On the Intonation of German Intonation Questions: The Role of the Prenuclear Region
Abstract
German questions and statements are distinguished not only by lexical and syntactic but also by intonational means. This study revisits, for Northern Standard German, how questions are signalled intonationally in utterances that have neither lexical nor syntactic cues. Starting from natural productions of such ‘intonation questions’, two perception experiments were run. Experiment I is based on a gating paradigm, which was applied to naturally produced questions and statements. Experiment II includes two indirect-identification tasks. Resynthesized stimuli were judged in relation to two context utterances, each of which was compatible with only one sentence mode interpretation. Results show that utterances with a finally falling nuclear pitch-accent contour can also trigger question perception. An utterance-final rise is not mandatory. Also, question and statement cues are not restricted to the intonational nucleus. Rather, listeners can refer to shape, slope, and alignment differences of the preceding prenuclear pitch accent to identify sentence mode. These findings are in line with studies suggesting that the utterance-final rise versus fall contrast is not directly related to sentence modality, but represents a separate attitudinal meaning dimension. Moreover, the findings support that both prenuclear and nuclear fundamental frequency (F0) patterns must be taken into account in the analysis of tune meaning.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
Appendices
| Fixed effects | Estimate | SE | t | pMCMC | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1.139e+00 | 2.423e–01 | 4.700 | 0.0001 | 0.000 |
| Gating_medium | 7.222e–01 | 2.846e–01 | 2.538 | 0.0130 | 0.0112 |
| Gating_long | 6.667e–01 | 2.846e–01 | 2.343 | 0.0184 | 0.0193 |
| Stimulus_4 | –2.889e+00 | 2.846e–01 | –10.152 | 0.0001 | 0.0000 |
| Stimulus_5 | –1.750e+00 | 2.846e–01 | –6.150 | 0.0001 | 0.0000 |
| Stimulus_3 | –8.333e–02 | 2.846e–01 | –0.293 | 0.7862 | 0.7697 |
| Stimulus_2 | 8.333e–02 | 2.846e–01 | 0.293 | 0.7570 | 0.7697 |
| Scale_uncert./cert. | 2.778e–02 | 2.846e–01 | 0.098 | 0.9134 | 0.9222 |
| Scale_quest./kn. | 3.611e–01 | 2.846e–01 | 1.269 | 0.2004 | 0.2046 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_4 | 4.167e–01 | 4.024e–01 | 1.035 | 0.3014 | 0.3006 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_4 | –1.333e+00 | 4.024e–01 | –3.313 | 0.0006 | 0.0009 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_5 | –3.889e–01 | 4.024e–01 | –0.966 | 0.3462 | 0.3340 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_5 | –2.111e+00 | 4.024e–01 | –5.246 | 0.0001 | 0.0000 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_3 | –7.222e–01 | 4.024e–01 | –1.795 | 0.0760 | 0.0729 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_3 | –2.444e+00 | 4.024e–01 | –6.074 | 0.0001 | 0.0000 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_2 | –1.667e–01 | 4.024e–01 | –0.414 | 0.6580 | 0.6788 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_2 | –2.778e–01 | 4.024e–01 | –0.690 | 0.4756 | 0.4901 |
| Gating_medium:Scale_uncert./cert. | 5.710e–15 | 4.024e–01 | 0.000 | 0.9946 | 1.0000 |
| Gating_long:Scale_uncert./cert. | 4.722e–01 | 4.024e–01 | 1.173 | 0.2528 | 0.2408 |
| Gating_medium:Scale_quest./kn. | –3.611e–01 | 4.024e–01 | –0.897 | 0.3644 | 0.3697 |
| Gating_long:Scale_quest./kn. | –1.667e–01 | 4.024e–01 | –0.414 | 0.6582 | 0.6788 |
| Stimulus_4:Scale_uncert./cert. | 5.278e–01 | 4.024e–01 | 1.312 | 0.1944 | 0.1899 |
| Stimulus_5:Scale_uncert./cert. | –2.222e–01 | 4.024e–01 | –0.552 | 0.5756 | 0.5809 |
| Stimulus_3:Scale_uncert./cert. | 5.556e–01 | 4.024e–01 | 1.381 | 0.1674 | 0.1676 |
| Stimulus_2:Scale_uncert./cert. | 5.556e–01 | 4.024e–01 | 1.381 | 0.1650 | 0.1676 |
| Stimulus_4:Scale_quest./kn. | –2.778e–02 | 4.024e–01 | –0.069 | 0.9342 | 0.9450 |
| Stimulus_5:Scale_quest./kn. | –9.444e–01 | 4.024e–01 | –2.347 | 0.0198 | 0.0191 |
| Stimulus_3:Scale_quest./kn. | 2.222e–01 | 4.024e–01 | 0.552 | 0.5940 | 0.5809 |
| Stimulus_2:Scale_quest./kn. | 4.444e–01 | 4.024e–01 | 1.104 | 0.2778 | 0.2696 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_4:Scale_uncert./cert. | –2.778e–01 | 5.691e–01 | –0.488 | 0.6318 | 0.6255 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_4:Scale_uncert./cert. | –7.778e–01 | 5.691e–01 | –1.367 | 0.1752 | 0.1719 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_5:Scale_uncert./cert. | 2.778e–01 | 5.691e–01 | 0.488 | 0.6324 | 0.6255 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_5:Scale_uncert./cert. | 2.778e–02 | 5.691e–01 | 0.049 | 0.9472 | 0.9611 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_3:Scale_uncert./cert. | –9.382e–15 | 5.691e–01 | 0.000 | 0.9942 | 1.0000 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_3:Scale_uncert./cert. | –5.556e–01 | 5.691e–01 | –0.976 | 0.3402 | 0.3291 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_2:Scale_uncert./cert. | –8.056e–01 | 5.691e–01 | –1.415 | 0.1622 | 0.1571 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_2:Scale_uncert./cert. | –1.083e+00 | 5.691e–01 | –1.904 | 0.0632 | 0.0571 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_4:Scale_quest./kn. | 5.278e–01 | 5.691e–01 | 0.927 | 0.3484 | 0.3539 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_4:Scale_quest./kn. | –5.833e–01 | 5.691e–01 | –1.025 | 0.3144 | 0.3055 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_5:Scale_quest./kn. | 1.111e+00 | 5.691e–01 | 1.952 | 0.0544 | 0.0511 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_5:Scale_quest./kn. | 7.500e–01 | 5.691e–01 | 1.318 | 0.1786 | 0.1877 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_3:Scale_quest./kn. | 2.778e–01 | 5.691e–01 | 0.488 | 0.6198 | 0.6255 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_3:Scale_quest./kn. | 9.444e–01 | 5.691e–01 | 1.660 | 0.0908 | 0.0972 |
| Gating_medium:Stimulus_2:Scale_quest./kn. | –6.111e–01 | 5.691e–01 | –1.074 | 0.2898 | 0.2831 |
| Gating_long:Stimulus_2:Scale_quest./kn. | –2.222e–01 | 5.691e–01 | –0.390 | 0.7162 | 0.6962 |
| Fixed effects | Estimate | SE | z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 4.24479 | 0.70986 | 5.980 | 2.23e–09 |
| Slope_S2 | 0.36749 | 0.52982 | 0.694 | 0.487930 |
| Slope_S3 | –3.59011 | 0.47956 | –7.486 | 7.09e–14 |
| Slope_S4 | –4.60587 | 0.48212 | –9.553 | < 2e–16 |
| Base_S | 0.80392 | 0.37130 | 2.165 | 0.030377 |
| Peak_Late | 0.18991 | 0.49906 | 0.381 | 0.703554 |
| Shape_Convex | 0.12879 | 0.52305 | 0.246 | 0.805501 |
| Shape_Concave | –0.26277 | 0.48525 | –0.542 | 0.588151 |
| Context_C2 | –5.64308 | 0.49132 | –11.486 | < 2e–16 |
| Slope_S2:Base_S | –0.29805 | 0.47573 | –0.627 | 0.530977 |
| Slope_S3:Base_S | 0.40150 | 0.43831 | 0.916 | 0.359653 |
| Slope_S4:Base_S | –0.20483 | 0.43242 | –0.474 | 0.635727 |
| Slope_S2:Peak_Late | 0.29913 | 0.71482 | 0.418 | 0.675604 |
| Slope_S3:Peak_Late | 2.06421 | 0.62178 | 3.320 | 0.000901 |
| Slope_S4:Peak_Late | 2.44303 | 0.61271 | 3.987 | 6.69e–05 |
| Slope_S2:Shape_Convex | –0.35583 | 0.73000 | –0.487 | 0.625950 |
| Slope_S3:Shape_Convex | 1.84935 | 0.66252 | 2.791 | 0.005248 |
| Slope_S4:Shape_Convex | 2.41752 | 0.65881 | 3.670 | 0.000243 |
| Slope_S2:Shape_Concave | –0.57453 | 0.68330 | –0.841 | 0.400450 |
| Slope_S3:Shape_Concave | –1.54237 | 0.61687 | –2.500 | 0.012409 |
| Slope_S4:Shape_Concave | –2.33768 | 0.62028 | –3.769 | 0.000164 |
| Slope_S2:Context_C2 | 0.05759 | 0.59039 | 0.098 | 0.922297 |
| Slope_S3:Context_C2 | 6.46174 | 0.54983 | 11.752 | < 2e–16 |
| Slope_S4:Context_C2 | 7.81904 | 0.55775 | 14.019 | < 2e–16 |
| Base_S:Peak_Late | –0.17129 | 0.30030 | –0.570 | 0.568403 |
| Base_S:Shape_Convex | 0.66507 | 0.37735 | 1.762 | 0.077993 |
| Base_S:Shape_Concave | –0.35706 | 0.35182 | –1.015 | 0.310156 |
| Base_S:Context_C2 | –1.09551 | 0.34838 | –3.145 | 0.001663 |
| Peak_Late:Shape_Convex | –0.49301 | 0.70237 | –0.702 | 0.482730 |
| Peak_Late:Shape_Concave | 0.12961 | 0.67577 | 0.192 | 0.847908 |
| Peak_Late:Context_C2 | 0.08204 | 0.56517 | 0.145 | 0.884583 |
| Shape_Convex:Context_C2 | –0.50585 | 0.58257 | –0.868 | 0.385221 |
| Shape_Concave:Context_C2 | 1.57137 | 0.52669 | 2.983 | 0.002850 |
| Slope_S2:Base_S:Shape_Convex | –0.42258 | 0.46364 | –0.911 | 0.362060 |
| Slope_S3:Base_S:Shape_Convex | –0.58958 | 0.44311 | –1.331 | 0.183338 |
| Slope_S4:Base_S:Shape_Convex | –0.03306 | 0.44083 | –0.075 | 0.940212 |
| Slope_S2:Base_S:Shape_Concave | 0.33293 | 0.43855 | 0.759 | 0.447755 |
| Slope_S3:Base_S:Shape_Concave | 0.18462 | 0.43903 | 0.421 | 0.674105 |
| Slope_S4:Base_S:Shape_Concave | 0.45031 | 0.44205 | 1.019 | 0.308358 |
| Slope_S2:Base_S:Context_C2 | 0.16150 | 0.44050 | 0.367 | 0.713891 |
| Slope_S3:Base_S:Context_C2 | –0.66840 | 0.41233 | –1.621 | 0.105005 |
| Slope_S4:Base_S:Context_C2 | –0.34408 | 0.40929 | –0.841 | 0.400524 |
| Slope_S2:Peak_Late: Shape_Convex | –0.54299 | 0.98231 | –0.553 | 0.580421 |
| Slope_S3:Peak_Late: Shape_Convex | –1.71481 | 0.88909 | –1.929 | 0.053765 |
| Slope_S4:Peak_Late: Shape_Convex | –1.99650 | 0.87785 | –2.274 | 0.022947 |
| Slope_S2:Peak_Late:Shape_Concave | –0.31730 | 0.95305 | –0.333 | 0.739189 |
| Slope_S3:Peak_Late:Shape_Concave | 0.47004 | 0.84787 | 0.554 | 0.579321 |
| Slope_S4:Peak_Late:Shape_Concave | 1.37750 | 0.84018 | 1.640 | 0.101103 |
| Slope_S2:Peak_Late:Context_C2 | –0.14218 | 0.80060 | –0.178 | 0.859040 |
| Slope_S3:Peak_Late:Context_C2 | –4.31555 | 0.71938 | –5.999 | 1.99e–09 |
| Slope_S4:Peak_Late:Context_C2 | –4.74062 | 0.71418 | –6.638 | 3.18e–11 |
| Slope_S2:Shape_Convex:Context_C2 | 0.21808 | 0.81070 | 0.269 | 0.787927 |
| Slope_S3:Shape_Convex:Context_C2 | –2.80654 | 0.74083 | –3.788 | 0.000152 |
| Slope_S4:Shape_Convex:Context_C2 | –3.62716 | 0.74011 | –4.901 | 9.54e–07 |
| Slope_S2:Shape_Concave:Context_C2 | 0.48924 | 0.74302 | 0.658 | 0.510254 |
| Slope_S3:Shape_Concave:Context_C2 | 1.40762 | 0.71243 | 1.976 | 0.048176 |
| Slope_S4:Shape_Concave:Context_C2 | 2.42646 | 0.74055 | 3.277 | 0.001051 |
| Base_S:Peak_Late:Shape_Convex | –0.59859 | 0.30385 | –1.970 | 0.048837 |
| Base_S:Peak_Late:Shape_Concave | 0.14750 | 0.31019 | 0.476 | 0.634423 |
| Base_S:Peak_Late:Context_C2 | 0.61649 | 0.28246 | 2.183 | 0.029068 |
| Peak_Late:Shape_Convex:Context_C2 | 0.42312 | 0.79414 | 0.533 | 0.594164 |
| Peak_Late:Shape_Concave:Context_C2 | –1.63285 | 0.75537 | –2.162 | 0.030645 |
| Slope_S2:Peak_Late:Shape_Convex:Context_C2 | 0.93941 | 1.11575 | 0.842 | 0.399814 |
| Slope_S3:Peak_Late:Shape_Convex:Context_C2 | 3.31436 | 1.02616 | 3.230 | 0.001238 |
| Slope_S4:Peak_Late:Shape_Convex:Context_C2 | 3.79110 | 1.01695 | 3.728 | 0.000193 |
| Slope_S2:Peak_Late:Shape_Concave:Context_C2 | –0.07365 | 1.07553 | –0.068 | 0.945405 |
| Slope_S3:Peak_Late:Shape_Concave:Context_C2 | –0.02293 | 1.00203 | –0.023 | 0.981743 |
| Slope_S4:Peak_Late:Shape_Concave:Context_C2 | –1.23623 | 1.01515 | –1.218 | 0.223306 |
References
Agresti A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley.
Ambrazaitis G. I., Niebuhr O. (2008). Dip and hat pattern: A phonological contrast of German? Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Campinas, Brazil (pp. 268-272). May 6–8.
André C., Ghio A., Cavé C., Teston B. (2007). PERCEVAL: PERCeption EVALuation Auditive et Visuelle (version 3.0.4). Retrieved from http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~lpldev/perceval/
Asu E. L. (2006). Rising intonation in Estonian: An analysis of map task dialogues and spontaneous conversations. Proceedings of the Fonetiikan Päivät 2006, Helsinki, Finland (pp. 1–8) August 30–31.
Atterer M., Ladd D. R. (2004). On the phonetics and phonology of ‘segmental anchoring’ of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 177–197.
Baayen R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Baltazani M. (2006). Characteristics of pre-nuclear pitch accents in statements and yes-no questions in Greek. Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Experimental Linguistics, Athens, Greece (pp. 81–84) August 28–30.
Barnes J., Brugos A., Shattuck-Hufnagel S., Veilleux N. (2012). On the nature of perceptual differences between accentual peaks and plateaux. In Niebuhr O. (Ed.), Understanding prosody – the role of context, function, communication (pp. 93–118). Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Batliner A. (1989). Eine frage ist eine frage ist keine frage. In Altmann H., Batliner A., Oppenrieder W. (Eds.), Zur intonation von modus und fokus im Deutschen (pp. 87–109). Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer.
Boersma P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341–345.
Bolinger D. (1985). Intonation and its part s. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Brinckmann C., Benzmüller R. (1999). The relationship between utterance type and F0 contour in German. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH), Budapest, Hungary (pp. 21–24) September 5–9.
Bruce G. (1977). Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Ph.D. thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Calhoun S. (2010). How does informativeness affect prosodic prominence? Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1099–1140.
Cangemi F. (2009). Phonetic detail in intonation contour dynamics. Proceedings of Associazione Italiana di Scienze della Voce, Zurich, Switzerland (pp. 1–10) February 4–6.
Cangemi F. (2012). Tempo and sentence modality. Talk presented at The 13th Conference on Laboratory Phonology, Stuttgart, Germany.
Cruttenden A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cruttenden A. (1990). The origins of nucleus. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 20, 1–9.
Crystal D. (1979). The analysis of nuclear tones. In Waugh L. R., Van Schooneveld C. H. (Eds.), The melody of language: Intonation and prosody (pp. 55–70). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Dainora A. (2006). Modeling intonation in English: A probabilistic approach to phonological competence. In Goldstein L. M., Whalen D., Best C. T. (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology VIII: Varieties of phonological competence (pp. 107–132). Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
D’Imperio M. (2000). The role of perception in defining tonal targets and their alignment. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
D’Imperio M., Cavone R., Petrone C. (2012). Effects of direct dialect imitation on tonal alignment in two Southern varieties of Italian. Talk at the International Symposium on Imitation and Convergence in Speech, Aix-en-Provence, France, 3–5 September 2012.
D’Imperio M., Gili Fivela B., Niebuhr O. (2010). Alignment perception of high intonational plateaux in Italian and German. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Chicago, IL (pp. 1–4) May 11–14.
Dombrowski E. (2003). Semantic features of accent contours: Effects of F0 peak position and F0 time shape. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 1217–1220) August 3–9.
Dombrowski E., Niebuhr O. (2005). Acoustic patterns and communicative functions of phrase-final rises in German: Activating and restricting contours. Phonetica, 62, 176–195.
Dombrowski E., Niebuhr O. (2010). Shaping phrase-final rising intonation in German. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Speech Prosody, Chicago, IL, (pp. 1–4). May 11–14
Dufour S., Nguyen N., Frauenfelder U. H. (2007). The perception of phonemic contrasts in a non-native dialect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Express Letters, 121, 131–136.
Face T. (2007). The role of intonational cues in the perception of declaratives and absolute interrogatives in Castilian Spanish. Estudios de Fonética Experimental, 16, 185–225.
Gackstatter M., Niebuhr O. (2012). Eine kontrastive phonetische Analyse niederdeutscher Langvokale. Linguistik Online, 53, 23–54.
German J. (2012). Dialect adaptation and two dimensions of tune. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Speech Prosody, Shangai, China, (pp. 430–433) May 22–25.
Fivela B. Gili (2008). Broad focus vs contrastive focus: Is there categorical perception in Pisa Italian? Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Speech Prosody, Campinas, Brazil (pp. 293–256) May 6–8.
Gilles P. (2005). Regionale prosodie im Deutschen – variabilität der intonation von abscluss und weiterweisung. Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Gósy M., Terken J. (1994). Question marking in Hungarian: Timing and height of pitch peaks. Journal of Phonetics, 22, 269–281.
Grabe E., Kochanski G., Coleman J. (2005). The intonation of native accent varieties in the British Isles: Potential for miscommunication? In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk K., Przedlacka J. (Eds.), English pronunciation models: A changing scene (pp. 311–337). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Grice M., Baumann S. (2002). Deutsche intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte, 191, 267–298.
Grice M., D’Imperio M., Savino M., Avesani C. (2005). Towards a strategy for labelling varieties of Italian. In Jun S.-A. (Ed.), Prosodic typology and transcription: A unified approach (pp. 53–83). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Grosjean F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics, 28, 267–283.
Gunlogson C. (2003). True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gussenhoven C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris Publications.
Gussenhoven C. (1999). Discreteness and gradience in intonational contrasts. Language and Speech, 42, 283–305.
Haeseryn W., Romijn K., Geerts G., de Rooij J., van den Toorn M. C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Halliday M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Halliday M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Hirschberg J., Ward G. (1995). The interpretation of the high-rise question contour in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 407–412.
Hiz H. (1978). Difficult questions. In Hiz H. (Ed.), Questions (pp. 211–226). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Huddleston R. (1994). The contrast between interrogatives and questions. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 411–439.
IPDS (1995). The Kiel corpus of spontaneous speech, volume 1, CD-ROM#2. Kiel, Germany: IPDS.
IPDS (1996). The Kiel corpus of spontaneous speech, volume 2, CD-ROM#3. Kiel, Germany: IPDS.
IPDS (1997). The Kiel corpus of spontaneous speech, volume 3, CD-ROM#4. Kiel, Germany: IPDS.
Isačenko A. V., Schädlich H.-J. (1970). Untersuchungen über die Deutsche satzintonation. Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag.
Ito K., Speer S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effect of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 541–573.
Kim M., Horton W., Bradlow A. R. (2011). Phonetic accommodation between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Laboratory Phonology, 2, 125–156.
Kleber F., Rathcke T. (2008). More on the ‘segmental anchoring’ of prenuclear rises: Evidence from East Middle German. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Speech Prosody, Campinas, Brazil (pp. 123–126) May 6–8.
Klein W. (1982). Einige bemerkungen zur frageintonation. Deutsche Sprache, 4, 289–310.
Knight R.-A. (2003). Peaks and plateaux: The production and perception of intonational high targets in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
Knight R.-A., Nolan F. (2006). The effect of pitch span on intonational plateaux. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 36, 21–38.
Kohler K. J. (1987). Categorical pitch perception. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Tallinn, Estonia (pp. 331–333) August 1–7.
Kohler K. J. (1991). Terminal intonation patterns in single-accent utterances of German: Phonetics, phonology and semantics. AIPUK, 25, 115–185.
Kohler K. J. (2004a). Categorical speech perception revisited. Paper presented at From Sound to Sense Workshop, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA June 11–13.
Kohler K. J. (2004b). Pragmatic and attitudinal meanings of pitch patterns in German syntactically marked questions. In Fant G., Fujisaki H., Cao J., Xu Y. (Eds.), From traditional phonology to modern speech processing – In honour of Professor Wu Zongji’s 95th birthday (pp. 205–215). Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kohler K. J. (2005). Timing and communicative functions of pitch contours. Phonetica, 92, 88–105.
Kügler F. (2004). Do we know the answer? Variation in yes-no-question intonation. In Fischer S., Van R., Vijver de, Vogel R. (Eds.), Experimental studies in linguistics, 1 (pp. 9–29). Potsdam, Germany: Potsdam University Press.
Ladd D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ladd D. R., Morton R. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics, 25, 313–342.
Ladd D. R., Mennen I., Schepman A. (2000) Phonological conditioning of peak alignment in rising pitch accents in Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2685–2696.
Lahiri A., Marslen-Wilson W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 254–294.
Liberman A. M., Cooper F. S., Shankweiler D. P., Studdert-Kennedy M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431–461.
Liberman A. M., Harris K. S., Hoffman H. S., Griffith B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358–368.
Nash R., Mulac A. (1980). The intonation of verifiability. In Waugh L. R., van Schooneveld C. H. (Eds.), The melody of language: Intonation and prosody (pp. 219–241). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Niebuhr O. (2007). The signalling of German rising–falling intonation categories – the interplay of synchronization, shape, and height. Phonetica, 64, 174–193.
Niebuhr O. (2008). Coding of intonational meanings beyond F0: Evidence from utterance-final /t/ aspiration in German. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142, 1252–1263.
Niebuhr O. (2011). Alignment and pitch-accent identification – implications from F0 peak and plateau contours. AIPUK, 38, 77–95.
Niebuhr O. (2012). Das ist (k)eine frage – phonetische merkmale in der identifikation standarddeutscher deklarativfragen. In Anderwald L. (Ed.), Sprachmythen – fiktion oder wirklichkeit (pp. 203–222). Frankfurt, Germany/New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Niebuhr O., Ambrazaitis G. I. (2006). Alignment of medial and late peaks in German spontaneous speech. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Speech Prosody, Dresden, Germany (pp. 161–164) May 2–5 .
Niebuhr O., Kohler K. J. (2004). Perception and cognitive processing of tonal alignment in German. Proceedings of the International Conference on Tonal Aspects of Language, Beijing, China (pp. 155–158) March 28–30.
Niebuhr O., Zellers M. (2012). Late pitch accents in hat and dip intonation patterns. In Niebuhr O. (Ed.), Understanding prosody – the role of function, context, and communication (pp. 159–186). Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Niebuhr O., Bergherr J., Huth S., Lill C., Neuschulz J. (2011). Intonationsfragen hinterfragt – die vielschichtigkeit der prosodischen unterschiede zwischen aussage – und fragesätzen mit deklarativer syntax. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 77, 304–346.
Niebuhr O., D’Imperio M., Gili Fivela B., Cangemi F. (2011). Are there ‘shapers’ and ‘aligners’? Individual differences in signalling pitch accent category. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of Phonetic Science, Hong Kong, China (pp. 120–123) August 17–21.
Ohala J. J. (1983). Cross-language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica, 40, 1–18.
Oppenrieder W. (1988). Intonatorische kennzeichnung van satzmodi. In Altmann H. (Ed.), Intonationsforschungen (pp. 69–205). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
Peters J. (2005). Intonation. In Wermke M., Kunzel-Razum K., Scholze-Stubenrecht W (Ed.), Die Grammatik (pp. 95–128). Mannheim, Germany: Dudenverlag.
Peters J. (2006). Intonation Deutscher regionalsprachen. Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Petrone C. (2008). Le rôle de la variabilité phonétique dans la représentation des contours intonatifs et de leur sens. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Petrone C. (2010). At the interface between phonetics and pragmatics: Non-local F0 effects on the perception of Cosenza Italian tunes. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago, IL, (pp. 1–4). May 11–14.
Petrone C., D’Imperio M. (2008). Tonal structure and constituency in Neapolitan Italian: Evidence for the accentual phrase in statements and questions. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Speech Prosody, 301–304, Campinas, Brazil May 6–8.
Petrone C., D’Imperio M. (2011). From tones to tunes: Effects of the F0 prenuclear region in the perception of Neapolitan statements and questions. In Frota S., Elordieta G., Prieto P. (Eds.), Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension (pp. 207–230). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Pierrehumbert J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Pierrehumbert J. B., Beckman M. E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Pierrehumbert J. B., Hirschberg J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen P. R., Morgan J., Pollack M. E. (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Pierrehumbert J. B., Steele S. (1989). Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica, 46, 181–196.
Post B., D’Imperio M., Gussenhoven C. (2007). Fine phonetic detail and intonational meaning. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany (pp. 191–196) August 06–10.
R Development Core Team (2012). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3–900051–07–0. Retrieved from: http://www.R-project.org
Rathcke T. (2006). A perceptual study on Russian questions and statements. AIPUK, 37, 51–62.
Sadock J. M. (1974). Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Schneider K., Lintfert B. (2003). Categorical perception of boundary tones in German. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 631–634) August 3–9.
Selting M. (1995). Prosodie im gespräch. Aspekte einer interaktionalen phonologie der konversation. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
Stock E., Zacharias C. (1973). Deutsche satzintonation. Leipzig, Germany: VEB Enzyklopädie.
Van Heuven V. J., Haan J. (2002). Temporal distribution of interrogativity markers in Dutch: A perceptual study. In Gussenhoven C., Warner N. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 61–86). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Van Heuven V. J., van Zanten E. (2005). Speech rate as a secondary prosodic characteristic of polarity questions in three languages. Speech Communication, 47, 87–99.
Vion M., Colas A. (2006). Pitch cues for the recognition of yes-no questions in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 427–445.
Von Essen O. (1964). Grundzüge der hochdeutschen satzintonation. Ratingen, Germany: Hehn.
Weilhammer K., Rabold S. (2003). Durational aspects in turn taking. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 931–934) August 3–9.
Welby P. (2003a). Effects of pitch accent type and status on focus projection. Language and Speech, 46, 53–81.
Welby P. (2003b). The slaying of Lady Mondegreen, being a study of French tonal association and alignment and their role in speech segmentation. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Werth A. (2011). Perzeptionsphonologische grundlagen der prosodie. Eine analyse der mittelfränkischen tonakzentdistinktion. Stuttgart, Germany: Steiner.
Zellers M., Post B., D’Imperio M. (2009). Modelling the intonation of topic structure: Two approaches. Proceedings of 10th Interspeech Conference, Brighton, UK (pp. 2463–2466) September 6–10.
Cite
Cite
Cite
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: July 26, 2013
Issue published: March 2014
Keywords
PubMed: 24754223
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Publication usage*
Total views and downloads: 697
*Publication usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Publications citing this one
Receive email alerts when this publication is cited
Web of Science: 56 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 46
- Phonetic Cues to Question Intonation in Belfast English
- Advancements of phonetics in the 21st century: Intonation
- A multi-cue study to the interpretation of German information-seeking and rhetorical questions
- Handbook of Phonetics and Phonology of Modern Iranian Languages
- Prosodic cue use for identifying interrogative and declarative structures with wide and narrow focus in individuals with and without aphasia
- The time course of speech act recognition conveyed by speech prosody: a gating study
- Form-Meaning Relations in Russian Confirmative and Surprise Declarative Questions
- How Children With and Without Developmental Language Disorder Use Prosody and Gestures to Process Phrasal Ambiguities
- On the salience of prenuclear accents: evidence from an imitation study
- The prosody of theme, rheme and focus in Egyptian Arabic: A quantitative investigation of tunes, configurations and speaker variability
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
