intonation=prosody=non-man.marking ??

[Jörg Keller]

Hi all
as such an equation of non-manual with prosodic as well as prosodic with intonational is an empirical and a theoretical matter, I don't really see any reason to worry. 

If the boundaries of a non-manual marking of say a wh-constituent in one modality corresponds to an intonational marking of such a constituent in another, well, fine - call it the same or equate terms. But then, maybe one might find that e.g. the exclusively non-manual indication of adverbial modification has no counterpart in an intonational pattern in spoken language. Well, even better, as we know more and will have to differentiate terms with respect to functions. And turning to prosodic units that crosscut constituent boundaries such as assimilatory processes or cliticization, we know even more, as these will help to segregate and separate intonation from prosody. Well, great - or in other words: we all know that non-manual markings do not constitute a uniform set. So anyone who argues for the equation of non-manual with prosodic or prosodic with intonational has the burden of proof.  So, nothing to worry in my opinion - just an exciting puzzle!
Cheers 
Jörg