On a concessive reading of the rise-fall-rise contour: contextual and semantic factors

Abstract

This paper presents three auditory rating experiments on the rise-fall-rise contour (RFR). Experiment 1 provides experimental evidence that the RFR makes disagreeing with a prior statement more natural than neutral intonation would. Additionally, the data show that the RFR exhibits a valence asymmetry, noted by Göbel (2019): the amelioration of a disagreement is greater when the RFR is used in a positive reply to a negative statement than in a negative reply to a positive statement. Experiments 2 and 3 investigate factors contributing to this asymmetry, showing that it disappears in replies to questions and is weakened when the reply contains an additive particle. Based on these results, we argue that the RFR has a scalar meaning, following Göbel (2019), with the relevant scale being contextually determined and resulting in an ambiguity resembling the Focus-particle at least.

On the meaning of intonational contours: a view from scalar inference

“…The first thing to note is that Neutral Fall is by far most frequent contour to be used, comprising about 56% of the total recordings even after excluding monotonous participants, indicating the difficulty of motivating participants to be more creative with their intonation choices in an online setting. 1 Next we can see that the RFR was almost exclusively used in the STRONG condition, in line with the prediction by Göbel & Wagner (2023) and Göbel & Wagner (2023). The Concession Contour, on the other hand, had a trend toward occurring more frequently in the SAME condition, but was more evenly distributed.…”

“…The experiment provided data from two sources: production rates of contours and inference rates given the production of a certain contour (Göbel 2019;Göbel & Wagner 2023). Production rates showed that the RFR was almost exclusively used when the question prompt mentioned a stronger alternative, in line with the prediction of the salience account.…”

“…The infelicity of exhaustive answers with the RFR as in (6b) and ( 6c) is then captured because the maxims regarding the main QUD are being adhered to. Lastly, Göbel (2019) and Göbel & Wagner (2023) shift their attention to the function of the RFR in argumentative dialogues. The observation they make is that the RFR exhibits an asymmetry in replies to statements depending on the "polarity" of the initial statement, which they dub valence asymmetry.…”

“…Finally, Göbel (2019) and Göbel & Wagner (2023) implying the existence of a stronger alternative while remaining agnostic regarding its truth value. On this account, a possible effect of the RFR could then be that highlighting the salience of the relevant alternative leads to an increase in SI rate.…”

“…However, this is only true for items containing an auxiliary, which was not the case for all stimuli. Additionally, Göbel (2019) and Göbel & Wagner (2023) would predict the RFR to occur more frequently in the STRONG condition, given that the requirement for a stronger alternative to be present is explicitly satisfied.…”