Key and Termination – Increments 169
In example (15) the string of elements prior to the medial high key does
not represent a telling; the discourse expectations require that the speaker
state what the mistake was. Mh packages the content of his increment into
two components: the fi rst which introduces the mistake and the second which
details it. Only the details of the mistake are presented as being contrary to
the previously generated expectations. This results in a local meaning where
Mh projects a context where the diffi culty of the fi ght is emphasized.
Of the remaining medial particularizing keys (those which do not follow
an earlier high key see endnote 10) four are of special interest in that the
high key is not attached to the onset, e.g. (16).^11
(16) and ALL the \LEAders // as they will \INdicate
c d d N w n+ v v'
// a little bit /↓LAter //
d e n a
SHARE our com↑PLETE reso\LUtion // to deFEAT this
V d e N V' d
\TERrorism // [T1-Sn-15]
N #In example (16) Sn’s selection of particularizing high key on the prominent
but non-onset item complete projects a context where the extent of our
resolution is further emphasized; it is complete and no other lexical sense
can be used in the context to defi ne its extent.
There were 23 fi nal high keys which conformed to the hypothesis and
either projected the content of the increment fi nal tone unit as contrary to
expectations or particularized a lexical sense e.g. (17) and (18). In (17) Tr
projects the fact that the progress had to be stopped is contrary to the previously
generated discourse expectations. The previous co-text has produced a
target state prior to example (17) where the hearer has been told that the
global movement thrives in undemocratic environments full of reactionary
elements. Nothing, however, has been previously said about Israel and
Palestine. By projecting a context where the hearer is told that he/she will
fi nd it contrary to expectations that the global movement had to stop progress in
Israel and Palestine as part of its campaign Tr implies a context where the
hearer is invited to consider that contrary to what might have been expected
there are not a number of unrelated independent terrorist events but only
a single overarching existential threat.