An intonational change in progress in Australian English

Abstract

Many speakers of current Australian English often use a high-rising intonation in statements. This usage, which has been termed Australian Questioning Intonation (AQI), has a nonpropositional, interactive meaning (checking for listener comprehension) and interacts with the turn-taking mechanism of conversation. A quantitative study of the use of AQI in Sydney reveals that it has the social distribution characteristic of a language change in progress: higher rates of usage among working-class speakers, teenagers, and women. Real time data confirm this, showing that the form was almost nonexistent in this speech community two decades earlier. The social motivations of this innovation are examined in terms of local identity and the entry of new ethnic groups into the community, and possible linguistic sources are discussed. The utility of quantitative methods in studying meaningful linguistic variables is demonstrated. (Australian English, language change in progress, intonation, sociolinguistic variation, social class, social motivation) AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH INTONATIONAL CHANGE IN PROGRESS "tone 2 " in Halliday's (1967) analysis of English intonation. In our instrumental studies, it typically showed an Fo rise of at least 40 percent, beginning on the last tonic syllable of the tone group and continuing sharply upwards through any subsequent syllables. We consider these contours to be emically equivalent to the English HRT contours normally used in polar (yes/no) questions. This conclusion is based not only on impressionistic studies, but also on extensive instrumental work by one of us (Vonwiller). In this regard, we are not entirely in agreement with the previous researchers, McGregor and Bryant, who imply there may be a distinctive phonetic quality to these HRTs. While it is possible there are differences of an etic nature, we treat the HRT in declarative clauses in AE as the same tone unit -tone 2 -as the HRT in interrogatives.The relevant syntactic frame in this case is the declarative clause, whether elliptical or not. Thus we are excluding from consideration any HRTs in interrogatives, which would constitute true questions, as well as any imperatives, exclamatives, and so on, where, of course, the HRT would be unlikely to occur anyway. Elliptical declaratives were included even when the clause was reduced to a single word or phrase, as in (1). (Instances of AQI are represented throughout by an upward pointing arrow together with italicizing the portion of the utterance over which the rise occurred. Other intonations are shown by conventional punctuation only.)

The interpretation of prosodic variability in the context of accompanying sociophonetic cues

“…Note though that other factors may make such a split unlikely to happen precipitously. As Guy et al (1986) pointed out in their discussion of Australian English, even without a phonetic difference between uptalk rises and question rises, ambiguity is unlikely, as contexts will clarify the intended meaning. For instance, true questions usually include some anaphoric reference to a previous utterance, and will usually be at the end of a turn, while uptalk tends to provide new information, with the speaker typically continuing to hold the floor.…”

“…Since intonational rises can also mark questions, there is a frequent lay perception that uptalk indicates a questioning nature, and that uptalkers are therefore insecure or lacking in confidence (see discussion in Warren, 2016). This association is not entirely surprising, given that it has been claimed that uptalk rises and question rises may be phonetically indistinguishable (Guy et al, 1986;Ladd, 1996;Lakoff, 1973). However, more recent research indicates emerging differences between these rise types in a number of varieties of English, with the nature of the differences dependent on variety (Warren & Fletcher, 2016).…”

Punctors: A pragmatic variable

“…In recent years, discourse analysts have tried to work out structures and organization specific to spoken language, including prosodic features (Guy, Horvath, Vonwiller, Daisley, & Rogers, 1986) and various kinds of markers: interaction markers, pragmatic markers, discourse particles, etc. (Ducrot, 1980;Erman, 1987;Roulet, Auchlin, Moeschler, Rubattel, & Schilling, 1985;Schiffrin, 1987;Vincent, 1983Vincent, , 1991Vincent, , 1993.…”

Segmental and suprasegmental change in North West Yorkshire – a new case of supralocalisation ?

“…The question of the meaning(s) of HRTs has been hotly debated over the past two decades (e.g. Britain, 1992 ;Ching, 1982 ;Guy, Horvath, Vonwiller, Daisley, & Rogers, 1986 ;Liberman, 2006a), and will not be discussed in detail here.…”