Comma intonation

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Comma intonation
Author(s):	Marina N. Cantarutti (University of York, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
To cite:	Cantarutti, Marina N. (2021). Comma intonation. In Alexandra Gubina & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: []

Comma intonation has been used to refer to a speaker’s production of rising intonation that hearably reaches a mid point in their vocal range, and which may, in some cases, be associated to projected continuity. This label conflates two different aspects: that of representation (the “comma”, in Jeffersonian and GAT-2 conventions), and the actual phonological phenomenon represented with it, normally a slight low-to-mid rising pitch movement towards the end of a unit (but see discussion below).

In terms of its form, Szczepek-Reed (2004) defines a rise-to-mid pitch as one that is slightly rising, but which reaches a point which is “below previous pitch values within the same turn” (pg. 108), that is, the end of the rising movement does not reach the highest point in the unit.

The following example from the CallFriend corpus (Canavan & Zipperlen 1996) illustrates what “comma intonation” as generally defined in the CA/IL literature sounds like, accompanied with a visualization of acoustic information (waveform, spectrogram, and fundamental frequency, or f0, trace). A Jeffersonian and a GAT-2 version of the transcription are offered for comparison.

Jeffersonian

A:  A:nywhe:re_ = in the U: Es or Ca:nada,                                 

GAT-2 Fine

A:  `AnywhE:re; = in the ↑U ES or ↓´CANada,                                

Figure 1: Waveform, spectrogram, and f0 trace of [CallFriend_4708_l7]

The f0 trace shows that a mid-to-high point at the speaker’s range (but not the highest point in the unit) is reached at the end of the unit from a previous lower position gliding up from it. The comma represents this final pitch level reached from a slight rising movement that started at the last accented syllable (“Can-” here). The direction and initiation of the contour on the one hand (rising), and its final pitch height reached (mid) on the other, are two related aspects of the realization of the contour which are represented independently.

Not all rising movements end in a mid point, as is the case with rise-to-high contours (see question intonation, represented with a closing question mark), and in order to represent intermediate degrees and possibly hearable differences in rising trajectories, Jeffersonian transcription incorporated an inverted question mark (¿), to signal a rise “stronger than a comma but weaker than a question mark” (Schegloff 2007: 267). Moreover, not all rising movements may bear simple rising trajectories, and thus the comma may also indicate the final pitch level reached when the main intonation contour is a fall-rise tone (Selting, et al. 2011).

Not all CA-IL work assumes that “comma intonation” refers to the same kind of contour. Couper-Kuhlen & Ono (2007) call “comma intonation” any instance “in which the final pitch is neither a marked fall to low nor a marked rise to high” (pg. 571). Similarly, Liddicoat (2011: 36) explains that this kind of intonation is normally slightly rising, but the comma symbol has also been used for any hearably incomplete contour (e.g., a level or a slight fall). Couper-Kuhlen (1996), following DuBois, Schuetze-Coburn, Paolino and Cumming (1993), acknowledges that “comma intonation” actually could apply to any “non-final” pitch movement which may project turn-continuation, and as such it is only one realization among other possible phonetic shapes, including a fall-to-mid, or level pitch in English.

CA/IL work agrees on dissociating grammar and intonation, whereas the relationships established between form and function remain more complex. Schegloff (n.d.) explains that comma intonation indicates “continuing” intonation, “not necessarily a clause boundary”. Whereas some work uses “comma intonation” and “continuing intonation” interchangeably (e.g., Ten Have 2007: 216), Hepburn and Bolden (2012) specify that comma intonation does not necessarily mark that “the speaker is continuing”. In this sense, Szczepek-Reed (2004) has identified frequent uses of this contour in turn-final position which are oriented to as transition places by co-participants. Walker (2014) warns of the problems of conflating form and function that calling comma intonation “non-final” or “continuing” entail, and calls for the avoidance of defining contours for their function, acknowledging that slightly rising contours may be used for “continuing”, among other functions, but also together with other forms.

Apart from its deployment at the end of turn-constructional units, comma intonation across languages has been found to occur in responsive slots such as for particular uses of continuers (e.g., Heritage & Clayman 2010; Gardner 1997), and response particles in general (e.g. Golato & Fagyal 2008; Sørensen & Steensig 2021).

Additional Related Entries:

• Period intonation
• Try-marking
• Question intonation
• Intonation contour

Cited References:

Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996). CALLFRIEND American English-Non-Southern Dialect. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 10(1).

Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(3), 355–387.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause combining in discourse. Pragmatics, 6(3), 389–426.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2007). “Incrementing” in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4).

Gardner, R. (1997). The Conversation Object Mm: A Weak and Variable Acknowledging Token. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(2), 131–156.

Golato, A., & Fagyal, Z. (2008). Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 241–270.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. John Wiley & Sons.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). Transcribing for Social Research. Sage.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2012). The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–76). Wiley-Blackwell.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.

Sørensen, S. & Steensig, J (2021). “Rising OKAY in Third Position in Danish Talk-in-Interaction”. In Betz, E., Deppermann, A., Sorjonen, M. & Mondada, L. (Eds.), OKAY across languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction. John Benjamins.

Schegloff, E. (n.d.). Transcription Module Retrieved July 19, 2021, from https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/TranscriptionProject/index.html

Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U., Schütte, W., Stukenbrock, A., Uhmann, S. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 12, 1–51

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis. Sage.

Szczepek Reed, B. (2004). Turn-final intonation in English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. Ford (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation. John Benjamins.

Walker, T. (2014). Form ≠ Function: The Independence of Prosody and Action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(1), 1–16.

Additional References:

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. John Benjamins.

Local, J., & Walker, G. (2005). Mind the gap: further resources in the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. York Papers in Linguistics, 3, 133–143.

Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and “silences”: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies, 9(2-3), 185–204.

Sørensen, S. S. (2021). Affiliating in Second Position: Response Tokens with Rising Pitch in Danish. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 101–125.

Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge University Press.

Walker, G. (2017). Pitch and the Projection of More Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 206–225.

Walker, G. (2018). Close proximity of turn-continuation to possible turn-completion in conversation. Speech Communication, 99, 231–241.