Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:23:33.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The prosody of rhetorical questions in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2019

NICOLE DEHÉ  and
BETTINA BRAUN
NICOLE DEHÉ
Affiliation:
Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, Fach 186, 78457 Konstanz, Germany, [email protected], [email protected]
BETTINA BRAUN
Affiliation:
Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, Fach 186, 78457 Konstanz, Germany, [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article contributes to our knowledge about the prosodic realisation of rhetorical questions (RQs) as compared to information-seeking questions (ISQs). It reports on a production experiment testing the prosody of English wh- and polar RQs and ISQs in a Canadian variety. In previous literature, the contribution of prosody to the distinction between the two illocution types has often been limited to the intonational realisation of the terminus of the utterance, i.e. whether it ends in a rise or a fall. Along with edge tones, we tested other phonological and phonetic parameters. Our results are as follows: (i) The intonational terminus was distinctive only for polar questions (rise vs plateau), not for wh-questions (low throughout). (ii) Moreover, the semantic difference between RQs and ISQs is signalled by pitch accents. It is reflected in nuclear pitch accent type for wh-questions, and accent type and position for polar questions. (iii) Phonetically, RQs are produced with longer constituent durations and – for wh-questions – a softer voice quality in the wh-word. Taken together, several intonational categories and phonetic parameters contribute to the distinction between RQs and ISQs. A simple distinction between rising and falling intonation is in any case insufficient.

Keywords

rhetorical questionsprosodyquestion intonationillocution typequestion type
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 607 - 635
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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.)

Footnotes

We thank Angela James, Stephanie Gustedt and Clara Huttenlauch for help with the construction of the materials and data annotation, Anja Arnhold for data collection, and María Biezma for discussion. The research presented here was funded by the DFG as part of research unit ‘Questions at the Interfaces’ (FOR 2111, project P6), grant numbers DE 876/3-1 and BR 3428/4-1.

References

Banuazizi, Atissa & Cresswell, Cassandre. 1999. Is that a real question? Final rises, final falls, and discourse function in yes-no question intonation. In Billings, Sabrina J., Boyle, John P. & Griffith, Aaron M. (eds.), CLS 35-1: Papers from the main session, 1–13. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Bartels, Christine. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions: A compositional interpretation. New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Ayers, Elam. 1997. Guidelines for ToBI labelling, version 3. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Hirschberg, Julia. N.d. The ToBI annotation conventions. www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi/annotation_conventions.htmlGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., Hirschberg, Julia & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2005. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic typology, 9–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Yoav & Hochberg, Yosef. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
Biezma, María & Rawlins, Kyle. 2012. Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35(5), 361–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biezma, María & Rawlins, Kyle. 2017. Rhetorical questions: Severing asking from questioning. In Burgdorf, Dan, Collard, Jacob, Maspong, Sireemas & Stefánsdóttir, Brynhildur (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 27) conference, 302–22.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2018. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. www.praat.orgGoogle Scholar
Braun, Bettina, Dehé, Nicole, Neitsch, Jana, Wochner, Daniela & Zahner, Katharina. 2018. The prosody of rhetorical and information-seeking questions in German. Language and Speech. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918816351Google ScholarPubMed
Caponigro, Ivano & Sprouse, John. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. In Waldmüller, Estela Puig (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 121–33. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole, Braun, Bettina & Wochner, Daniela. 2018. The prosody of rhetorical vs information-seeking questions in Icelandic. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 9th International Conference (2018), 13-16 June 2018, Poznan, Poland, 403–7. doi: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-82Google Scholar
DiCanio, Christian. 2009. The phonetics of register in Takhian Thong Chong. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 39(2), 162–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine & Baumann, Stefan. 2002. Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191, 267–98.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan & Benzmüller, Ralf. 2005. German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 55–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G. & Stokhof, Martin J. B.. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2016. Analysis of intonation: The case of MAE_ToBI. Laboratory Phonology 7(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Rexach, Javier. 1998. Rhetorical questions, relevance and scales. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11, 139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1), 41–53.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-Hye. 2002. Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua 112(3), 201–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausser, Roland & Zaefferer, Dietmar. 1979. Questions and answers in a context-dependent Montague Grammar. In Guenthner, Franz & Schmidt, Siegfried J., Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages, 339–58. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy & Sosa, Juan M.. 2002. The prosody of questions in natural discourse. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002, International Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France, April 11-13, 2002, 375–8. ISCA Archive: www.isca-speech.org/archive/sp2002Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy & Sosa, Juan M.. 2011. A unified account of the meaning of English questions with non-canonical intonation. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Prosodic Interfaces, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, Sosa, Juan M. & Fadden, Lorna. 2004. Meanings and configurations of questions in English. In Bel, Bernard & Marlien, Isabelle (eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004, International Conference; Nara, Japan, March 23-26, 2004, 309–12. ISCA Archive: www.isca-speech.org/archive/sp2004Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, Sosa, Juan M. & Görgülü, Emrah. 2017. The meaning of intonation in yes-no questions in American English: A corpus study. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(2), 321–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, Sosa, Juan M., Gürgülü, Emrah & Mameni, Morgan. 2010. Prosody and pragmatics of wh-interrogatives. In Heijl, Melinda (ed.), Proceedings of the 2010 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2010/actes2010.htmlGoogle Scholar
Heuven, Vincent J. van, Haan, Judith & Kirsner, Robert S.. 1999. Phonetic correlates of sentence type in Dutch: Statement, question and command. In ETRW on Dialogue and Prosody (Diapro), September 1-3, 1999, Veldhoven, The Netherlands, 35–40. ISCA Archive: www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/dia_prosGoogle Scholar
Heuven, Vincent J. van & van Zanten, E.. 2005. Speech rate as a secondary prosodic characteristic of polarity questions in three languages. Speech Communication 47(1–2), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1975. The meaning of questions. Language 51(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 1995. The validity of rhetorical questions as arguments in the courtroom. Paper presented to the Special Fields and Cases. In van Eemeren, Frans H. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, 73–88. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1), 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2011. Questions. In Heusinger, Klaus von, Maienborn, Claudia & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 1742–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. Richard & Koch, Gary G.. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooshammer, Christine. 2010. Acoustic and laryngographic measures of the laryngeal reflexes of linguistic prominence and vocal effort in German. Journal of Acoustic Society of America 127(2), 1047–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niebuhr, Oliver. 2013. The acoustic complexity of intonation. In Asu-Garcia, Eva Liina & Lippus, Pärtel (eds.), Nordic Prosody: Proceedings of the XIth conference, Tartu 2012. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver, Bergherr, Julia, Huth, Susanne, Lill, Cassandra & Neuschulz, Jessica. 2010. Intonationsfragen hinterfragt! Die Vielschichtigkeit der prosodischen Unterschiede zwischen Aussage- und Fragestäzen mit deklarative Syntax [On the complexity of prosodic differences between declaratives and declarative questions]. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 77(3), 304–46.Google Scholar
Petrone, Caterina & Niebuhr, Oliver. 2014. On the intonation of German intonation questions: The role of the prenuclear region. Language and Speech 57(1), 108–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry & Pollack, Martha E. (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan (eds.). 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie. 2009. The African lax question prosody: Its realization and geographical distribution. Lingua 119(6), 928–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, Hannah. 2006. Rhetorical questions as redundant interrogatives. San Diego Linguistic Papers 2, 134–68.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1971. Queclaratives. In Papers from the 7th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 223–31.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence C. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schubiger, Maria. 1958. English intonation: Its form and function Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sicoli, Mark A., Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, Nick J. & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2015. Marked initial pitch in questions signals marked communicative function. Language and Speech 58(2), 204–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverman, Kim E., Beckman, Mary, Pitrelli, John F., Ostendorf, Mari, Wrightman, Colin, Price, Patti, Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1992. ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 12-16 October, Banff, 867–70.Google Scholar
Von Stechow, Arnim & Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 1984. Term answers and contextual change. Linguistics 22(1), 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deidre & Sperber, Dan. 1988. Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Jonathan Dancy, J. M. E. Moravcsik, & Taylor, C. C. W. (eds.), Human agency: Language, duty and value, 77–101. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar