- 217 - then still being used evaluatively? The answer would appear to be “no”. We not only have
to consider the medium i.e. the non-segmental part of the speech signal and the overall message being conveyed i.e. “this is a good story, pay attention”, but also the pragmatic
inferences and interpretations which are internal to the story i.e. the feelings, attitudes, and intentions of the characters themselves. If the speaker uses a wide key in an utterance
where a character is distressed or overcome with grief, the pathos of the episode is turned into a joke, the tragedy becomes a comedy, and the device is certainly not evaluative
because it is inappropriate at that juncture. This three-way relationship of intonational cues, attitudinal message and pragmatic
interpretation is mentioned in an article by Ladd, Scherer and Silverman 1986 on intonation and attitude. They question the directness versus indirectness of the link
between intonational cues and the attitudinal message and, also, the very nature of the intonational cues themselves. If intonation is organized into linguistic categories, then the
choices made among these categories must influence the pragmatic interpretation. Labov and Fanshel 1977:43 treat intonation together with voice quality, tempo, etc. as
“paralinguistic cues”, and state that “there is often a one-to-one iconic relationship between the movement of the voice and the emotions being conveyed”; however, they also
point out that “the same physical signals can have radically different interpretations in different contexts” p. 356.
6.3.6 A Characterization of the Speech Styles of the Eight Subjects
We will use the eight criteria listed in table 6.3 in an attempt to briefly characterize the speech styles of the eight subjects before discussing the evaluative use of these features in
detail for two of the subjects. Shvinder:
1. Shvinder uses a very wide key, or pitch range 159-500+Hz, which we are choosing to call “storybook intonation”; considerable variation in relative pitch
heights was perceived in a single utterance. 2. She uses steep intonation contours and these were perceived as continually
contrasting pitch movements with an arresting singsong modulation of the voice. 3. She employs a large number of lengthened vowels to mark significant lexical items.
- 218 - 4. She varies the intensity on her syllables and uses both loudness and softness to
indicate special prominence. 5. She varies the tempo during her utterances and consciously uses slowing down
devices before a termination. 6. She uses pauses and variation in syllable length to produce rhythmic patterns in her
speech. 7. She employs changes in voice quality, i.e. whisper, as a terminating device.
8. Her general presentation is animated and lively and can be regarded as a “performance” in the Wolfson 1982 sense of the word.
Fariba: 1. Fariba uses a wide pitch range 187-500+Hz in conversational passages and when
describing key events, but a much narrower frequency band for unimportant events and giving background information.
2. She uses steep rising-falling contours but also makes far greater use than Shvinder does of shallow and level contours. These are perceived as low level pitch
movements. 3. She employs lengthened vowels less often than Shvinder does, although this varies
from story to story. 4. She varies the intensity on her syllables and uses loudness or intensity as a means
indicating prominence and to signal the importance of an item. 5. She does not vary her tempo quite as markedly as Shvinder; changes in tempo are
often achieved through using brief pauses rather than lengthening vowels. 6. Unstressed syllables are often swallowed and brief pauses may produce a staccato
effect in some utterances. 7. She does not use changes in voice quality, e.g. whisper or creaky voice, for special
effect. 8. Her performance comes across as less animated, and more matter-of-fact than
Shvinder’s. Sakander:
1. Sakander uses a pitch range of less than one octave 201-359Hz which is much narrower than that of either of the two girls mentioned above.
- 219 - 2. In his stories we find only shallow contours and perceive very much less
modulation of the voice. 3. He uses few lengthened vowels.
4. He varies his intensity a little but many of his utterances are perceived as pretty uniform, as far as loudness is concerned.
5. There is very little variation in tempo and so his delivery is perceived as somewhat ponderous.
6. His utterances are punctuated by brief pauses to give a less fluid, rather monotonous rhythmic effect.
7. No changes in voice quality for special effect were perceived. 8. His delivery comes across as rather wooden and lacking in vitality. When he does
use expressive phonology, it is appropriate rather than striking. Humira:
1. Humira uses a pitch range which is a little wider than Sakander’s, i.e. just over an octave 159-360Hz.
2. Her intonation contours are perceived as shallow with slightly more pitch movement in the conversational passages.
3. She uses only a few lengthened vowels and these are found mainly in the conversational passages.
4. She varies the intensity on her syllables more than she does her vowel length. Prominence is achieved by a combination of pitch movements and loudness, but
sometimes the prominence is misplaced. 5. She does not make very much use of speeding up and slowing down devices.
6. Humira’s delivery is often very staccato with many brief pauses; in some utterances she pauses between each word, irrespective of which syllables are prominent.
7. She does not use voice quality for evaluative purposes. 8. Humira’s performance is perceived as more animated than Sakander’s, but often it
is arresting because of her non-nativelike use of prosodic features. She does use expressive phonology effectively in some of her conversational passages.
- 220 - Sheiba:
1. Sheiba has the lowest voice of all the subjects and uses a narrow pitch range throughout 158-300Hz.
2. She uses shallow contours with only the occasional high rising contour in content questions.
3. She only rarely uses length as a means of achieving prominence or as an evaluation device.
4. She does use loudness, coupled with pitch movements, as a means of indicating prominent syllables.
5. There is very little variation in tempo perceived in any of her utterances, even at the end of a narrative.
6. Her delivery is not notable for its rhythmicality. 7. She often uses a whispery voice quality which is in keeping with her shy
personality. 8. Her performance style often has a “shared secret” quality about it which brings the
hearer right into the story. In general, she uses loudness, pitch, and whispery voice for evaluative purposes; she also uses length, but not very often.
Aqeel: 1. Aqeel probably has the highest voice of the eight subjects, but he does not use a
wide pitch range; CECIL recorded a range of 279-485Hz. 2. There is very little perceived modulation of the voice and intonation contours are
shallow. 3. We have only two examples of lengthened vowels in the data and these are only
marginally longer than most of the others in the utterances in which they are found.
4. He uses some variation in intensity and when this is coupled with pitch movements it can be evaluative.
5. He does not use speeding up or slowing down devices to any appreciable extent. 6. His speech is not always very clear and he tends to run his words into one another,
and so there are no notable rhythmic patterns perceived. 7. No significant changes in voice quality have been noted.
- 221 - 8. In his data generally, very few utterances are coded for expressive phonology.
When they are, it is a combination of loudness and pitch movements which indicate the expressive prominence of important items.
Shazia: 1. Shazia also has a relatively high voice but uses the narrowest pitch range of all the
subjects i.e. 249-369Hz. 2. Her intonation contours are shallow and are perceived as flat.
3. She uses some lengthened vowels which are strikingly long over 0.5secs.. 4. She varies her intensity from syllable to syllable but often her prominent syllables
diminish rapidly in intensity, especially if they are lengthened. 5. She frequently slows down her delivery rate while she thinks about what to say
next. 6. As Shazia does not produce a coherent narrative, but a disjointed series of
prefabricated language chunks, there are no overall rhythmic patterns discernible in her speech.
7. No significant changes in voice quality have been perceived. 8. Utterances which are coded for expressive phonology include a combination of
two or more of the following devices: lengthened vowels, shallow pitch movements and loudness in order to make important syllables prominent.
Fehdah: 1. We have recorded a frequency range of 205-333Hz for Fehdah; variations in
relative pitch heights are perceived to be small. 2. There is little perceived modulation of the voice.
3. Only two vowels in his data are perceived as lengthened: “snow” 0.476secs. and “said”, both occurring in Story A.
4. Fehdah uses loudness as a feature of his productions, but does not always use it expressively; occasionally he mistakenly gives prominence to prepositions and
articles. 5. Variations in tempo occur because he pauses while he thinks what to say next.
6. He, like Shazia, has great difficulty in stringing his events together and producing a coherent narrative. Story F is a much more successful attempt than either his Story
- 222 - A or Story B. Only in Story F is there anything approaching rhythmic patterns in
his speech. 7. No significant changes in voice quality have been noted.
8. Clearly, he does use the features length, loudness and pitch in his productions, but not often expressively.
As we have seen, there is no such thing as a Panjabi English speech style; each subject has hisher own distinctive style, and the subjects vary enormously in the extent to which they
use prosodic features expressively. Shvinder is the most successful, and Shazia and Fehdah the least. It is one thing to use the features length, loudness, and pitch in speech
productions and another to use them effectively; the features by themselves do not mean anything. As we have said above, they must be related to both the overall message being
conveyed to the hearer and also to the pragmatic interpretation of the utterance in its local context. Some subjects have still a long way to go in acquiring an understanding of how
English intonation really works.
6.3.7 The Evaluative Use of Prosodic Features
