Proceedings of the XIIth Conference, Trondheim 2016
Edited By Jardar Eggesbö Abrahamsen, Jacques Koreman and Wim van Dommelen
This volume contains articles based on the presentations given at the Nordic Prosody XII conference, which was held at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Trondheim, Norway) in August 2016. The contributors investigate various prosodic aspects, including intonation, rhythm, speaking rate, intensity, and breathing, using approaches ranging from phonetic and phonological analysis to speech technology methods. While most of the studies examine read speech, some of them explore the prosodics of spontaneous speech. The languages that receive most attention are Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic as well as Estonian, Latgalian and Polish. In addition to the larger Nordic languages, several papers focus on regional languages spoken in these areas.
Corrigendum to Gussenhoven (2013) (Carlos Gussenhoven)
Corrigendum to Gussenhoven (2013).
From Cologne to Arzbach: An account of the Franconian ‘tone reversal’. In E. L. Asu & P. Lippus (Eds.) Nordic Prosody. Proceedings of the XIth Conference, Tartu 2012 (pp. 11–24). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH
Björn Köhnlein alerted me to a misreading of a passage on p. 65 of his 2011 Leiden dissertation Rule reversal revisited. Synchrony and diachrony of tone and prosodic structure in the Franconian dialact of Arzbach (Utrecht: LOT), whereby I interpreted a description of phrase-medial post-focal syllables to apply to phrase-final post-focal syllables, as a result of which my account misrepresented the Arzbach data and was unduly complicated. The final passage of my paper ran as follows:
The representation LH%L% in (30b) suggests that there should be a low stretch between the accent syllable (L*) and the post-nuclear syllable with Accent 2, but Köhnlein (2011) reports no such contour. Instead he writes: ‘the contrast between the accents is manifested in the height of the high pitch target [of the postfocal syllable]; Class 2 [i.e. Accent 2] is realized with high pitch and Class 1 with extra high pitch’ (Köhnlein, 2011: 65). This can be accounted for if we make the assumption that LH% is realised as mid pitch before L%. A similar merging of LH to a mid target is assumed by Peters (2008) for the Hasselt dialect and by Gussenhoven (2012: 71) for the Maastricht dialect. […]
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.