Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:38:23.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative and absolute in intonation analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

David Crystal
David Crystal
Affiliation:
(University of Reading)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most intonation analysts would consider it a truism to insist that any model of the formal properties of a language's intonation system has to be relativistic in character. By this one would mean that the linguistic constants in the system are the contrasts between the features involved (pitch, loudness, or whatever) and not the values of the features themselves, as defined in any absolute, physical way. The point hardly needs quotation to support it, but it will be useful to refer to one person's formulation of the relativity claim as a reminder of how the position is typically presented. Abercrombie, for example, says (1967: 107):

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , June 1971 , pp. 17 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1971

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

Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1951). “Intonation—levels v. configurations,” Word, 7, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. W. (1950). “The effect of room characteristics upon vocal intensity and rate,” JASA, 22, 174–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, A. J., and Jacoby, B. F. (1967). Your speech and voice. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic systems and intonation in English. London: CUP.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1971). “Prosodic and paralinguistic correlates of social categories” in Ardener, E. (ed.), Social anthropology and language, ASA Monograph Series, 10 (London: Tavistock Press, 185–206).Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (forthcoming). “Paralanguage,” to appear in Current Trends in Linguistics XII: Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English style. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Kramer, E. (1963). “Judgment of personal characteristics and emotions from nonverbal properties of speech,” Psychol. Bull., 60, 408–420.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P. (1965). “On the acoustic basis of the perception of intonation by linguists,” Word, 21, 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, P. (1967). Intonation, perception and language. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
Luchsinger, R., and Arnold, G. E. (1965). Voice—speech—language. London: Constable.Google Scholar
Miller, R. L. (1970). “Performance characteristics of an experimental Harmonic Identification Pitch Extraction (HIPEX) system,” JASA, 47, 1593–1601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, A. (1964). Functional voice disorders. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1945). The intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1948). Tone languages. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pronovost, W. (1942). “An experimental study of methods for determining natural and habitual pitch,” Sp. Monog., 9, 111–123.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1964). “Circularity in judgments of relative pitch,” JASA, 36, 2346–2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S., and Davis, H. (1938). Hearing, its psychology and physiology. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar