Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Chapter 1 Phonological Processes in Germanic Languages
- Chapter 2 Germanic Syllable Structure
- Chapter 3 The Role of Foot Structure in Germanic
- Chapter 4 Word Stress in Germanic
- Chapter 5 Quantity in Germanic Languages
- Chapter 6 Germanic Laryngeal Phonetics and Phonology
- Chapter 7 Tone Accent in North and West Germanic
- Chapter 8 Intonation in Germanic
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Chapter 8 - Intonation in Germanic
from Part I - Phonology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 March 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Chapter 1 Phonological Processes in Germanic Languages
- Chapter 2 Germanic Syllable Structure
- Chapter 3 The Role of Foot Structure in Germanic
- Chapter 4 Word Stress in Germanic
- Chapter 5 Quantity in Germanic Languages
- Chapter 6 Germanic Laryngeal Phonetics and Phonology
- Chapter 7 Tone Accent in North and West Germanic
- Chapter 8 Intonation in Germanic
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Summary
This contribution focuses on the basic features and the linguistic functions of intonation primarily in the standard varieties of Germanic languages including German, Dutch, English, Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. It begins with an introduction to intonation generally including a discussion of phonetic and phonological analyses of intonations, the meanings of intonation contours, and the range of data sources used in analyses. It then introduces the commonalities across utterance types in the Germanic languages and then presents the specific features of intonation in each of the languages. Some discussion of dialectal variation is also included. Research into perception – including listener interpretation of intonation contours – is also included.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 167 - 190Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Ambrazaitis, G. 2009. Nuclear Intonation in Swedish: Evidence from Experimental-Phonetic Studies and a Comparison with German. Travaux De l’Institut De Linguistique De Lund, 49.Google Scholar
Árnason, K. 1998. “Toward an analysis of Icelandic intonation.” In Werner (ed.), Nordic Prosody: 7th Conference. Frankfurt, Berlin, and New York: Peter Lang: 49–62.Google Scholar
Arvanti, A. in press. “The autosegmental metrical model of intonational phonology.” In Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. and Barnes, J. (eds.), Prosodic Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Atterer, M. and Ladd, D. R. 2004. “On the phonetics and phonology of ‘segmental anchoring’ of F0: Evidence from German,” Journal of Phonetics 32: 177–97.Google Scholar
Bailey, L. M. 1990. A Feature-Based Analysis of Swedish Pitch Accent and Intonation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Bartels, C. 1997. “The pragmatics of wh-question intonation in English,” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 1–17.Google Scholar
Barry, A. S. 2007. The Form, Function and Distribution of High Rising Intonation in Southern Californian and Southern British English. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Baumann, S. 2006. “Information structure and prosody: Categories for spoken language annotation.” In Sudhoff, S., Lenertová, D., R. Meyer, Pappert, S., P. Augurzky, I. Mleinek, N. Richter, and Schließer, J. (eds.), Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 153–180.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J., and Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. 2005. “The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework.” In Jun, S.-A. (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing: Oxford University Press: 9–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, L. and Gustafson, J. 1999. “Utterance types in the August dialogues.” In Interactive Dialogue in Multi-Modal Systems: 81–84. www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/archive_papers/ids_99/ids9_081.pdf.Google Scholar
Benware, W. A. 1986. Phonetics and Phonology of Modern German. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, P. 2009. “Regional variation in intonation: Conversational instances of the ‘hat pattern’ in Cologne German.” In Kügler, F., Féry, C., and van de Vijver, R. (eds.), Variation and Gradience in Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 377–404.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. 2019. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (version 6.1.01). www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1978. “Intonation across languages.” In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford University Press: CSLI: 471–524.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1998. “Intonation in American English.” In D. Hirst and A. Di Cristo (eds.): 45–55.Google Scholar
Britain, D. and Newman, J. 1992. “High rising terminals in New Zealand English,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 22: 1–11.Google Scholar
Bruce, G. and Granström, B. 1993. “Prosodic modeling in Swedish speech synthesis,” Speech Communication 13: 63–73.Google Scholar
Bruce, G., Frid, J, Granström, B., Gustafson, K., Horne, M., and House, D. 1998. “Prosodic segmentation and structuring of dialogue.” In Nordic Prosody – Proceedings of the VIIth Conference, Joensuu, 1996. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag: 63–72.Google Scholar
Ching, M. K. L. 1982. “The question intonation in assertions,” American Speech 57: 95–107.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2009. “An intonational grammar for Icelandic,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 32: 5–34.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2010. “The nature and use of Icelandic prenuclear and nuclear pitch accents: Evidence from F0 alignment and syllable/segment duration,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33: 31–65.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. 1965. Comparing the Phonetic Features of English, French, German and Spanish. Heidelberg: Julius Gross Verlag.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 2008. “Information structural notions and the fallacy of invariant correlates,” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55.3/4: 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, C. and Kügler, F. 2008. “Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German,” Journal of Phonetics 36: 680–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick-Cole, J. 1999. “The Alpine intonation of Bern Swiss German.” Proceedings of the XIVth International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), San Francisco, 941–44.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J., Stirling, L., Mushin, I., and Wales, R. 2002. “Intonational rises and dialog acts in the Australian English map task,” Language and Speech 45: 229–253.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. and Nilsen, R. A.. 1989. “Terminal rise and rise-fall tunes in east Norwegian intonation,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12: 155–181.Google Scholar
Fujisaki, H. 1983. “Dynamic characteristics of voice fundamental frequency in speech and singing.” In P. F. MacNeilage (ed.), New York: Springer: 39–55.Google Scholar
Gårding, E. 1998. “Intonation in Swedish.” In Hirst, D. and Di Cristo, A. (eds.): 112–130.Google Scholar
Gooskens, C. 2005. “How well can Norwegians identify their dialects?” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28: 37–60.Google Scholar
Grabe, E. 1998. Comparative Intonational Phonology: English and German. Wageningen: Ponsen and Looijen.Google Scholar
Grice, M. and Baumann, S. 2002. “Deutsche Intonation und GToBI,” Linguistische Berichte 191: 267–298.Google Scholar
Grice, M. and Baumann, S. 2007. “An introduction to intonation – functions and models.” In Trouvain, J. and Gut, U. (eds.), Non-native Prosody: Phonetic Description and Teaching Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 25–51.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N. 1994. “Rhythm, duration and pitch in regional variants of Standard Danish,” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 27: 189–218.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N. 1998. “Intonation in Danish.” In D. Hirst and A. Di Cristo (eds.): 131–51.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N. 2009. “A Danish phonetically annotated spontaneous speech corpus (DanPASS),” Speech Communication 51: 594–603.Google Scholar
Gunlogson, C. 2002. “Declarative questions.” In Jackson, B. (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 12, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications: 124–143.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. and van der Vliet, P. 1999. “The phonology of tone and intonation in the Dutch dialect of Venlo,” Journal of Linguistics 35: 99–135.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2010. “Transcription of Dutch intonation.” In Jun, S-A. (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. and Rietveld, T. 2000. “The behavior of H* and L* under variations in pitch range in Dutch rising contours,” Language and Speech 43: 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, J., Lindberg, N., and Lundeberg, M. 1999. “The August spoken dialogue system.” In Proceedings of Eurospeech 9. Budapest: 1151–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, U. 2009. Non-native Speech: A Corpus-based Analysis of Phonological and Phonetic Properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Hahn, L. D. 2004. “Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals,” TESOL Quarterly 38: 201–223.Google Scholar
Hart, J. ’t 1998. “Intonation in Dutch.” In Hirst, D. and Di Cristo, A. (eds.): 96–111.Google Scholar
Heinemann, T. 2010. “The question-response system of Danish,” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2703–2725.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. 1998. “Intonation in British English.” In D. Hirst and A. Di Cristo (eds.): 56–77.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. and di Cristo, A. (eds.) 1998. Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
House, D. 2005. “Phrase-final rises as a prosodic feature in wh-questions in Swedish human-machine dialogue,” Speech Communication 46: 268–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isačenko, A. and Schädlich, H-J. 1970. A Model of Standard German Intonation. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jilka, M. 2000. The Contribution of Intonation to the Perception of Foreign Accent: Identifying Intonational Deviation by Means of F0 Generation and Resynthesis. Arbeitspapiere des Instituts für Maschinelle Sprachchverarbeitung, Vol. 6.3. Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. 1992. Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen, 2nd edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. 2004. “Pragmatic and attitudinal meanings of pitch patterns in German syntactically marked questions.” In Fant, G., Fujisaki, H., Cao, J., and Xu, Y. (eds.), From Traditional Phonology to Modern Speech Processing. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 205–214.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2003. “The tone bearing unit in Swedish and Norwegian tonology.” In Jacobsen, H. G., Bleses, D., Madsen, T. O., and Edltem, P. (eds.), Take Danish – for Instance: Linguistic Studies in Honour of Hans Basbøll Presented on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday July 12, 2003. Odense, Denmark: U Press Southern Denmark: 189–197.Google Scholar
Kügler, F. 2004. “The phonology and phonetics of nuclear rises in Swabian German.” In Gilles, P. and Peters, J. (eds.), Regional Variation in Intonation, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 75–98.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. 1983. “Phonological features of intonational peaks,” Language 59: 721–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, A. and Zuberbühler, L. 2010. “Declarative sentence intonation patters in 8 Swiss German dialects,” Proceedings of Interspeech 2010, Makuhari, Japan, September 26–30, 2010, 1768–1771.Google Scholar
Levis, J. 2005. “Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching,” TESOL Quarterly 39: 369–377.Google Scholar
Lickley, R. J., Schepman, A., and Ladd, D. R. 2005. “Alignment of ‘phrase accent’ lows in Dutch falling rising questions: Theoretical and methodological questions,” Language and Speech 48: 157–183.Google Scholar
McLemore, C. A. 1991. The Pragmatic Interpretation of English Intonation: Sorority Speech. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Meyer, E. A. 1937. Die Intonation im Schwedischen. Erster Teil: Die Sveamundarten. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
Myrberg, S. and Riad, T. 2015. “The prosodic hierarchy of Swedish,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38: 115–147.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. G. 2013. “Investigating second language pronunciation.” In Siemund, P., Gogolin, I., Schulz, M. E., and Davydova, J. (eds.), Multilingualism and Language Contact in Urban Areas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 39–62.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. G. and Gut, U. 2011. “Phonological and phonetic realisation of different types of focus in L2 speech.” In Wrembel, M., Kul, M., and Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, K. (eds.), Achievements and Perspectives in SLA of Speech: New Sounds 2010, Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag: 205–216.Google Scholar
Peters, J. 2006. Intonation deutscher Regionalsprachen. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pürschel, H. 1975. Pause und Kadenz: Interferenzerscheinungen bei der englischen Intonation deutscher Sprecher. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Remijsen, B. and van Heuven, V. J. 2003. “On the categorical nature of intonational contrasts: An experiment on boundary tones in Dutch.” In van de Weijer, J., van Heuven, V. J., van der Hulst, H. (eds.), The Phonological Spectrum. Volume II: Suprasegmental Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 225–246.Google Scholar
Rietveld, T., Haan, J., Heijmans, L., and Gussenhoven, C. 2002. “Explaining attitudinal ratings of Dutch rising contours: Morphological structure vs. the frequency code,” Phonetica 59: 180–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siebenhaar, B., Forst, M., and Keller, E. 2004. “Prosody of Bernese and Zurich German: What the development of a dialectal speech synthesis system tells us about it.” In Gilles, P. and Peters, J. (eds.), Regional Intonation in Variation. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 219–238.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. 2004. “Final lowering in non-final position,” Journal of Phonetics 32: 313–348.Google Scholar
Uhmann, S. 1991. Fokusphonologie: Eine Analyse deutscher Intonationskonturen im Rahmen der nicht-linearen Phonologie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Ulbrich, C. 2004. “A comparative study of declarative intonation in Swiss and German standard varieties.” In Gilles, P. and Peters, J. (eds.), Regional Intonation in Variation. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 99–122.Google Scholar
Ulbrich, C. 2006. “Pitch range is not pitch range.” Speech Prosody 2006 Proceedings. Dresden. www.isca-speech.org/archive/sp2006/papers/sp06_041.pdf.Google Scholar
Ven, M. van de and Gussenhoven, C. 2011. “On the timing of the final rise in Dutch falling-rising intonation contours,” Journal of Phonetics 39: 225–236.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by