On the Intonation of Mono- and Di-Syllabic Words within the Discourse Framework of Conversational Games

Recent studies on the analysis of intonational function examine a r a n ~ of materials from cue phrases in monologue (Litman and Hirschberg, 1990) and dialogue (Hirschberg and Litman, 1987; Hockey, 1991) to longer utterances in both monologue and dialogue (McLemore, 1991). Results match specific intonational tunes to certain discourse functions which are more or less well defined. Although these results make a convincing case that intonation does signal a change in discourse structure, the specification of discourse function remains vague. A suitable taxonomy is needed to fine-tune the relationship between intonation and discourse function. A recent analysis of dialogue (Kowtko et al., 1991) provides a framework of conversational games which allows more fine-grained examination of prosodic function. The current paper introduces an intonational analysis of monoand di-syllabic words based upon such a framework and compares results in progress with previous work on intonation. I n t r o d u c t i o n Recent approaches to the analysis of intonational function within dialogue include an examination of the tunes carried by single-word cue phrases (e.g. now (Hirschberg and Litman, 1987), okay (Hockey, 1991), and others (Litman and Hirschberg, 1990)) across different discourse situations. The literature also includes a more sweeping approach toward classifying phrase-final tunes which presents broadly generalized discourse functions for each of three types of intonational tune: phrase-final r/se, level, and fall (McLemore, 1991). Since there is currently no workable grammar of discourse, these studies devise their own relevant discourse categories. Hockey (1991, p. 1) reflects upon the problem, with reference to cue phrases. She states that * A U K Overseas Research Student Award provides partial support. Thanks to my advisors Stephen Isaxd and D. Robert Ladd for comments on drafts. cue phrases ...convey information about the structure of a discourse rather than contributing to the semantic content of a sentence . . . . Context and prosody are major factors contributing to differences in interpretation among various instances of a cue phrase. In order to investigate the connection between prosodic features and uses of a cue phrase, uses must be identified. The above is partly a response to Himchberg and Litman (1987; Litman and Hirschberg, 1990) who limit their description to a binary discourse/sentential distinction. Litman and Hirschberg (1990) leave the analysis of cue phrase function to the interpretation of various specific discourse approaches and instead focus on validating their (1987) prosodic model of cue phrase use with additional data from monologue. The model specifies that a cue phrase in discourse use will occur either alone in a phrase (with unspecified tune) or initially in a larger phrase (deaccented or with a low tone). Thus, Litman and Hirschberg leave open the question of how their prosodic model could further specify discourse function. McLemore (1991) approaches discourse as structured by topics and interruptions. Her data includes announcements given at Texas sorority meetings and conversation between members. She finds that phrase-final tunes indicate certain general functions: rising tune connects, level tune continues, and falling tune segments. The specifics about how each of these tunes operates depends upon the context. For instance, phrase-final rise which indicates non-finality or connection manifests itself as turn-holding in one context, phrase subordination in another, and intersentential cohesion in yet another context. Likewise, the other tunes perform slight variations on the function of continue and segment according to context, which is left up to the reader to determine. Hockey (1991) admits to settling upon an arbitrary discourse classification and letting her data