In many languages, rhetorical questions (RQs) are produced with different prosodic realizations than string-identical information-seeking questions (ISQs). RQs typically have longer constituent durations and breathier voice quality than ISQs and differ in nuclear accent type. This paper reports on an identification experiment (Experiment 1) and an EEG experiment (Experiment 2) on German wh-questions. In the identification experiment, we manipulated nuclear pitch accent type, voice quality and constituent duration and participants indicated whether they judged the realization as ISQ or RQ. The results showed additive effects of the three factors, with pitch accent as strongest predictor. In the EEG experiment, participants heard the stimuli in two contexts, triggering an ISQ or RQ (blocked). We manipulated pitch accent type and voice quality, resulting in RQ-coherent and ISQ-coherent stimuli, based on the outcome of Experiment 1. Results showed a prosodic expectancy positivity (PEP) for prosodic realizations that were incoherent with ISQ-contexts with an onset of ∼120ms after the onset of the word with nuclear accent. This effect might reflect the emotional prosodic aspect of RQs. Taken together, participants use prosody to resolve the ambiguity and event-related potentials (ERPs) react to prosodic realizations that do not match contextually triggered expectations.

The present study investigates the prosody of information-seeking (ISQs) and rhetorical questions (RQs) in Standard Chinese, in polar and wh-questions. Like in other languages, ISQs and RQs in Standard Chinese can have the same surface structure, allowing for a direct prosodic comparison between illocution types (ISQ vs RQ). Since Standard Chinese has lexical tone, the use of f0 as a cue to illocution type may be restricted. We investigate the prosodic differences between ISQs and RQs as well as the interplay of prosodic cues to RQs. In terms of f0, results showed that RQs were lower in f0, with the f0 range on the first word being expanded followed by f0 compression. RQs were further longer in duration and more often realized with non-modal voice quality (glottalized voice) as compared to ISQs. These prosodic cues were largely manipulated in tandem (illocutionary pairs with larger durational differences also showed larger differences in mean f0; voice quality, in turn, seemed to be an additional cue). We suggest three possible explanations (assertive force, focus, speaker attitude) that unite the present findings on RQs in Standard Chinese with the findings on RQs in other, non-tonal languages.