Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:06:37.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Terminal Rise and Rise-fall Tunes in East Norwegian Intonation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Thorstein Fretheim  and
Randi Alice Nilsen
Thorstein Fretheim
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Trondheim, N-7055 Dragvoll, Norway
Randi Alice Nilsen
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Trondheim, N-7055 Dragvoll, Norway
Get access

Abstract

This paper argues that there is a phonological opposition between falling and non-falling utterance-terminal tunes in East Norwegian intonation. East Norwegian intonational foci are characterized by a rising pitch movement and there is no way that you can raise the pitch even further to express “rising intonation”. What you obtain instead is a distinction between a focal rise followed by a terminal fall in pitch and a focal rise without a subsequent falling terminal. The falling vs. non-falling terminal contrast is utilized differently in Intonation Units (IUs) with just one Intonational Phrase (IP) than in IUs with more than one Intonational Phrase. In the former type of IU structure a falling terminal constrains the illocutionary potential of the communicative act; in the latter type the falling terminal adds an attitudinal bias, without constraining the illocutionary potential. While most non-falling and falling terminals in connected discourse can ultimately be related to the difference between “openness” and “finality”, respectively, this intonational contrast is shown to have a seemingly quite different function in imperatives.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , December 1989 , pp. 155 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

REFERENCES

Alnæs, I. 1916. Norsk Sætningsmelodi. Kristiania: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1986. Intonation and Its Parts. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1982. Norwegian Intonation Patterns in Discourse Perspective. In Fretheim, T. & Hellan, L. (eds.) Papers from the Sixth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1987a. Phonetically Low Tone – Phonologically High Tone, and Vice Versa. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 10, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, , 1987b. Pragmatics and Intonation. In Verschueren, J. & BertuccelliPapi, M. (eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fretheim, , 1988. “Broad Focus” and “Narrow Focus” in Norwegian Intonation. Unpublished paper, University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. & Nilsen, R.A. 1988. Alternativspølrsmål: Opp som en Løve, Ned som en Skinnfell. Norsk Linguistisk Tidsskrift 6, 89–104.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. forthcoming. Intonational Phrases and Syntactic Focus Domains. In Verschueren, J. (ed.) Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ladd, D.R. 1980. The Structure of Intonational Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lorentz, O. 1984. Stress and Tone in an Accent Language. In Elert, C.-C., Johansson, I. & Strangert, E. (eds.) Nordic Prosody III. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Nilsen, R.A. 1989. On Prosodically Marked Information Structure in Spoken Norwegian. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics 7.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J.B. & Beckman, M.E. 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar