MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1576333397

Evidence for the stable use of uptalk in South Ontario English

2008· article· en· W1576333397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vanessa Shokeir

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntonation (linguistics)SentenceInterpretation (philosophy)CertaintyLinguisticsContinuationPsychologyMathematicsComputer scienceGeometryPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uptalk is the semantically bleached use of a rising intonation pattern over a declarative sentence. Uptalk runs counter to the cross-linguistic generalization that rising contours indicate interrogatives, uncertainty (Ohala 1983), or continuation (Ladd 1996). Although uptalk has been discussed extensively in academia and the media (Britain 1992; Cruttenden 1994; Fletcher et al. 2002; Gorman 1993; McLemore 1991; Warren 2005), there has been no precise phonetic examination of this contour in North American English, where it is used extensively. My work investigates rising contours in Southern Ontario English, examining their phonetic nature and semantic interpretation. Some findings of particular interest are a) women uptalk significantly more than men; b) the overall use of rising terminal contours appears stable; and c) men more readily interpret the traditional falling contour as an indicator of certainty and finality and rising contours as indicators of uncertainty and continuation, while women are less inclined to perceive the contours as having their traditional meanings.\nTo study uptalk, I investigate the general use of rising terminal contours over declarative sentences to determine i) who uses rising terminals; ii) whether the use of rising contours is on the increase; iii) how rising intonation (L*H-H% and H*L-H%), opposed to the standard falling contour (H*L-L%), is interpreted. To examine the use of rising contours, I recorded 12 native speakers of Southern Ontario English drawn from two age groups (19-25 and 45-55) and balanced for gender as they performed a direction task, an activity designed to elicit a high proportion of sentences with continuation or uncertainty readings. DAMSL sentence tagging is used to categorize the semantic nature of each sentence (Allen and Core 1997) and ToBI labeling (Beckman and Ayers 1993) to notate the contours. To examine the interpretation of rising contours, I played tokens from the production study for participants selected from the same age and gender groups as the production study. They were asked to rate speakers' certainty, finality, and confidence for tokens produced with falling contours (H*L-H%) and rising contours (L*H-H% and H*L-H%).\nThe results of the production study show that women from both age groups use rising terminal contours extensively: younger women use rising contours on 67.3% of sentences and older women 63.2%. Men use rising contours much less (on 30.1% of tokens), but like the women, age does not affect contour use (32.7% for younger men and 27.3% for older men). According to this measure of apparent time, the use of rising terminal contours is not increasing.\nThe perception study revealed that men interpret intonational contours as having a more traditional function than women do. Men reported that the falling contour conveyed finality and certainty and one of the rising contours, L*H-H%, conveyed continuation. Women did not interpret these contours to have their conventional readings, suggesting that women use these contours to convey other social functions.\nIn addition to presenting the results of production and perception studies of rising terminal contours, this work addresses the larger question of how intonation can be examined in a variation framework.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.255
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.058 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania)Same topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207