Abstract
This paper addresses the power of intonation to convey interpersonal or attitudinal meaning. Speakers have been shown to accommodate to each other in the course of conversation, and this convergence may be perceived as a sign of empathy. Accommodation often involves paradigmatic choices—choosing the same words, gestures, regional accent or melodic pattern, but this paper suggests that affective meaning can also be conveyed syntagmatically through the relationship between prosodic features in successive utterances. The paper also addresses the use of prosody in situations of conflict, particularly in institutional settings. The requirement of the more powerful participant to exercise control may conflict with the expression of empathy. Situations are described where divergent rather than convergent behaviour is more successful both in keeping control and in maintaining rapport.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the British system of intonation the first accent in a tone group or intonational phrase is called the ‘onset’, and the last (normally) is called the ‘nucleus’. The determining pitch level of each, according to Brazil, is the highest pitch reached on the accented syllable, usually aligned with the vowel segment.
Prosodic prominence is the property of a syllable, but listeners generally perceive the whole word to be highlighted.
Note that a raised voice does not necessarily ‘mean’ angry—it means a raised voice and can signal heightened emotion. Whether this emotion is positive (enthusiasm, joy) or negative (anger) is determined not by the pitch and loudness alone but by other prosodic characteristics including voice quality, and by body language.
There is an important difference between displaying emotion, i.e., intentionally communicating it, and failing to conceal it.
In my experience this is often a case of being angry with the student for being angry. It may silence the student but does not deal with the source of the conflict.
Traffic wardens patrol the streets and have the power to issue written notice of a fine, or even in some case to cause vehicles to be ‘clamped’ or immobilised and removed if they have been parked illegally. They are not generally loved.
References
Bolinger, D. (1989). Intonation and its uses. London: Edward Arnold.
Brazil, D. (1985). Phonology: Intonation in discourse. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis II: Dimensions of discourse (pp. 55–75). London: Academic Press.
Cornelius, R. R. (2000). Theoretical approaches to emotion. In Proceedings of ISCA workshop on speech and emotion (pp. 3–10), Newcastle, Northern Ireland.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1993). English speech rhythm. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). The prosody of repetition: on quoting and mimicry. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 366–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. E. (2004). Sound patterns in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.). (1996). Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545–1579.
Ellison, J. (2008). A study of the prosody of conflict. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87–105.
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (Eds.). (1991). The contexts of accommodation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H., Scherer, K. R., & Taylor, D. M. (1979). Speech markers in social interaction. In K. R. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 342–381). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hirschberg, J. (2004). Pragmatics and intonation. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.
James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 19, 188–205.
Knowles, G. (1987). Patterns of spoken English. London: Longman.
Kousidis, S., Dorran, D., McDonnell, C., & Coyle, E. (2009). Time series analysis of acoustic feature convergence in human dialogues. Dublin Institute of Technology, Digital Media Centre Conference papers.
Kousidis, S., Dorran, D., Wang, Y., Vaughan, B., Cullen, C., Campbell, D., et al. (2008). Towards measuring continuous acoustic feature convergence in unconstrained spoken dialogues. Dublin Institute of Technology, Digital Media Centre Conference papers.
Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Müller, F. E. (1996). Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: prosodic aspects of recipiency. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 131–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nagaoka, C., Komori, M., & Yoshikawa, S. (2007). Embodied synchrony in conversation. In T. Nishida (Ed.), Conversational informatics: An engineering approach (pp. 331–351). Chichester: Wiley.
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.
Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2009). Solidarity and conflict: Aligned and misaligned prosody as a transactional resource in intra- and intercultural communication involving power differences. Cultural Studies of Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11422-009-9203-8.
Steele, J. (1775). An essay towards establishing the melody and measure of speech. London: Bowyer & Nichols [Reprinted, Menston: The Scolar Press 1969].
Suzuki, N., & Katagiri, Y. (2007). Prosodic alignment in human—computer interaction. Connection Science, 19(2), 131–141.
Wichmann, A. (2000). Intonation in text and discourse. London: Longman.
Wichmann, A. (2009). Prosody and pragmatic effects. Paper presented at Workshop on Prosody and Meaning, Barcelona.
Wichmann, A., Dehé, N., & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2009). Where prosody meets pragmatics: research at the interface. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehé, & A. Wichmann (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics (pp. 1–20). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wichmann, A. Intonational meaning in institutional settings: the role of syntagmatic relations. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 5, 849–857 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9263-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9263-9