Talk:English prosody

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rationale

Justification for creating this article:

Wikipedia already has an article on Prosody, but a separate overview article on English Prosody is needed. That article is primarily from the perspective of linguistic theory, and probably best serves college students in an Introduction to Linguistics course. This article is primarily descriptive, and intended to serve those learning English or those setting out to teach learners of English. As such, it presents the main ways in which prosody is used in the English language, and notes how these differ from its uses in other languages. (Ultimately there should be articles on the prosody of Spanish, of Mandarin, of Japanese, and so on.) Of course there is some overlap in coverage, given that the Prosody article uses examples from English, however those examples are chosen to illustrate the linguistic insights, but the examples here are intended to illustrate how English prosody works. Of course there is some overlap between these two aims, but there is no harm in having extra examples available.

There are also good specific articles on English Intonation, English Stress, High Rising Terminals, and Pitch Accents, etc., all of which are sub-topics or sub-subtopics of English Prosody, so it's good to add an overview article of all of English Prosody. SpPros (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpPros: There are a number of issues with the article that need to be resolved before I feel comfortable marking it as reviewed. First, all book citations need to have page numbers. It's really not realistic to expect readers to go through an entire book to find the specific part you are referencing. Similarly, for journal articles, please cite the specific page number you are referencing rather than giving the entire page range of the article. While not required, it is also extremely helpful to include ISBNs to help readers identify and locate the specific version of the book being cited. DOIs or other identifiers for journal articles are helpful as well. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LordBolingroke: Thank you. I've taken your advice: 1) added page numbers for the books (Kreidler, Ogden, and Szczepek Reed (now cited twice)), 2) added page numbers for everything else (Field, Hedberg, Niebuhr 2015, Day-O'Connell, Cole, Niebur2019), 3) added ISBNS for all 3 books, and 4) added DOIs for the journal articles (Day-O'Connell, Cole). I then removed all the "pages needed" flags. Also I found a better citation for the point associated with [10], and learned how to do a "short citation" for this. A question: would it now be fine to remove the "Original Research" tag? (I don't know who added it or why.) SpPros (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up SpPros. I did a bit more clean up, and the citations are looking in much better shape. In regards to the {{original research}} tag, I added it because the article contains some pretty broad generalizations that don't cite any sources. The following pieces of text definitely need to include citations, for example:

"For any given word, the citation-form stress pattern is fixed. While the stress patterns of English words do not reliably follow general rules, there are some tendencies. For example, most English names have stress on the first syllable ... most long nouns tend to have stress on the antepenultimate (third-from-last) syllable ..."
More often, the prosody of pragmatic functions involves combinations of multiple features: not only pitch, but also loudness, duration, timing, phonetic reduction, and voice qualities such as creaky and breathy voice.

Anecdotally, these claims make sense to me; however, Wikipedia requres all info to be verifiable to third-party sources, not just anecdotal understanding. I also have a few specific notes on the text of the article:

There appears to be a misspelling or sentence fragment in the first sentence of the "Lexical and syntactic prosody" section: "Unstressed syllables are generally lower in pitch, quieter, shorter, and phonetically reduced, with the vowels near to schwa."
The example of the contradiction contour in the "Pragmatic prosody" section is not clear to me. Where is the emphasis supposed to be in: "No, I never voted for Richard Nixon"?

Hopefully this info is helpful, and let me know if you have any additional questions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]