Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
In previous studies comparing the intonation of questions and statements in German, greater f0 excursions of phrase-final rises have been associated with questions in both read speech and spontaneous speech. This holds for production studies as well as perception studies. However, a major question remains whether these differences are perceived categorically or continuously. Furthermore, we ask whether the differences in f0 scaling correspond to categorical linguistic functions or rather an attitudinal continuum. We conducted three different perception experiments: a classical categorical perception task, an imitation task, and a semantic evaluation task. The results suggest that f0 scaling in phrase-final rises is perceived as a phonetic continuum rather than in phonological categories. Furthermore, the gradual increase of the final rise is associated with a gradual increase in perceived questioning. Lastly, the phonetic cues to this degree of questioning are distinct from those to the other investigated meanings surprise and uncertainty. Accordingly, this study supports the assumption that questioning constitutes an attitudinal meaning in its own right.
Funding source: University of Oldenburg
-
Statement of ethics: Subjects have given their written informed consent to participate in this study and for the use of their data for research purposes. The study protocol has been approved by the University of Oldenburg’s ethics committee.
-
Disclosure statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
-
Funding sources: This study was funded by the chair of “pragmatics and sociolinguistics/Low German” of the University of Oldenburg.
-
Author contributions: There are no author contributions to declare.
References
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Benjamin Bolker & Steven Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 1(67). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003499.Search in Google Scholar
Batliner, Anton. 1989. Wieviel Halbtöne braucht die Frage? Merkmale, Dimensionen, Kategorien. In Hans Altmann, Anton Batliner & Wilhelm Oppenrieder (eds.), Zur Intonation von Modus und Fokus im Deutschen, 111–153. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111658384.111Search in Google Scholar
Bernstein, Joshua G. W. & Andrew J. Oxenham. 2006. The relationship between frequency selectivity and pitch discrimination: Sensorineural hearing loss. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120(6). 3929–3945. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2372452.Search in Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1966. Regeln für die Intonation deutscher Sätze. Studia Grammatica VII. 99–201.Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2013. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Available at: http://www.Fon.Hum.Uva.Nl/praat.Search in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1978. Intonation across languages. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language. Vol. II: Phonology, 471–524. Palo Alto (Kalifornien): Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Braun, Bettina, Greg Kochanski, Esther Grabe & Burton S. Rosner. 2006. Evidence for attractors in English intonation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(6). 4006–4015. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2195267.Search in Google Scholar
Brinkmann, Henning. 1962. Die deutsche Sprache. Gestalt und Leistung, 1st edn. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.Search in Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Aoju. 2005. Universal and language-specific perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning. Utrecht: LOT.Search in Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166973Search in Google Scholar
Cummins, Fred, Colin Doherty & Laura Dilley. 2006. Phrase-final pitch discrimination in English. In Proceedings of speech prosody 3, 467–470. Dresden: Speech Prosody 3.Search in Google Scholar
Dombrowski, Ernst & Oliver Niebuhr. 2005. Acoustic patterns and communicative functions of phrase-final f0 rises in German: Activating and restricting contours. Phonetica 62. 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1159/000090097.Search in Google Scholar
Dombrowski, Ernst & Oliver Niebuhr. 2010. Shaping phrase-final rising intonation in German. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on speech prosody. Chicago: Speech Prosody 5.Search in Google Scholar
Essen, Otto von. 1964. Grundzüge der hochdeutschen Satzintonation, 2nd edn. Ratingen: Henn.Search in Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1993. German intonational patters. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111677606Search in Google Scholar
Gilles, Peter. 2005. Regionale Prosodie im Deutschen – Variabilität in der Intonation von Abschluss und Weiterweisung. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110201611Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Martine & Stefan Baumann. 2002. Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191. 267–298.Search in Google Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203502013Search in Google Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2008. A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22. 101–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.06gun.Search in Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Toni Rietveld. 1997. Empirical evidence for the contrast between L* and H* in Dutch rising contours. In Antonis Botinis, Georgios Kouroupetroglou & George Caryannis (eds.), Proceedings of the ESCA tutorial and research workshop on intonation: Theory, models and applications, 169–172. Athen: ESCA & University of Athens.Search in Google Scholar
Haan, Judith. 2002. Speaking of questions: An exploration of Dutch question intonation, 1st edn. Utrecht: LOT.Search in Google Scholar
Hadding-Koch, Kerstin & Michael Studdert-Kennedy. 1964. An experimental study of some intonation contours. Phonetica 11. 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1159/000258338.Search in Google Scholar
Hermann, Eduard. 1942. Probleme der Frage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Search in Google Scholar
Isačenko, Alexander & Hans-Joachim Schädlich. 1966. Untersuchungen über die deutsche Satzintonation. Studie Grammatica VII. 7–68.Search in Google Scholar
Kingdon, Roger. 1958. The groundwork of English intonation. London: Longmans.Search in Google Scholar
Kohler, Klaus. 1991. Terminal intonation patterns in single-accent utterances of German: Phonetics, phonology and semantics. AIPUK 25. 115–185.Search in Google Scholar
Kohler, Klaus. 2004. Pragmatic and attitudinal meanings of pitch patterns in German syntactically marked questions. In Gunnar Fant, Hiroja Fujisaki, Jianfen Cao & Yi Xu (eds.), From traditional phonology to modern speech processing – In honour of Professor Wu Zongji’s 95th birthday, 205–2015. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kügler, Frank. 2003. Do we know the answer? – Variation in yes-no-question intonation. In Susann Fischer, Ralf Vogel & Ruben F. H. E. van de Vijver (eds.), Experimental studies in linguistics, 9–29. Potsdam: Potsdam Universitätsverlag.Search in Google Scholar
Kügler, Frank. 2004. Dialectal variation in question intonation in two German dialects: The case of Swabian and Upper Saxon. In Proceedings of the international conference on language variation in Europe 2, 227–240. Uppsala: International Conference on Language Variation in Europe 2.Search in Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, Walter. 1931. Die Tonhöhenbewegung des Aussagesatzes. Freiburg: The University of Freiburg Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen. 2016. lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R Package Version 2.0-30. Available at: https://CRAN.R-Project.Org/package=lmerTest.Search in Google Scholar
Ladd, Dwight R. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808814Search in Google Scholar
Ladd, Dwight R. & Rachel Morton. 1997. The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics 25. 313–342. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1997.0046.Search in Google Scholar
Lenth, Russel V. 2018. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R Package Version 1.3.0. Available at: https://CRAN.R-Project.Org/package=emmeans.Search in Google Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M., Katherine S. Harris, Howard S. Hoffman & Belver C. Griffith. 1957. The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54. 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044417.Search in Google Scholar
Looze, Céline de & Daniel Hirst. 2014. The OMe (Octave-Median) scale: A natural scale for speech melody. In Proceedings of speech prosody 7, Dublin, Ireland.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2014-171Search in Google Scholar
Michalsky, Jan. 2014. Scaling of final rises in German questions and statements. In Proceedings of speech prosody 7, Dublin: Speech Prosody 7. 978–982.Search in Google Scholar
Michalsky, Jan. 2015. Phonetic effects of speaking style on final rises in German questions and statements. In Proceedings of the ICPhS 18. Glasgow: ICPhS 18.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2014-185Search in Google Scholar
Michalsky, Jan. 2016. Perception of pitch scaling in rising intonation. On the relevance of f0 median and speaking rate in German. In Proceedings of P&P 12. Munich: P&P 12.Search in Google Scholar
Michalsky, Jan. 2017. Frageintonation im Deutschen. Zur intonatorischen Markierung von Interrogativität und Fragehaltigkeit. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110538564Search in Google Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver, Henning Reetz, Jonathan Barnes & Alan Yu. 2020. Fundamental aspects in the perception of f0. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Aoju Chen (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody, 1–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198832232.013.3Search in Google Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver, Julia Bergherr, Susanne Huth, Cassandra Lill & Jessica Neuschulz. 2010. Intonationsfragen hinterfragt – die Vielschichtigkeit der prosodischen Unterschiede zwischen Aussage- und Fragesätzen mit deklarativer Syntax. Zeitschrift Für Dialektologie Und Linguistik 77. 304–346. https://doi.org/10.25162/zdl-2010-0010.Search in Google Scholar
Nilsenova, Marie. 2006. Rises and falls. Studies in the semantics and pragmatics of intonation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis. 2003. Intonational equivalence: An experimental evaluation of pitch scales. In Proceedings of the 15th international congress of phonetic sciences, 771–774. Barcelona: ICPhS 15.Search in Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1983. Cross-language use of pitch. An ethological view. Phon 40. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261678.Search in Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1984. Am ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of f0 in voice. Phon 41. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261706.Search in Google Scholar
Peters, Jörg. 2006. Intonation deutscher Regionalsprachen. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110201871Search in Google Scholar
Peters, Jörg. 2014. Intonation. Heidelberg: Winter.Search in Google Scholar
Peters, Jörg. 2018. Phonological and semantic aspects of German intonation. Linguistik Online 88. 85–107. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.88.4191.Search in Google Scholar
Petrone, Caterina & Oliver Niebuhr. 2014. On the intonation of German intonation questions: The role of the prenuclear region. Language Speech 57(1). 105–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830913495651.Search in Google Scholar
Pheby, John. 1975. Intonation und Grammatik im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Julia B. Hirschberg. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry L. Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271–311. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Shirley Steele. 1989. Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica 46(4). 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261842.Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-Project.Org.Search in Google Scholar
Reese, Brian J. 2007. Bias in questions. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Remijsen, Bert & Vincent J. van Heuven. 1999. Gradient and categorical pitch dimensions in Dutch: Diagnostic test. In Proceedings of ICPhS 14, 1865–1868. Berkley: ICPhS 14.Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, Katrin & Britta Lintfert. 2003. Categorical perception of boundary tones in German. In Proceedings of ICPhS 15, 631–534. Barcelona: ICPhS 15.Search in Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1995. Prosodie im Gespräch. Aspekte einer interaktionalen Phonologie der Konversation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110934717Search in Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, Michael & Kerstin Hadding-Koch. 1973. Auditory and linguistic processes in the perception of intonation contours. Language and Speech 16. 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097301600401.Search in Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1969. Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. Working Papers in Language Universals 1. 41–53.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
