Fall plus rise

We have seen the use of fall-plus-rise pattern for independent clause plus dependent clause (

), and for topic plus comment (

2.21

) or main clause plus adverbial (2.23). This pattern is also a very characteristic way for a speaker to emphasize something early in the utterance while still keeping a nuclear accent in its expected place on the last lexical item that adds new information. Thus alongside the patterns: we can alternatively say: In this way we can place emphasis on hope and please respectively, while respecting the fact that they are not the last lexical item in the sentence.

A

The fall-plus-rise pattern is particularly common where the first nucleus goes on a word referring to a mental state, or on an intensifying word:

B

It is also found in cases where the second nucleus falls on information that is new though fairly predictable:

The part with the fall contains the most important idea, while the part with the rise contains an idea of secondary importance. It differs form the usual topic-comment pattern of non-fall plus fall in that greater emphasis falls on the first part. Compare alternative formulations:

C

There is also a spoken construction involving the displacement of the subject to the end of a statement. Here, too, we usually find a fall-plus-rise tone pattern. The main fall tone stays in its normal place on what would have been the last lexical item (etc.). The displace subject, in a separate IP, has a dependent rise (or less commonly fall-rise):

This construction is not usual in written English. In regionally flavored British English the syntax may be subtly different, with copying of the verb. But the tone pattern is the same.

D

The presence of the intonation boundary functions as an indication of this grammatical construction, as shown in a minimal pair (example from Cruttenden, 1997: 70)

E

The final rise distinguishes the displaced subject from a vocative.

F

Commands said with a fall-plus-rise pattern are pleading requests, rather than orders that are expected to be obeyed:

G

How do we distinguish this two-nucleus fall-plus-rise pattern from the single-nucleus fall-rise tone? After all, both involve a pitch pattern of a falling movement followed by a rising movement. Sometimes, in fact, they may sound almost identical, or indeed completely identical (example from O'Connor & Arnold, 1973: 83):

The important point is that these two patterns have different tone meanings: they convey different speaker attitudes. Version (i) is an implicational fall-rise. It implies some kind of reservation (but...). It might be found in a context such as Version (ii), on the other hand, implies no such reservations. It is a straightforward proclaiming definitive fall for the major focus, followed by a dependent rise for the minor focus: Another example, also adapted from O'Cornnor & Arnold (1973: 84), is this: Again, we see the implicational fall-rise in (i) but the definitive fall-plus-dependent rise in (ii).

G

Support for this distinction also comes from changing the wording while keeping the tone meanings the same. Versions (i) keep a fall-rise if we do this:

The phrase I like it must occupy a single intonation phrase, because there is clearly no reason to highlight the pronoun it (as would necessarily be the case if we had here a fall plus a rise). Versions (ii), on the other hand, keep a fall under rewording. There is also intonational grounds for distinguishing between the fall-rise tone and a fall tone followed by a rise. As discussed in

5.2

, the unmarked head tone before a fall-rise nucleus is falling, but before a fall nucleus it is a high level. This test, too, supports our analysis.

However... givin that there may sometimes be no perceptible phonetic difference between a fall-rise and a fall followed b a rise, examiners should not penalize confusion of the two.