Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T13:04:23.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hierarchical organisation and tonal scaling*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2015

Hubert Truckenbrodt  and
Caroline Féry
Hubert Truckenbrodt*
Affiliation:
Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin and Humboldt University, Berlin
Caroline Féry*
Affiliation:
Goethe University, Frankfurt
*
E-mail: hubert.truckenbrodt@gmail.com
E-mail: caroline.fery@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ladd (1988) investigates configurations A[BC] vs. [AB]C of three English clauses containing clause-internal downstep. A sister-node relation between clauses (but not a sequential relation) leads to downstep among clauses, such that C is systematically lower than B in A[BC] but not in [AB]C. These findings are replicated here with German data. In addition, the German phenomenon of upstep (Truckenbrodt 2007b) arguably targets the phonetic reference line that models lowering among clauses (van den Berg et al. 1992). We show that both Ladd's and our results also support Selkirk's (2011) suggestion that root sentences/illocutionary clauses can be interpreted as matched to intonational phrases (not just aligned with them, as in Downing 1970). The results also suggest that, in addition to downstep among intonational phrases, phrase-final lowering takes place.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 19 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank Bob Ladd and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments, and Kirsten Brock for proofreading and stylistic work on this article. All errors are of course our own. The research reported here was made possible by a guest professorship at the Centre of Cognitive Studies in Potsdam during the winter semester 2002–03 for the first author. This research was supported by the SFB 632 on Information Structure at the University of Potsdam for the second author, and by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant 01UG1411).

References

REFERENCES

Bartels, Christine (1999). The intonation of English statements and questions: a compositional interpretation. New York & London: Garland.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255–309.Google Scholar
Berg, Rob van den, Gussenhoven, Carlos & Rietveld, Toni (1992). Downstep in Dutch: implications for a model. In Docherty, Gerard J. & Ladd, D. Robert (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology II: gesture, segment, prosody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 335–359.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1977). Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce T. (1970). Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English. PhD dissertation, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline (2010). Syntax, information structure, embedded prosodic phrasing, and the relational scaling of pitch accents. In Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Rochman, Lisa (eds.) The sound patterns of syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 271–290.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline (2011). German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121. 1906–1922.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline (2015). Extraposition and prosodic monsters in German. In Frazier, Lyn & Gibson, Ted (eds.) Explicit and implicit prosody in sentence processing. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank (2008). Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. JPh 36. 680–703.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2005). Sisterhood and tonal scaling. Studia Linguistica 59. 223–243.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile & Keating, Patricia A. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. JASA 101. 3728–3740.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) (1995). The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther (1998). Comparative intonational phonology: English and German. PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine & Baumann, Stefan (2002). Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191. 267–298.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan & Benzmüller, Ralf (2005). German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Jun (2005). 55–83.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan & Jagdfeld, Nils (2009). Tonal association and derived nuclear accents: the case of downstepping contours in German. Lingua 119. 881–905.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (1983). Focus, mode and the nucleus. JL 19. 377–417.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (1992). Sentence accents and argument structure. In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Thematic structure: its role in grammar. Berlin & New York: Foris. 79–106.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2000). The lexical tone contrast of Roermond Dutch in Optimality Theory. In Horne, Merle (ed.) Prosody: theory and experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 129–167.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, Johan 't, Collier, René & Cohen, Antonie (1990). A perceptual study of intonation: an experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.) (2005). Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.) (2014). Prosodic typology II: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kabagema-Bilan, Elena, López-Jiménez, Beatriz & Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2011). Multiple focus in Mandarin Chinese. Lingua 121. 1890–1905.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah & Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Lg 87. 771–816.Google Scholar
Kent, R. D. & Netsell, R. (1971). Effects of stress contrasts on certain articulatory parameters. Phonetica 24. 23–44.Google Scholar
Kentner, Gerrit & Féry, Caroline (2013). A new approach to prosodic grouping. The Linguistic Review 30. 277–311.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1983b). Even, focus, and normal stress. Journal of Semantics 2. 157–170.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1986). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3. 311–340.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1988). Declination ‘reset’ and the hierarchical organization of utterances. JASA 84. 530–544.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1990). Metrical representation of pitch register. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 35–57.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1993). On the theoretical status of ‘the baseline’ in modelling intonation. Language and Speech 36. 435–451.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (2008). Intonational phonology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert & Schepman, Astrid (2003). ‘Sagging transitions’ between high pitch accents in English: experimental evidence. JPh 31. 81–112.Google Scholar
Laniran, Yetunde O. & Clements, G. N. (2003). Downstep and high raising: interacting factors in Yoruba tone production. JPh 31. 203–250.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard T. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 157–233.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Odden, David (1995). Tone: African languages. In Goldsmith (1995). 444–475.Google Scholar
Petrone, Caterina, Truckenbrodt, Hubert, Wellmann, Caroline, Holzgrefe, Julia, Wartenburger, Isabell & Höhle, Barbara (2014). On the production and perception of prosodic cues in bracketed lists. Ms, Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin, Laboratoire Parole et Langage, CNRS UMR 7309 & University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Beckman, Mary E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry & Pollack, Martha E. (eds.) Intentions in communication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 271–311.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar, Shih, Chilin & Nibert, Holly (1996). Pitch downtrend in Spanish. JPh 24. 445–473.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff, Mark & Kean, Mary-Louise (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 107–129.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995a). Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. In Goldsmith (1995). 550–569.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995b). The prosodic structure of function words. In Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 439–469.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2005). Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Frota, Sónia, Vigário, Marina & Freitas, Maria João (eds.) Prosodies: with special reference to Iberian languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 11–58.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2009). On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 35–73.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435–484.Google Scholar
Shih, Chilin (2000). A declination model of Mandarin Chinese. In Botinis, Antonis (ed.) Intonation: analysis, modelling and technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 243–268.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1995). Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. LI 30. 219–255.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2002). Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19. 77–120.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2004). Final lowering in non-final position. JPh 32. 313–348.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2005). A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203. 273–296.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2007a). The syntax–phonology interface. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 435–456.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2007b). Upstep on edge tones and on nuclear accents. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Riad, Tomas (eds.) Tones and tunes. Vol. 2: Experimental studies in word and sentence prosody. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 349–386.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2012). Semantics of intonation. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus & Portner, Paul (eds.) Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 2039–2069.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2015). Intonation phrases and speech acts. In Kluck, Marlies, Ott, Dennis & de Vries, Mark (eds.) Parenthesis and ellipsis: cross-linguistic and theoretical perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 301–349.Google Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne (1991). Fokusphonologie: eine Analyse deutscher Intonationskonturen in Rahmen der nicht-linearen Phonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar