Abstract
Prosodic elements such as stress and intonation are generally seen as providing both ‘natural’ and properly linguistic input to utterance comprehension. They typically create impressions, convey information about emotions or attitudes or alter the salience of linguistically possible interpretations, rather than conveying distinct propositions or concepts in their own right. These aspects of communication present a challenge to pragmatic theory: how should they be described and explained? This chapter examines some of the theoretical questions raised in the study of the pragmatics of prosody. It explores a range of distinctions made in the study of meaning – between natural meaning and non-natural meaning, coding and inference, between linguistic coding and non-linguistic coding – and considers their relation to prosody. Three theoretical questions are asked: How can the different types of prosody be characterised? What is the relationship between prosody and intentional communication? What kind of meaning does prosody encode? In the final section of the chapter, the discussion is extended to the practical domain. To what extent is the theoretical debate reflected in the teaching of English pronunciation? Can the theory usefully inform the practice?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The small ‘c’ is important.
- 2.
In relevance theory anything communicated explicitly (as opposed to implicitly – cf. Grice’s notion of implicature) is called an explicature.
- 3.
Those working within the field of interactional linguistics continue to do impressive and insightful work into the role of prosody in sequence- and turn-management (see references in Chap. 10).
- 4.
The University College London Summer Course in English Phonetics.
- 5.
This quote included with the kind permission of Ms Rachada Pongprairat, Assistant Professor of English, Thepsatri Rajabhat University, Thailand.
References
Bachman, L. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barkow, J., L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, eds. 1995. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. 1983a. The inherent iconism of intonation. In Iconicity in syntax, ed. J. Haiman, 97–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bolinger, D. 1983b. Where does intonation belong? Journal of Semantics 2: 101–120.
Brazil, D. 1975. The communicative value of intonation in English. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Canale, M. 1983. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Language and communication, ed. J. Richards and R. Schmidt, 2–28. London: Longman.
Canale, M., and M. Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1–47.
Cantarutti, Marina. 2010. Perceiving prosody as a communicative strategy: Prosodic orientation in interaction. In Proceedings of the XXXV FAAPI Conference: EFL and Art, Córdoba, Argentina, 23 Sept 2010, Paper 45.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Celce-Murcia, M., Z. Dörnyei, and S. Thurrell. 1995. Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6(2): 5–35.
Chen, A., and C. Gussenhoven. 2003. Language-dependence in signalling of attitude in speech. In Proceedings of Workshop on the Subtle Expressivity of Emotion, CHI 2003 Conference on Human and Computer Interaction, ed. N. Suzuki and C. Bartneck.
Chevallier, C., I. Noveck, F. Happé, and D. Wilson. 2011. What’s in a voice: Prosody as a test for the Theory of Mind account of autism. Neuropsychologia 49(3): 507–517.
Clark, B. 2007. ‘Blazing a trail’: Moving from natural to linguistic meaning in accounting for the tones of English. In Interpreting utterances; pragmatics and its interfaces. Essays in honour of thorstein fretheim, ed. R.A. Nilsen, N.A. Appiah Amfo, and K. Borthen, 69–81. Oslo: Novus.
Clark, B., and G. Lindsey. 1990 Intonation, grammar and utterance interpretation. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 32–51.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. in press. Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In Questions. formal, functional and interactional perspectives, ed. J.P. de Ruiter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummings, L., ed. 2009. The pragmatics encylopaedia. London: Routledge.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1972. Similarities and differences between cultures in expressive movements. In Non-verbal communication,ed. R. Hinde, 297–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Ekman, P. 1989. The argument and evidence about universals in facial expressions of emotion. In Handbook of social psychophysiology, ed. H. Wagner and A. Manstead, 143–164. New York: Wiley.
Ekman, P. 1992. An argument for basic emotion. Cognition and Emotion 6(3/4): 169–200.
Ekman, P. 1999. Emotional and conversational nonverbal signals. In Gesture, speech and sign, ed. L. Messing and R. Campbell, 45–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 1998. Intonation and procedural encoding: The case of Spanish interrogatives. In Current issues in relevance theory, ed. V. Rouchota and A. Jucker, 169–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 2002. Echo-syntax and metarepresentations. Lingua 112: 871–900.
Fretheim, T. 2002. Intonation as a constraint on inferential processing. In Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, ed. B. Bel and I. Marlien, 59–64.
Fridlund, A. 1994. Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. San Diego: Academic.
Gigerenzer, G. 2000. Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gigerenzer, G., P. Todd, and The ABC Research Group. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H.P. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66: 377–388.
Grice, H.P. 1967. William James Lectures, delivered at Harvard University, ms.
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gussenhoven, C. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.
Gussenhoven, C. 2002. Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In Speech prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, ProSig and Universite de Provence Laboratoire Parole et Language, 47–57.
Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gussenhoven, C. 2006. Semantics of prosody. In Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics, vol. 11, 2nd ed., ed. K. Brown, 170–172. Oxford: Elsevier.
Hall, A. 2004. The meaning of but: A procedural reanalysis. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 199–236.
Halliday, M. 1963. Explorations in the function of language. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
Hauser, M. 1996. The evolution of communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hirschberg, J., and G. Ward. 1995. The interpretation of the high-rise question contour in English. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 407–412.
Hirschfeld, L., and S. Gelman, eds. 1994. Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
House, J. 1990. Intonation structures and pragmatic interpretation. In Studies in the pronunciation of English, ed. S. Ramsaran, 38–57. London: Routledge.
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. In Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 28: 369–383.
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics, ed. J. Pride and J. Holmes. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Imai, K. 1998. Intonation and relevance. In Relevance theory: Applications and implications, ed. R. Carston and S. Uchida, 69–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
König, E. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.
Ladd, R. 1978. The structure of intonational meaning. London: Indiana University Press.
Ladd, R. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Millikan, R. 1984. Language, thought and other biological categories. Cambridge: MIT Press.
O’Connor, J., and G. Arnold. 1973. Intonation of colloquial English. Harlow: Longman.
Origgi, G., and D. Sperber. 2000. Evolution, communication and the proper function of language. In Evolution and the human mind: Modularity, language and meta-cognition, ed. P. Carruthers and A. Chamberlain, 140–169. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostler, N. 2010. The last Lingua franca: English until the return of Babel. London: Penguin.
Padilla Cruz, M. 2009a. Towards an alternative relevance-theoretic approach to interjections. International Review of Pragmatics 1(1): 182–206.
Padilla Cruz, M. 2009b. Might interjections encode concepts? Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5(2): 241–270.
Pell, M. 2002. Surveying emotional prosody in the brain. In Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, ed. B. Bel and I. Marlien, 77–82.
Pierrehumbert, J., and J. Hirschberg. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Intentions in communication, ed. P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, 271–311. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Sag, I., and M. Liberman. 1975. The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts. Papers from the eleventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 487–497.
Seeley, T. 1989. The honey-bee colony as a superorganism. American Scientist 77: 546–553.
Sperber, D. 1996. Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. 2002. In defense of massive modularity. In Language, brain and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler, ed. E. Dupoux, 47–57. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
van Hooff, J. 1972. A comparative approach to the phylogeny of laughter and smiling. In Non-verbal communication, ed. R. Hinde, 209–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vandepitte, S. 1989. A pragmatic function of intonation. Lingua 79: 265–297.
Ward, G., and J. Hirschberg. 1988 Intonation and propositional attitude: The pragmatics of L* + H L H%. In Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 512–522. Columbus: OSU Department of Linguistics.
Wharton, T. 2003a. Interjections, language and the ‘showing’/‘saying’ continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition 11–1(May): 39–91.
Wharton, T. 2003b. Natural pragmatics and natural codes. Mind and Language 18(5): 447–477.
Wharton, T. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wharton, T. in press. Pragmatics and prosody. In The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, ed. K. Allan and K. Jasczolt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wichmann, A. 2002. Attitudinal intonation and the inferential process. In Proceedings of the Speech Prosody Conference, ed. B. Bel and I. Marlien, 11–16.
Wichmann, A., and D. Blakemore, eds. 2006. Prosody and pragmatics. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 38(10): 1537–1541.
Wilson, D., and D. Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1): 1–25.
Wilson, D., and T. Wharton. 2006. Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1559–1579.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wharton, T. (2012). Prosody and Meaning: Theory and Practice. In: Romero-Trillo, J. (eds) Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching. Educational Linguistics, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-3882-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-3883-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)