Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:32:57.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dresden Fallbogen Contours as an Example of Regionalized German Intonation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Margret Selting
Margret Selting*
Affiliation:
Universität Potsdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on data from a Mid-German dialect area of Dresden, this article presents research on the structure and functions of regionalized intonation. The Dresden data comes from informal conversation-like settings and illustrates a contour that is typical of the Dresden city vernacular: a contour previously named and described as the Dresden Fallbogen. An analysis of the phonetic forms and phonological structures of the contour is provided, and its use and function in conversational interactions is described. Additional methods of investigating the perception and identification of these contours by subjects in an experimental setting are also given. The article concludes with remarks about the possible relevance of this contour as a signal of identity.

Résumé

Résumé

Basé sur les données d’un dialecte d’allemand moyen de la région de Dresden, cet article présente les résultats d’une recherche sur la structure et les fonctions des variations intonatives régionales. Les données proviennent de conversations informelles en contexte expérimental et illustrent un accent typique du vernaculaire de la ville de Dresden, qui a été précédemment décrit et nommé le Fallbogen de Dresden. Le texte présente une analyse des formes phonétiques et des structures phonologiques de l’accent ainsi qu’une description de sa fonction dans les échanges de conversations. Des méthodes alternatives pour examiner la perception et l’identification de ces variations intonatives en laboratoire sont également discutées. L’article conclue par une réflexion sur la possibilité que ce contour intonatif constitue un signal de l’identité des locuteurs.

Type
Part I: The Circumscription of Regional Varieties
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 49 , Issue 3-4 , December 2004 , pp. 289 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2004

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.)

References

Auer, Peter. 1992. Introduction: John Gumperz’ Approach to Contextualization. In The contextualization of language, ed. Auer, Peter and di Luzio, Aldo, 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, Gilles, Peter, Peters, Jörg, and Selting, Margret. 2000. Intonation regionaler Varietäten des Deutschen. Vorstellung eines Forschungsprojekts. In Dialektologie zwischen Tradition und Neuansätzen, ed. Stellmacher, Dieter, 222–239. Beiträge der internationalen Dialektologentagung. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., and Ayers, Gayle M.. 1994. Guidelines for ToBI labelling (version 2.0, February 1994). Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Gunter. 1989. Upper Saxon. In The dialects of modern German: A linguistic survey, ed. Russ, Charles V.J., 290–312. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Selting, Margret. 1996. Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodie perspective on interaction. In Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, ed. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, 11–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gericke, Ingeborg. 1963. Die Intonation der Leipziger Umgangssprache. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 16:337–369.Google Scholar
Gilles, Peter. 2003. Die Intonation von Abschluss und Weiterweisung in deutschen Regionalvarietäten. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther. 1998. Comparative intonational phonology: English and German. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine and Baumann, Stefan 2002. Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191:267–298.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse strategies. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 4), ed. Jacobs, Joachim, 112–142. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian, and Wooffitt, Robin. 1998. Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, John. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerchner, Gotthard. 1997. Regionale Identität und standardsprachliche Entwicklung: Aspekte einer sächsischen Sprachgeschichte. Leipzig: Verlag der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jörg, Peters. 1999. The timing of nuclear high accents in German dialects. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. III, ed. Ohala, John J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari, Granville, Daniel, and Bailey, A.C., 1877–1880. Linguistics Department, University of California.Google Scholar
Jörg, Peters, Gilles, Peter, Auer, Peter, and Selting, Margret. 2003. Identifying regional varieties by pitch information: A comparison of two approaches. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 1, ed. Sole, Maria-Josep, Recasens, Daniel, and Romero, Joaqin, 1065–1068. Barcelona: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1994. Emphatic speech style — with special focus on the prosodie signalling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 22:375–408.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2000a. Berlinische Intonationskonturen: Der ‘Springton’. Deutsche Sprache 28:193–231.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2000b. The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29:477–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2001. Berlinische Intonationskonturen: Die ‘Treppe aufwärts’. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20:66–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2003a. Treppenkonturen im Dresdenerischen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 31: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2003b. Fallbögen im Dresdenerischen. Deutsche Sprache 31: 142–170.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2003c. Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. InLiSt (Interaction and Linguistic Structures), No. 35, February. www.uni-potsdam.de/u/iniist/issues/35/index.htm.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2005. Variation der Intonation: Unterschiede zwischen Standard und Stadtsprache am Beispiel des Berlinischen. In Standardvariation, ed. Eichinger, Ludwig M. and Kalimeyer, Werner, 247–277. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Auer, Peter, Barden, Birgit, Bergmann, Jörg, Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Günthner, Susanne, Quasthoff, Uta, Meier, Christoph, Schlobinski, Peter, and Uhmann, Susanne. 1998. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte 173: 91–122.Google Scholar
Stickel, Gerhard, ed. 1997. Varietäten des Deutschen. Regional- und Umgangssprachen. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne. 1991. Fokusphonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Gerhard. 1992. Das Sächsische: Sprachliche und außersprachliche Einschätzungen der sächsischen Umgangssprache. Muttersprache 102:97–113.Google Scholar