Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T13:28:41.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges in studying prosody and its pragmatic functions: Introduction to JIPA special issue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2018

Oliver Niebuhr  and
Nigel G. Ward
Oliver Niebuhr
Affiliation:
SDU Electrical Engineering, Mads Clausen Institute, University of SouthernDenmarkolni@sdu.dk
Nigel G. Ward
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at El Pasonigelward@acm.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The impetus for this special issue was an all-day event at the 2015 meeting of the International Pragmatics Association: The Panel on Prosodic Constructions in Dialog. This event had several motivations: (i) we have enormous data sets and tools to process them, but as a field we lack clear roadmaps for how to exploit these sets and tools to improve our understanding; (ii) we know that prosody is more than just the single stream of intonation, but we find it hard to accurately describe multistream phenomena; (iii) we have observed how prosody serves many dialog and interactional functions, but cannot yet really model how; and (iv) we have various schools of thought, each wielding its own methods, but we have difficulty reconciling and connecting their various insights.

Type
Introduction to Special Issue
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 48 , Special Issue 1: Prosody and pragmatic functions , April 2018 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2018 

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

Arvaniti, Amalia. 2011. The representation of intonation. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth V. & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 757–780. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2016. Analytical decisions in intonation research and the role of representations: lessons from Romani. Laboratory Phonology 7, 1–43.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Robert Ladd, D. & Mennen, Ineke. 1998. Stability of tonal alignment: The case of Greek prenuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 26, 3–25.Google Scholar
Atterer, Michaela & Ladd, D. Robert. 2004. On the phonetics and phonology of “segmental anchoring” of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics 32, 177–197.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan, Veilleux, Nanette, Brugos, Alegjna & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2012. Tonal Center of Gravity: A global approach to tonal implementation in a level-based intonational phonology. Laboratory Phonology 3, 337–383.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1963. The uniqueness of the word. Lingua 12, 113–136.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1989. Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Caswell, Jesse. 1870. Treatise on the tones of the Siamese language. Siam Repository 2, 93–101.Google Scholar
Chebat, Jean-Charles, El Hedhli, Kamel, Gélinas-Chebat, Claire & Boivin, Robert. 2007. Voice and persuasion in a banking telemarketing context. Perceptual and Motor Skills 104, 419–437.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collier, Rene. 2015. Prosodic analysis: A dual track? In Santen, Jan van, Sproat, Richard, Olive, Joseph & Hirschberg, Julia (eds.), Progress in speech synthesis, 325–329. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Dale, Rick, Fusaroli, Riccardo, Duran, Nicholas & Richardson, Daniel C.. 2013. The self-organization of human interaction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 59, 43–95.Google Scholar
Day-O'Connell, Jeremy. 2013. Speech, song, and the minor third. Music Perception 30, 441–462.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Smith, Rachel. 2018. Qualitative and quantitative aspects of phonetic variation in Dutch eigenlijk. In Cangemi, Francesco, Clayards, Meghan, Niebuhr, Oliver, Schuppler, Barbara & Zellers, Margaret (eds.), Rethinking reduction: Interdisciplinary perspectives on conditions, mechanisms, and domains for phonetic variation (Phonology and Phonetics 25), 129–163. Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2016. Robots as confederates: How robots can and should support research in the humanities. In Seibt, Johanna, Nørskov, Marco & Andersen, Soren Schack (eds.), What social robots can and should do, 60–66. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine & Baumann, Stefan. 2002. Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191, 267–298.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harnad, Stevan. 1990. The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42, 335–346.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah. 2003. Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding. Journal of Phonetics 31, 373–405.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, Sosa, Juan Manuel & Fadden, Lorna. 2004. Meanings and configurations of questions in English. Proceedings 2nd International Conference of Speech Prosody, Nanjing, Japan, 375–378.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel. 1909. Intonation curves: A collection of phonetic texts, in which intonation is marked throughout by means of curved lines on a musical stave. Leipzig & Berlin: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas F. 2014. Capturing music: The story of notation. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Kingdon, Roger. 1958. The groundwork of English intonation. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J. 2005. Timing and communicative functions of pitch contours. Phonetica 62, 88–105.Google Scholar
Kügler, Frank, Smolibocki, Bernadett, Arnold, Denis, Baumann, Stefan, Braun, Bettina, Grice, Martine, Jannedy, Stefanie, Michalsky, Jan, Niebuhr, Oliver, Peters, Jörg, Ritter, Simon, Röhr, Christine T., Schweitzer, Antje, Schweitzer, Katrin & Wagner, Petra. 2015. DIMA: Annotation guidelines for German intonation. 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVIII), Glasgow, Scotland, 317.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1990. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the human ‘Interaction Engine’. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.), Roots of human sociality, 39–69. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M. & Whalen, Doug H.. 2000. On the relation of speech to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 187–196.Google Scholar
Litman, Diane J. & Forbes-Riley, Kate. 2006. Recognizing student emotions and attitudes on the basis of utterances in spoken tutoring dialogues with both human and computer tutors. Speech Communication 48, 559–590.Google Scholar
Mayer, Jörg. 1995. Transcription of German intonation: The Stuttgart System. Ms., University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Mayo, Catherine, Clark, Robert A. J. & King, Simon. 2011. Listeners’ weighting of acoustic cues to synthetic speech naturalness: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Speech Communication 53, 311–326.Google Scholar
Melis, Alicia P., Grocke, Patricia, Kalbitz, Josefine & Tomasello, Michael. 2016. One for you, one for me: Humans’ unique turn-taking skills. Psychological Science 27, 987–996.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver. 2013a. The acoustic complexity of intonation. In Asu, Eva Liina & Lippus, Pärtel (eds.), Nordic Prosody XI, 15–29. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver. 2013b. Resistance is futile: The intonation between continuation rise and calling contour in German. Proceedings of 14th International Interspeech Conference, Lyon, France, 225–229.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver. 2015. Stepped intonation contours. In Skarnitzl, Radek & Niebuhr, Oliver (eds.), Tackling the complexity in speech, 39–74. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver, Tegtmeier, Silke & Brem, Alexander. 2017. Advancing research and practice in entrepreneurship through speech analysis: From descriptive rhetorical terms to phonetically informed acoustic charisma metrics. Journal of Speech Sciences 6, 3–26.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2010. Prosodic constructions in making complaints. In Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Reber, Elisabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in interaction, 81–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard A. 2012. Prosodies in conversation. In Niebuhr, Oliver (ed.), Understanding prosody: The role of context, function, and communication, 201–217. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peters, Jörg. 2014. Intonation. Winter: Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2015. Intonational meaning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 6, 371–381.Google Scholar
Rao, Rajiv. 2013. Intonational variation in third party complaints in Spanish. Journal of Speech Sciences 3, 141–168.Google Scholar
Rathcke, Tamara [V.] & Harrington, Jonathan. 2010. The variability of early accent peaks in Standard German. In Fougeron, Cécile, Kühnert, Barbara, D'Imperio, Mariopaola & Vallée, M. Nathalie (eds.), Laboratory Phonology, vol. 10, 533–555. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Rathcke, Tamara V. 2016. How truncating are ‘truncating languages’? Evidence from Russian and German. Phonetica 73, 194–228.Google Scholar
Rodero, Emma. 2017. Effectiveness, attention, and recall of human and artificial voices in an advertising story: Prosody influence and functions of voices. Computers in Human Behavior 77, 336–346.Google Scholar
Sandry, Elanor. 2015. Robots and communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Auer, Peter, Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Bergmann, Jörg R., Bergmann, Pia, Birkner, Karin, Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Deppermann, Arnulf, Gilles, Peter, Günthner, Susanne, Hartung, Martin, Kern, Friederike, Mertzlufft, Christian, Meyer, Christian, Morek, Miriam, Oberzaucher, Frank, Peters, Jörg, Quasthoff, Uta, Schütte, Wilfried, Stukenbrock, Anja & Uhmann, Susanne. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10, 353–402.Google Scholar
Steele, Joshua. 1779. Prosodia rationalis: Or, an essay towards establishing the melody and measure of speech, to be expressed and perpetuated by peculiar symbols. London: J. Nichols.Google Scholar
Ward, Nigel G. & DeVault, David. 2016. Challenges in building highly-interactive dialog systems. AI Magazine 37, 7–18.Google Scholar
Ward, Nigel G. & Gallardo, Paola. 2017. Non-native differences in prosodic-construction use. Dialogue & Discourse 8, 1–30.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne, House, Jill & Rietveld, Toni. 2000. Discourse constraints on F0 peak timing in English. In Botinis, Antonis (ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modeling and technology, 163–182. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wolters, Maria K., Johnson, Christine, Campbell, Pauline E., DePlacido, Christine G. & McKinstry, Brian. 2014. Can older people remember medication reminders presented using synthetic speech? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 22, 35–42.Google Scholar
Zen, Heiga, Senior, Andrew & Schuster, Mike. 2013. Statistical parametric speech synthesis using deep neural networks. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Vancouver, Canada, 7962–7966.Google Scholar