmental Metrical analysis ToBI history of intonation research intonational variation and change teaching intonational analysis

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics , pp. 209 - 236

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108644198.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

8.7 References

Arvaniti, A. (2016). Analytical decisions in intonation research and the role of representations: Lessons from Romani. Laboratory Phonology, 7(1), 6.CrossRef Google Scholar

Arvaniti, A., Ladd, D. R. & Mennen, I. (1998). Stability of tonal alignment: The case of Greek prenuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 3–25.Google Scholar

Astruc, L., Prieto, P., Payne, E., Post, B. & Vanrell, M. d. M. (2009). Acquisition of tonal targets in Catalan, Spanish, and English. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 5, 1–14.Google Scholar

Atterer, M. & Ladd, D. R. (2004). On the phonetics and phonology of ‘segmental anchoring’ of f₀: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 177–97.Google Scholar

Bänziger, T. & Scherer, K. (2005). The role of intonation in emotional expressions. Speech Communication, 46, 252–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Beckman, M. & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255–310.Google Scholar

Beckman, M., Hirschberg, J. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Jun, S.-A., ed., Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 9–54.Google Scholar

Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2020). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [computer program]. Version 6.1.30, www.praat.org/.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1978). Intonation across languages. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. A., eds., Universals of Human Language. Volume II: Phonology. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 471–524.Google Scholar

Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M. & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 1044–98.Google Scholar

Bruce, G. (1977). Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Bruce, G. & Gårding, E. (1978). A prosodic typology for Swedish dialects. In Gårding, E., Bruce, G. & Bannert, R., eds., Nordic Prosody. Lund: Gleerup, pp. 219–28.Google Scholar

Brugos, A., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Veilleux, N. (2006). Transcribing Prosodic Structure of Spoken Utterances with ToBI. MIT Open Courseware. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-911-transcribing-prosodic-structure-of-spoken-utterances-with-tobi-january-iap-2006/.Google Scholar

Büring, D. (2009). Towards a typology of focus realization. In Féry, C. & Zimmermann, M., eds., Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–205.CrossRef Google Scholar

Calhoun, S. (2007). Information Structure and the Prosodic Structure of English: a Probabilistic Relationship. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar

Calhoun, S. (2010). The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language, 86(1), 1–42.Google Scholar

Calhoun, S. (2015). The interaction of prosody and syntax in Samoan focus marking. Lingua, 165(B), 205–29.Google Scholar

Calhoun, S. & Schweitzer, A. (2012). Can intonation contours be lexicalised? Implications for discourse meanings. In Elordieta, G. & Prieto, P., eds., Prosody and Meaning (Interface Explorations 25). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 271‒327.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chen, Y. & Gussenhoven, C. (2008). Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics, 36(4), 724–46.Google Scholar

Chen, Y., Lee, P. P.-L. & Pan, H. (2016). Topic and focus marking in Chinese. In Féry, C. & Ishihara, S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Clifton, C., Carlson, K. & Frazier, L. (2002). Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech, 45(2), 87–114.Google Scholar

Cole, J. (2015). Prosody in context: A review. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(1–2), 1‒31.Google Scholar

Cole, J. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2016). New methods for prosodic transcription: Capturing variability as a source of information. Laboratory Phonology, 7(1).CrossRef Google Scholar

Cole, J., Mo, Y. & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. (2010). Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology, 1(2), 425–52.Google Scholar

Cooper, W., Eady, S. & Mueller, P. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 2142–56.Google Scholar

Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cruz, M., Swerts, M. & Frota, S. (2017). The role of intonation and visual cues in the perception of sentence types: Evidence from European Portuguese varieties. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 23.CrossRef Google Scholar

Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, A. (1990). Exploiting prosodic probabilities in speech segmentation. In Altmann, G. T. M., ed., Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 105–21.Google Scholar

D’Imperio, M., Nguyen, N. & Munhall, K. G. (2003). An articulatory hypothesis for the alignment of tonal targets in Italian. In Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J., eds., Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Rundle Mall: Causal Productions, pp. 253–6.Google Scholar

D’Imperio, M., Cangemi, F. & Grice, M. (2016). Introducing advancing prosodic transcription. Laboratory Phonology, 7(1), 4.Google Scholar

Dalton, M. & Ní Chasaide, A. (2005). Tonal alignment in Irish dialects. Language and Speech, 48, 441‒64.Google Scholar

Dominguez, M., Farrus, M. & Wanner, L. (2016). An automatic prosody tagger for spontaneous speech. In COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Osaka, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 377–86.Google Scholar

Downing, L. J. & Pompino-Marschall, B. (2013). The focus prosody of Chichewa and the Stress-Focus constraint: a response to Samek-Lodovici (2005). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 31(3), 647–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

Eady, S. & Cooper, W. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80(2), 402–15.Google Scholar

Eady, S., Cooper, W., Klouda, G., Mueller, P. & Lotts, D. (1986). Acoustical characteristics of sentential focus: Narrow vs. broad and single vs. dual focus environments. Language and Speech, 29, 233–51.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Elfner, E. (2012). Syntax–Prosody Interactions in Irish. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.Google Scholar

Féry, C. (2013). Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31(3), 683–734.CrossRef Google Scholar

Féry, C. & Schubö, F. (2010). Hierarchical prosodic structures in the intonation of center-embedded relative clauses. The Linguistic Review, 27, 289–313.CrossRef Google Scholar

Frota, S. (2002). Tonal association and target alignment in European Portuguese nuclear falls. In Gussenhoven, C. & Warner, N., eds., Laboratory Phonology 7, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 387–418.Google Scholar

Fujisaki, H. (1983). Dynamic characteristics of voice fundamental frequency in speech and singing. In MacNeilage, P. F., ed., The Production of Speech. New York: Springer, pp. 39–55.Google Scholar

Grabe, E. (1998). Pitch accent realization in English and German. Journal of Phonetics, 26(2), 129‒43.Google Scholar

Grice, M., Ladd, D. R. & Arvaniti, A. (2000). On the place of phrase accents in intonational phonology. Phonology, 17, 143‒85.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. (2002). Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In Bel, B. & Marlien, I., eds., Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage, pp. 47‒57.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and Grammar in British English. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Hanssen, J. (2017). Regional Variation in the Realisation of Intonation Contours in the Netherlands. Utrecht: LOT dissertations.Google Scholar

’t Hart, J., Collier, R. & Cohen, A. (1990). A Perceptual Study of Intonation: An Experimental-Phonetic Approach to Speech Melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hermes, D. J. (2006). Stylization of pitch contours. In Sudhoff, S., Lenertova, D., Meyer, R., Pappert, S., Augurzky, P., Mleinek, I., Richter, N. & Schließer, J., eds., Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 29–62.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. & Ladd, D. R. (2008). Prosodic description: An introduction for fieldworkers. Language Documentation & Conservation, 2(2), 244–74.Google Scholar

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, 241–51.Google Scholar

Hirst, D. J. (2005). Form and function in the representation of speech prosody. Speech Communication, 46(3–4), 334–47.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hirst, D. J. & Di Cristo, A. (1998). A survey of intonation systems. In Hirst, D. J. & Di Cristo, A., eds., Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar

Hualde, J. I. (1999). Basque accentuation. In van der Hulst, H., ed., Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 947–93.Google Scholar

Hualde, J. I. & Prieto, P. (2016). Towards an International Phonetic Alphabet (IPrA). Laboratory Phonology, 7(1), 5.Google Scholar

Ipek, C. (2015). The Phonology and Phonetics of Turkish Intonation. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, USA.Google Scholar

Ito, K., Turnbull, R. & Speer, S. (2017). Allophonic tunes of contrast: Lab and spontaneous speech lead to equivalent fixation responses in museum visitors. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 6.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jespersen, A. (2016). A first look at declarative rises as markers of ethnicity in Sydney. In Barnes, J., Brugos, A., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Vieilleux, N., eds., Speech Prosody 2016. Boston, MA, pp. 143–7.Google Scholar

Jun, S.-A. (1998). The accentual phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology, 15, 189–226.Google Scholar

Jun, S.-A. (2005a). Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In Jun, S.-A., ed., Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 201–29.Google Scholar

Jun, S.-A., ed. (2005b). Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jun, S.-A. (2014a). Prosodic typology: By prominence type, word prosody and macro-rhythm. In Jun, S.-A., ed., Prosodic Typology II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 520–40.Google Scholar

Jun, S.-A., ed. (2014b). Prosodic Typology II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jun, S.-A. & Kim, H.-S. (2007). VP focus and narrow focus in Korean. In Trouvain, J. & Barry, W. J., eds., Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 1277–80.Google Scholar

Jun, S.-A. & Lee, H.-J. (1998). Phonetic and phonological markers of corrective focus in Korean. In Mannell, R. H. & Robert-Ribes, J., eds., Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP-98). Sydney: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association, pp. 1295–8.Google Scholar

Jun, S.-A. & Prieto, P. (2018). Usages and advantages of categorical phonetic transcription of prosody: Toward the development of an IPrA (International Prosodic Alphabet). In Speech Prosody 2018, Poznań, Poland. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/ipra_workshop/.Google Scholar

Jun, S.-A., Hualde, J. & Prieto, P. (2015). Workshop on Developing an International Prosodic Alphabet (IPrA) within the AM framework., International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/ipra_workshop/.Google Scholar

Kakouros, S. & Räsänen, O. (2016). Perception of sentence stress in speech correlates with the temporal unpredictability of prosodic features. Cognitive Science, 40(7), 1739–74.Google Scholar

Kim, S., Broersma, M. & Cho, T. (2012). The use of prosodic cues in learning new words in an unfamiliar language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 415–44.Google Scholar

Krivokapić, J., Tiede, M. K. & Tyrone, M. E. (2017). A kinematic study of prosodic structure in articulatory and manual gestures: Results from a novel method of data collection. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 3.Google Scholar

Kügler, F. & Calhoun, S. (2020). Prosodic encoding of information structure: a typological perspective. In Gussenhoven, C. & Chen, A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 454–467.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational Phonology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Liberman, M. & Pierrehumbert, J. (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, M. & Oerhle, R., eds., Language Sound Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 157–233.Google Scholar

Mattys, S., White, L. & Melhorn, J. (2005). Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 477–500.Google Scholar

Mo, Y. (2010). Prosody Production and Perception with Conversational Speech. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/18560.Google Scholar

Möhler, G. & Conkie, A. (1998). Parametric modeling of intonation using vector quantization. In Proceedings of the 3rd ESCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis, pp. 311–16.Google Scholar

Nenkova, A., Brenier, J., Kothari, A., Calhoun, S., Whitton, L., Beaver, D. & Jurafsky, D. (2007). To memorize or to predict: Prominence labelling in conversational speech. In Human Language Technologies: NAACL, Rochester, NY, pp. 9–16.Google Scholar

O’Connor, J. D. & Arnold, G. F. (1961). The Intonation of Colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Ohala, J. J. (1983). Cross-language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica, 40, 1‒18.Google Scholar

Ohala, J. J. (1984). An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of f₀ in voice. Phonetica, 41, 1‒16.Google Scholar

Ohala, J. J. (1994). The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice of pitch. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. & Ohala, J. J., eds., Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 325–47.Google Scholar

Peng, S.-H., Chan, M. K. M., Tseng, C.-Y., Huang, T., Lee, O. J. & Beckman, M. E. (2005). Towards a Pan-Mandarin system for prosodic transcription. In Jun, S.-A., ed., Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD thesis, MIT, published by Indiana Linguistics Club, 1987.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, J. (2000). Tonal elements and their alignment. In Horne, M., ed., Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Studies Presented to Gösta Bruce. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 11‒36.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, J. (2016). Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2(1), 33–52.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, J. & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E., eds., Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 271‒311.Google Scholar

Pike, K. L. (1945). The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Prieto, P. (2015). Intonational meaning. WIREs Cognitive Science, 6(4), 371–81.Google Scholar

Prieto, P., D’Imperio, M. & Gili Fivela, B. (2005). Pitch accent alignment in Romance: Primary and secondary associations with metrical structure. Language and Speech, 48, 359–96.Google Scholar

Queen, R. M. (2001). Bilingual intonation patterns: Evidence of language change from Turkish–German bilingual children. Language in Society, 30(1), 55–80.Google Scholar

Reichel, U. D. & Salveste, N. (2015). Pitch elbow detection. In Wirsching, G., ed., Elektronische Sprachverarbeitung. Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation, 78, Dresden: TUDpress, pp. 143–9.Google Scholar

Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

Roy, J., Cole, J. & Mahrt, T. (2017). Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 22.Google Scholar

Samek-Lodovici, V. (2005). Prosody–syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 687–755.Google Scholar

Schweitzer, K., Walsh, M., Calhoun, S., Schütze, H., Möbius, B., Schweitzer, A. & Dogil, G. (2015). Exploring the relationship between intonation and the lexicon: Evidence for lexicalised storage of intonation. Speech Communication, 66, 65–81.Google Scholar

Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Selkirk, E. (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J. & Yu, A., eds., The Handbook of Phonological Theory. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd ed., pp. 435–84.Google Scholar

Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Turk, A. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 193–247.Google Scholar

Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P. et al. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Banff, Canada, pp. 867‒70.Google Scholar

Siyanova-Chanturia, A. & Lin, P. M. S. (2017). Production of ambiguous idioms in English: A reading aloud study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1) 58–70.Google Scholar

Skopeteas, S., Fielder, I., Hellmuth, S., Schwarz, A., Fanselow, G., Féry, C. & Krifka, M. (2006). Questionnaire on Information Structure (QUIS): Reference Manual, Potsdam, Germany: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar

Speer, S. R., Warren, P. & Schafer, A. J. (2011). Situationally independent prosodic phrasing. Laboratory Phonology, 2(1), 39‒98.Google Scholar

Steedman, M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax–phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(4), 649–89.Google Scholar

Syrdal, A. K., Hirschberg, J., McGory, J. & Beckman, M. (2001). Automatic ToBI prediction and alignment to speed manual labeling of prosody. Speech Communication, 33, 135–51.Google Scholar

Taylor, P. (2000). Analysis and synthesis of intonation using the Tilt model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 1697–714.Google Scholar

Trager, G. & Smith, H. (1951). An Outline of English Structure. Washington: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar

Turk, A. (2011). The temporal implementation of prosodic structure. In Cohn, A., Fougeron, C. & Huffman, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 242–53.Google Scholar

Vroomen, J., Tuomainen, J. & de Gelder, B. (1998). The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 133–49.Google Scholar

Wagner, M. (2015). Phonological evidence in syntax. In Kiss, T. & Alexidou, A., eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter, Vol. 2, pp. 1154–98.Google Scholar

Wagner, M. & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 905–45.Google Scholar

Wakefield, J. C. (2010). The English Equivalents of Cantonese Sentence-Final Particles: A Contrastive Analysis. PhD thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Wakefield, J. C. (2012). A floating tone discourse morpheme: The English equivalent of Cantonese ‘lo1’. Lingua, 122(14), 1739–62.Google Scholar

Ward, G. & Hirschberg, J. (1985). Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language, 61, 747–76.Google Scholar

Warren, P. (2005a). Issues in the study of intonation in language varieties. Language and Speech, 48(4), 345‒58.Google Scholar

Warren, P. (2005b). Patterns of late rising in New Zealand English: Intonational variation or intonational change? Language Variation and Change, 17(2), 209‒30.Google Scholar

Warren, P. (2016). Uptalk: The Phenomenon of Rising Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Warren, P. (2017). The interpretation of prosodic variability in the context of accompanying sociophonetic cues. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 11.Google Scholar

Wells, J. C. (2006). English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Xu, Y. (1999). Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of f₀ contours. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 55–105.Google Scholar

Xu, Y. (2005). Speech melody as articulatorily implemented communicative functions. Speech Communication, 46, 220–51.Google Scholar