Encoder subjects hears, for each item, a disambiguating context such as either “Mac has some cover stories,” or “Max is covering some stories,” followed by the cue “Let's go and see them/him.” Subjects' task was to respond emphatically and negatively in the form “I don't WANT to go and see Mac's/Max cover stories.” These responses were recorded on tape and played to decoder subjects, whose task was to repeat the target phrases in citation form—i.e., with disambiguating accentuation. According to received prosodemic theory, decoders should reliably recover the structures given to encoders, whose responses would, ex hypothesi, carry the same “stress” distinctions, merely realized at weaker “levels.” In fact, however, the patterns given to encoders and those elicited from decoders failed to show significant (above chance) agreement. This finding is interpreted as support for the theory of “binary” suprasegmental features [R. Vanderslice and P. Ladefoged, Language 48, 819–838 (1972)], which claims that the feature ACCENT does not occur postnuclearly (i.e., the intonation contour, in this case CADENCE, begins with the last accented syllable of the sense group), and thus predicts exactly the loss of prosodemic contrast observed in these cases. The tune in question, with leftward “shift” of the sentential accent to the emphatic word WANT, must not be confounded with one also having EMPHASIS (and thus typically highest pitch) on WANT, yet with unshifted sentence accent on either cover or stories. The latter, disambiguating, tune is superficially similar but systematically distinct. It should also be noted that the “binary” prosodic features can, mutatis mutandis, be viewed as singularly elements (morphons) in a Cognitive‐Stratificational account of English suprasegmentals.
Read full abstract