Prosody as a window into speaker attitudes and interpersonal stance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New research is exploring ways that prosody fulfils different social-pragmatic functions in spoken language by revealing the mental or affective state of the speaker, thereby contributing to an understanding of speaker’s meaning. Prosody is often pivotal in signaling speaker attitudes or stance in the interpersonal context of the speaker-hearer; in contrast to the vocal communication of emotions, the significance of prosodic cues serving an emotive or interpersonal function is often dependent on the type of speech act being made and other contextual-situational parameters. Here, we discuss recent acoustic-perceptual studies in our lab demonstrating how prosody marks the interpersonal stance of a speaker and how this information is used by listeners to uncover social intentions that may be non-literal or covert. Focusing on how prosody operates in the communication of politeness, ironic attitudes, and sincerity, our data add to research on the acoustic-perceptual characteristics of prosody in these interpersonal contexts. Future implications for how acoustic cues underlying “prosodic attitudes” affect the interpretive process during on-line speech processing and how they influence behavioral outcomes are considered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".