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
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
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
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 9 - 190Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
TPTL: The Linguistics of Dutch, Frisian and Afrikaans Online (Taalportaal.org).
Alber, B. 2001. “Regional variation and edges: Glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in standard and Southern varieties of German,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20: 3–41.Google Scholar
Alderete, J. D. and Frisch, S. A. 2007. “Dissimilation in grammar and the lexicon.” In de Lacy, P. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press: 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, N. 2007. A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Palatalization. Ph.D. dissertation: University of California San Diego.Google Scholar
Christen, H. 2001. “Ein Dialektmarker auf Erfolgskurs: Die /L/-Vokalisierung in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 68.1: 16–26.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1987. Phonological feature representation and the description of intrusive stops. Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society 29–50.Google Scholar
Combrick, J. G. H. and de Stadler, L. G. 1987. Afrikaanse Fonologie. Johannesburg: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Lacy, P. 2006. Markedness. Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. 1989. Syllable Structure and Lexical Derivation in German. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.Google Scholar
Glover, J. 2011. “G-spirantization and lateral ambivalence in Northern German dialects,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23: 183–193.Google Scholar
Glover, J. 2014. Liquid Vocalization and Underspecification in German Dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington.Google Scholar
Haas, W. 1983. “Vokalisierung in den deutschen Dialekten.” In Besch, W. et al. (eds.), Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, Vol. II. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 1111–1116.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 2009. “Liquid dissimilation in Bavarian German,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21.1: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. A. 2010. “On the status of [h]~[x] alternations in German dialects: The case for buccalization.” In Fuchs, S., Hoole, P, Mooshammer, C., and Zygis, M. (eds.), Between the Regular and the Particular in Speech and Language. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag: 29–56.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 2013. “How common is r-epenthesis?,” Folia Linguistica 47.1: 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, S. 2003. The Phonetics and Phonology of Retroflexes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Holsinger, D. 2000. Lenition in Germanic: Prosodic templates in sound change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Holthausen, F. 1886. Die Soester Mundart. Norden und Leipzig: Diedrich Soltau’s Verlag.Google Scholar
Hommer, E. 1910. Studien zur Dialektgeographie des Westerwaldes. Marburg: R. Friedrich’s Universitäts-Buchdruckerei.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kahn, D. 1976. Syllable-Based Generalizations in English Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1984. “On the lexical phonology of Icelandic.” In Elert, C. et al. (eds.), Nordic Prosody, Vol III. Stockholm: Almkvist and Wiksell: 135–164.Google Scholar
Lavoie, L. 2001. Consonant Strength. Phonological Patterns and Phonetic Manifestations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Mangold, M. 2005. Duden Aussprachewörterbuch: Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache. Duden, Band 6 5. Auflage.Google Scholar
Noelliste, E. 2017. The Phonology of Sonorants in Bavarian German. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Noske, R. 1993. A Theory of Syllabification and Segmental Alternation. With Studies on the Phonology of French, German, Tonkawa and Yawelmani. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van 2000. Phonological Projection. A Theory of Content and Prosodic Structure. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. and Prunet, J.-F. (eds.) 1991. The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, O. 2001. Whose German? The ach / ich Alternation and Related Phenomena in “Standard” and “Colloquial”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schirmunski, V. M. 1962. Deutsche Mundartkunde. Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. E. 1974. A Generative Phonology of Faroese Utilizing Unordered Rules. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Trommelen, M. 1984. The Syllable in Dutch: With Special Reference to Diminutive Formation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Trommelen, M. 1989. Lettergreepstructuur en woordcategorie. De Nieuwe Tallgids 82, 64–77.Google Scholar
Tyroller, H. 2003. Grammatische Beschreibung des Zimbrischen von Lusern. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Uffmann, C. 2007. “Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants,” Language Sciences 29: 451–476.Google Scholar
Visser, W. 1997. The Syllable in Frisian. Amsterdam Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 2009. “The grammar and typology of plural noun inflection in varieties of German,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 137–173.Google Scholar
Wipf, E. 1910. Die Mundart von Visperterminen im Wallis. Frauenfeld: Verlag von Huber and Co.Google Scholar
Online Reference
TPTL: The Linguistics of Dutch, Frisian and Afrikaans Online (Taalportaal.org).
References
Alber, B. and Meneguzzo, M., 2016. “Germanic and Romance onset clusters – how to account for microvariation.” In Bidese, E., Cognola, F., and Moroni, M. C. (eds.), Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 25–52.Google Scholar
Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Besten, H. 2012. “Speculations of [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [ʋ] in Afrikaans.” In van der Wouden, T. (ed.), Roots of Afrikaans: Selected Writings of Hans Den Besten. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 79–93.Google Scholar
Conradie, C. 1981. Die ontwikkeling van die Afrikaanse voltooide deelwoord I: 1652–1875. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 21: 275–284.Google Scholar
Conradie, C. 1982. Die ontwikkeling van die Afrikaanse voltooide deelwoord I: 1875–1978. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 22: 97–109.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. Mehler, J., and Norris, D. 1983. “A Language-Specific Comprehension Strategy,” Nature 304.5922: 159–160.Google Scholar
Fabricius, A. 2002. “Ongoing change in modern RP: Evidence for the disappearing stigma of t-glottaling,” English World-Wide 23.1: 115–136.Google Scholar
Fuchs, S., Brunner, J., and Busler, A. 2007. “Temporal and spatial aspects concerning the realizations of the voicing contrast in German alveolar and postalveolar fricatives.” Advances in Speech–Language Pathology 9.1: 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, H. 2011. “sC Clusters.” In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1123–1142.Google Scholar
Goeman, T. 1999. T-deletie in Nederlandse dialecten. Kwantitatieve analyse van structurele, ruimtelijke en temporele variatie. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Guy, G. 1980. “Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion.” In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press: 1–36.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. 1991a. “Explanation in variable phonology: an exponential model of morphological constraints,” Language Variation and Change 3:1–22.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. 1991b. “Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology,” Language Variation and Change 3: 223–239.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 1999. The Phonology of English. A Prosodic Optimality-Theoretic Account. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 1992. Syllable Structure and Syllable Related Processes in German. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, S. 2003. “German glide formation functionally viewed,” ZAS Papers in Linguistics 32: 137–154.Google Scholar
Herzog, M., Kiefer, U., Neumann, R., Putschke, W., Sunshine, A., Baviskar, V., and Weinreich, U. 1992. The Language and Culture Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry, Vol. I. Historical and Theoretical Foundations. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag and YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F. 1992. Dialect Leveling in Limburg: Structural and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F. 2009. “Zuid-Afrika en het Afrikaans. Inleidende notities over geschiedenis, taal en letterkunde.” In den Besten, H., Hinskens, F. L. M. P., and Koch, J. (eds.), Afrikaans. Een drieluik. Amsterdam and Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek/ Nodus Publikationen: 9–33.Google Scholar
Issatschenko, A. 1974. “Das ‘schwa mobile’ und ‘schwa constans’ im Deutschen.” In Engel, U. and Grebe, P. (eds.), Sprachsystem und Sprachgebrauch. Festschrift für Hugo Moser zum 65. Geburtstag. Düsseldorf: Schwann: 141–171.Google Scholar
Kager, R. and Shatzman, K. 2007. “Phonological constraints in speech processing.” In Los, B. and van Koppen, M. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 100–111.Google Scholar
Keydana, G. 2011. “Evidence for non-linear phonological structure in Indo-European: The case of fricative clusters.” In Whitehead, B. N., Olander, T., Olsen, B. A., and Rasmussen, J. E. (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European –Selected Papers from the Conference Held in Copenhagen, April 16–19, 2009, Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 4. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum: 223–241.Google Scholar
Kooij, J. and van Oostendorp, M. 2004. Fonologie. Uitnodiging tot de klankleer van het Nederlands. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Kraehenmann, A. 2001. “Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the word,” Phonology 18.1: 109–145.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1969. “Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula,” Language 45:715–762.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 2002. “South African English.” In Mesthrie, R. (ed.), Language in South Africa. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, R. M. and Vennemann, T. 1982. “Syllable contact change in Germanic, Greek and Sidamo.” Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 8: 321–349.Google Scholar
Noske, R. 1992. A Theory of Syllabification and Segmental Alternation. Ph.D. Thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van 2003. “Ambisyllabicity and fricative voicing in West-Germanic dialects.” In Féry, C. and van de Vijver, R. (eds), The Syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press: 304–337.Google Scholar
Parker, S. 2011. “Sonority.” In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. London: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
Rácz, P. 2010. “On the phonotactic judgments of Czech native speakers.” In The Odd Yearbook 8: 79–86.Google Scholar
Rice, C. 2002. “When nothing is good enough: Dialectal variation in Norwegian imperatives,” Nordlyd 31/2: 372–384.Google Scholar
Szigetvári, P. 2016. “The curious case of Cj clusters in English.” In The Even Yearbook 12. Dept. of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. http://seas3.elte.hu/even/2016/16sz.pdf.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, T. 1968. “Initial and final consonant combinations in Danish monosyllables,” Studia Linguistica 21: 37–66.Google Scholar
References
Booij, G. 1998. “Phonological output constraints in morphology.” In Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R.: (eds.), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 143–163.Google Scholar
Broselow, E. 1995. “Skeletal positions and moras.” In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell:175–205.Google Scholar
Côté, M-H. 2000. Consonant Cluster Phonotactics: A Perceptual Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Côté, M.-H. 2004. “Consonant cluster simplification in Québec French,” Probus 16: 151–201.Google Scholar
Freiling, P. 1929. Studien zur Dialektgeographie des hessischen Odenwaldes. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (ed.) 1995. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holsinger, D. 2000. Lenition in Germanic: Prosodic Templates in Sound Change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Holsinger, D. 2001. “Weak position constraints: The role of prosodic templates in contrast distribution,” Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Papers in Linguistics 19: 91–118.Google Scholar
Holsinger, D. and Houseman, P. 1998. “Lenition in Hessian: The case of subtractive plurals.” Yearbook of Morphology 1998. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 159–174.Google Scholar
Hommer, E. 1910. Studien zur Dialektgeographie des Westerwaldes. Dissertation, Philosophische Fakultät der Universität Marburg. Marburg: R. Friedrich’s Universitätsbuchdruckerei.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. 1976. Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der 1999. “Word accent.” In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 3–115.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der (ed.) 1999. Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der and Kooij, J. 1998. “Prosodic choices and the Dutch nominal plural.” In Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 187–197.Google Scholar
Itô, J. 1986. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1995. “The metrical theory of word stress.” In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell: 367–402.Google Scholar
Kauschke, C., Renner, L., and Domahs, U. 2013. “Prosodic constraints on inflected words: An area of difficulty for German-speaking children with specific language impairment?” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 27: 574–593.Google Scholar
Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.) 1998. Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kock, A.1904. “Vocalbalance im Altfriesischen,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 29: 175–193.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 1990. “East Norwegian prosody and the level stress problem.” Unpublished ms., University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Kürsten, O. and Bremer, O. 1910. Lautlehre der Mundart von Buttelstedt bei Weimar. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Kusmenko, J. 2007. “The origin of vowel balance in Swedish and Norwegian dialects.” In Bull, T., Kusmenko, J., and Rießler, M. (eds.), Språk og språkforhold i Sápmi. Berlin: Nordeuropa-Institut der Humbolt-Universität 235–258.Google Scholar
Kusmenko, J. and Riessler, M. 2000. “Traces of Sámi-Scandinavian contact in Scandinavian dialects.” In Gilbers, D. G., Nerbonne, J, and Schaeken, J. (eds.), Languages in Contact. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi: 209–224.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., Riad, T., and Jacobs, H. 1999. “Diachronic prosody.” In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 335–422.Google Scholar
Lavoie, L. 2001. Consonant Strength: Phonological Patterns and Phonetic Manifestations. New York: Garland Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, M. 1975. The Intonational System of English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Published in 1979 by Garland Press, New York.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. and Prince, A. 1977. “On stress and linguistic rhythm,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar
Löhken, S.1997. Deutsche Wortprosodie: Abschwächungs- und Tilgungsvorgänge. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. 1995. “Prosodic morphology.” In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell: 318–366.Google Scholar
Murray, R. and Vennemann, T. 1983. “Sound change and syllabic structure in Germanic phonology,” Language 59: 514–528.Google Scholar
Perridon, H. 2002. “The quantity shift in North Germanic,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 56: 69–77.Google Scholar
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. 1993. “Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.” Unpublished ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Raymond, W., Dautricourt, R. and Hume, E. 2006. “Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors,” Language Variation and Change 18: 55–97.Google Scholar
Riad, T. 1992. Structures in Germanic Prosody: A Diachronic Study with Special Reference to the Nordic Languages. Dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Russ, C. (ed.) 1989. The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic Survey. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, L. C. 2007. “Old Frisian vowel balance and its relationship to West Germanic apocope and syncope.” In Bremmer, R., Laker, S., and Vries, O. (eds.), Advances in Old Frisian Philology, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik, Vol. 64 / Estrikken-Ålstråke, Vol. 81. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi: 379–410.Google Scholar
Smith, L. C. 2007. “The resilience of prosodic templates in the history of West Germanic.” In Salmons, J. and Dubenion-Smith, S. (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected Papers from the 17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Madison, July 31–August 5, 2005. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 351–365.Google Scholar
Smith, L. C. 2009. “Dialect variation and the Dutch diminutive: Loss, maintenance and extension of prosodic templates.” In Dufresne, M., Dupuis, F., and Vocaj, E. (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 37–46.Google Scholar
Smith, L. C., Champenois, C., C., and Schuhmann, K. 2016. “The role of prosody in shaping German plurals.” Paper presented at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference (GLAC) 2016, Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Smith, L. C., Holsinger, D., and Salmons, J. 2005. “The limits of perceptual distinctness: Evidence from West Germanic.” Paper presented at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference (GLAC) 2005, University of California–Davis.Google Scholar
Smith, N. and van Leyden, K. 2007. “The unusual outcome of a level-stress situation: In the case of Wursten Frisian.” The North-western European Language Evolution 52: 31–66.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure and the Explanation of Sound Change: With Special Reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and Latin. Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Versloot, A. 2008. Mechanisms of Language Change: Vowel Reduction in 15th Century West Frisian. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 2001. “How prosody shapes German words and morphemes,” Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 6: 155–184.Google Scholar
References
Alber, B. 1997a. Il sistema metrico dei prestiti del tedesco. Aspetti e problemi della teoria prosodica. Ph.D. thesis, University of Padova.Google Scholar
Alber, B. 1997b. “Quantity sensitivity as the result of constraint interaction.” In Booij, G. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Phonology in Progress – Progress in Phonology, HIL Phonology Papers III. Holland Academic Graphics: The Hague: 1–45.Google Scholar
Alber, B. 1998. “Stress preservation in German loan words.” In Kehrein and Wiese (eds.): 113–114.Google Scholar
Alber, B. 2001. “Maximizing first positions.” In Féry, C., Green, A. D., and van de Vijver, R. (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5, University of Potsdam: 1–19.Google Scholar
Alber, B. 2005. “Clash, lapse and directionality,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 485–542.Google Scholar
Alber, B., DelBusso, N., and Prince, A. 2016. “From intensional properties to universal support,” Language 92.2: e88–e116.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper and Row: New York.Google Scholar
Deaton, K., Noske, M., and Ziolkowski, M. (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Domahs, U., Plag, I., and Carroll, R. 2014. “Word stress assignment in German, English and Dutch: Quantity-sensitivity and extrametricality revisited,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 59–96.Google Scholar
Domahs, U., Wiese, R., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and Schlesewsky, M. 2008. “The processing of German word stress: Evidence for the prosodic hierarchy,” Phonology 25: 1–36.Google Scholar
Dresher, E. 2013. “The influence of loanwords on Norwegian and English stress,” Nordlyd 40.1: 55–43.Google Scholar
Duden Aussprachewörterbuch 2005. 6. Auflage. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, and Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. 1991. “Syllabische Struktur und Wortakzent: Prinzipien der Prosodik deutscher Wörter,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10: 37–64.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 1995. “Alignment, syllable and metrical structure in German,” SfS-Report-02–95, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 1998. “German word stress in Optimality Theory,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 101–142.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L. 1998. “Stress and loan words in German,” Rivista di Linguistica 10.2: 355–392.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. 1985. Metrical Phonology and Phonological Structure: German and English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Golston, C. and Wiese, R. 1998. “The structure of the German root.” In Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 165–187.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 2002. “A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 491–552.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 1984. Constraining Metrical Theory: A Modular Theory of Rhythm and Destressing. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 1999. The Phonology of English: A Prosodic Optimality-Theoretic Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1981. A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der (ed.) 1999. Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der, Goedemans, J-R., and van Zanten, E. (eds.) 2010. A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in the Languages of the World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hyde, B. 2001. Metrical and Prosodic Structure in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University. ROA-476.Google Scholar
Hyde, B. 2012. “Alignment constraints,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 1–48.Google Scholar
Hyde, B. 2016. Layering and Directionality: Metrical Stress in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Itô, J. and Mester, A. 2015. “The perfect prosodic word in Danish,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38.1: 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janßen [Domahs], U. 2003. Untersuchungen zum Wortakzent im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Doctoral dissertation. University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Janßen [Domahs], U. and Domahs, F. 2008. “Going on with optimised feet: Evidence for the interaction between segmental and metrical structure in phonological encoding from a case of primary progressive aphasia,” Aphasiology 22.11: 1157–1175.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1993. “Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 381–432.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 2007. “Feet and metrical stress.” In de Lacy, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press: 195–227.Google Scholar
Kaltenbacher, E. 1994. “Typologische Aspekte des Wortakzents: Zum Zusammenhang von Akzentposition und Silbengewicht im Arabischen und Deutschen,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13: 20–55.Google Scholar
Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.) 1998. Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kleiner, S. 2011–2017. Atlas zur Aussprache des deutschen Gebrauchsstandards (AADG). Unter Mitarbeit von Ralf Knöbl. http://prowiki.ids-mannheim.de/bin/view/AADG/.Google Scholar
Knaus, J. Wiese, R., and Domahs, U. 2011. “Secondary stress is distributed rhythmically within words: an EEG study on German.” In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences 2011. Hong Kong: 1114–1117.Google Scholar
Knaus, J. and Domahs, U. 2009. “Experimental evidence for optimal and minimal metrical structure of German word prosody.” Lingua 119.10: 1396–1413.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., Riad, T., and Jacobs, H. 1999. “Diachronic prosody.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 335–422.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. and Prince, A. 1977. “On stress and linguistic rhythm,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. 1993. “Generalized alignment,” Yearbook of Morphology 1993: 79–153.Google Scholar
McManus, H. 2006. Stress Parallels in Modern OT. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Pater, J. 2000. “Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints,” Phonology 17: 237–274.Google Scholar
Prince, A. 1990. “Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization.” In Deaton, K., Noske, M., and Ziolkowski, M. (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society: 355–398.Google Scholar
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. 2004 [1993]. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rice, C. 2006. “Norwegian stress and quantity: The implications of loanwords,” Lingua 116: 1171–1194.Google Scholar
Speyer, A. 2009. “On the change of word stress in the history of German,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 131.3: 413–441.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1990. “Syllable structure and simplex accent in Modern Standard German.” In Deaton, K., Noske, M., and Ziolkowski, M. (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society: 399–412.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1980. “Der deutsche Wortakzent: Fakten – Regeln – Prinzipien. Ein Beitrag zu einer natürlichen Akzenttheorie,” Zeitschrift für Germanistik 3: 299–318.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, W. 1999. “Word stress in West-Germanic and North-Germanic Languages: Introduction.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 476–478.Google Scholar
References
Auer, P. and Murray, R. W. 2004. “Bavarian isochrony without mora-counting,” Paper presented at Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference 10. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Bannert, R. 1976. Mittelbairsiche Phonologie auf akustischer und perzeptorischer Grundlage. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Bannert, R. 1977. “Quantität im Mittelbairischen: Komplementäre Länge von Vokal und Konsonant.” In Dressler, W. U. and Pfeffer, O. E. (eds.), Phonologica 1976: Akten der dritten Internationalen Phonologie-Tagung, Wien, 1–4. September 1976. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck: 261–270.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. and Wagner, J. 1985. Kontrastive Phonologie des Deutschen und Dänischen: Segmentale Wortphonologie und -phonetik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Becker, T. 1998. Das Vokalsystem der deutschen Standardsprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Davis, S. 2011. “Quantity.” In Goldsmith, J, Riggle, J., and Yu, A. C. L. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell:103–140.Google Scholar
Dieth, E. 1950. Vademekum der Phonetik. Phonetische Grundlagen für das wissenschaftliche und praktsiche Studium der Sprachen Unter Mitwirkung von Rudolf Brunner. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E. and Lahiri, A. 1991. “The Germanic Foot: Metrical Coherence in Old English,” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 251–286.Google Scholar
Duden 1990. Duden Aussprachewörterbuch: Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache, 3. edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fleischer, J. and Schmid, S. 2006. “Zurich German,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36: 243–253.Google Scholar
Fulop, S. 1994. Acoustic correlates of the fortis/lenis contrast in Swiss German plosives. Calgary Working Paper in Linguistics 16: 55–63.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2000. “Vowel duration, syllable quantity and stress in Dutch,” ROA-381.Google Scholar
Halle, M. 1977. “Tenseness, vowel shift, and the phonology of back vowels in Modern English,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 611–626.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1989. “Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253–306.Google Scholar
Heusler, A. 1888. Der alemannische Konsonantismus in der Mundart von Basel-stadt. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Hinderling, R. 1980. “Lenis und Fortis im Bairischen,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 47: 23–51.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2008. “Fenno-Swedish quantity: Contrast in Stratal OT.” In Vaux, B. and Nevins, A (eds.), Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena. Oxford University Press: 185–219.Google Scholar
Kleber, F. 2017. “Complementary length in vowel-consonant sequences: Acoustic and perceptual evidence for a sound change in progress in Bavarian German,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association: 1–22. doi:10.1017/S0025100317000238.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. 1990. “German,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 20. 1: 48–50.Google Scholar
Kraehenmann, A. 2001. “Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the word,” Phonology 18: 109–145.Google Scholar
Krech, E.-M., Kurka, E. and Stelzig, H. 1982. Großes Wörterbuch der deutschen Aussprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2011. “Quantity in Old Norse and modern peninsular North Germanic,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14: 47–80.Google Scholar
Kufner, H. L. 1957. “Zur Phonologie einer mittelbairischen Mundart,” Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 25: 175–184.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. and Koreman, J. 1988. “Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch,” Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7: 217–228.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. and Kraehenmann, A. 2004. “On maintaining and extending contrasts: Notker’s Anlautgesetz,” Transactions of the Philological Society 102: 1–55.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., Riad, T., and Jacobs, H. 1999. “Diachronic prosody.” In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 335–442.Google Scholar
Levander, L. 1925. Dalmålet: Beskrivning och historia, Volume I. Uppsala: Appelbergs boktryckeri.Google Scholar
Mees, I. and Collins, B. 1983. “A phonetic description of Standard Dutch,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 13: 64–75.Google Scholar
Moulton, W. G. 1986. “Sandhi in Swiss German dialects.” In Andersen, H. (ed.), Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 385–392.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. 1972. Production and Perception of Vowel Duration: A Study of Durational Properties of Vowels in Dutch. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Odden, D. 2011. “The representation of vowel length.” In van Oostendoorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Blackwell Reference Online, www.companiontophonology.com.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van 1995. Vowel Quality and Phonological Projection. Tilburg University dissertation.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van 2000. Phonological Projection: A Theory of Feature Content and Prosodic Structure. Studies in Generative Grammar 47. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Page, B. R. 2006. “The diachrony and synchrony of vowel quantity in English and Dutch,” Diachronica 23: 61–104.Google Scholar
Penzl, H. 1955. “Zur Erklärung von Notkers Anlautgesetz 2. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 86: 196–210.Google Scholar
Pfalz, A. 1911. “Phonetische Beobachtungen an der Mundart des Marchfeldes in Nieder-Österreich,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten.Google Scholar
Pfalz, A. 1913. Die Mundart des Marchfeldes. Vienna: Hölder. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Vol. 170, 6th Abhandlung.Google Scholar
Reis, M. 1974. Lauttheorie und Lautgeschichte. Untersuchungen am Beispiel der Dehnungs- und Kürzungsvorgänge im Deutschen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Riad, T. 1992. Structures in Germanic Prosody: A Diachronic Study with Special Reference to the Nordic Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Riad, T. 1995. “The quantity shift in Germanic: A typology,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 42: 159–184.Google Scholar
Rowley, A. A. 1989. “North Bavarian.” In Russ, C. V. J. (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic Survey. London: Routledge: 417–437.Google Scholar
Sanders, W. 1972. “Hochdeutsch /ä/ — ‘Ghostphonem’ oder Sprachphänomen?,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 93: 37–58.Google Scholar
Schaeffler, F. 2005. Phonological Quantity in Swedish Dialects: Typological Aspects, Phonetic Variation and Diachronic Change. Ph.D. dissertation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
Scheutz, H. 1985. Strukturen der Lautveränderung: Variationslinguistische Studien zur Theorie und Empirie sprachlicher Wandlungsprozesse am Beispiel des Mittelbairischen von Ulrichsberg/Oberösterreich. Schriften zur deutschen Sprache in Österreich 10. Vienna: Wilhelm Braunmüller.Google Scholar
Seiler, G. 2005. “On the development of the Bavarian quantity system,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Germanic Linguistic and Semiotic Analysis 10: 102–129.Google Scholar
Seiler, G. 2009. “Sound change or analogy? Monosyllabic lengthening in German and some of its consequences,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 229–272.Google Scholar
Siebs, T. 1969. “Siebs. Deutsche Aussprache: Reine und gemäßigte Hochlautung mit Aussprachewörterbuch.” In de Boor, H., Moser, H, and Winkler, C. (eds.), 19. edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sievers, E. 1876. Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Spiekermann, H. 2000. Silbenschnitt in deutschen Dialekten. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Spiekermann, H. 2002. “Ein akustisches Korrelat des Silbenschnitts: Formen des Intensitätsverlauf in Silbenschnitt- und Tonakzentsprachen.” In Auer, P., Gilles, P., and Spiekermann, H. (eds.), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente, Linguistische Arbeiten 463. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 181–200.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S.1995. “The decline of the foot as a supersyllabic mora-counting unit in Early Germanic,” Transactions of the Philological Society 93: 227–272.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague: Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 7.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 2000. “From quantity to syllable cut: On so-called lengthening in the Germanic languages,” Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica 12: 251–282.Google Scholar
Wängler, H-H. 1974. Grundriß einer Phonetik des Deutschen: Mit einer allgemeinen Einführung in die Phonetik. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, P. 1990. “The central and southern Bavarian dialects in Bavaria and Austria.” In Russ, C. V. J. (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German. London: Routledge: 438–519.Google Scholar
Willi, U. 1995. “‘Lenis’ und ‘fortis’ im Zürichdeutschen aus phonetischer Sicht.” In Löffler, H. (ed.), Alemannische Dialektforschung. Bilanz und Perspektiven. Tübingen and Basel: Francke: 253–265.Google Scholar
Willi, U. 1996. Die segmentale Dauer als phonetischer Parameter von ‘fortis’ und ‘lenis’ bei Plosiven im Zürichdeutschen. Eine akustische und perzeptorische Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Winteler, J. 1876. Die Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundzügen dargestellt. Leipzig: Winter.Google Scholar
References
Allen, B.C. 2016. Laryngeal Phonetics and Phonology in Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Avery, P. and Idsardi, W. J 2001. “Laryngeal dimensions, completion and enhancement.” In Hall, T. A. (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 41–70.Google Scholar
Beckman, J., Helgason, P., McMurray, B., and Ringen, C. 2011. “Rate effects on Swedish VOT: Evidence for phonological overspecification,” Journal of Phonetics 39:39–49.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. 2006. “A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology,” Theoretical Linguistics 32: 117–165.Google Scholar
Brown, J. 2016. “Laryngeal assimilation, markedness and typology,” Phonology 33: 393–423.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., Ebeling, C. L., Eringa, P., Fokkema, K., and van Holk, A. G. F. 1959. Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries: Inleiding tot de modern klankleer. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Cyran, E. 2011. “Laryngeal realism and laryngeal relativism: Two voicing systems in Polish?,” Studies in Polish Linguistics 6: 45–80.Google Scholar
Docherty, G. J. 2011. The Timing of Voicing in British English Obstruents. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E. 2009. The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E. and Zhang, Xi 2005. “Contrast and phonological activity in Manchu vowel systems,” The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 50.1: 45–82.Google Scholar
Fourakis, M. and Iverson, G. K 1984. “On the ‘incomplete neutralization’ of German final obstruents,” Phonetica 41: 140–149.Google Scholar
Hall, D. C. 2011. “Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion,” Phonology 28: 1–54.Google Scholar
Hansson, G. Ó. 2003. “Laryngeal licensing and laryngeal neutralization in Faroese and Icelandic,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 45–79.Google Scholar
Harris, J. 2009. “Why final obstruent devoicing is weakening.” In Nasukawa, K. and Backley, P (eds.), Strength Relations in Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 9–46.Google Scholar
Helgason, P. and Ringen, C. 2008. “Voicing and aspiration in Swedish stops,” Journal of Phonetics 36: 607–628.Google Scholar
Henton, C., Ladefoged, P., and Maddieson, I. 1992. “Stops in the world’s languages,” Phonetica 49: 65–101.Google Scholar
Hestvik, A. and Durvasula, K. 2016. “Neurobiological evidence for voicing underspecification in English,” Brain and Language 152: 28–43.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. F. 2001. “An outline history of West Frisian.” In Munske, H. H. and Århammer, N. (eds.), Handbuch des Friesischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 722–734.Google Scholar
Holsinger, D. J. 2008. “Germanic prosody and consonantal strength.” In de Carvalho, J. Brandão, Scheer, T., and Ségéral, P. (eds.), Lenition and Fortition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 273–300.Google Scholar
Honeybone, P. 2002. Germanic Obstruent Lenition: Some Mutual Implications of Theoretical and Historical Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Honeybone, P. 2005. “Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: The case of obstruent laryngeal specifications.” In van Oostendorp, M. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), The Internal organization of Phonological Segments, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 319–354.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 1995. “Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic,” Phonology 12: 369–396.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 1999. “Glottal spreading bias in Germanic,” Linguistische Berichte 178: 135–151.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2003a. “Legacy specification in the laryngeal phonology of Dutch,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 1–26.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2003b. “Laryngeal enhancement in Early Germanic,” Phonology 20: 43–72.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2007. “Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition,” Phonology 24: 1–25.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2008. “Germanic aspiration: Phonetic enhancement and language contact,” Sprachwissenschaft 33: 257–278.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2011. “Final devoicing and final laryngeal neutralization.” In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C., Hume, B., and Rice, K. (eds.), Companion to Phonology, Vol. III. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Blackwell Reference Online. May 31, 2012: 1622–1643.Google Scholar
Jacewicz, E., Fox, R. A., and Lyle, S. 2009. “Variation in stop consonant voicing in two regional varieties of American English,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 39: 313–334.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1949. “On the identification of phonemic entities.” In Selected Writings I: Phonological Studies.The Hague: Nijhoff: 418–425.Google Scholar
Jessen, M. 1998. Phonetics and Phonology of Tense and Lax Obstruents in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. and Stevens, K. N. 2006. “Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain,” Language 82: 33–63.Google Scholar
Kharlamov, V. 2014. “Incomplete neutralization of the voicing contrast in word-final obstruents in Russian: Phonological, lexical, and methodological influences,” Journal of Phonetics 43: 47–56.Google Scholar
King, R. D. 1980. “The history of final devoicing in Yiddish.” In Herzog, M. I., Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., Miron, D., and Wisse, R. (eds.), The Field of Yiddish: Studies in Language, Folklore, and Literature, Fourth Collection. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues: 371–430.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2006. “The Amphichronic Program vs. Evolutionary Phonology,” Theoretical Linguistics 32: 217–236.Google Scholar
Kleine, A. 2003. “Standard Yiddish,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33: 261–265.Google Scholar
Kraehenmann, A. 2001. “Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the word,” Phonology 18: 109–145.Google Scholar
Kraehenmann, A. 2003. Quantity and Prosodic Asymmetries in Alemannic: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuzla, C., Cho, T., and Ernestus, M. 2007. “Prosodic strengthening of German fricatives in duration and assimilatory devoicing,” Journal of Phonetics 35: 301–320.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. 1986. “‘Voicing’ in English: A catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees,” Language and Speech 29: 3–11.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. and Abramson, A. 1964. “A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements,” Word 20: 527–565.Google Scholar
Lombardi, L. 1995. “Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 39–74.Google Scholar
Mihm, A. 2004. “Zur Geschichte der Auslautverhärtung und ihrer Erforschung,” Sprachwissenschaft 29: 133–206.Google Scholar
Mihm, A. 2007. “Theorien der Auslautverhärtung im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Normsetzung und Sprachwirklichkeit,” Deutsche Sprache 35: 95–118.Google Scholar
Oxford, W. 2015. “Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence from Algonquian vowel systems,” Language 91: 308–358.Google Scholar
Park, H., Park, H-J., and Iverson, G. K. 2010. “The frontal and temporal lobe in the identification of laryngeal contrasts,” NeuroReport 21: 474–478.Google Scholar
Pinget, A-F. C. H. 2015. The Actuation of Sound Change. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
Piroth, H. G. and Janker, P. M. 2004. “Speaker-dependent differences in voicing and devoicing of German obstruents,” Journal of Phonetics 32: 81–109.Google Scholar
Purnell, T., Raimy, E., and Salmons, J. 2019. “Old English vowels: Diachrony, privativity and phonological representations,” Language, Research reports. 95(4). e447–e473.Google Scholar
Purnell, T. C., Salmons, J., and Tepeli, D. 2005a. “German substrate effects in Wisconsin English: Evidence for final fortition,” American Speech 80: 135–164.Google Scholar
Purnell, T. C., Salmons, J., Tepeli, D., Dilara, and Mercer, J. 2005b. “Structured heterogeneity and change in laryngeal phonetics: Upper Midwestern final obstruents,” Journal of English Linguistics 33: 307–338.Google Scholar
Ramsammy, M. and Strycharczuk, P. 2016. “From phonetic enhancement to phonological underspecification: Hybrid voicing contrast in European Portuguese,” Papers in Historical Phonology 1: 285–315. www.journals.ed.ac.uk/pihph/article/view/1704.Google Scholar
Riemersma, T. 1979. Sylabysjerring, nazzeljerring, assymljerring. Ljouwert: Koperative Utjowerij.Google Scholar
Roberge, P. T. 1983. “Those Gothic spirants again,” Indogermanische Forschungen 88: 109–155.Google Scholar
Rooy, B. van and Wissing, D. 2001. “Distinctive [voice] implies regressive voicing assimilation.” In A. Hall, T. (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 295–334.Google Scholar
Rowley, A. R. 1989. “East Franconian.” In Russ, C. V. J. (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic Survey. Stanford University Press: 394–416.Google Scholar
Schifferle, H. P. 2010. “Zunehmende Behauchung: Aspirierte Plosive im modernen Schweizerdeutsch.” In Christen, H., Germann, S., Haas, W., Montefiori, N., and Ruef, H. (eds.), Alemannische Dialektologie: Wege in die Zukunft. Stuttgart: Steiner: 43–55.Google Scholar
Sievers, E. 1893. Grundzüge der Phonetik: Zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Simon, E. 2011. “Laryngeal stop systems in contact: Connecting present-day acquisition findings and historical contact hypotheses,” Diachronica 28: 225–254.Google Scholar
Snoeren, N. D., Hallé, P. A., and Segui, J. 2006. “A voice for the voiceless: Production and perception of assimilated stops in French,” Journal of Phonetics 34: 241–268.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S. 1992. “Toward an explanatory account of Thurneysen’s Law in Gothic,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 114: 28–46.Google Scholar
Vaux, B. 1998. “The laryngeal specifications of fricatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 497–511.Google Scholar
Warner, N., Good, E., Jongman, A., and Seréno, J. 2006. “Orthographic versus morphological incomplete neutralization effects,” Journal of Phonetics 34: 285–293.Google Scholar
Weijer, J. van de and van der Torre, E. J. (eds.) 2007. Voicing in Dutch: (De)voicing – Phonology, Phonetics, and Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Max 2008. History of the Yiddish Language. Edited by Glaser, P., translated by Noble, S.. New Haven: Yale University Press/New York: YIVO.Google Scholar
Wetzels, W. L. and Mascaró, J. 2001. “The typology of voicing and devoicing,” Language 77: 207–244.Google Scholar
Youssef, I. 2010. “Laryngeal assimilation in Buchan Scots,” English Language and Linguistics 14: 321–345.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, W. 2007. “Issues in Dutch devoicing: Positional faithfulness, positional markedness, and local conjunction.” In van de Weijer, J. and E. van der Torre, J. (eds.), Voicing in Dutch: (De)voicing – Phonology, Phonetics, and Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–40.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. 1975. “Settling on an underlying form: The English inflectional endings.” In Cohen, D. and Wirth, J (eds.), Testing Linguistic Hypotheses. Washington: Hemisphere: 129–185.Google Scholar
References
Bach, A. 1921. “Die Schärfung in der moselfränkischen Mundart von Arzbach (Unterwesterwaldkreis),” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 45: 266–290.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. 2017. “The History of the Franconian Tone Contrast.” In Kehrein et al. (eds.): 27–98.Google Scholar
Botma, B. and Noske, R. (eds.) 2012. Phonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic Issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bruce, G. 1973 “Tonal accent rules for compound stressed words in the Malmö dialect,” Working papers 7: 1–35. Lund: Phonetics laboratory, Lund University.Google Scholar
Bye, P. 2004. Evolutionary Typology and Scandinavian Pitch Accent. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Cajot, J. 2006. “Phonologisch bedingter Polytonieverlust – eine tonlose Enklave südlich von Maastricht.” In de Vaan (ed.): 11–24.Google Scholar
d’Alquen, R. and Brown, K. 1992. “The origin of Scandinavian accents I and II.” In Rauch, I., Carr, G. F., and Kyes, R. L. (eds.), On Germanic Linguistics: Issues and Methods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 61–79.Google Scholar
de Vaan, M. (ed.) 2006. Germanic Tone Accents. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Franconian Tone Accents, Leiden, June 13–14, 2003. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik – Beiheft 131. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
de Vaan, M. 1999. “Towards an explanation of the Franconian tone accents,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 51: 3–44.Google Scholar
Ejskjær, I. 2005. “Dialects and regional linguistic varieties in the 20th century, Vol. III: Denmark.” In Bandle, O., Braunmüller, K., Jahr, E., Karker, A., Naumann, H-P., Telemann, U., Elmevik, L., and Widmark, G. (eds.), The Nordic Languages. An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages, Vol. 2. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 1721–1741.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N., Vazquez-Larruscain, M., and Basbøll, H., 2013. “Danish stød: Laryngealization or tone,” Phonetica 70.1–2: 66–92.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2000. “The lexical tone contrast of Roermond Dutch in Optimality Theory.” In Horne, M. (ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Amsterdam: Kluwer: 129–167.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2012. “Quantity or durational enhancement of tone: the case of Maastricht Limburgian high vowels.” In B. Botma and R. Noske (eds.): 241–254.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2013. “From Cologne to Arzbach: An account of the Franconian ‘tone reversal’.” In Asu, E-L. and Lippus, P. (eds.), Nordic Prosody. Proceedings of the XIth Conference, Tartu 2012. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag: 11–24.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2018. “In defense of a dialect-contact account of the Central Franconian tonogenesis.” In Kubozono, H. and Giriko, M. (eds.), Tonal Change and Neutralization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 350–379.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. and Peters, J. (2004). “A tonal analysis of Cologne Schärfung,” Phonology 21.2: 251–285.Google Scholar
Haukur, Þ. 2013. Hljóðkerfi og bragkerfi. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hermans, B. 2012. “The phonological representation of the Limburgian tonal accents.” In B. Botma and R. Noske (eds.): 227–244.Google Scholar
Höder, S. 2014. “Low German: A profile of a word language.” In Reina, J. C. and Szczepaniak, R. (eds.), Syllable and Word Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 305–326.Google Scholar
Hognestad, J. K. 2007. “Tonelag i Flekkefjord bymål,” Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 25.1: 57–88.Google Scholar
Hognestad, J. K. 2012. Tonelagsvariasjon i norsk. Ph.D. thesis. Kristiansand, University of Agder.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 1976. “Phonologization.” In Juilland, A. (ed.), Linguistic Studies Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg. Saratoga: Anma Libri: 407–418.Google Scholar
Iosad, P. 2016a. “Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features: Short-vowel stød in Danish,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19.3: 221–268.Google Scholar
Iosad, P. 2016b. “Tonal stability and tonogenesis in North Germanic.” In Giles, I., Chapot, L., Cooijmans, C., Foster, R., and Tesio, B. (eds.), Beyond Borealism: New perspectives on the North. London: Norvik Press: 80–98.Google Scholar
Itô, J. and Mester, A. 2015. “The perfect prosodic word in Danish,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38.1: 5–36.Google Scholar
Jongen, R. 1972. Phonologie der Moresneter Mundart; Eine Beschreibung der Phonologie der Moresneter Mundart. Eine Beschreibung der segmentalen und prosodischen Wortformdiakrise. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Kehrein, W. 2017. “There’s no tone in Cologne: Against tone segment interactions in Franconian.” In Kehrein et al. (eds.): 147–195.Google Scholar
Kehrein, W, Köhnlein, B., Boersma, P., and van Oostendorp, M. (eds.) 2017. Segmental Structure and Tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kingston, J. 2011. “Tonogenesis.” In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Keren, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell: 2304–2333.Google Scholar
Kock, A. 1901. Die alt- und neuschwedische Accentuierung. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. 2011. Rule Reversal Revisited: Synchrony and Diachrony of Tone and Prosodic Structure in the Franconian Dialect of Arzbach. Utrecht: LOT. Dissertation Series 274.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. 2013. “Optimizing the relation between tone and prominence: Evidence from Franconian, Scandinavian, and Serbo-Croatian tone accent systems,” Lingua 131: 1–28.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. 2015a. “An asymmetry in the interaction of pitch and duration,” Diachronica 32.2: 231–267.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. 2015b. “A tonal semi-reversal in Franconian dialects: Rule A vs. Rule B,” North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 68.1: 81–112.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. 2016. “Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone-accent dialects,” Phonology 33.1: 87–123.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. 2017. “Synchronic alternations between monophthongs and diphthongs in Franconian: a metrical approach.” In Kehrein et al. (eds.): 211–236.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2006. “Markedness in Urban East Norwegian tonal accent,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29.1: 95–135.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2010. Fra jamvekt til etterleddstrykk og tonelag 3: Kvantitetsomleggingen in Ovansiljan. Maal og Minne 2010.2: 1–5.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., Wetterlin, A., and Jönsson-Steiner, E. 2005a. “Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28: 61–96.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. S. 1982. Germanic Accentology. Vol. 1: The Scandinavian Languages. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, E. A. 1937. Die Intonation im Schwedischen I: Die Sveamundarten. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Meyer, E. A. 1954. Die Intonation im Schwedischen II: Die Norrländischen Mundarten. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Morén-Duolljá, B. 2013. “The prosody of Swedish underived nouns: No lexical tones required,” Nordlyd 40.1: 196–248.Google Scholar
Myrberg, S. and Riad, T. 2015. “The prosodic hierarchy of Swedish,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38.2: 115–147.Google Scholar
Myrvoll, K. J. and Trygve, S. 2010. “Tonelagsskilnad i islendsk i Tridje grammatiske avhandling,” Maal og Minne 2010.1: 68–97.Google Scholar
Nörrenberg, K. 1884. “Ein niederrheinisches Accentgesetz,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 9: 402–412.Google Scholar
Oftedal, M. 1952. “On the origin of the Scandinavian tone distinction,” Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 16: 201–225.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van 2005. “Expressing inflection tonally,” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4.1: 107–127.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van 2017. “Tone, Final Devoicing and Assimilation in Moresnet.” In Kehrein et al. (eds.): 237–252.Google Scholar
Peters, J. 2008. “Tone and intonation in the dialect of Hasselt,” Linguistics 46: 983–1018.Google Scholar
Prehn, M. 2012. Vowel Quantity and the fortis-lenis Distinction in North Low Saxon. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation series.Google Scholar
Riad, T. 2000. “The origin of Danish stød.” In Lahiri, A. (ed.), Analogy, Levelling, Markedness: Principles of Change in Phonology and Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 261–300.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. E. 1986. Die Mittelfränkischen Tonakzente (Rheinische Akzentuierung). Mainzer Studien zur Sprach- und Volksforschung 8. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. E. 2002. “Die sprachhistorische Genese der mittelfränkischen Tonakzente.” In Auer, P., Gilles, P., and Spiekermann, H., (eds.), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente, Linguistische Arbeiten 463. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 201–233.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. E. and Künzel, H. J. 2006. “Das Rätsel löst sich: Phonetik und sprachhistorische Genese der Tonakzente im Regelumkehrgebiet (Regel B).” In de Vaan (ed.): 135–163.Google Scholar
Smith, N. and Leyden, K. van 2007. “The unusual outcome of a level-stress situation: The case of Wursten Frisian,” NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution 52.1: 31–66.Google Scholar
Versloot, A. P. 2008. Mechanisms of Language Change: Vowel Reduction in 15th Century West Frisian. Doctoral Dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Werth, A., 2011. “Perzeptionsphonologische Grundlagen der Prosodie Eine Analyse der mittelfränkischen Tonakzentdistinktion,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 143. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Wetterlin, A., and Lahiri, A. 2015. The diachronic development of stød and tonal accent in North Germanic. In: Haug, D.T.T. (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 21st International conference on historical linguistics (pp. 53–67). Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, P. 1970. Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten. Bd. 1: Die Langvokale im Hochdeutschen. Bd. 2: Die Diphthonge im Hochdeutschen. Studia Linguistica Germanica. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Féry, C. and Kügler, F. 2008. “Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German,” Journal of Phonetics 36: 680–703.Google 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.Google Scholar
Gustafson, J., Lindberg, N., and Lundeberg, M. 1999. “The August spoken dialogue system.” In Proceedings of Eurospeech 9. Budapest: 1151–1154.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
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