Quantifying division of labour: Effects of clause type on intonational meaning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The shape of sentence-final contours has largely analogous effects across declaratives and interrogatives • Excursion and duration can affect perception of speaker confidence and response expectation • Clause type sets expectations for intonational contours • Findings support a fully compositional division of labour between prosody and syntax if we associate clause types with particular conversational effects This paper reports quantifiable evidence for a clean division of labour between syntax and prosody in deriving the meaning of rising intonation. This evidence stems from two perception studies that asked participants to rate the speaker attitudes and their response expectation expressed by rising declaratives and interrogatives. Rises were manipulated by changing pitch excursion and duration which are known to affect their interpretation. One part in each study addressed the relation between the contour shape and the perception of speaker confidence or certainty, another part addressed the relation between the contour shape and the perception of response expectation. The two studies differed in whether the rise was paired with a declarative or an interrogative clause. Across clause-types, higher excursion led to lower ratings of speaker confidence/certainty and higher ratings for response expectation. For declaratives only, large duration differences also affected ratings of speaker confidence. While the patterns emerging about prosodic form-function mapping were similar across clause types, the effect sizes differed notably. This suggests that duration and excursion have clause-type-independent effects, which are moderated by default expectations of contour and clause-type combinations. Such an interpretation supports previous compositional accounts of intonational meaning that ascribe independent functions to clause type and intonation, each contributing to their conversational effects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".