Two contradictory views in previous studies have been identified on the nature of intonational meaning across languages (Ladd 1981): The Strong Universalist Hypothesis and The Nuclear Tone Hypothesis. The two views differ, among other things, in their claim on whether intonational meaning is innately specified, i.e. in accordance with the natural physiological states of speaker, and hence universal. Because of the obvious drawbacks of both views, in the present project, we have adoped the conception recently proposed by Gussenhoven. That is, intonational meaning is universal and language-specific at the same time; universal and language-specific meanings of intonation are derived from two different language components, namely, the phonetic implementation module and intonatonal lexicon, i.e., the set of morphemes invested with intonational meaning. Our aim in this project is to provide empirical evidence for the universality and the language-dependence of intonational meaning by studying the use of three biologically determined codes, the Frequency Code (Ohala 1983, 1984, 1994), the Effort Code and the Production Code (Gussenhoven forthcoming) in human vocal communication.

In the present talk, I will give an overview of the project design and then consider findings from two cross-language perception experiments. The two experiments are concerned with the use of the Frequency Code, which is based on the fact that a larger larynx predicts low-pitched voice. The informational interpretation of the Frequency Code is that high pitch signals questions and low pitch signals statements. From an affective point of view, high pitch signals politeness, friendliness, uncertainty and submissiveness while low pitch signals self-confidence, assertiveness and dominance. Findings from the two experiments support the universality of intonational meanings derived from the Frequency Code and shed light on a new type of language-dependence of intonational meaning.