Talk:High rising terminal

message: I think there should be a list under AQI ZellDenver (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: AQI

message: "Stephen Fry successfully banished this manner of speech to Room 101 in the BBC TV series referring to it as Australian Question Intonation (AQI)." -- How did he do that? If he banished it to a device from a work of fiction then it no longer exists in reality right? The article is worded in the present tense, but one of the notes down the bottom says that it is no longer in use anywhere due to something that Stephen Fry did on a television program. I know for a fact 9anecdotally anyway) that the rising intonation and uptalk are going on all around me on a daily basis, so this confusing note I think could use a little more detail, a rewording or removal. Yes, I know I'm being pedantic. It rises from my not having a clue what exactly that little note is supposed to say; I'd love to know. 125.236.211.165 (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He also mentioned it on an episode of QI ZellDenver (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text: See: Room_101_(TV_series) 217.33.199.76 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fry did what now? 

message: The linguist Mark Liberman has pointed out that HRT and uptalk are in fact different phenomena, though they are equated on this page. 
=== My take ===
This is a really good point and I've found similar trends in the research I've done.  I think the terminology issue here has to do with the way that HRT was defined in the early 90's, before there was a lot of interest from linguists (in America) on this subject.  Ladd's fairly strict description has been shown to not apply to all of these cases of final rises, so the few few very few linguists who care have decided to separate the two main types of final rises (although I don't feel comfortable saying there are only two) so that what Ladd said remains true of one form, but this other form, termed 'uptalk' for the time being, becomes a different beast.
If this is the case, then I don't know what Ladd was talking about.  I have plenty of examples of uptalk in my own experiments/data but then I am not quite sure what HRT is supposed to refer to.  Maybe I ought to take a trip to New Zealand myself and record some folks and then I may learn the distinction there...
For the time being, I feel more comfortable politely disagreeing with Mark Liberman and claiming Ladd didn't do enough research when he made his original early claim.  That all of these are HRTs but simply don't behave quite the same way and don't have the same grammatical and semantic function.  It's probably best to loosen the definition of HRT than to seperate all of these things that are going on into different phenomena.  Maybe when I become a full-fledged member of the field, I'll propose some better terminology, but at this moment in time this distinction seems arbitrary to me.
--Alex DG 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Damn. I'm in NZ, have very cheap international calling, etc.... What a shame the data can't be used in Wikipedia (yes, for good reasons), I'd be keen. 125.236.211.165 (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology issue 

message: This is a really good point and I've found similar trends in the research I've done.  I think the terminology issue here has to do with the way that HRT was defined in the early 90's, before there was a lot of interest from linguists (in America) on this subject.  Ladd's fairly strict description has been shown to not apply to all of these cases of final rises, so the few few very few linguists who care have decided to separate the two main types of final rises (although I don't feel comfortable saying there are only two) so that what Ladd said remains true of one form, but this other form, termed 'uptalk' for the time being, becomes a different beast.
If this is the case, then I don't know what Ladd was talking about.  I have plenty of examples of uptalk in my own experiments/data but then I am not quite sure what HRT is supposed to refer to.  Maybe I ought to take a trip to New Zealand myself and record some folks and then I may learn the distinction there...
For the time being, I feel more comfortable politely disagreeing with Mark Liberman and claiming Ladd didn't do enough research when he made his original early claim.  That all of these are HRTs but simply don't behave quite the same way and don't have the same grammatical and semantic function.  It's probably best to loosen the definition of HRT than to seperate all of these things that are going on into different phenomena.  Maybe when I become a full-fledged member of the field, I'll propose some better terminology, but at this moment in time this distinction seems arbitrary to me.
--Alex DG 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Damn. I'm in NZ, have very cheap international calling, etc.... What a shame the data can't be used in Wikipedia (yes, for good reasons), I'd be keen. 125.236.211.165 (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My take 

message: Where can we hear such talking exemplified? I know about Valspeak but I can't relate what I've read here with dialogues I have heard. Pictureuploader
Ditto that. But if there really is no recording ever ever, or it's all protected by the Ten Commandments or something stooopid, perhaps someone would be so kind as to EXPLAIN? Come on! It can't be that hard?? Jkjambsj (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of young(ish) female NPR reporters use uptalking. Just listen to All Things Considered any day and you will hear it. Specifically, listen to NPR reporters Emily Feng and Shannon Bond, and you will hear them uptalking. It is interesting that these media outlets do not coach their reporters to stop uptalking. Perhaps it is a sign that uptalking is now considered mainstream. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sound file

message: I put this tag on. Though that Guardian article is good, it really does not corroborate the various points of this wikipedia article - claims it started in Sydney, is used by women, etc. I can't find any sources myself and really it is not my area at all. Any linguists know better? Asa01 03:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: unsourced

message: Is there any good reason for "High Rising Terminal" and "High Rising Intonation" having the initial letter of each word capitalised? The fact that the acronym is capitalised is not a good reason, by the way. Note also that the article name is not capitalised in this way.
: "HRI" is not an acronym, it is an initialism. The term "acronym" is reserved for situations where words created from initials that are spoken as a unified word (think "NASA"). Since one would say each individual letter in "HRI", it is an initialism.BobTheMad (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be entirely clear cut how it should be. Just flicking through a few linguistic textbooks on the shelf, there is variation in both whether it is capitalised, and what the exact name is (e.g., high-rise terminal contour, High Rising Terminal etc.). Of course, HRTs are commonly studied by sociolinguists, who tend to be less prescriptive and more descriptive... --Limegreen 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect capitalisation of the term 

message: Since Neighbours has been screening in the UK for 21 years now, if were really true that people in the UK started to use HRT due to watching Neighbours then HRT must now be fully entrenched and in the generation of UK speakers who are now becomming parents, and their children would be UK HRT speakers from birth. Format 03:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian [[soap opera]]s

message: My perception has always been that high rising terminal is a moderately common feature in the American South (probably more so among women), and I think I've seen this in linguistics articles. But to my surprise it's not mentioned at all in this article. Does anyone know about this?  Duoduoduo (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, there is a subtle variation of it in the American South, but it's so different, I wonder if it could conceivably be called HRT. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern American English

message: Why is only English covered here? Other languages also have this feature. It has been recorded in Finnish a language with low tonality. By including other languages o´rigins and dates of spread can be looked at. For it may be that it originated outside of native English spaekers, but was transferred to native use as som uch vocab is. The article gives no dates - when old recordings can show its use - it is believed it is a 20th century phenomenon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, because the article is about a phenomenon in American and Australian English and not in other languages. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, no. The article is not about "High rising terminal in English", but "High rising terminal" in general. So unless it were shown that this term is used exclusively to describe English intonation, other languages must be covered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.102.111 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Other languages

message: I have just tidied (templated) the bibliography, and in the process removed the following entry (actually to three books):
*Howard, Paul., "The miseducation years" , "P.S. I scored the bridesmaids , The teenage dirtbag years , Ross O'Carroll Kelly
The books are novels in the Ross O'Carroll-Kelly series by Paul Howard: I assume they were included because the characters use HRT. If so, they still don't really belong in the bibliography; but if anyone's familiar with them (I'm not), they might like to add an appropriate reference to the In popular culture section.
GrindtXX (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ross O'Carroll-Kelly 

message: Good overview here which may prove useful, with a reference putting it back to 19th century Scotland (which would fit with it being exported to NZ and then coming back to the UK via Neighbours) and in turn suggesting it could be a Viking thing originally.... 86.31.70.71 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC article 

message: ..."Studies confirm that more women use HRT than men.[18] Linguist Thomas J. Linneman contends, "The more successful a man is, the less likely he is to use HRT; the more successful a woman is, the more likely she is to use uptalk".[18] Though women appear to use HRT more often than men, the differences in frequency are not significant enough to brand HRT as an exclusively female speech pattern. Susan Miller, a vocal coach in Washington, D.C., insists that she receives both male and female clients with equal frequency..."
Huh?  Which is it?  And where is the story or explanation? 
It seems like everybody has tossed their opinions and factoids into the article, making it confusing or unfocused at best.  This is amplified by each reader's personal and varied counter-experience. This might be remedied by writing separate sections according to region or other category(s).  It reads like a blob now. <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:6534:206A:C3B5:1C9F (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs re-write? 

message: Currently these two names redirect to this article. But this is just one context in which a rising intonation occurs. Other articles that are plausible targets for these redirect would be Rising declarative and Intonation (linguistics).
At the very least I think we should have a  hatnote for these. But I'm also wondering if it would be more appropriate to have Intonation (linguistics) (or maybe a section thereof) be the target for these, with a hatnote link to this article. Alternatively, we could just have a disambiguation page, or even a broad concept article. Curious on others' thoughts. Colin M (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[rising intonation]] / [[rising inflection]] redirects 

message: Obviously I’ve reinserted the edit I made and will continue to do so if they are removed. Instead of an edit war that will eventually lead to mediation I suggest that assume good faith is not forgotten.
The article’s lede does not describe it. Before my edit it said: 
“ This contour has attracted notice because of its similarity to that often triggered by polar questions.”
This is not suitable for a lede. What’s a contour? Attracted notice from who? Why is whoever that is important to the article? “Similarity to that” what is “that”? “Triggered by polar questions” What’s a “polar question”? How do they “trigger” something?
It’s a mess. No wonder if simple language like mine is reverted so often.  The lede should simply give an example of what HRT actually is. To the lay person. The rest of the article can give more academic detail if wanted. But the lede is not the place.
HRT is simply a speech pattern that makes “statements sound like questions” like the BBC said.
This should be included in the article?
Because it is simple language?
So that everyone can understand it?
These statements sound like questions?
This is exactly what HRT is?
Making a statement?
Sound like a question?
85.148.213.144 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, stating that you'll continue to re-add contested material shows bad faith on your part. As for your edit, the wording is subtly telling the reader that HRT can cause confusion, especially the "in practice" part. To me, this is an instance of editorialization. This is why precise wording is encouraged in the type of writing that Wikipedia uses. News sources aren't the best for academic topics precisely because they lack this precision and accuracy. The newer line added by Botterweg14 isn't perfect, but it's more objective because it doesn't imply a kind of judgment that has no place on Wikipedia. I'd change it from "This contour has attracted notice because of its similarity to that often triggered by polar questions." to something like "HRT has attracted attention because of its similarity to that of questions." If we go down this route we'll need more news sources to actually corroborate the "has attracted attention" part, though.--Megaman en m (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken another stab at the wording. But the editorializing definitely doesn't belong. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an edit war? 

message: I have noticed that many Americans perceive uptalk as originating in Valley Girl Talk (i.e. the San Fernando Valley of SoCal), but other Americans perceive uptalk as coming from the tech world and thus originating in Silicon Valley (NorCal). As a corollary, beginning declarative sentences with "so" also seemed to start at the same time in Silicon Valley. Both uptalking and initial declarative "so" can be annoying to people. I think the upswing in the popularity of both of these began in the 90's. I would say that uptalking provides a feeling of innocence to the speaker, thus enabling them to more confidently go out on a limb in their declarations. On the other hand, using beginning declarative "so" indicates a speaker who wants to make themselves sound brainy by showing that they have a well-understood categorical response to the question. In any case, all of this seems to have originated in California (like many other things). As an aside, another linguistic innovation from the 90's with origins in the tech world is the use of the word "bandwidth" for time, as in "I don't have the bandwidth to do that". Somehow these linguistic variations seem to be part of a single trend in American English, originating in the 90's. On a final note, I think the connection between uptalk and Valley Girl talk may be tenuous. If you watch the 1983 film Valley Girl, the characters in the film are not really uptalking. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin