The communicative value of intonation in English (Brazil)

Key and termination (Chapter 3)

In tone units both of the minimal and extended type, pitch level choices serve to
determine the key and termination of the whole tonic segment. Pitch levels are relative –
they will depend on the phonological contex (related to each person’s “normal” level)

In a minimal tone unit, both key and termination are realised in the same syllable. In
extended tone units, key is realised in the onset syllable, and termination, in the tonic
syllable.

/ he GAMbled / and LOST /

High key

In a mid-key version of the previous example, lost, being prominent, is presented as a

selection from a set of possibilities defined by the context of interaction. In a particular
discourse setting, the existential paradigm projected would probably comprise | lost,
won, broke even | ( | x, y, z, … | )
In the high-key version, lost is still selective: the possibility is still acknowledged that,
in the world of understanding the speaker attributes to the hearer, the man in question
may have done other than lose. This much is implicit in the prominence. In addition,
this version takes into account some kind of expectation that the gambler will not have
lost: the situation projected is one in which he is expected to have done otherwise.

Contrastive implications of high key: first, the speaker assumes that, for present
purposes, the relevant distinction is between x and y only, any other alternative that the
mid-key choice might admit being tacitly excluded from consideration. By associating
high key with x, the speaker projects a context of interaction in which the existential
paradigm has two members, and the one he/she does not select is the expected one / and
he/she will select the unexpected one.

/ it WAS john / Regarding was as the realization of a polarity choice, we can represent
the general paradigm – and hence the existential paradigm also – exhaustively thus
| was, wasn’t |. Even with mid key, therefore, was is a selection from two possibilities.
What distinguishes it from a high-key version is the absence of any implied expectation
that it would be otherwise.

We are concerned here with the difference, in conversation, between asserting that
something was (mid-key), and denying that it wasn’t (high key). Our viewpoint is that
the key system enables speakers to project an existentially valid contrast: to bring into
sharp opposition a pair of possibilities and simultaneously exclude one of them.

Speaker-hearer understanding is a matter of great importance. We could interpret the

previous example as projecting a tense selection, thus the existential paradigm would
coincide with a different general paradigm | was, is |. The speaker’s projection evidently
includes the presumption that the hearer will hear was as a selection on the appropriate
sense dimension. There is a great reliance upon the speaker’s here-and-now ability to
know what is being contrasted with what. Sometimes, however, the excluded member of
the paradigm may be assumed to be known only to the hearer.

When an open class item is selective/made prominent and associated with mid key, the
existential paradigm from which the item is selected could very well comprise a very
large number of possibilities.
/ LOOK / it’s JOHN /

We can think of John as a choice from among all those know to speaker and hearer,
whom ‘it’ might be. If the speaker chooses to associate the utterance with high key, it
can be interpreted in two ways:
a) “It’s not (as we might have expected) Peter” (contrasting)
b) “It’s not any of the people whose appearance would have been more in line with
expectations” (“It’s John, of all people!”) (particularising)

SELECTING: what a speaker does when he chooses a sense from an existential

paradigm.
CONTRASTING: selection which projects a binary opposition upon the existential
paradigm and explicitly denies an alternative.
PARTICULARISING: instances of contrasting which reject the set of all existentially
possible alternatives rather than rejecting one of a notionally symmetrical pair.
(Existential opposition is between one item x and a set of all other available items.)

When a tonic segment has more than one prominent syllable it might be thought of as
entering as a syntagm into the speaker’s selective procedures. This also applies when
selection involves contrast: it is the whole of the tonic segment that is presented as one
side of a binary opposition, excluding an implied alternative.

High key and mid key with ‘yes’

We will postulate a sense value for mid-key yes and no: they in some way associate the
speaker with the polarity of the preceding speaker’s utterance.

Do you understand it? / YES /

Don’t you understand it? / NO /

In cases where there is real disagreement, involving opposition of sense as well as of

grammatical form, high key might occur (the first speaker indicates his/her expectation
of one polarity choice and the second speaker selects the other), though it is unlikely to
occur in polite conversation. Contradiction has usually to be handled circumspectly if it
is to avoid giving offence. Customary substitutes (dummy items) help to reduce the
friction.

in situations where we can assume a clear expectation in the context of interaction that
either positive or negative polarity will be endorsed by the respondent: mid key is
chosen for the expected endorsement, and high key is chosen if the respondent reverses
polarity.

Adjudication involves the speaker in an independent assignment of polarity (High key

yes or no), while a mid-key choice realises concurrence. It is precisely by exercising this
kind of independence that respondents decline to supply the expected yes, replacing it
with a high key no, and vice versa.

Low key

/ he GAMbled / and LOST /

“It sounds as though what is being said (x) was a foregone conclusion: either the
speaker’s opinion on x or his/her assessment of it is reflected in the implication that x
and its preceding utterance really amount, according to him/her, to the same thing.

A tonic segment having low key is presented as being existentially equivalent to the
previous one. (It has equative value). It is not only that (x) and (y) took place; they both
did in a world, existentially conceived, in which one necessarily entails the other. It is
part of the speaker’s meaning that the hearer should, for present purposes, assume a
world in which such necessary entailment holds. (Mid key in the same situation is heard
as giving two separate pieces of information/constituting two separate sense selections,
and such a version projects a context of interaction in which all combinations of the two
selections are possible).

This is not the same thing as projecting a world in which one of the linked elements is
non-selective. Doing so would imply that the hearer receives only one piece of
information that he/she did not have before. Someone hearing the low-key version can
be said to be in receipt of three pieces: (x), (y), and that for the present purposes the two
are to be regarded as amounting to the same thing.

Presenting (x) and (y) as if they were a single, unified choice from among the available
possibilities does not imply that one is a necessary concomitant of the other. A speaker
might do this in a situation where the significance of the two activities is that their
effects are cumulative.

We can distinguish two different types of situation in which low key is used, depending
on whether the speaker’s intention seems to be to project an equivalence not necessarily
yet known to the hearer, or to acknowledge a self-evident one.

Termination

After distinguishing between a high-key adjudicating function, which opposes yes to an

existentially relevant no, and a mid-key concurring function which simply associates the
speaker with the polarity choice of the previous utterance; we must recognise that when
speakers are confronted by the need to select one of these versions they may be
influenced in their choice by the previous speaker’s termination choice. By choosing
high or mid termination, a speaker indicates his/her expectation regarding the choice of
key and the type of response that will be provided by the interlocutor.

High termination projects an invitation to adjudicate (the speaker invites the hearer to
give judgement on what he/she has just said). Mid termination presents an invitation to
confirm that the polarity of the utterance is correct. (it invites the hearer to concur “to
agree in opinion, to cooperate, to coincide”)

The expected termination/key correspondence may be defined as concord.

It can be said that termination decides an aspect of the context of interaction that the
speaker projects: an expectation that the hearer will adjudicate or concur, but there will
inevitably be instances where the hearer’s independent views of the situation will result
in his/her not matching termination with key choice. We shall expect concord breaking
to occur at moments when there is a discrepancy between the ways the two parties
assess the context of interaction.

A second speaker has a fairly easy way of avoiding the adjudicating or concurring
stance he/she is invited to adopt. He/she may realise the expected key choice in a
dummy item – incapable of realising a sense selection – and then make an independent
choice in the next tone unit. This satisfies the expectation of termination/key concord
between speakers but refuses concurrence; it softens the effect of the ensuing
contradiction. Simultaneous concord breaking and polarity reversal can be very
abrasive.

In cases where there is a change of speaker but no ‘polar question’, mid termination
presents a straightforward request for information. High termination in an enquiry
shows that an improbable answer is expected (the answer will probably express a binary
opposition between a pre-eminently unexpected choice and (all other/a) more likely
one(s).

/ he’s SOLD his CAR /

/ SOLD it /
If the speaker produces a mid key response to such a mid termination utterance, he/she
indicates that he/she has no difficulty in accommodating the information in his/her
world view (concurrence with a rather different sense). The first speaker loads his/her
utterance with the expectation that it will be received in this way. By choosing high
termination to the first utterance, the speaker anticipates a contrastive response: high
key in the response implies that it was not what the second speaker expected to hear.

When giving orders or instructions, a mid termination utterance can be said to anticipate
concurrence in a different way: it expects a non-verbal reaction. We can regard mid
termination as the normal choice in such utterances, since people making them do not
usually see themselves as inviting the party to adjudicate in any way. High termination
would seem to be putting the hearer in the position of having to choose between yes and
no, but the truth is that the speaker does not expect this invitation to be taken at its face
value. It is rather that the speaker dares the hearer to say no. the well-understood
convention is that, since the anticipated high-key yes or no would be quite
inappropriate, there should be no verbal response but prompt non-verbal activity.

Adjudication: independent ‘activity’ / active verbal intervention.

Concurrence: passive acceptance on the hearer’s part / to go along with another’s
assessment of the situation.

There are many kinds of overt reactions that a hearer may show without actually
assuming speaker role. (supportive behaviour, feedback, murmured yes, non-verbal
noises like mm, headnods and other gestures/non-vocal activity). We can interpret the
speaker’s termination choices as projecting an expectation of a response of one kind or
the other at certain points in the ‘monologue’.
/ he OUGHT to be aSHAMED of himself / and i’m GOing to TELL him so /
High termination in the first utterance seems to give the hearer an opportunity to judge,
and mid termination in the second utterance is proceeding immediately to assume a
consensus.

Simultaneous selection of key and termination

In minimal tone units there is no possibility of making two selections independently.

When both choices are comprised into a single prominent syllable, the termination
choice will not be more than one step above or one step below what we will refer to as
the ‘situationally appropriate’ key choice.

In order to invite adjudication, a speaker may attach unnecessary, but harmless

contrastive implications to an item x for the sake of high termination. If he/she seeks
concurrence, however, with mid termination he/she cannot fulfil an intention he/she
may wish to fulfil of contradicting an ongoing belief that x did not take place.
It seems then that a gratuitous step up in key to achieve high termination is more
frequently tolerable than a gratuitous step down to achieve mid termination.
Regarding mid and low choices: by gratuitously stepping up, the speaker stands to lose
intended equative implications; by gratuitously stepping down he/she realises his/her
intentions and projects other information besides.

The favoured directionality for movement is the one which sacrifices none of the
communicative value of the utterance. (low  mid  high)

Simultaneous selection

/ the QUEEN of HEARTS /

The prominent items in this tone unit project a context in which neither of them realised
an already-established sense. In addition, they carry the phonological choices that
determine the key and termination of the tonic segment.
Since an intonation choice can be associated with a syllable only if it is prominent, the
need to make a particular intonation choice may be sufficient reason for assigning
prominence to a syllable. Making prominent a non-selective item allows the speaker to
make dissimilar choices of key and termination in a tonic segment when there would
otherwise be no possibility of doing so.