Abstract
Prosodic cues perform a range of communicative functions. While lexical tonal contrasts are clearly linguistic and semantic in nature, others seem distinctly more natural. Affective intonation, for example, seems to make use of natural, rather than linguistic codes, and contrastive stress affects interpretation without encoding anything at all. These different types and degrees of encoding interact with general pragmatic principles to contribute to speaker meaning, and as such prosody spans the semantics-pragmatics interface. In this chapter I take a relevance-theoretic, procedural approach to prosody, and argue that such an approach allows us to bridge the gap between existing linguistic and natural analyses. I particularly focus on contrastive stress in English. Following existing work in the relevance theoretic framework, I argue that contrastive stress is a natural highlighting device. By drawing attention to a particular part of an utterance, a speaker can both prompt her hearer to seek out extra or different interpretive effects and guide her as to where those effects should be found. I end the chapter by suggesting that we might develop our understanding of how prosody contributes to meaning by drawing on parallels with the interpretation of music. Just as composers may play with an audience’s expectations in order to create certain emotional effects, so a speaker can guide interpretation by confirming or confounding a hearer’s prosodic expectations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Wharton 2009 for a more detailed discussion of this continuum and how it applies to prosodic inputs and non-verbal communication more generally.
- 2.
As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, linguistic signals can be used to ‘show’ as well as to mean in the Non-Natural sense. For example, when Rosa asks Albert if he speaks Spanish, and he replies ‘El español es un idioma bonito’, he has shown her, not told her, that he speaks Spanish.
- 3.
I follow Ariel’s (1990) capitalisation of Accessibility to indicate that her theory specific notion is intended.
- 4.
Music theory generally refers to those processing the input as listeners, whereas in pragmatics they are referred to as hearers. No significant different is intended.
References
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schliperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bolinger, D. (1983). The inherent iconism of intonation. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 97–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamines.
Bolinger, D. (1985). Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brazil, D. (1975). Discourse intonation I. Birmingham: English Language Research, Birmingham University.
Carston, R. (2004). Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Clark, B. (2007). Blazing a trail: Moving from natural to linguistic meaning in accounting for the tones of English. In R. A. Nilsen, N. A. Amfo, & K. Borthen (Eds.), Interpreting utterances: Pragmatics and its interfaces. Essays in honour of Thorstein Fretheim (pp. 69–81). Oslo: Novus.
Clark, B. (2012). The relevance of tones: Prosodic meanings in utterance interpretation and in relevance theory. The Linguistic Review, 29(4), 643–661.
Clark, B. (2013a). Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, B. (2013b). Procedures and prosody: Understanding weak communication. In F. Liedtke & C. Schulze (Eds.), Beyond the words: Content, context and inference (pp. 151–182). Berlin: Mouton de Grutter.
Escandell-Vidal, V. (1998). Intonation and procedural meaning: The case of Spanish interrogatives. In V. Rouchota & A. Jucker (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp. 169–203). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fretheim, T. (2002, April 11–13). Intonation as a constrainst on inferential processing. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Speech Prosody. Aix-en-Provence, France, pp. 59–64.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gundel, J. K. (2010). Reference and accessibility from a Givenness hierarchy perspective. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 148–168.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307.
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.
Gussenhoven, C. (2002, April 11–13). Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In B. Bel, & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Speech Prosody. Aix-en-Provence, France, pp. 47–57.
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. (1985). Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hausen, M., et al. (2013). Music and speech prosody: A common rhythm. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 566.
Hauser, M. (1996). The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hedley, P. (2007). Anaphora, relevance and the conceptual/procedural distinction. DPhil Thesis. Magdalen College, Oxford.
House, J. (2006). Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1542–1558.
House, J. (2007). The role of prosody in constraining context selection: A procedural approach. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Francaise, 28, 369–383.
House, J. (2009). Prosody and context selection: A procedural approach. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehé, & A. Wichmann (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics (pp. 129–142). Bingley: Emerald.
Huron, D. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Imai, K. (1998). Intonation and relevance. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 69–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ladd, R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lieberman, P. (1967). Intonation, perception and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matsui, T. (2000). Bridging and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
O’Connor, J., & Arnold, G. (1973). Intonation of colloquial English. Harlow: Longman.
Sag, I., & Liberman, M. (1975). The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Scott, K. (2010). The relevance of referring expressions: The case of diary drop in English. London: University College London.
Scott, K. (2013). This and that: A procedural analysis. Lingua, 131, 49–65.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edition with postfaceth ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language, 17(1), 3–23.
Steedman, M. (2007). Information-structural semantics for English intonation. In C. Lee (Ed.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation (pp. 245–264). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tench, P. (1996). The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell.
Vandepitte, S. (1989). A pragmatic function of intonation. Lingua, 79, 265–297.
Wells, J. C. (2006). English intonation: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wharton, T. (2003). Interjections, language, and the showing/saying continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11(1), 39–91.
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and Non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wharton, T. (2012). Prosody and meaning: Theory and practice. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht: Springer.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, D., & Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559–1579.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Scott, K. (2017). Prosody, Procedures and Pragmatics. In: Depraetere, I., Salkie, R. (eds) Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32245-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32247-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)