More on intonation!

A couple of things should be stated which were left unsaid on our post of November 16. In this course, we conventionally mark a level tone above the tonic syllable. However, due to typographical constraints (font styles), in this blog, I’m placing the tone before the syllable. Also (and this is something you should have mastered by now), we shouldn’t forget to start producing the tone on the tonic and finish it only when we’ve reached the last syllable in the tone unit. For instance, the fall on leadership qualities above, should start on lead- and end with –ties. Finally, it should be noted that, though I have marked the tone unit boundaries with double slashes (as is done in some books), we won’t ask you to do this in transcription (e.g. in final exams).

To continue working a little more on intonation choices and the corresponding marking, let’s analyze some of the examples in the text above, published in Saslow and Ascher (2006). The solutions offered here, as usual, will only be possible choices. Other alternatives may be equally acceptable.

…I’m Agnes Lukins = I have noticed over these years that students can pronounce two-item people’s names correctly, that is, normally each item with a prominent syllable. However, when it comes to marking that on paper, students often leave one of the items unmarked. If students tried to pronounce this, they could see their mistake pretty clearly. Common modifications to this pattern, however, do occur when names are repeated. For example, if the speaker had said “I’m Lukins. Agnes Lukins”, the last name wouldn’t have been made prominent the second time because it would have been shared info. Regarding the fall, it can obviously be interpreted as new information.   

…and my last two jobs have been in management = We can make sense of the falling-rising on “jobs” by thinking that Agnes is talking with an interviewer about the possibility of getting a new job. She has already introduced in the ongoing conversation the fact that she had previous jobs where she dealt with people. Therefore, the idea of “previous jobs” is no longer new. Another way around this may be following Wells’s (2006) explanation. He says that the fall-rise can sometimes be used as a dependent fall-rise, which “indicates that there is more material still to come, and is thus an indication of non-finality” (p. 69). As to the falling tone, again, it’s clearly giving new info.

...maybe in Mexico? = A non-falling (in this case, rising) tone may be understood as just a possibility the speaker suggests, nothing definitive. Even though this is not the final tone unit the current speaker produces, it gives the impression that she is prompting her interlocutor to give an opinion or make a decision. In other words, Agnes may be sounding as if she were yielding the floor (=giving the right to speak) to the interviewer in an unconventional way. In this latter respect, and assuming that Agnes is a non-powerful speaker in this conversation, we can consider it risky of her to have used a typically “dominant” tone, and thus adopt the position of a floor-giver, in the context of an interview. But these things are not altogether wrong. On the contrary, they are acceptable and quite frequent these days. If you are not fully convinced and want to feel totally at ease, I conclude by saying that a falling rising would be perfectly OK.    

I do want to hear more explanations! Can you contribute?  

References

Saslow, J. & Ascher, A. (2006). Top notch 3. Teacher’s edition and lesson planner. New York: Pearson Longman.

Wells, J. (2006). English Intonation: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.