REVIEWS

TESOL Quarterly welcomes evaluative reviews of publications relevant to TESOL

professionals.
Edited by ROBERTA J. VANN
Iowa State University

Intonation and Discourse: Three Approaches

Discourse Intonation in L2: From Theory and Research to Practice.
Dorothy M. Chun. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002. Pp. xvii + 285.

The Music of Everyday Speech: Prosody and Discourse Analysis.

Ann Wennerstrom. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Pp. xix + 317.

Intonation in Text And Discourse: Beginnings, Middles, and Ends.

Anne Wichmann. Harlow, England: Longman, 2000. Pp. x + 162.

Researchers have long claimed that prosody in general and intonation

in particular are critical to interpreting speech. In one of the earliest and
most influential characterizations of this connection, Kenneth Pike
claimed that intonation communicates speaker attitude, a claim echoed
by prominent British writers such as OConnor and Arnold (1963).
Rather than being a stable inherent part of words . . . an INTONATION
MEANING modifies the lexical meaning of a sentence by adding to it the
SPEAKERS ATTITUDE toward the contents of that sentence (Pike,
1945, p. 21; emphasis in original). Although subsequent researchers
(e.g., Ladd, 1980) have shown Pikes claim to be overly simplistic, the
insight that intonation contributes independently to the meaning of
speech remains widely accepted.
Increasingly, the search for intonational meaning has focused on
discourse. Building on the early work of Brazil, Coulthard, and Johns
(1980), research on discourse intonation has become an identifiable
area of inquiry in its own right. Although Brazil (1985) proposed the first
full model of how intonation and discourse interact, discourse-related
explanations have not been unusual. Researchers have suggested that

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 38, No. 2, Summer 2004

353

intonation marks given and new information in discourse (Halliday,

1967); affects how discourse markers are interpreted (Hirschberg &
Litman, 1993; Schiffrin, 1987); affects speech act identity (e.g., Owen,
1983); marks how speakers take turns (Cutler & Pearson, 1986); and
performs a multitude of other speech functions. Although most researchers agree that intonation plays important roles in interpreting
discourse, they do not agree on precise definitions or specific hypotheses
explaining how intonation relates to discourse meaning.
Definitional problems remain, but three recent books suggest that
intonation can be addressed in a principled way. Each book explains how
readers can apply an understanding of intonation to language teaching
and discourse analysis. Current intonation systems can look like a foreign
language to those unfamiliar with recent theoretical research, so it is
crucial that books for nonexperts be accessible without being simplistic.
For each book, I therefore address whether the authors description of
intonation is accessible and whether the author helps readers apply that
description to discourse analysis.
All three authors use descriptions of intonation drawn from a variety
of sources, and all illustrate contours by judiciously using pitch tracings
(fundamental frequency contours). All three authors also recognize the
importance of rhythmic structure in describing intonation, but they tend
to de-emphasize rhythm in favor of intonation.
In the most wide-ranging book, Wennerstrom organizes her text for
discourse analysts working in a variety of areas. She does an admirable
job adapting Pierrehumberts (1980) model of intonation and Pierrehumbert and Hirschbergs (1990) model of intonational meaning,
despite the latters forbidding formalism. Pierrehumberts original system has six possible pitch accents, two possible intermediate phrases,
and two intonational phrase configurations, which together generate 24
possible contours. Wennerstrom simplifies the system to include four
pitch accents and five boundary configurations. Although her system
gives a similar number of possible combinations, her focus on two points
in discourseaccented syllables and final boundaryinstead of three
makes her system significantly more usable. Wennerstrom also includes
two other intonational phenomena in her description: Paratones (paragraph tones), in which a speaker signals topic shifts or parenthetical
information using extra-high or extra-compressed pitch, and key (Brazil,
1985), in which a speaker signals his or her attitude or stance toward
each new utterance with respect to the previous one (p. 42) by choosing
the appropriate starting pitch. The one baffling element in her system is
her conflation of deaccent and low pitch accents, which Wennerstrom
argues are functionally similar because they both usually have low pitch.
But this assertion glosses over the fact that accent is not deaccent.
Accented syllables by definition are salient (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg,
354

TESOL QUARTERLY

1990), deaccented syllables are not. Equating them is out of step with any
intonational theory, and her reasons for the innovation are unconvincing.
Wennerstroms book addresses the widest range of discourse topics.
After the introductory chapters explaining both the intonational and the
rhythmic systems, Wennerstrom includes chapters on discourse markers,
questions in courtroom examination, conversation, oral narratives, and
hesitation phenomena. Each chapter begins with an extensive literature
review, with special attention to the role that prosody plays, followed by a
discussion of unresolved issues, sample analysis, and conclusion. Although guest researchers contribute most of the analyses, the books
style feels unified throughout, a testament to the authors writing ability.
In another skillful treatment of discourse analysts needs, Wichmann
organizes her book around the use of intonation at significant points of
scripted (read-aloud) discourse. This emphasis on oral reading produces
relatively clear data and claims, making the book an excellent introduction to the functions of intonation in discourse. Wichmann uses a British
style system of intonation, in which holistic nuclear tones, or contours,
are the primary units of analysis. The contours are falling, rising, fallingrising, rising-falling, and level. For those familiar with other systems,
Wichmann clearly lays out, and revisits when necessary, how other
systems correspond to hers. Like Wennerstrom she includes paratones in
her analysis, and she does the best job of addressing potentially significant
uses of pitch range and sentence declination. The nonexpert is likely to
find her system to be the most intuitively appealing. In addition, her
ability to clearly explain linguistic issues contributes to the books appeal.
Using data primarily from the British Spoken English Corpus,
Wichmanns analysis of how intonation contributes to meaning is
consistently excellent. After an introduction to the analysis of spoken
discourse, in which she sets the stage, she follows with chapters called
Beginnings, Ends, Cohesion, Paragraph Intonation, and Intonation in Conversation. The book both clearly explicates key findings and
highlights unresolved issues. I found the organization particularly useful
because it allowed me to see how intonation functions at significant
junctures in discourse and to compare intonational choices across
various genres of scripted discourse. Readers who are less experienced
with discourse analysis will benefit from this organization and even
experienced discourse analysts are likely to find her organization enlightening. Although Wichmann pays little attention to conversational
speech, a weakness in the text, she recognizes the limitation while still
providing a good introduction to some key issues involving intonation in
conversation.
In Discourse Intonation in L2, Chun writes for language teachers rather
than discourse analysts. Chun reviews an impressive breadth of material
in addressing a wide range of teaching-related research. This is the only
REVIEWS

355

book of the three that includes a CD, allowing readers to hear some
examples used in the book. (Unfortunately, many of the examples are
not from natural discourse.) Chun develops her intonation system from
her extensive review of the transcription systems employed for both
British and North American English. In fact, the books comprehensiveness is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Chuns
detailed discussion of at least five other major approaches to intonation
made her proposed model (p. 44) more difficult for me to understand.
Ultimately, Chun proposes a modified British nuclear tone system.
The basic parts of her system are key (Brazil, 1985, p. 42), which marks
the speakers starting point relative to a default voice; the final primary
accent (the nuclear syllable or tonic) and its associated boundary tune
(e.g., falling); and how the phrases final pitch movement shows its
connection to the next intonational phrase (tone units) in the discourse.
Discourse analysts are less likely to find Chuns book as useful as the
other two because it does not directly emphasize discourse analysis
applications. However, English language teachers could find much that
is useful. Indeed, teachers could profitably skim the theoretical review
early in the book and focus on the pedagogical chapters at the end. This
section includes two chapters on past and current research issues, a
chapter on teaching stress and rhythm, and another on teaching
discourse intonation.
Discourse analysts and pragmatics researchers have long referred to
the importance of intonation in their analyses. Unfortunately, most of
their claims have suffered from inadequate linguistic descriptions of
intonation and inadequate pragmatics frameworks. The three books
reviewed here begin to address both problems. Disagreements continue
about both how to describe intonation and how intonation communicates meaning, but the writers have taken significant steps toward
combining the study of intonation and discourse. They translate intonational theory for nonexperts, and they provide testable frameworks and
hypotheses. These features will likely inspire discourse analysts to investigate how speech melody can inform their research and provoke intonational phonologists to explore how discourse can answer unsolved
puzzles.
REFERENCES
Brazil, D. (1985). The communicative value of intonation in English. Birmingham,
England: English Language Research.
Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., & Johns, A. (1980). Discourse intonation and language
teaching. London: Longman.
Cutler, A., & Pearson, M. (1986). On the analysis of prosodic turn-taking cues. In
C. Johns-Lewis (Ed.), Intonation in discourse (pp. 139156). London: Croom Helm.
Halliday, M. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
356

TESOL QUARTERLY

Hirschberg, J., & Litman, D. (1993). Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue
phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19(3), 501530.
Ladd, D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington: Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
OConnor, J. D., & Arnold, G. F. (1963). Intonation of colloquial English. London:
Longman.
Owen, M. 1983. Apologies and remedial interchanges: A study of language use in social
interaction. New York: Mouton.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Bloomington:
Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in
the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.),
Intentions in communication (pp. 271311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pike, K. (1945). The intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
JOHN LEVIS
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa, United States

Grammar Teaching in Teacher Education.

Dilin Liu and Peter Master (Eds.). Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 2003.
Pp. vi + 184.

Part of the Case Studies in TESOL Practice Series, this book presents
innovative and stimulating examples of teacher educators practice in
teaching grammar to preservice and in-service ESOL teachers. In each
case study, the teacher educators portray their own experience, describe
their teaching context, analyze the issues encountered and effectively
addressed, and offer practical suggestions. The teacher educators reflections make individual experience and knowledge accessible to other
practitioners and enable them to adapt and apply these insights to solve
problems in their own teaching contexts.
Although teacher educators consider pedagogical grammar an important component of ESOL teacher training, teaching grammar courses to
prospective ESOL professionals has always been challenging because
grammar is complex and because some teachers have prejudices toward
it. This volume documents the experiences of grammar teacher educators from five countriesAustralia, Canada, Great Britain, Singapore,
and the United Statesand includes works of such well-known grammar
teaching experts as Marianne Celce-Murcia, Diane Larsen-Freeman,
Patricia Byrd, and Peter Master.
This book will provide teacher trainees with an opportunity to

REVIEWS

357