Individual variability and the H* ~ L + H* contrast in English
The H* ~ L + H* pitch accent contrast in English has been a matter of lengthy debate, with some arguing that L + H* is an emphatic version of H* and others that the accents are phonetically and pragmatically distinct. Empirical evidence is inconclusive, possibly because studies do not consider diale...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Language and Cognition |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1866980824000620/type/journal_article |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841526440360673280 |
|---|---|
| author | Riccardo Orrico Stella Gryllia Jiseung Kim Amalia Arvaniti |
| author_facet | Riccardo Orrico Stella Gryllia Jiseung Kim Amalia Arvaniti |
| author_sort | Riccardo Orrico |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The H* ~ L + H* pitch accent contrast in English has been a matter of lengthy debate, with some arguing that L + H* is an emphatic version of H* and others that the accents are phonetically and pragmatically distinct. Empirical evidence is inconclusive, possibly because studies do not consider dialectal variation and individual variability. We focused on Standard Southern British English (SSBE), which has not been extensively investigated with respect to this contrast, and used Rapid Prosody Transcription (RPT) to examine differences in prominence based on accent form and function. L + H*s were rated more prominent than H*s but only when the former were used for contrast and the latter were not, indicating that participants had expectations about the form–function connection. However, they also differed substantially in which they considered primary (form or function). We replicated both the general findings and the patterns of individual variability with a second RPT study which also showed that the relative prioritization of form or function related to participant differences in empathy, musicality and autistic-like traits. In conclusion, the two accents are used to encode different pragmatics, though the form–function mapping is not clear-cut, suggesting a marginal contrast that not every SSBE speaker shares and attends to. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-935fa6db89ba4b88880de9fdd2271690 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1866-9808 1866-9859 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Language and Cognition |
| spelling | doaj-art-935fa6db89ba4b88880de9fdd22716902025-01-16T21:51:08ZengCambridge University PressLanguage and Cognition1866-98081866-98592025-01-011710.1017/langcog.2024.62Individual variability and the H* ~ L + H* contrast in EnglishRiccardo Orrico0Stella Gryllia1Jiseung Kim2Amalia Arvaniti3Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsCentre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsCentre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsCentre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsThe H* ~ L + H* pitch accent contrast in English has been a matter of lengthy debate, with some arguing that L + H* is an emphatic version of H* and others that the accents are phonetically and pragmatically distinct. Empirical evidence is inconclusive, possibly because studies do not consider dialectal variation and individual variability. We focused on Standard Southern British English (SSBE), which has not been extensively investigated with respect to this contrast, and used Rapid Prosody Transcription (RPT) to examine differences in prominence based on accent form and function. L + H*s were rated more prominent than H*s but only when the former were used for contrast and the latter were not, indicating that participants had expectations about the form–function connection. However, they also differed substantially in which they considered primary (form or function). We replicated both the general findings and the patterns of individual variability with a second RPT study which also showed that the relative prioritization of form or function related to participant differences in empathy, musicality and autistic-like traits. In conclusion, the two accents are used to encode different pragmatics, though the form–function mapping is not clear-cut, suggesting a marginal contrast that not every SSBE speaker shares and attends to.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1866980824000620/type/journal_articleH* ~ L + H*phoneticspragmaticsindividual variabilityempathyautistic-like traitsmusicality |
| spellingShingle | Riccardo Orrico Stella Gryllia Jiseung Kim Amalia Arvaniti Individual variability and the H* ~ L + H* contrast in English Language and Cognition H* ~ L + H* phonetics pragmatics individual variability empathy autistic-like traits musicality |
| title | Individual variability and the H* ~ L + H* contrast in English |
| title_full | Individual variability and the H* ~ L + H* contrast in English |
| title_fullStr | Individual variability and the H* ~ L + H* contrast in English |
| title_full_unstemmed | Individual variability and the H* ~ L + H* contrast in English |
| title_short | Individual variability and the H* ~ L + H* contrast in English |
| title_sort | individual variability and the h l h contrast in english |
| topic | H* ~ L + H* phonetics pragmatics individual variability empathy autistic-like traits musicality |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1866980824000620/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT riccardoorrico individualvariabilityandthehlhcontrastinenglish AT stellagryllia individualvariabilityandthehlhcontrastinenglish AT jiseungkim individualvariabilityandthehlhcontrastinenglish AT amaliaarvaniti individualvariabilityandthehlhcontrastinenglish |