The present study is concerned with functional differences between the accent-lending rise followed by sustained level pitch (GDI-notation “1Ø,” cf., 't Hart, Collier, and Cohen, 1990) and the combination of the accent-lending rise and final rise (“12”) in Dutch. Theoretical analyses of the meaning of Dutch intonation claim that “1Ø” can be interpreted as a question. In contrast, recent investigations of the relevance of intonation for turn-taking indicate that “1Ø” signals that the speaker wants to keep the turn. The main goal of the present experimental investigation is to find evidence for the idea that speakers may use contour “1Ø” to keep the floor. Thirty subjects were presented with short utterances bearing either a “12” or a “1Ø” contour in three perception experiments. Results support the hypothesis that “1Ø” is not readily interpreted as a question, as opposed to contour “12,” which indicates that contour “1Ø” may play a role in signaling turn-keeping in Dutch.
AUER, P. (1996). On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 57–100). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BECKMAN, M. E., & PIERREHUMBERT, J. B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255–309.
3.
BOLINGER, D. L. (1975). Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
4.
BOLINGER, D. L. (1989). Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
5.
BRAZIL, D., COULTHARD, M., & JOHNS, C. (1980). Discourse intonation and language teaching. London: Longman.
6.
CAMPBELL, N., ITOH, Y., DING, W., & HIGUCHI, N. (1997). Factors affecting perceived quality and intelligibility in the CHATR concatenative speech synthesiser. In G. Kokkinakis, N. Fakotakis, & E. Dermatas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Vol. 5, 2635-2638. Patras, University of Patras.
7.
CASPERS, J. (1994). Pitch movements under time pressure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
8.
CASPERS, J. (1996). Testing the semantics of single-accent intonation patterns. In A. Arregui & C. Cremers (Eds.), Meaning on the HIL, HIL Occasional Papers 1 (pp. 14-32). Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.
9.
CASPERS, J. (1997). Testing the meaning of four Dutch pitch accent types. In G. Kokkinakis, N. Fakotakis, & E. Dermatas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Vol. 2, 863-866. Patras, University of Patras.
10.
CASPERS, J. (1998). Experiments on the meaning of four types of single-accent intonation patterns in Dutch. Ms., Leiden University.
11.
CASPERS, J., van HEUVEN, V. J., & van ZWOL, N. (1998). An experimental investigation of meaning differences between the “pointed hat” contour and the accent-lending fall in Dutch. In R. van Bezooijen & R. Kager (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1998 (pp. 65–79). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12.
COUPER-KUHLEN, E. (1996). Intonation and clause combining in discourse: The case of “because.”Pragmatics, 6, 389–426.
13.
CRUTTENDEN, A. (1981). Falls and rises: Meanings and universals. Journal of Linguistics, 17, 77–91.
14.
CRUTTENDEN, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
15.
CUTLER, A. (1991). Prosody in situations of communication: Salience and segmentation. Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 1, 264-270. Aix-en-Provence, Université de Provence.
16.
CUTLER, A., & PEARSON, M. (1986). On the analysis of prosodic turn-taking cues. In C. Johns-Lewis (Ed.), Intonation in discourse (pp. 139–155). London: Croom Helm.
17.
DUNCAN, S. (1973). Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica, 9, 29–46.
18.
FORD, C. E., & THOMPSON, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GELUYKENS, R. (1986). Questioning intonation (Antwerp papers in Linguistics, 48). Antwerp: UIA.
20.
GELUYKENS, R. (1987). Intonation and speech act type: An experimental approach to rising intonation in queclaratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 483–494.
21.
GRABE, E. (1998). Comparative intonational phonology: English and German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Max-Planck-Institute, Nijmegen.
22.
GRABE, E., GUSSENHOVEN, C., HAAN, J., MARSI, E., & POST, B. (1997). The meaning of intonation phrase onsets in Dutch. In A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou, & G. Carayiannis (Eds.), Intonation: Theory, models, and applications (Proceedings of an ESCA Workshop, pp. 161-164). Athens: ESCA and University of Athens.
23.
GRABE, E., GUSSENHOVEN, C., HAAN, J., MARSI, E., & POST, B. (1998). Preaccentual pitch and speaker-attitude in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41(1), 63–85.
24.
GROSZ, B. J., & SIDNER, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204.
25.
GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
26.
GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1988). Adequacy in intonation analysis: The case of Dutch. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), Autosegmental studies on pitch accent (pp. 95–121). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
27.
GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1991). Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch. In T. F. Shannon & J. P. Snapper (Eds.), The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp. 139-155). Lanham MD: University Press of America.
28.
HAAN, J., van HEUVEN, V. J., PACILLY, J. A., & van BEZOOIJEN, R. (1997a). An anatomy of Dutch question intonation. In J. Coerts & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997 (pp. 97–108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
29.
HAAN, J., van HEUVEN, V. J., PACILLY, J. A., & van BEZOOIJEN, R. (1997b). Intonational characteristics of declarativity and interrogativity in Dutch: A comparison. In A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou, & G. Carayiannis (Eds.), Intonation: Theory, models, and applications (Proceedings of an ESCA Workshop, pp. 173-176). Athens: ESCA and University of Athens.
30.
HADDING-KOCH, K., & STUDDERT-KENNEDY, M. (1964). An experimental study of some intonation contours. Phonetica, 11, 175–185.
31.
't HART, J., COLLIER, R., & COHEN, A. (1990). A perceptual study of intonation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HIRSCHBERG, J., & WARD, G. (1995). The interpretation of the high-rise question contour in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 407–412.
33.
ISAČENKO, A., & SCHÄDLICH, H. (1970). A model of standard German intonation. The Hague: Mouton.
34.
KEIJSPER, C. E. (1984). Vorm en betekenis in Nederlandse toonhoogtecontouren. Forum der Letteren, 25, 20–37, 113-126.
35.
KIRSNER, R. S., van HEUVEN, V. J., & van BEZOOIJEN, R. (1994). Interaction of particle and prosody in the interpretation of factual Dutch sentences. In R. Bok-Bennema & C. Cremers (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1994 (pp. 107–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
36.
KIRSNER, R. S., & van HEUVEN, V. J. (1996). Boundary tones and the semantics of the Dutch final particles “hè,” “hoor,” “zeg” and “joh.” In M. den Dikken & C. Cremers (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996 (pp. 133–146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
37.
KOMPE, R., NÖTH, E., KIESSLING, A., KUHN, T., MAST, M., NIEMANN, H., OTT, K., & BATLINER, A. (1994). Prosody takes over: Towards a prosodically guided dialog system. Speech Communication, 15, 155–167.
38.
KOWTKO, J. C. (1992). On the intonation of mono- and di-syllabic words within the discourse framework of conversational games. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 282-284.
39.
KOWTKO, J. C. (1996). The function of intonation in task-oriented dialogue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
40.
KOWTKO, J. C., ISARD, S. D., & DOHERTY, G. M. (1993). Conversational games within dialogue. Human Communication Research Center, Technical Report 31, University of Edinburgh.
41.
LADD, D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
42.
LADD, D. R. (1992). An introduction to intonational phonology. In G. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody (pp. 321-334). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
43.
LADD, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
44.
NOOTEBOOM, S. G., & KRUYT, J. G. (1987). Accents, focus distribution, and the perceived distribution of given and new information: An experiment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 1512–1524.
45.
PIERREHUMBERT, J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, published 1987 by Indiana University Linguistics Club.
46.
PIERREHUMBERT, J., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
47.
SACKS, H., SCHEGLOFF, E. A., & JEFFERSON, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
48.
SANDERS, M. J. (1996). Intonation contour choice in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Research Institute for Language and Speech, Utrecht.
49.
SCHAFFER, D. (1983). The role of intonation as a cue to turn taking in conversation. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 243–257.
50.
SELTING, M. (1996). On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics, 6, 357–388.
51.
SWERTS, M. G. J. (1994). Prosodic features of discourse units. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.
52.
SWERTS, M., & GELUYKENS, R. (1994). Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech, 37, 21–43.
53.
TERKEN, J. M. B. (1993). Human and synthetic intonation. In V. J. van Heuven & L. C. W. Pols (Eds.), Analysis and synthesis of speech (pp. 241–259). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
54.
van den BERG, R., GUSSENHOVEN, C., & RIETVELD, T. (1997). Downstep in Dutch: Implications for a model. In G. J. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody (pp. 335-359). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
55.
van DONZEL, M. E., & KOOPMANS-van BEINUM, F. J. (1997). Evaluation of prosodic characteristics in retold stories in Dutch by means of semantic scales. In G. Kokkinakis, N. Fakotakis, & E. Dermatas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Vol. 1, 211-214. Patras, University of Patras.
