Abstract

This paper presents an outline of an autosegmental-metrical analysis of German intonation adopting Gussenhoven’s (1983, 2005) approach to Dutch intonation. A features-based interpretation of the phonological units is given, which is based on an analysis of tonal contrasts. This analysis suggests that tones of different tone classes bear semantic features that relate to the mutual belief space, information packaging, conversational structure, thematic structure, conceptual structure, and speaker attitudes.

Highlights

  • For more than 25 years phonological descriptions of German intonation have adopted the autosegmental-metrical (AM) framework (Uhmann 1991; Féry 1993; Grabe 1998; Grice/Baumann 2002; Grice/Baumann/Benzmüller 2005)

  • These analyses suggest that tones differing by tone class bear semantic features that relate to different aspects, or levels, of communication, which are the mutual belief space, information packaging, conversational structure, thematic structure, conceptual structure, and speaker attitudes

  • A phonological analysis of Standard German intonation has been proposed along the lines of the AM model developed by Gussenhoven (1983, 2005) for Dutch and English

Read more

Summary

Introduction

For more than 25 years phonological descriptions of German intonation have adopted the autosegmental-metrical (AM) framework (Uhmann 1991; Féry 1993; Grabe 1998; Grice/Baumann 2002; Grice/Baumann/Benzmüller 2005). The phonological description presented here adopts Gussenhoven’s (1983, 2005) AM approach to Dutch intonation, which gave rise to the ToDI annotation (Transcription of Dutch Intonation, Gussenhoven/Terken/Rietveld 2003) This model has been adapted for the analysis of Standard German by Peters (2006, 2014, 2016) and Fuhrhop and Peters (2013). This model differs from the classical AM approach underlying ToBI annotations, such as the German Tone and Break Indices (GToBI; Grice/Baumann 2002; Grice et al 2005), in a number of aspects, which will be summarized in sec. Linguistik online 88, 1/18 intonation contours in a conversational framework would go beyond the scope of this paper the presentation will be limited to fictitious examples

Preliminaries
Tonal units
Nuclear contours
Accent modifications
Prenuclear accents
Intonational phrasing
Comparison with classical ToBI and GToBI
Basic assumptions
Tonal contrasts
Fall and Fall-Rise
High Rise
Low Rise
Low Low Rise
Level contours
Late peak
Early peak
Initial boundary tones
Synopsis
Well-formedness and missing contours
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call