Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40156463›Full record

ArticleLanguage and speech2026

Form-Meaning Relations in Russian Confirmative and Surprise Declarative Questions.

Andrei Munteanu, Angelika Kiss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Language and speech, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrei MunteanuUniversity of Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9226-4406
Angelika KissUniversity of Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8064-3687

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Declarative questions (DQs) are declarative sentences used as questions. As declaratives, they differ from information-seeking polar questions (ISQs) in their syntax, and as biased questions, they differ from polar questions because they can convey various epistemic stances: a request for confirmation, surprise, or incredulity. Most studies on their intonation typically compare just one subtype to ISQs. In this paper, we present a production study where participants pronounced ISQs, confirmative and surprise DQs, and assertions in Russian. We analyzed the pitch and duration of the target utterances, as these prosodic cues proved to be important in the formal markedness of various biased question types across languages. A principal component analysis (PCA) on the pitch contours shows that DQs bear the same rise-fall contour as ISQs, but its peak falls on the stressed syllable of the last word of the sentence instead of the verb. The intonation of surprise DQs differs from that of confirmative ones in that they also exhibit a slight peak on the subject. Pitch alone is thus enough to distinguish the four utterance types tested. The PCA analysis was also used to identify higher-level trends in the data (principal components), two of which appear to correspond to core semantic properties, namely belief change and commitment. In addition to intonation, speaker commitment also correlates with utterance duration.

Indexed as

LanguagePhoneticsSemanticsSpeech AcousticsVoice QualityAdultCuesFemaleHumansMalePrincipal Component AnalysisRussiaSound SpectrographySpeech Production MeasurementTime FactorsYoung Adultbelief changecommitmentDeclarative questionsintonationprincipal component analysisRussian

Identifiers

PMID40156463
PMCPMC13195068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.