Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:17:24.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intonation and pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Geoffrey Lindsey
Geoffrey Lindsey
Affiliation:
(University College London and UCLA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The aim of this essay is to argue that English intonation has broadly two functions. On the one hand it picks out a particular item or items in every sentence in order to give it or them semantic prominence; on the other hand, the pitch CONTOUR of an utterance also contributes to meaning and this contribution may itself be divided into two types: firstly, the height of pitch and the degree of its variation in a given utterance reflect speakers' ‘involvement’ or ‘interest’, and, secondly, the direction of the pitch contour towards or away from a neutral low pitch indicates the degree of ‘completeness’ or ‘incompleteness’ of an utterance in a discourse. I shall argue that the division of intonation into these two main subparts, an ‘accent’ function corresponding to what Halliday calls ‘tonicity’ and an ‘attitude’ function corresponding to Halliday's ‘tone’, is valid since it correlates with the division of meaning analysis into semantics and pragmatics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , June 1981 , pp. 2 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1981

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

Chafe, W. (1976). ‘Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View’, in Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Ladd D. Jr (1978). ‘Stylized Intonation’, in Language, 54, 514–;40.Google Scholar
O'Connor, J. D., and Arnold, G. (1973). Intonation of Colloquial English, 2nd edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P. (1972). ‘The role of intonation: reconsiderations and other considerations’, in Bolinger, D. (ed.), Intonation. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Uldall, E. T. (1964). ‘Dimensions of meaning in intonation’, reprinted in Bolinger, D. (ed.), Intonation. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (1979). ‘Ordered entailments: an alternative to presuppositional theories’, in Oh, C-K, and Dineen, D. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 11: Presuppositions. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar