Many varieties of Romance show more than one intonation contour available for polar question (PQ) marking. Understanding the pragmatic licensing conditions for these contours is no easy task. Experimental work has tended to account for the variation in terms of dichotomies like information-seeking vs. confirmation-seeking or neutral vs. biased. In this paper I use production data to argue that different languages and dialects will encode different types of information intonationally in PQs, but that the type of information that we find encoded through intonation is quite similar to the type of information encoded through sentence-final particles in languages like Cantonese or Lao. These meanings lie on an epistemic gradient, and the points on the gradient that are encoded linguistically through intonation are language-specific (i.e. language X encodes meaning A, but language Y might encode meaning B, or meanings A & B, etc.). I explore three contours in Puerto Rican Spanish, their phonetic implementations, and their meanings with respect to this epistemic gradient. I argue that we should keep in mind the range of possible meanings of SFPs in other languages in order to refine our methodology in a way that allows us to make better predictions about the pragmatic division of labor among intonation contours, specifically for PQs.
1 Introduction and background
In the past decades, major advances have come about in the description of the Spanish intonational system within the Autosegmental Metrical (AM) framework (Pierrehumbert 1980; Ladd 1996/2008). With roughly 406 million speakers of Spanish (www.ethnologue.com), we find a great deal of linguistic variation among speakers and varieties. While recent work has suggested that the intonational phonologies of Spanish dialects tend to be roughly the same, or very similar, researchers have uncovered a great deal of variation in terms of the form-meaning mappings used cross-dialectally. A given contour may have meaning A in Spanish dialect X, but meaning B in Spanish dialect Y. Yet many form-meaning mappings are quite common across Spanish dialects (Prieto and Roseano 2010). One sentence type for which we do find a great deal of variation across Spanish varieties is yes-no, or polar questions (henceforth PQs). Many varieties of Spanish use more than one intonational contour for PQ-marking. How do speakers make the choice to use one contour over the other? There has been a fair amount of investigation with respect to the semantics and pragmatics of PQ intonation in American English (Bartels 1997; Gunlogson 2003; Nilsenová 2006), but much less for Spanish. An exception is Escandell-Vidal’s Relevance Theory (Escandell-Vidal 1998, 2002) work on PQs in Spanish. In her 1998 proposal, Escandell-Vidal accounts for how speakers choose between three intonation contours: the fall-rise, the rise-fall, and the rise in Peninsular Spanish (PS). She accounts for the pragmatic division of labor between these three different PS intonation contours. Within her analysis, the fall-rise PQ contour marks the utterance as a PQ and has just one level of meaning. The other two contours, in addition to question marking the utterance as a PQ, encode information about the attribution of a thought (the rise and rise-fall), and thus convey two levels of meaning. (1) shows an example of a felicitous use of the rise in PS:
In (1) the rise can be used in order to mark the thought (the propositional content of the question) as speaker-attributed since the speaker knows the answer to the question. Echo questions constitute an other-attributed thought, as in (2):
In (2) B repeats A’s previously uttered words, thus attributing the content of the question to her interlocutor, since it is something that A has just uttered. In this way, B marks the propositional content as A’s thought. For Escandell-Vidal, these questions are underspecified as other-attributed. In (2) the question is clearly hearer-attributed, but Escandell-Vidal claims that the identity of the “other” will be resolved contextually in the case of PS. A crucial element of her proposal is the fact that there may be two layers of meaning encoded through PQ intonation contours. The first function of the contour is to mark the utterance as a PQ, but additional information (like thought attribution) may also be encoded through the contour. Thus the rise and the rise-fall are attributed interrogatives, while the fall-rise is not. The fall-rise contour simply marks an utterance as a PQ and is therefore acceptable for any type of PQ, while the attributed interrogatives are more restricted in terms of when they can appear (due to the additional meaning they carry). Escandell-Vidal’s account, however, is based on author intuitions rather than production data. The present research attempts to account for variation in PQ intonation previously described for Puerto Rican Spanish (PRS) and considers the possible form-meaning pairings for PQs in this variety. Can Escandell-Vidal’s account be extended to other varieties of Spanish? How can we assess the type of information being encoded in PQs using production data, and which methods are most fruitful? These issues are discussed below.
1.1 PQs in Romance varieties
As in Spanish, there is a great deal of variation in the intonational marking of PQs across Romance varieties. This has been shown from both production and perception perspectives. Using map tasks, Grice and Savino (1997) found that in Bari Italian, the intonation of CHECKS questions depends on degree of speaker confidence. An accentual rise was found for both QUERIES and tentative checks, while falls were found for CHECKS produced when the speaker was very confident. Santos and Mata (2008) showed that European Portuguese speakers distinguish between two types of confirmation questions through nuclear pitch accent choice: those confirming understanding vs. those confirming perception. Boundary tones for confirmation questions of understanding were produced lower than confirmation questions of perception, and “contact” confirmation questions had even lower boundary tones than confirmation questions of understanding. Vanrell (2011) showed a categorical distinction based on tonal scaling in Majorcan Catalan: PQs produced with ¡H+L*L% are perceived as unbiased questions, while PQs produced with H+L*L% are perceived as biased questions. Even within varieties of Balearic Catalan we find variation. For example, Majorcan and Minorcan Catalan differ in both pitch accent and boundary tone choice for asking questions that differ in information status, speaker attitude, and degree of certainty (Payà and Vanrell 2005). Other meanings that have been encoded through intonation in Romance PQs include a speaker’s state of disbelief (Crespo-Sendra 2011 for Catalan varieties, Lee et al. 2010 for Buenos Aires Spanish, Truckenbrodt et al. 2009 for Brazilian Portuguese) and politeness (Álvarez and Blondet 2003 for Venezuelan Spanish, Orozco 2008 for Mexican Spanish, Estrella-Santos 2007 for Ecuadorian Andean Spanish, Nadeu and Prieto 2011 for Central Catalan). Recently, Vanrell et al. (2014) showed that PQs headed with the que particle along with the L+H*L% nuclear configuration are used for source-marking in Mallorcan Catalan – speakers use the construction to convey that they have evidence for propositional content through direct experience. Thus in various Romance languages speakers use intonational strategies to mark interrogativity in addition to other types of information (i.e. perception, understanding, levels of information structure/discourse activation, certainty, politeness, source marking, etc.). These “added” meanings tend to be non-truth-conditional since they do not affect the truth value of the proposition, but rather allow the speaker to add information about their evaluation propositional content.
1.2 Polar question intonation in PRS
The work presented here focuses on the form-meaning relationships available for PQs in PRS. Subject-verb inversion is dispreferred in Caribbean Spanish varieties (Toribio 1994; Toribio 2000; Suñer 1994), and therefore intonation plays a key role in the encoding of sentence modality. Escandell-Vidal (1998) notes that even in PS it is common for speakers to use intonational question marking without inversion. This means that intonation is often the only linguistic cue to questionhood in Spanish. Intonation is known to be the 3rd of the four most common indicators of questionhood across languages, after sentence particles and verbal morphology, but before word order (Haspelmath et al. 2005; Sadock 2012).
The earliest descriptions of PRS intonation include Navarro Tomás (1948), Mauleón Benítez (1974) and later a short description by Kvavik (1978). Quilis (1987, 1993) later compared PRS to other varieties of Spanish. Later Sosa (1999) used the Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) framework to compare the intonation of many Spanish varieties. Armstrong (2010) provides an overview of PRS intonational phonology using the AM framework, integrating recent advances in the transcription conventions for Spanish intonation within the Sp_ToBI (Spanish Tones and Breaks Indices) transcription system (Beckman et al. 2002; Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008) which I explain in more detail below.
There has been disagreement regarding the possible F0 contours available for PQ intonation in PRS and their pragmatic division of labor. Sosa describes two utterance-final falls for PRS PQs: neutral PQs are described with an utterance-initial rise maintained in suspension until an additional rise and subsequent final fall. Sosa’s second PQ contour differs from the first in that no additional rise is found prior to the final fall. He claims that this second type of PQ fall is used when the negative particle no is present, and a specific answer is expected. Quilis’ (1987, 1993) descriptions match up with Sosa’s description of neutral PQ intonation. He also claims that there is a an intonation contour that is specific to PRS PQs that show negation. However, Quilis’s negation questions are described as showing suspended F0 after the negative particle no, which stays suspended until the end of the utterance where there is a light fall. In the pitch track provided by Quilis, it appears that the contour could even be described as having a suspended H% boundary tone (in the most recent Sp_ToBI terms). One possible phenomenon neither of the authors suggests is the possibility of tonal truncation. When speakers truncate they start to produce the accent as if there were plenty of voiced material to come, but then simply stop when voiced material has run out, and the falling accent shape is never completed (Grabe et al. 2000). Compression involves a speeding up of the tonal realization, so the complete accent shape is produced on the small amount of voiced segmental material that is available. Grabe and her colleagues found that Southern British English speakers compress the low boundary tone (L%) for the H*L% contour, while Leeds speakers truncate it. Prieto and Ortega-Llebaria (2009) found variation for truncation and compression for Catalan and PS. Their results showed that truncation depends on whether or not speakers produced extra lengthening in syllables (in order to provide enough room for tonal implementation).
For Quilis’ negation questions, the utterance-final suspension could, in fact, be due to truncation, since all of his negation examples are utterances that end with oxytone words (e.g. universidad ‘university’). In other Spanish varieties, truncation of the L% boundary tone is often found in utterances ending with an oxytone word. In Canary Islands Spanish (which is phonologically quite similar to PRS), the boundary tone of the ¡H*L% nuclear configuration may be truncated if the nuclear word is an oxytone (Cabrera Abreu and Vizcaíno Ortega 2003, Cabrera Abreu and Vizcaíno Ortega 2010). Buenos Aires PQs ending in a suspended H tone have been known to be a result of the truncation of a L% boundary tone (Lee 2010; Gabriel et al. 2010). In fact, Gabriel et al. claim that the H% only surfaces in PQs ending in oxytones. Lee et al. (2010) showed that whether or not there is final lengthening will also affect the appearance of a L% on oxytones in PQs. In previous work (Armstrong 2010), I claimed that the ¡H* HH%  nuclear configuration is used for polite PQs in PRS. This is especially interesting since Caribbean Spanish is known for showing utterance final falls for PQ. However, all tokens of ¡H*HH% for polite questions from this data were also oxytones, so it is unclear whether the high, suspended F0 contour is a phonologically high boundary tone, or whether it is a phonetic realization of ¡H*L% with a truncated L% on the surface. Considering what is known for other varieties of Spanish, and given Quilis’ examples, I therefore leave open the possibility that truncation occurs in PRS. Summing up, it is clear from the early literature that there is a preference for nuclear falls to mark PQs in PRS, but without full agreement about the form-meaning mappings.
1.3 Situating PQ intonation in the grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective
The uses of PQ intonation described above have one thing in common – they do not affect the truth conditions of the proposition. This trait of PQ intonation is similar to that of sentence-final particles (SFPs) used for PQs in languages like Cantonese, Mandarin, Lao and Tzeltal. Sudo (2013) discussed the non-truth-conditional nature of Japanese SFPs used in PQs, and their felicity/infelicity across contexts. Enfield et al. (2012) examine how SFPs used in PQs can “tilt the epistemic gradient” (p. 209). The term “epistemic gradient” refers to the difference between speaker and hearer in terms of their commitment to, or certainty about, a given proposition. The authors state “the semantics of a sentence-final particle may simply specify that a speaker is not fully certain of the truth of a proposition, or it may specify something about the source of information – whether it is in inference or prior knowledge – which in turn has implications for how sure someone may be” (p. 195). These functions of SFPs in PQs are analogous to intonational strategies in PQs that have been described cross-linguistically. SFPs are similar to intonational marking as described by Escandell-Vidal. Lao not only has an SFP to mark utterances for questionhood (like the fall-rise in PS) but also has SFPs that mark utterances for questionhood in addition to other information: to mark the proposition as newly inferred, mark the proposition as independently presumed, or seek agreement from the hearer. Enfield et al. argue that in each language, the range of “gradient-tilting” distinctions will differ for SFPs. They can include an attitude or opinion about a proposition (e.g. Lao nòq1, Dutch hé); a basis for entertaining a proposition (Tzeltal bi, Lao vaa3, tii4), degree of commitment to the proposition or newness of a thought (Tzeltal ch’e, Lao vaa3). They may mark the information source of a proposition, like the SFPs used for PQs in Tzeltal do (similar to the intonational evidential marking Vanrell, Armstrong, and Prieto discuss for Catalan). Cantonese aa1 marks surprise or disapproval in a PQ and presupposes a positive answer, while me1 is used to denote unexpectedness in PQs. Both aa1 and me1 have context-specific ironic or rhetorical uses as well (Matthews and Yip 1994), as in (3) and (4):
Enfield et al. note that even though SFPs have semantic content, this content can also be modulated by pragmatic context, as in (3) and (4) – the surprised or unexpectedness meaning is used for irony or rhetorical meaning. For many years, scholars studying the use of SFPs in Asian languages have observed that information conveyed by SFPs is conveyed by intonation in languages like English (Cheung 1986; Matthews and Yip 1994; Wakefield 2010). For example, Wakefield found that Cantonese-English bilinguals translated four different SFPs to specific intonation contours in English, showing that the function of SFPs needs to be encoded intonationally in English. While these observations have been made by those studying languages that use SFPs, to my knowledge it does not seem to be the case that the similarities between SFP meaning and intonational meaning are often recognized by intonationists. At least for Romance, there is no acknowledgment of the different points on the “epistemic gradient” that are found for PQ intonation across varieties. Researchers tend to focus on binary distinctions such as information- vs. confirmation-seeking (Vanrell et al. 2013), or neutral vs. biased questions (Prieto and Roseano 2010). These distinctions are generally based on neutral PQs, where the speaker has no belief with respect to whether the interlocutor’s answer will be yes or no (information-seeking questions, unbiased questions), vs. those where s/he does (confirmation-seeking questions, biased questions). Such coarse-grained distinctions do not allow us to capture different points on the epistemic gradient that might be candidates for intonational encoding. This is problematic because (1) it makes it difficult to predict when speakers will use certain contours and (2) it limits the tools necessary to elicit intonational contrasts. In this paper I will show that the restrictions on intonation contour choice in PRS are not the same as the ones found in PS, arguing that the uses found in PRS are quite similar to other meanings that have been found for SFPs. I will argue that for PQs, the role of intonation has the same function as SFPs, and therefore we should expect that languages and dialects will show a great deal of variation in the types of meaning that can be conveyed intonationally in PQs (the same way we find for SFPs). This has methodological consequences. This argument, though seemingly obvious and unsurprising, will be important to intonational research because it should allow us to question the usefulness of imposing binary distinctions such as information-seeking versus confirmation-seeking and neutral vs. biased on our data.
1.4 Objectives and research questions
In order to make these arguments, the research had two main objectives. The first was to determine what the common nuclear configurations are for PRS PQs (i.e. What are the forms?) within the Autosegmental Metrical framework. Given earlier work on truncation in other varieties of Spanish, I also hypothesized that PQs ending in oxytonic words could be candidates for truncation. The second objective was to determine what types of meaning are encoded through these contours. If the meanings uncovered cannot be captured by binary distinctions like information-seeking vs. confirmation-seeking or neutral vs. biased, this would be more support that such distinctions are two course grained for the study of PQ meaning and would suggest that methods for investigating PQ intonation be revisited.
Two production tasks were carried out with a widely used elicitation procedure (Kasper and Dahl 1991; Beebe and Cummings 1996; Cohen 1996; Billmyer and Varghese 2000; Prieto 2001; Nurani 2009) called the Discourse Completion Task (DCT), which is designed to allow a better understanding of natural communication through the use of constructed contexts. Situational prompts (constructed texts) were used to elicit various sentence and speech act types in PRS, as well as specific types of PQs. The data analyzed here were collected from two separate DCTs – which I will refer to as DCT1 and DCT2.
2.1.1 DCT1 participants
Five female participants (ages 20–25) participated in the first task. Three of the speakers were from the Greater San Juan metropolitan area, and two from cities in Western Puerto Rico (Utuado and Aguadilla).
2.1.2 DCT2 participants
The same five females from DCT1 participated in DCT2, which was administered 7 months after DCT1. Nine additional speakers were included in DCT2 for a total of 11 females and 4 males, aged 20–45. Nine speakers were from the Greater San Juan metropolitan area, 1 from Utuado, 1 from Aguadilla, 1 from Mayagüez, 1 from Lares, and 1 from Ponce. All four male speakers were from the Greater San Juan metropolitan area.
2.2.1 DCT1 materials
DCT1 is a subset of the situations used in Prieto (2001), but focuses on questions only. It consisted of a set of 22 PQs with a variety of pragmatic nuances – PQs with focus, exclamative, tag, full echo, partial echo, peripheric, incredulous, imperative, offer, invitation, exhortative, rhetorical – designed to find general tendencies in the variety (see Appendix A). DCT1 was adapted linguistically and culturally for PRS from an existing PS version (Prieto and Roseano 2010). The task is based on everyday situations that participants were expected to be familiar with. (5) shows a typical situational prompt and suggested response for PRS. In this particular example, the target was a polite request.
The DCT1 corpus was comprised of 25 questions per participant (125 utterances total).
2.2.2 Discourse Completion Test 2 (DCT2)
DCT1 elicited a wide array of question types with different intentions and nuances, as stated in Section 2.2.1. DCT2 was more restricted in terms of bias in the constructed texts. DCT2 was divided into two parts. The first part elicited neutral PQs, PQs with negative evidence with respect to p(roposition), PQs with positive evidence for p and counter-expectation PQs (Table 1). An additional motivation for including PQs with negative evidence with respect to p was to test Sosa’s (1999) and Quilis’ (1987, 1993) claims about contour choice related to the presence of negation in a question.
|Neutral||No specific answer expected, speaker expects neither p nor ¬p|
|Negative evidence (evidence for ~p)||Compelling evidence for ~p has just become available to the speaker in the discourse context|
|Positive evidence (evidence for p)||Compelling evidence for p has just become available to the speaker in the discourse context|
|Counter-expectation/Disbelief||Compelling evidence for p has just become available to the speaker in the discourse context. p is not in line with the speaker’s expectations/norms/rules about the world.|
The second part of DCT2 (see Appendix B) included unbiased PQs, outer negation PQs (ONPQs), and inner negation PQs (INPQs) (Ladd 1981) and is shown in Table 2. These types of questions were included since they involve different types of bias, and thus had the potential show intonational modifications as a result of these differences.
|Neutral||No specific answer expected, speaker expects neither p nor ~p|
|Inner negation polar question (INPQ)||Speaker uses contextual evidence to infer that p is not the case, and uses a negative PQ to check this new inference (compelling evidence that ~p)|
|Outer negation polar question (ONPQ)||Speaker has a positive bias for p based on some prior evidence, rather than compelling evidence for p in the context.|
The data were recorded with a Samson Zoom H2 Handy Recorder at a sampling rate of 44100 Hz. The participants were told to read each written context silently and respond however they would in a natural situation. In DCT1 participants read the 25 unique discourse contexts and produced 25 unique segmental strings based on the situations. In DCT2, Part 1 participants were presented with each context from Table 1 five times, for a total of 20 targets (25 × 5 = 125). The targets were always minimal/near minimal pairs in the sense that the segmental string was identical or almost identical – e.g. a negative particle was added for the “negative answer expected” condition in order to test prior claims about the relationship between contour choice and negation. As in DCT1, the speakers read the contexts and responded accordingly using the suggested targets. A total of 20 utterances were produced for DCT2, Part 1. In DCT2, Part 2, participants read contexts and produced utterances for two instances of a neutral question, two ONPQs and two INPQs for a total of 6 utterances per participant. A total of 26 utterances were produced by each of the 14 participants who participated in DCT2 (26 × 14 = 364).
The 489 utterances from DCT1 (125 utterances) and DCT2 (364 utterances) were analyzed using Praat software for phonetic analysis (Boersma and Weenink 2011).
2.4.1 Intonational labeling
The data were analyzed assuming the Autosegmental Metrical (AM) framework (Beckman and Pierrehumbert 1986; Beckman and Venditti 2010; Jun 2005; Pierrehumbert 1980). The model includes two types of tones: high (H) and low (L). For intonation languages like Spanish (i.e. those that use tones at the post-lexical level) there are two types of tonal events: pitch accents and boundary tones. Pitch accents are associated with metrically prominent syllables in an utterance – the “location of prominence-related intonational events” (Ladd 1996/2008). They may be monotonal (e.g. H* or L*) or bitonal (e.g. H+L*, L+H*, etc.). The “starred tone” (tone marked with an asterisk) is the tone autosegmentally associated with a metrically strong syllable. This often results in alignment with the metrically strong syllable, though this is not always the case.  Thus for the case of a bitonal pitch accent like H+L*, the high (H) tone is considered a leading tone (a dependent tone which precedes the starred tone) while in the bitonal pitch accent L*+H the H tone is considered a trailing tone (a dependent tone follows the starred tone). Schemas of these pitch accents in Spanish are shown in Figure 1(a) and 1(b).
More than one pitch accent can occur within a given Intonational Phrase (IP), but just like in segmental phonology, pitch accents have language-specific distributions (see Sosa 1999; Hualde 2003 for discussion on distributions in Spanish). Tonal events associated with the edges of prosodic domains are referred to as boundary tones.  Like pitch accents, boundary tones may be high (H) or low (L) (Beckman et al. 2002; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008). While Ladd (1996/2008) states that “boundary tones are in this strict sense single tones – either H or L,” the most recent revision of the Sp_ToBI labeling system allows for complex boundary tones based on evidence for clear complex tonal movements after the nuclear stressed syllable (e.g. HL% or LH%). Recent accounts describing Romance intonational inventories allow for scaling distinctions for pitch accents and boundary tones, such that the tone may be low (L), high (H) or extra-high (¡H*) (Borràs-Comes et al. 2014). The categories used for labeling the data presented here are those proposed by Armstrong (2010) for PRS. Figure 2 shows an example of the intonational labeling carried out in Praat, with two tiers of transcription. The words tier shows orthographic words, while the tones tier shows the Sp_ToBI labels.
3.1 Phonological/phonetic descriptions of the contours
While there was some variation in the data, there were three contours that were found most frequently from DCT1 and DCT2, as demonstrated in Table 3 and Figure 3. ¡H*L% was the most frequent contour in each of the tasks as well as overall, as demonstrated in Figure 3. Before speaking to what the three tasks reveal about the meaning of the contours, I describe their phonetic implementations in the order of their overall frequency.
|DCT1 (%)||DCT2 – Pt. 1 (%)||DCT2 – Pt. 2 (%)||Overall (%)|
3.1.1 Phonetic and phonological observations – ¡H*L%
Armstrong (2010) showed that in PRS there is a tonal contrast between an extra-high tone (¡H*) used for PQs and a high tone (H*) that is variably used in narrow focus statements in PRS. Figure 4 is taken from Armstrong’s (2010) example, showing an F0 peak (177 Hz) in the nuclear stressed syllable for a female speaker. This speaker tended to produce F0 peaks for ¡H* questions at around 11st higher. An example of H*L% from Armstrong’s (2010) data is shown in Figure 4.
Ultimately these differences must be tested perceptually, but I assume here that the scaling (height) of the high tone determines whether the utterance is to be processed as a question or a statement in PRS. Following Armstrong (2010) I use the upstepped diacritic (¡) to mark the tone as phonologically extra-high (see also Cabrera Abreu and Vizcaíno Ortega 2010 for Canary Islands Spanish; Borràs-Comes et al. 2014 for Catalan). A typical ¡H*L% question is shown in Figure 5. The question ends in a paroxytone word, piononos. This example comes from DCT2, Part 2.
The phonetic implementation of the ¡H* tone varies. At first glance, a transcriber might label the nuclear pitch accent in Figure 5 as H*+L since the F0 begins to fall to the low target just after the onset of the syllable. For PRS, however, it appears that the phonetic implementation of the L% (when the fall starts and whether there is a fall at all) is related to the amount of segmental material available after the nuclear stressed syllable. For instance, when the IP-final word is proparoxytone, F0 remains high throughout the nuclear stressed syllable, as in Figure 6:
Here the F0 remains high and relatively flat throughout the nuclear stressed syllable. I propose that this is due to the substantial post-nuclear material following it. That is, earlier falls should be found for nuclear stressed syllables that occur closer to the edge of the IP.
The last example of phonetic variation for ¡H*L% depends on whether there is segmental material after the nuclear stressed syllable at all. (6a) and (7a) show examples of segmental material following IP-final nuclear stressed syllables, while (6b) and (7b) show the lack of segmental material after the IP-final nuclear stressed syllable. The post-nuclear segmental material is shown in bold.
Figures 7 and 8 show utterances that are truncation candidates, since the last word of the utterance is an oxytone word. Figures 7 and 8 were produced by two different PRS speakers for the same discourse context. In Figure 7 the speaker truncates the L%, while the L% is compressed in Figure 8. Note that Figure 8 is labeled phonologically even though the L boundary is truncated (i.e. the L% is included in the transcription). The surface form shows F0 rising slightly after the peak is reached for the ¡H* target. However, in Figure 8 the speaker produced both tonal targets in the ¡H*L% nuclear configuration, an example of compression. It is important to note that pitch movements such as those found in Figure 8only occur in the data when the final word is an oxytone, confirming that this is a case of truncation and not a phonologically distinct contour.
Often when speakers asked surprised questions, the peak occurs later in the stressed syllable (Figure 9). In this case the F0 continues to rise through the nuclear stressed syllable, hitting the extra-high target anywhere from the vowel midpoint to the offset of the syllable. As a result, the fall to the L% begins later. One reason this could occur is because the extra-high tone, in cases of surprise, is realized even higher in the speaker’s tonal space, thus delaying the pitch peak. 
Thus we find that the different realizations of ¡H*L% could initially cause confusion for transcribers. It is of note how sensitive this variety is to the amount of segmental material in the nuclear word of an IP for ¡H*L% questions. In paroxytone words (which are the most frequent in Spanish), the important thing is for the speaker to realize the ¡H* pitch accent, as in Figure 6. Once this has been done, the speaker may start falling to the L% tone. This can occur quite early in the syllable, as Figure 6 shows. Once the speaker is in the “territory” of the nuclear stressed syllable and reaches the ¡H* target, it does not seem to matter when the fall begins. However, when the speaker uses this configuration for surprised contexts, the peak may actually be delayed, and is not realized until late in the nuclear stressed syllable.  For proparoxytone words the F0 is maintained high throughout the nuclear stressed vowel. If the pitch accent were H*+L we would expect to falling F0 in the stressed syllable [la] in jalármelo, but we do not, supporting the ¡H*L% label. Finally, when there is no segmental material after the nuclear stressed syllable, the L% may be truncated altogether, though compression is a viable option as well.
3.1.2 Phonetic and phonological observations – L*HL%
The second most frequent contour identified in the data was labeled L*HL%. It is characterized by a flat, low tone in the nuclear stressed syllable, with a subsequent rise-fall occurring in the post-nuclear material. Figure 10 shows a representative example of L*HL%, taken from DCT2 – Part 1.
3.1.3 Phonetic and phonological observations – H+L*L%
The least frequent contour is H+L*L%, also characterized by an IP-final fall. The fall is different from ¡H*L% in terms of both height and alignment. PQs with H+L*L% may show a hat pattern. In Figure 11, differently form ¡H*L%, in the nuclear word the F0 begins to fall during the pre-tonic syllable pio and continues to fall to a low target in the stressed syllable no. Thus we find an important alignment issue when contrasting H+L*L% and ¡H*L% – the F0 fall begins in a pre-tonic syllable for H+L*L%, while for ¡H*L% there must be some presence of the extra-high tone within the stressed syllable. PQs produced with H+L*L% are also found without the hat pattern, in which case the fall begins after the first H peak in the question and continues to fall throughout the utterance.
3.2 Task-specific differences
3.2.1 DCT 1
As shown in Table 3, there were differences in the frequencies of the contours depending on the task. In DCT1, ¡H*L% was by far the most frequent contour. The frequencies of H+L*L% and L*HL% combined make up just 6% of the data for DCT1. Table 4 shows the frequencies and raw data for DCT1.
|Neutral (6)||93% (28/30)||0% (0/30)||7% (2/30)|
|Focus (3)||100% (15/15)||0% (0/15)||0% (0/15)|
|Echo (4)||100% (20/20)||0% (0/20)||0% (0/20)|
|Counter-expectation echo (2)||50% (5/10)||50% (5/10)||0% (0/10)|
|Tag (4)||100% (20/20)||0% (0/20)||0% (0/20)|
|Imperative (2)||100% (10/10)||0% (0/10)||0% (0/10)|
|Offers/invitations (3)||100% (15/15)||0% (0/15)||0% (0/15)|
|Rhetorical (1)||100% (5/5)||0% (0/5)||0% (0/5)|
|Total||94% (118/125)||4% (5/125)||2% (2/125)|
Participants used ¡H*L% overwhelmingly more than other contours and had the widest range of use. It was found for all possible discourse contexts, while the lesser-used contours L*HL% and H+L*L% are more restricted. L*HL% only appeared for one specific context type – counter-expectation questions. Like ¡H*L%, H+L*L% occurred in contexts designed to elicit neutral PQs, but much less frequently than ¡H*L%.
3.2.2 DCT2 – part 1
There were four context types in DCT2, Part 1: neutral contexts, contexts containing evidence that ~p, contexts containing evidence that p and counter-expectation/disbelief contexts. Table 5 presents the distribution of the three contours for DCT2 – Part 1.
|Neutral||84% (59/70)||0 (0/70)||16 (11/70)|
|Evidence for ~p||74% (52/70)||26% (18/70)||0 (0/70)|
|Evidence for p||71% (50/70)||23% (16/70)||6 (4/70)|
|Counter-expectation||32% (22/70)||67% (47/70)||1 (1/70)|
|Total||65% (183/280)||29% (81/280)||6% (16/280)|
¡H*L% was favored in all but one context type – counter-expectation. H+L*L% was the least frequent contour in all contexts except for neutral contexts, where L*HL% was never used. L*HL% is used most in the counter-expectation context, appearing even more frequently than ¡H*L%. L*HL% also appears relatively frequently in the evidence for ~p and the evidence for p contexts, and I will address this observation later in the paper. To summarize, DCT2 – Part 1 shows that ¡H*L% was the most commonly chosen contour and was found for all discourse contexts. The most common use of H+L*L% is in neutral contexts and L*HL% is most frequently found in counter-expectation contexts, though it is found in other contexts where the speaker has just acquired evidence for p or ~p.
3.2.3 DCT2 – part 2
The results from the final task, DCT2, Part 2, are presented in Table 6.
|Unbiased||100% (28/28)||0% (0/28)||0% (0/28)|
|INPQ||79% (22/28)||21% (6/28)||0% (0/28)|
|ONPQ||57% (16/28)||0% (0/28)||43% (12/28)|
|Total||79% (66/84)||7% (6/84)||14% (12/84)|
Again, the most commonly used contour was ¡H*L%, appearing across all contexts. What was especially telling in this task was that while H+L*L% was restricted to one context type – the ONPQ-type context – where the speaker had a prior belief that p-L*HL% never appeared in this context. However, L*HL% did appear in the INPQ-type contexts. The data from this task suggest that while the ¡H*L% contour can be used for both INPQ-type and ONPQ-type questions, the same is not true for H+L*L%. It was only used for outer negation contexts. This observation suggests that H+L*L% can be used in situations where the speaker has a positive bias toward propositional content.
An inter-transcriber reliability test of the Sp_ToBI transcription was conducted with a 10% sample of the data. The subset of data was selected on the basis that all the language varieties and question types were uniformly represented. Two experienced Sp_ToBI transcribers labeled the subset of the data (=50 utterances). Since there were two transcribers (one being the author), the Cohen’s kappa statistic was used. The kappa calculation is based on the difference between the observed agreement compared to the expected agreement. Table 7 presents the interpretation of kappa values presented in Viera and Garrett (2005: 362):
|< 0||Less than chance agreement|
|0.21– 0.40||Fair agreement|
|0.81–0.99||Almost perfect agreement|
A kappa of 0.79 was found for the present data, indicating substantial agreement between the two transcribers.
What can be determined overall from the quantitative analysis is that: (1) ¡H*L% is the most frequent contour and is felicitous for all discourse contexts investigated here; (2) L*HL% is used in counter-expectation situations as well as situations where the speaker has just come to know some information (even in contexts not necessarily designed to elicit counter-expectation) and (3) While H+L*L% appears in contexts designed to be neutral, it was most reliably found for ONPQ-type contexts.
The data analyzed in this production study show that the three most common contours within the PQ domain in PRS are ¡H*L%, H+L*L% and L*HL%, and the most frequently used contour was ¡H*L%. This contour is the most common of the three identified tunes across almost all discourse contexts. In her analysis of PS PQ intonation, Escandell-Vidal (1998) claims that the fall-rise question contour (L*H% following Hualde and Prieto, 2015) is the “more basic example of an interrogative” for this dialect of Spanish, which represents the “default” contour for PQs in this variety. This “unmarked contour,” notes Escandell-Vidal, is felicitous for all possible interpretations for interrogative utterances. The data analyzed here suggest that PRS also has a more “basic” or “default” PQ contour based on the fact that ¡H*L% was found for all of the contexts investigated and was overwhelmingly the most frequent in the corpus. This is also not unlike the unmarked SFP used for PQs in Lao. However, it is crucial to point out that this basic or default PQ contour should not be confused with marking a question as neutral. If ¡H*L% were specifically marking a PQ as neutral, we would expect its use to be quite restricted, because it would only be used when the speaker had absolutely no bias with respect to the answer. But as we see, ¡H*L% can be used for many different contexts, both biased and neutral (Prieto and Roseano 2010). The information-seeking vs. confirmation-seeking distinction is essentially the same as the neutral vs. biased distinction. Neither distinction has the predictive power to explain why ¡H*L% is found for PQs in PRS. Methodology such as DCT1 is helpful in that researchers can inspect the data to understand what sort of patterns appear, and based on such patterns can design materials that are more specific to the language variety, such as DCT2.
The contour showing the most phonetic variation in the implementation of the contour was ¡H*L%. Differences were found in terms of the location of the nuclear pitch accent peak, truncation and compression as well as some regional variation (relative falls rather than falls to the baseline for speakers from Western Puerto Rico). Grabe et al. (2000) have claimed that as a direct result of truncation, very different F0 patterns need to be analyzed as realizations of a single phonological category. This seems to hold for the case of ¡H*L% in PRS. Information about whether a particular variety is truncating or compressing can be crucial when decisions about phonological category membership are made, but this information is also crucial for semantic and pragmatic analyses. In earlier work, Quilis claimed that the suspended PQ contour was a result of the presence of a negative particle, but the phenomenon he described seems to be instead a type of allotony (all of his examples were truncation candidates, showing the IP-final syllable stressed). As mentioned, truncation is not uncommon in other dialects of Spanish. It would be interesting to observe what other factors might play a role in a speaker’s decision to truncate or compress, since most speakers seem to do both in PRS. Additionally, with respect to variation in the phonetic implementation of ¡H*L%, Bybee (2001) argued that high-frequency words have more opportunity to be affected by phonetic processes. We might extend this observation to high-frequency intonation contours. Since ¡H*L% is the most frequent of the PRS PQs, it could be more susceptible to phonetic variation. The possibility of more frequent intonation contours having the opportunity to be affected by phonetic processes should be examined in future work.
With respect to the non-default contours, we find a relatively consistent relationship between L*HL% and counter-expectation/disbelief, though ¡H*L% is always an option. ¡H*L% seems to be used with higher global pitch range and later peaks in counter-expectation contexts (though this is not quantified here). L*HL% is also found in other contexts where the speaker has just come to learn some information that may not have been expected. Even though some of the contexts were not designed for the purposes of creating a situation of counter-expectation, this contour was elicited. For example, in contexts where the speaker was confirming ~p, participants may have inferred that this new knowledge was not expected. Native speakers who were consulted with about the meaning of L*HL% also noted that the contour might sound rude, as if the speaker “did not believe” the hearer, or “doubted” the hearer. Thus speakers relate L*HL% with disbelief about propositional content. This should be confirmed in a more structured perception experiment. The meaning that seems to be conveyed by L*HL% from this production data is commonly conveyed by SFPs in languages that use them. Both the SFPs mo4 and me1 convey surprise or disbelief in Cantonese (Kuang 2008) in PQs. Interestingly, the particle me1 is described as sounding more accusatory than mo4, and the speaker’s attitude can also come off more dissatisfied when using the former. If L*HL% conveys doubt, then it is possible that the nuance of rudeness could be contextually activated. Contour use can depend not only on restrictions based on speakers’ belief states but also politeness conditions that are defined culturally.
The meaning of the least frequent contour, H+L*L% was more difficult to pin down. In DCT1, there was no clear indication of its meaning, and it even appeared that H+L*L% could be a less frequently used alternative to ¡H*L% in neutral contexts. DCT2 – Part 2, however, showed that H+L*L% was more likely to emerge in contexts where the speaker had an epistemic bias for p. It should be pointed out that there were also differences in verbal morphology and negative vs. positive polarity items in the stimuli designed for DCT2 – Part 2. The examples in (8a)–(8c) demonstrate these differences:
The neutral/unbiased context in (8a) shows the indefinite demonstrative algún (‘some’) as well as the use of subjunctive, indicating that the speaker does not know whether a piononos place exists or not, a non-assertion of p. In (8b) the negative indefinite ningún (in this case, ‘any’) appears with the subjunctive. Here the speaker has inferred ~p from the context and wants the hearer to ratify that ~p. Finally, in (8c) the speaker uses algún with indicative mood, making evident that in the mind of the speaker, the place that sells piononos does exist. While the default question-marking ¡H*L% contour could be found for all three contexts, H+L*L% was very obviously restricted to (8c)-type contexts, i.e. ONPQs. Romero and Han (2002) referred to Ladd’s ONPQs as having a positive epistemic implicature, while Sudo (2013) similarly describes ONPQs as having positive epistemic bias. The crucial piece of information in the preceding context given to participants in (8c) was the line túcreesque hay cerca un lugar que vende piononos ‘you believe/think there’s a place nearby that sells piononos.’ As discussed in Sudo, there is no immediate information in the discourse leading to this belief; it is a belief the speaker held prior to the discourse context. Note that H+L*L% was never used in contexts like (8b) where the speaker has just inferred ~p. The production data suggest that there a relationship between H+L*L% and a speaker’s belief state, at the very least. The speaker’s belief is made public (Gunlogson 2003) by means of the contour, and the scope of the negative particle no is affected by that contour choice – the proposition does not fall under its scope. These findings suggest that the H+L*L% contour conventionally conveys epistemic information about the speaker belief state, i.e. the speaker believes that p, and when there is negation present this should give the speaker information about its scope. This information is non-truth-conditional.
DCT1 and DCT2 – Part 1 also showed that H+L*L% is not restricted to questions with negation. It was also identified for questions without a negative particle in DCT1 and DCT2 – Part 1. The question in (9) was intended to show the speaker’s desire for her guests to attend the dinner:
You organized a dinner and you want to change the date so that everyone can come. Ask them if they can come to the dinner if you do it the first Sunday in May.
Can you guys come to the dinner if we have it on the first Sunday in May?
The argument that H+L*L% encodes positive epistemic bias is not problematic for this context. As Sudo (2013) pointed out, epistemic bias can apply to both beliefs and desires. If the speaker hoped/desired that the hearer would come to the meal and H+L*L% conveys a positive epistemic bias, then H+L*L% should be felicitous here. Participants may have enriched the contexts provided to them adding desire information to the scenario and encoding it through H+L*L%, so that in addition to asking the hearer if she could come to the dinner, the speaker can express her desire for the hearer to attend the dinner. It appears that it is not merely the presence of a negative particle that licenses H+L*L%. Rather it seems that H+L*L% contributes information about positive epistemic bias to the question.
4.1 A working proposal for polar question intonation in PRS
I have discussed the three most common nuclear configurations elicited for PQs in PRS: ¡H*L%, L+H*L% and H+L*L%. Similarly to Escandell-Vidal’s analysis, PRS has a general PQ-marking nuclear configuration, ¡H*L%. It is the most frequent contour and shows the most phonetic variation. The data also show that in PRS, speakers may choose to either truncate or compress the L% boundary tone in this nuclear configuration. It is of utmost importance to understand this kind of phonetic variation so as not to assign separate meanings to the same phonological nuclear configuration. The high occurrence of L*HL% in counter-expectation contexts reveals that this contour is favored when the propositional content activated in the discourse runs contrary to a speaker’s beliefs. When native speakers were consulted they felt that the contour could sometimes seem rude, indicating that it could encode disbelief, specifically, since in many cultures it is not polite for one to express that s/he does not believe someone. This resembles the Cantonese SFP me1. Finally, we find that H+L*L% is most preferred for ONPQ questions. H+L*L% seems to force an interpretation where the proposition is not under the scope of the negative particle no. Additionally it is used in invitations as in (9), which I take to suggest that it may indicate a desire on the part of the speaker for p to be true. This indicates that H+L*L% conveys positive epistemic bias for p that may be contextually inferred (e.g. desire could be inferred in an invitation). Further research is needed to understand how H+L*L% works with and without negation, and how pragmatic context might affect its interpretation. 
The PRS data presented here do not fit perfectly into Escandell-Vidal’s model for PS. While in PRS there does seem to be a general contour that marks PQs the same way the fall-rise does, the speaker vs. other-attributed distinction does not suffice to explain the PRS data. For example, L*HL% is clearly specified for the speaker’s specific belief about propositional content, i.e. there is a mismatch between the belief state of the speaker and the proposition that has become activated in the discourse context. If this is true, then we would not be able to underspecify the meaning of L*HL% as merely “speaker-attributed,” as is possible for the Escandell-Vidal’s rise in PS. Similarly, if H+L*L% conveys positive bias on the part of the speaker then the speaker-attributed analysis would not allow us a way of predicting when speakers would use L*HL% or H+L*L%. However, these data do support Escandell-Vidal’s notion of attributed interrogatives in the sense that contours like L*HL% and H+L*L% convey two layers of procedural instructions, while ¡H*L% would include just one – the former two provide the listener with instructions to process the utterance both as a question in addition to providing information about the speaker’s belief with respect to the proposition. ¡H*L% only provides instructions to process the utterance as a PQ. The oft-used information-seeking vs. confirmation-seeking distinction is also insufficient to account for the PRS data presented here, since both L*HL% and H+L*L% would both be considered confirmation-seeking. I propose that it is preferable to assume a priori that different languages and varieties of the same language (as I have shown here) use PQ intonation to convey various meanings, and that the epistemic gradient in one language or variety will not necessarily be the same in the next language or variety. To again compare these contours with SFPs, the Lao speaker uses a SFP in PQs to show that she believes a proposition to be true (among others), while the Tzteltal speaker has one that allows the speaker to hedge her commitment to the truth of a proposition. Similarly, the PS speaker uses the rise-fall to mark other-attributed questions, but the PRS speaker uses L*HL% to express counter-expectation or disbelief, and this is not problematic. The concept of the epistemic gradient and its tilting should be considered in future work on intonational meaning in PQs, but also for other sentence types.
I have used production data to present an overview of the three nuclear configurations found within the PQ domain in PRS using the AM framework: ¡H*L%, H+L*L% and L*HL%. The most frequent of the contours, ¡H*L%, allows for a great deal of phonetic variation (truncation, allotony) that may have been misinterpreted by other researchers in the past as having their own phonological statuses. The less frequent contours have more constraints on their use (hence their lower frequency). PRS differs from PS in the set of PQ contours available as well as the possible meanings associated with those contours. PRS is similar to PS in that it has a general PQ-marking contour that does not attribute any sort of mental state-type information (¡H*L%), and two contours that do (L*HL% and H+L*L%). Even though PS also has two PQ contours that convey thought attribution in addition to PQ-marking, thought attribution alone is not sufficient to predict contour use in PRS, since the type of belief (disbelief) is encoded through L*HL% in PRS. An information-seeking vs. confirmation-seeking distinction or a neutral vs. biased distinction would be similarly inadequate to account for the PRS data and have no predictive ability for how speakers use the contours described.
I also called attention to the similarities between SFPs and intonational strategies in PQs. As I noted above, the idea that the meanings conveyed by SFPs in some languages, but through intonation in others is not new, but it is not typically recognized in the intonation literature. It is important to acknowledge that different points on the epistemic gradient are all “fair game” in terms of which points will be grammaticalized and how (i.e. lexical items, SFPs, intonation, etc.). For example, language X may encode meaning A on the gradient, while language Y may linguistically encode meaning B, or meanings A & B, meanings A, L, F, & Q, etc. From a methodological standpoint, consulting the rich descriptions of SFPs in other languages can help us to design materials better suited to capture intonational distinctions in intonation languages. Since it is often necessary to use laboratory speech as a first step in understanding the intonational contrasts available in a given language, we must continue to perfect our methodology for speech elicitation, seeking procedures capable of revealing both the semantic meaning of intonation and its contextually-activated, pragmatic meanings. Undoubtedly, enhancing our methodology could open many new doors for the investigation of intonational meaning and drawing more parallels between intonation and SFPs could help us to do so.
I am most grateful to Mary Johnson, Nicholas Henriksen, Marcos Rohena-Madrazo, Raféu Sichel-Bazin, Sarah Sinnott, Pilar Prieto, Paolo Roseano, Scott Schwenter, Maria del Mar Vanrell, two anonymous reviewers for Probus and the audience from the IIV Workshop on Sp_ToBI (La Palma de Gran Canaria, June 19, 2009) for their comments and suggestions on this work in its various stages. I would also like to thank Luis Ortiz López and Nadja Fuster for helping with participant recruitment. A very special thanks also goes to all the participants in Puerto Rico. This work was partially supported by an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Award (GRT00025367/60032825).
Álvarez, Alexandra & María Alejandra Blondet. 2003. Cortesía y prosodia: un estudio de la frase cortés en el español de Mérida. In Esther Z. Herrera & Pedro Martín Butragueño (eds.), La tonía: dimensiones fonéticas y fonológicas, 319–330. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. Search in Google Scholar
Armstrong, Meghan E. 2010. Puerto Rican Spanish Intonation. In Pilar Prieto & Paolo Roseano (eds.), Transcription of intonation of the Spanish language, 155–189. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Search in Google Scholar
Bartels, Christine. 1997. Towards a compositional interpretation of English statement and question intonation. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts –Amherst dissertation. Search in Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary & Jennifer Venditti. 2010. Intonation. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 485–532. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Search in Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary & Janet Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 15–70. Search in Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary, Manuel Díaz-Campos, Julia Tevis McGory & Terrell A. Morgan. 2002. Intonation across Spanish, in the tones and breaks indices framework. Probus 14. 9–36. Search in Google Scholar
Beebe, Leslie M., & Martha Clark Cummings. 1996. Natural speech act versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In Susan Gass & Joyce Neu (eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language, 65–86. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar
Billmyer, Kristine & Manka Varghese. 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics 21(4). 517–552. Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2011. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.03, Online: http://www.praat.org/. Search in Google Scholar
Borràs-Comes, Joan, Maria del Mar Vanrell & Pilar Prieto. 2014. The role of pitch range in establishing intonational contrasts. Journal of the International Phonetics Association 44(1). 1–20. Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Cabrera Abreu Mercedes & Francisco Vizcaíno Ortega. 2003. Descripción fonológica de la curva entonativa de los enunciados interrogatives absolutos en el español de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Una primera aproximación. Estudios sobre el español de Canarias, 1. 221–238. Search in Google Scholar
Cabrera Abreu Mercedes & Francisco Vizcaíno Ortega. 2010. Canarian Spanish Intonation. In Pilar Prieto & Paolo Roseano (eds.), Transcription of intonation of the Spanish language, 87–121. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Search in Google Scholar
Cheung, Kwan-hin. 1986. The phonology of present day Cantonese. London: Ph.D. diss., University College of London dissertation. Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew. 1996. Investigating the production of speech act sets. In Susan Gass & Joyce Neu (eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language, 21–43. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar
Crespo-Sendra, Verònica. 2011. Aspectes de l’entonació del valencià. Barcelona: Ph.D. diss, Universitat Pompeu Fabra dissertation. Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. Penelope Brown & Jan P. de Ruiter. 2012. Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: sentence-final particles in comparative perspective. In Jan P. de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Escandell Vidal, M. Victoria. 1998. Intonation and procedural encoding: The case of Spanish interrogatives. In Villy Rouchota & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Current issues in Relevance theory, 169–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar
Escandell Vidal, M. Victoria. 2002. Echo-syntax and meta-representations. Lingua 112, 871–900. Search in Google Scholar
Estebas Vilaplana, Eva & Pilar Prieto. 2008. La notación prosódica en español. Una revision del Sp_ToBI. Estudios de Fonéticas Experimental 18. 263–283. Search in Google Scholar
Estrella-Santos, Ana. 2007. Politeness and prosody: interaction of prosody in the requests with “dar” as a benefactive in Ecuadorian Andean Spanish. Paper presented at the Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia 2007 Conference (PaPI), Braga, Portugal, June 25–26. Search in Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L. & Pilar Prieto. 2007. Rising accents in Castilian Spanish: A revision of Sp_ToBI. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 6(1). 117–146. Search in Google Scholar
Gabriel, Christophe, Ingo Feldhausen, Andrea Pesková, Laura Colantoni, Su-Ar Lee, Valeria Arana & Leopoldo Labastía. 2010. Argentine Spanish intonation. In Pilar Prieto & Paolo Roseano (eds.), Transcription of intonation of the Spanish language, 285–319. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Search in Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther, Brechtje Post, Francis Nolan & Kim Farrar. 2000. Pitch accent realization in four varieties of British English. Journal of Phonetics 28. 161–185. Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Martine & Michelina Savino. 1997. Can pitch accent type convey information status in yes-no questions? In Proceedings of ACL 97 Workshop on Concept to Speech Generation Systems, 29–38. Search in Google Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Mathew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of linguistic structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio & Pilar Prieto. 2015. Intonational variation in Spanish: European and American varieties. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance, 350–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 2003. El modelo métrico-autosegmental. In Pilar Prieto (ed.), Teorías de la entonación, 155–184. Barcelona: Ariel. Search in Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-ah (ed.). 2005. Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele & Merete Dahl. 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(21). 49–69. Search in Google Scholar
Kuang, Io-Kei Joaquim. 2008. Yes/no question particles revisited: The grammatical functions of mo4, me1, and maa3. In Marjorie K. M Chan & Hana Kang (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL–20), 715–733. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Search in Google Scholar
Kvavik, Karen H. 1978. Directions in recent Spanish intonation analysis. In Humberto López Morales (ed.), Corrientes actuales en la dialectología del Caribe hispánico, 181–197. San Juan: University of Puerto Rico. Search in Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 164–171. Search in Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996/2008. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Su Ar, Fernando Martínez-Gil & Mary E. Beckman. 2010. The intonational expression of incredulity in absolute interrogatives in Buenos Aires Spanish. In Marta Ortega-Llebaria (ed.), Selected proceedings of the 4th conference on laboratory approaches to Spanish phonology, 47–56. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Su Ar. 2010. Absolute question intonations in Buenos Aires Spanish. Ph.D. diss., Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University dissertation. Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar
Mauleón Benítez, Carmen Cecilia. 1974. El español de Loiza Aldea. Madrid: Editores Partenon. Search in Google Scholar
Nadeu, Marianna & Pilar Prieto. 2011. Pitch range, gestural information and perceived politeness in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 841–854. Search in Google Scholar
Navarro Tomás, Tomás. 1948. El español de Puerto Rico. Río Piedras: University of Puerto Rico. Search in Google Scholar
Nilsenová, Marie. 2006. Rises and falls. Studies in the semantics and pragmatics of intonation. Ph.D. diss., Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. Search in Google Scholar
Nurani, Lusia M. 2009. Methodological issue in pragmatic research: is discourse completion test a reliable data collection instrument? Jurnal Sosioteknologi Edisi 17. 667–678. Search in Google Scholar
Orozco, Leonor. 2008. Peticiones corteses y factores prosódicos. In Esther Z. Herrera & Pedro Martín Butragueño (eds.), Fonología instrumental. Patrones fónicos y variación, 335–355. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. Search in Google Scholar
Payà, Marta & Maria del Mar Vanrell. 2005. Yes-no questions and echo questions intonation in Majorcan and Minorcan Catalan: A cross- dialectal comparison. Paper presented at Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia (PaPI), Barcelona, Spain, June 20–21. Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonetics and phonology of English intonation. Ph.D. diss., Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Search in Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar & Marta Ortega Llebaria. 2009. Do complex pitch gestures induce syllable lengthening in Spanish and Catalan? In Marina Vigário, Sónia Frota & M. João Freitas (eds.), Phonetics and phonology: Interactional relations, 51–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar & Paolo Roseano. 2010. Transcription of intonation of the Spanish Language. Munich: Lincom EUROPA. Search in Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2001. L’entonació dialectal del català: el cas de les frases interrogatives absolutes. In August Bover, Maria-Rosa Lloret & Mercè Vidal-Tibbits (eds.), Actes del Nové Col. loqui d’Estudis Catalans a Nord-Amèrica, 347–377. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat. Search in Google Scholar
Quilis, Antonio. 1987. Entonación dialectal hispánica. In Humberto López Morales & María Vaquero, Actas del I Congreso Internacional Sobre el Español de América, 117–164. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española. Search in Google Scholar
Quilis, Antonio. 1993. Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas. Madrid: Gredos. Search in Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Chung-hye Han. 2002. Verum focus in negative yes/no questions and Ladd’s p/¬p ambiguity. In Brendan Jackson (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT XII), 204–223. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. Search in Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerry. 2012. Formal features of questions. In Jan P. Ruiter (ed.) Questions. Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Santos, Ana Lúcia & Ana Isabel Mata. 2008. Between forma and meaning: using intonation cues to identify confirmation-seeking requests. Poster presentation at the 3rd European Conference on Tone and Intonation (TIE 3), Universidade de Lisboa, September 15–17. Search in Google Scholar
Sosa, Juan Manuel. 1999. La entonación del español. Madrid: Cátedra. Search in Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada. 2013. Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. Beyond expressives: explorations in conventional non-truth-conditional meaning. In Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gaertner (eds.), Beyond expressives: Explorations in conventional non-truth-conditional meaning, 275–296. Leiden: Brill. Search in Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita 1994. V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 335–372. Search in Google Scholar
Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline. 1994. Dialectal variation in the licensing of null referential and expletive subjects. In Claudia Parodi (ed.), Aspects of romance linguistics: Papers from the XXIV linguistic symposium on romance languages, 409–431. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline. 2000. Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish. Lingua 110. 315–341. Search in Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert, Filomena Sandalo & Bernadett Abaurre. 2009. Elements of Brazilian Portuguese intonation. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 8. 75–114. Search in Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Ignasi Mascaró, Francesc Torres-Tamarit & Pilar Prieto. 2013. Intonation as an encoder of speaker uncertainty: information and confirmation yes-no questions in Catalan. Language and Speech 56(2). 163–190. Search in Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Meghan E. Armstrong & Pilar Prieto. 2014. The role of prosody in the encoding of evidentiality in Catalan. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 7. Dublin, Ireland. Search in Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar. 2011. The phonological relevance of tonal scaling in the intonational grammar of Catalan. Ph.D. diss., Universitat Pompeu Fabra dissertation. Search in Google Scholar
Viera, Anthony J. & Joanne M. Garrett. 2005. Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine 37(5). 360–363. Search in Google Scholar
Wakefield, John C. 2010. The English equivalents of Cantonese sentence-final particles: A contrastive Analysis. Ph.D. diss., Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University dissertation. Search in Google Scholar
Appendix A: DCT 1 materials
|1. Entras en un mercado y le preguntas al empleado si tiene jalea. ‘You enter a market and ask the attendant if they have jelly.’ (unbiased)||¿Ud. tiene jalea? ¿Tú tienes jalea? ‘Do you (formal) have jelly? Do you (informal) have jelly?’|
|2. Estás en la calle y quieres preguntar la hora a una persona mayor. ‘You’re on the street and you want to ask an older person what time it is.’ (unbiased)||¿Ud. tiene la hora? ‘Do you (formal) have the time?’|
|3. Pides permiso para pasar al consultorio donde te espera el médico. ‘You ask for permission to enter the doctor’s chambers.’ (unbiased)||¿Puedo entrar? ¿Puedo pasar? Se puede? ‘May I come in?’ ‘May I?’|
|4. Llamas por teléfono a casa de una amiga que se llama María pero no está. Más tarde llamas de nuevo, pero ella no te atiende al teléfono. ¿Cómo preguntas si ya llegó?||¿Ya llegó María? ¿María ya llegó? ‘Has Maria arrived yet?’|
|You call your friend Maria’s house but she’s not there. You call back later but she doesn’t answer the phone. How do you ask if she’s arrived? (unbiased)|
|5. Organizaste una comida y decides cambiar la fecha para que todos los invitados puedan ir. Pregúntales si van a poder venir si la comida es el primer domingo de mayo. ‘You organized a meal and decide to change the date so that all the guests can come. Ask them if they can come if the meal is the first Sunday in May.’ (unbiased)||¿Pueden venir a la comida, si la hacemos el primer domingo de mayo? ‘Can you come to the dinner if we do it the first Sunday in May?’|
|6. Estás buscando a María pero no la puedes encontrar. Te cruzas con alguien que la conoce y después de hablar un poco sobre ella le preguntas si la ha visto. ‘You’re looking for María but you can’t find her. You see someone who you know and after talking for a bit you ask if they have seen her.’ (unbiased)||¿Oye, la has visto, a María? ‘Hey have you seen her, Maria?’|
|7. Estás hablando de María con alguien y oyes que entra una persona. Pregúntale si es María la persona que está entrando. ‘You’re talking to María with someone and you hear a person entering. Ask if it’s Maria who is entering.’ (unbiased)||¿Es María la que está entrando? ‘Is that Maria entering?’|
|8. El electricista tenía que venir a las 10. Tuviste que salir a comprar y tu hija se quedó esperándolo. Llegas de la compra y el electricista aún no ha llegado. ‘The electrician was coming at 10. You need to go out shopping so your daughter stays home waiting for him. You get home and the electrician has still not arrived.’ (unbiased)||¡¿Todavía no ha llegado?! ‘He still hasn’t come?!’|
|9. Estás cenando en un restaurante. Hace mucho calor y el ambiente está cargado. Al lado tuyo está tu nene temblando de frío. Sorprendida le preguntas si tiene frío. ‘You’re having dinner at a restaurant. It’s very hot. Next to you, your son is shivering cold. Surprised, you ask him if he’s cold.’ (unbiased)||¿¡ Tienes frío?! ‘You’re cold?!|
|10. Juan dijo que iba a venir a comer pero quieres confirmarlo. ¿Qué le dices a Juan? ‘Juan said he’d come over to eat but you want to confirm it. What do you say to Juan? (biased, tag)||¿Vienes a comer, ¿verdad? ‘You’re coming to eat, right?’|
|11. Antes de ir a trabajar tu hermano dijo que no se sentía muy bien. Al volver, lo encuentras en la cama temblando de frío. Ves que no se siente bien, pero se lo preguntas, sabiendo cuál va a ser la respuesta. ‘Before going to work your brother said he doesn’t feel so well. Coming back, you find him in bed, shivering cold. You see that he doesn’t feel well, so you ask him even though you know what the answer is.’ (biased, tag)||Te sientes mal, ¿verdad? ‘You’re not feeling well, are you?’|
|12. Necesitas subir tres pisos porque te dejaste el wallet arriba. Vas con un nene chiquito y, para ganar tiempo, lo dejas abajo. Dile que no se mueva. You need to go up three flights of stairs because you left your wallet up there. You’re with a small child and, to save time, you leave him downstairs. Tell him not to move. (biased, tag)||No te muevas, ¿OK? ‘Don’t move, OK?’|
|13. Tienes muchas ganas de que alguien venga a una cena que organizaste. Se lo pides de modo que no pueda decir que no. ‘You really want someone you know to come to a dinner you organized. You ask him in such a way that he can’t say no. (biased, tag)||¿Te veo en la cena, ¿verdad? I’ll see you at the dinner, right?|
|14. Le invitaste a un amigo al cine y te dijo que no puede venir. Te parece que no le entendiste bien. Le preguntas para aclararlo. ‘You invited your friend to the movies and you he told you he can’t come. It seems that you didn’t understand well. Ask him again to clarify.’ (biased, echo)||¿Dijiste que no vas a venir? ‘You said you’re not going to come?’|
|15. Te dicen la hora, pero no oíste bien. Piensas que te dijeron que son las nueve. Vuelves a preguntar. ‘Someone tells you what time it is, but you didn’t hear it well. You think they told you that it was nine.’ (biased, echo)||¿Dijiste las nueve? ‘Did you say at nine?’|
|16. Te preguntaron dónde vas y cuándo vas a volver. Pero no sabes si entendiste bien. Pregunta si es esto lo que te dijeron. ‘Someone asked you where you’re going and when you’re coming back. But you’re not sure if you understood well. Ask if this is what they asked you.’ (biased, echo)||¿Me estás preguntando a dónde voy y cuándo vuelvo? ‘Are you asking me where I’m going and when I’m coming back?’|
|17. Te preguntaron dónde vas, pero no estás seguro si entendiste bien la pregunta. Averigua si es eso lo que habían preguntado. ‘You’ve been asked where you are going, but you’re not sure if you understood the question well. Confirm if this is what you’ve been asked.’ (biased, echo)||¿A dónde voy? ‘Where am I going?’|
|18. Te comentan que una compañera tuya, Marina, quiere ir a bailar, y sabes que no le gusta janguear. No lo crees y preguntas si es Marina la que quiere ir. ‘Someone tells you that a friend, Marina, wants to go dancing, and you know she doesn’t like going out. You can’t believe that it’s Marina that wants to go.’ (biased, echo, counter-expectation)||Quiere ir, ¿Marina?, ¿Marina quiere ir? ‘Marina wants to go?’|
|19. Te dicen que un compañero tuyo, Mario, se postula para alcalde. No lo crees y lo vuelves a preguntar. ‘Someone tells you that your friend, Mario, is running for mayor. You can’t believe it and you ask again.’ (biased, echo, counter-expectation)||¿Que MARIO se postula para alcalde? MARIO is running for mayor?|
|20. Tus nietos arman mucho alboroto y no te dejan oír la televisión. Les pides que se callen. ‘Your nieces and nephews are making a racket and you can’t hear the TV. You ask them to be quiet.’ (imperative)||¿Se pueden callar? ¿Pueden callarse? ‘Can you (pl.) be quiet?’|
|21. No te hacen caso y esta vez lo pides más enojada. ‘They don’t pay attention to you and this time you ask them again, angrier.’ (imperative)||¿Se quieren callar? ‘Would you (pl.) be quiet?’|
|22. Les preguntas a tus sobrinos si quieren dulces. ‘You ask your nieces and nephews if they want candy. (offer)||¿Quieren dulces? ‘Do you want candy?’|
|23. Le preguntas a un amigo si se quiere venir a tomar una cerveza contigo. ‘You ask a friend if he wants to go get a beer with you.’(invitation)||¿Vamos a darnos/bebernos una cerveza? ‘Want to have a beer?’|
|24. Organizas una fiesta en tu casa y tienes muchas ganas de que un compañero tuyo vaya. Pídele si quiere venir. ‘You organize a party at home and are really hoping that your friend can come. Ask him if he wants to come.’ (exhortative invitation)||¿Vas a venir a la fiesta? ‘Are you coming to the party?’|
|25. Necesitas tranquilidad pero estás en medio de un gran alboroto. Pide si alguna vez habrá tranquilidad en esta casa. ‘You need tranquility but you’re surrounded by craziness. Ask if there will ever be tranquility in the house.’ (rhetorical question)||¿Habrá tranquilidad alguna vez en esta casa?? ‘Will there ever be tranquility in this house??’|
Appendix B: DCT2 materials
(1) DCT2, Part 1
(2) A. Negative answer expected
|1. Cocinaste una cena rica de mofongo para tus amigos. Mientras todo el mundo está comiendo te fijas que tu amigo Juan no está comiendo.||¿No te gusta el mofongo? ‘You don’t like mofongo?’|
You made a delicious mofongo dinner for your friends. While everyone is eating you realize you friend Juan isn’t eating. You ask him:
|2. Estás en una fiesta hablando con los hermanos de una amiga, Marina. No habías hablado con ella todo el día y querías saber si ella había pasado su examen. Pero dicen los hermanos que hoy llegaron de Aguada, y que no han estado en casa hoy. Entiendes, entonces, que no han visto a Marina, y lo confirmas: ‘You’re at a party talking to the brothers of your friend, Marina. You haven’t talked to her all day and you want to know if she passed her exam. They say that she arrived today from Aguada, but that they haven’t been home all day. You understand, then, that they haven’t yet seen Marina, and you confirm:||¿Hoy no vieron a Marina? ‘You haven’t seen Marina today?’|
|3. Sabes que hay una reunión en tu trabajo esta semana pero no sabes cuándo.||¿No hay reunión mañana? ‘There’s no meeting tomorrow?’|
|Tu colega te dice: Como no hay nada importante mañana, podemos salir temprano e ir a la playa. ‘You know that today there’s a meeting at work, but you’re not sure when.|
|Your coworker: Since there’s nothing important at work tomorrow, we can leave early and go to the beach.’|
|4. Tu amiga te está hablando de una amiga suya, Marina. Ella dice que Marina está feliz ahora que no vive en Aguada. Your friend is talking to you about another friend, Marina. She says that Marina is happy now that’s she’s not living in Aguada.||¿Marina no vive en Aguada? Entonces, ¿dónde vive ? ‘Marina doesn’t live in Aguada? Where does she live then?’|
|5. Vas a una tienda para comprar empanadilla de guayaba. Cuando entras, la mujer que normalmente te atiende te mira, y después mira hacia la vitrina, que ya no tiene más empanadilla de guayaba. Le dices:||¿No hay empanadilla de guayaba? ‘There aren’t any guayaba turnovers?’|
|‘You go to a store to buy guayaba turnovers. When you enter, the women who normally waits on you looks at you and then looks at the display window that has no more guayaba turnovers.’|
(3) B. Unbiased
|1. Vas a hacer una cena y quieres preparar mofongo. Vas a invitarle a un amigo, José, pero no sabes qué tipo de comida le gusta a él. Le llamas, y después de charlar un ratito le preguntas: ‘You go to a dinner and you want to make mofongo. You invite a friend, José, but you don’t know what type of food he likes. You call him, and after chatting for a bit you ask him:’||¿Te gusta el mofongo? ‘Do you like mofongo?’|
|2. Estás en una fiesta y ves a los padres de tu amiga, Marina. Ella ha estado viajando y sabes que vuelve hoy, pero no sabes a qué hora. Quieres saber si sus padres la vieron hoy. Preguntas a los padres: ‘You’re at a party and you see your friend Marina’s parents. She’s been traveling and you know she gets back today, you just don’t know what time. You want to know if her parents have seen her. You ask her parents:’||¿Hoy vieron a Marina? ‘Did you (pl.) see Marina today?’|
|3. Sabes que hay una reunión esta semana pero no tienes ni idea qué día es. Una colega te ha pedido llevarle al aeropuerto pero no sabes si puedes por eso de la reunión. Llamas a la secretaria de la oficina para saber si mañana hay reunión. You know there’s a meeting this week but you don’t have any idea when. Your coworker asked you to bring him to the airport but you don’t know if you can, because of the meeting. You call the secretary at the office to find out if tomorrow is the day the meeting is.||¿Hay reunión mañana? ‘Is there a meeting tomorrow?’|
|4. Tu amiga te está hablando de una colega suya, Marina. Vas a hacer una fiesta y quieres invitarle a Marina pero no sabes si vive en Aguada u otra ciudad (y tú vas a hacer la fiesta en Aguada.) Le preguntas: ‘Your friend is talking to you about a friend of hers, Marina. You’re having a party and you want to invite Marina but you don’t know if she lives in Aguada or some other city (you’re having the party in Aguada). You ask your friend:’||¿Marina vive en Aguada? ‘Does Marina live in Aguada?’|
|5. Estás de vacaciones en otra parte de la isla. Tienes ganas de comer empanadilla de guayaba. Entras en la tienda y le preguntas a la mujer si hay empanadilla de guayaba. ‘You’re on vacation on another part of the island. You want to eat guayaba turnovers. You go in a store and ask the woman if they guayaba turnovers.’||¿Hay empanadilla de guayaba? ‘Do you have guayaba turnovers?’|
(4) C. Propositional content unexpected
|1. Estás con unos panas en un restaurante. Tu amiga Ana, que no come el mofongo nunca, pidió, y está comiendo felizmente, mofongo. Tú creías que no le gustaba, así que le dices: ‘You’re with some friends at a restaurant. Your friend Ana, who doesn’t ever eat mofongo, is happily eating mofongo. You thought she didn’t like it, so you ask her:’||¿Te gusta el mofongo? ‘You like mofongo?’|
|2. Tu amiga Marina ha estado en Aguada por una semana, y crees que vuelve mañana. Pero ves a sus hermanas en una fiesta y están hablando del vestido que ella llevó hoy a la iglesia, que te da la impresión que la han visto, que es raro, porque creías que volvía mañana. Les preguntas: ‘Your friend Marina has been in Aguada for a week, and you think she is coming back tomorrow. But you see her sisters at a party. They are talking about the dress she wore to church, giving you the impression that they had seen her, which is strange because you thought she was coming back tomorrow.’||¿Hoy vieron a Marina? ‘You (pl.) saw Marina today?’|
|3. En tu oficina, no hay reuniones nunca los viernes. Estás almorzando con una colega el jueves, y empieza a quejarse de la reunión de mañana, o sea, el viernes. No sabías nada de la reunión. Le dices: ‘In your office there are never meetings on Fridays. You’re having lunch with a colleague on Thursday, and he starts to complain about the meeting tomorrow, Friday. You don’t know anything about the meeting and you ask him:’||¿Hay reunión mañana? ‘There’s a meeting tomorrow?’|
|4. Estás hablando con un amigo sobre otra amiga Marina, que estaba viviendo en Chile. No sabías que ella se había vuelto a Aguada. Tu amigo te dice que vio a Marina en Aguada la semana pasada. Su apartamento está cerca del centro. ‘You’re talking with a friend about another friend Marina, who has been living in Chile. You didn’t know she had come back to Aguada.||¿Marina vive en Aguada? ‘Marina lives in Aguada?’|
|Your friend says he saw Marina in Aguada last week. Her apartment is really close to downtown.’|
|5. Siempre vas a la misma tienda para desayunar, y en esa tienda siempre hay dos tipos de empanadilla: de queso y de carne. Un día entras y ves que hay una nueva etiqueta que dice ‘empanadilla de guayaba.’ Le miras a la mujer que te atiende y le preguntas: ‘You always go to the same place to have breakfast, and there are always two types of turnovers: cheese and meat. One day you go in and see a new sign that says “empanadilla de guayaba.” You look at the woman who is about to wait on you and ask her:’||¿Hay empanadillas de guayaba? ‘There’s guayaba turnovers?|
(5) D. Affirmative response expected
|1. Pana: La amiga de mi mamá llamó ayer para saber si me gustaba el mofongo. Va a hacer una comida el jueves.||¿que te gusta el mofongo? ‘That you like mofongo?’|
|Tú: ¡Ya sé que te gusta!|
|Pana: Entonces mamá se lo dijo.|
|Friend: My mom’s friend called yesterday to find out if I liked mofongo. She’s going to have a dinner on Thursday.|
|You: Well I know you like it!|
|Friend: Yep, so mom told her.|
|2. Estás en una fiesta hablando con la mamá de tu amiga, Marina: Y me dijeron sus hermanos que la vieron como a las 11.||¿que vieron a Marina? ‘That they saw Marina?’|
|‘You’re at a party talking to your friend Marina’s mother: And they told me that they saw her at 11.’|
|3. Tienes una reunión mañana, y el viernes. Crees que tu colega está hablando de la reunión de mañana.||¿La reunión de mañana? ‘Tomorrow’s meeting?’|
|Tu colega: Tenemos que preparar todo para la reunión.|
|‘You have a meeting tomorrow, Friday. You think your colleague is talking about that meeting.|
|Your colleague: We have to prepare everything for the meeting.’|
|4. Estás hablando con una amiga sobre una pareja, Carlos y Marina. Amiga:... y Carlos no quiere salir con Marina porque vive en Aguada, y está lejos. You’re talking with a friend about a couple, Carlos and Marina.||¿Marina vive en Aguada? ‘Marina lives in Aguada?’|
|Friend:... and Carlos doesn’t want to date Marina because she lives in Aguada, and it’s far.|
|5. Tu amiga había entrado en la tienda para saber si había empanadilla de guayaba. Ella entra en el carro:||¿que hay empanadillas de guayaba? ‘That there are guayaba turnovers?’|
|Amiga: La señora dice que sí, que hay algunas. ‘Your friend just went into a store to see if there were any guayaba turnovers. She gets back in the car:|
|Friend: The woman says that there are some.|
(6) DCT2, part 2
Questions adapted from Ladd 1981.
|1. Tu amigo: Como Uds. son vegetarianos, no podemos comer en este barrio. Todos los restaurantes aquí son más para los que comen carne. ‘Your friend: Since you guys are vegetarians, we can’t eat in this neighborhood. All the restaurants here are more for meat-lovers.’ (Inner negation A)||¿Por aquí no hay ningún restaurante vegetariano? ‘There’s no vegetarian restaurants around here?’|
|2. Tu amigo: Vamos a tener que ir a Piñones para comprar piononos. En este barrio va a ser difícil. ‘Your friend: We’re going to have to go to Piñones to eat piononos. In this neighborhood it’ll be difficult.’ (Inner negation B)||¿Por aquí no hay ningún lugar que venda piononos? ‘There’s nowhere that sells piononos around here?’|
|3. Tu amigo: Quiero llevarte a comer esta noche. ¿Adónde quieres ir? Your friend: I want to take you out to eat tonight. Where do you want to go? (Unbiased A)||¿Por aquí hay algún restaurante vegetariano? Ya sabes que no como carne. ‘Is there a vegetarian restaurant around here? You know I don’t eat meat.’|
|4. Tu amigo: Te quiero llevar a comer comida típica de Puerto Rico. ¿Qué quieres comer?||¿Hay por aquí algún lugar que venda piononos? Es que me encantan los piononos. ‘Is there a place that sells piononos around here? I just love piononos.’|
|‘Your friend: I want to take you out for typical Puerto Rican food. What do you want to eat?’ (Unbiased B)|
|5. Estás visitando a un amigo en Nueva York y te acuerdas que la última vez que lo visitaste Uds. comieron en un restaurante vegetariano.Tu amigo: ¿Dónde quieres comer esta noche? (Tú respondes, pensando en el lugar adonde fuiste la última vez)||¿No hay por aquí un restaurante vegetariano?‘Isn’t there a vegetarian place around here?’|
|‘You’re visiting a friend in NYC and you remember the last time you visited him you ate at a vegetarian restaurant.|
|Your friend: Where do you want to eat tonight?|
|(You answer, with the vegetarian place you went last time in mind.)|
|(Outer negation A)|
|Tu amigo: ¿Dónde quieres comer esta noche? (Tú crees que hay cerca un lugar que vende piononos)||¿No hay por aquí un lugar que vende piononos? ‘Isn’t there a place that sells piononos around here?’|
|‘Your friend: Where do you want to eat tonight:|
|(You think there is a place nearby that sells piononos)’ (Outer negation B)|
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston