{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017595307917888565, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.522292993630574, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Meanings of Tones and Tunes

Theories of intonational meaning can be organized into two broad categories. Specialist theories aim to capture the meaning of a particular type of intonation contour, or even just a particular usage of that contour, typically using tools from formal semantics. By contrast, generalist theories aim to capture the meanings of a broader range of contours, typically by assigning more basic, underspecified meanings to a larger set of prosodic morphemes. Both strands have yielded important insights, but neither is entirely satisfactory: specialist theories have limited empirical scope and explanatory potential, and generalist theories have not readily yielded concrete, testable predictions from their basic meanings. In recent years, following developments in formal pragmatics, partial but promising attempts have been made to combine the strengths of both. With this goal as a focal point, the current chapter provides an overview of theoretical and empirical work on intonational meaning.