On the Boundaries of Phonology and Phonetics
|
|  Yüklə 3.17 Mb.
|
NotesReferencesBoersma, P. and Heuven, V.J. van (2001). Speak and unSpeak with Praat. Glot International, 5: 341-347. Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. (1996). Praat, a System for Doing Phonetics by Computer. Report of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences Amsterdam, 132. Caspers, J. (1998). ‘Who’s Next? The Melodic Marking of Question vs. Continuation in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41: 375-398. Gussenhoven, C., Rietveld, T. and Terken, J.M.B. (1999). Transcription of Dutch Intonation. http://lands.let.kun. nl/todi. Haan, J. (2002). Speaking of questions. An Exploration of Dutch Question Intonation. LOT Dissertation Series, nr. 52, Utrecht: LOT. Hart, J. 't, Collier, R. and Cohen, A. (1990). A Perceptual Study of Intonation. An Experimental-phonetic Approach to Speech Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hermes, D.J. and Gestel, J.C. van (1991). ‘The Frequency Scale of Speech Intonation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90: 97-102. Heuven, V.J. van (1986). Some acoustic characteristics and perceptual consequences of foreign accent in Dutch spoken by Turkish immigrant workers. In: J. van Oosten, J.F. Snapper (eds.) Dutch Linguistics at Berkeley, papers presented at the Dutch Linguistics Colloquium held at the University of California, Berkeley on November 9th, 1985, Berkeley: The Dutch Studies Program, U.C. Berkeley, 67-84. Heuven, V.J. van and Kirsner, R.S. (2002). Interaction of tone and particle in the signaling of clause type in Dutch. In: H. Broekhuis, P. Fikkert (eds.). Linguistics in the Netherlands 2002, Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 73-84. Kirsner, R.S. and Heuven, V.J. van (1996). Boundary Tones and the Semantics of the Dutch Final Particles hè, hoor, zeg and joh. In: M. den Dikken, C. Cremers, eds., Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 133-146. Kirsner, R.S., Heuven, V.J. van, and Caspers, J. (1998). From Request to Command: An Exploratory Experimental Study of Grammatical Form, Intonation, and Pragmatic Particle in Dutch Imperatives. In: R. van Bezooijen, R. Kager, eds., Linguistics in the Netherlands 1998. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 135-148. Ladd, D.R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ladd, D.R. and Morton, R. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics, 25: 313-342. Ladd, D.R. and Terken, J.M.B. (1995). Modelling intra- and inter-speaker pitch range variation. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm, 2: 386-389. Merckens, P.J. (1960). De plaats van de persoonsvorm: een verwaarloosd code-teken [The position of the finite verb: a neglected code sign]. De nieuwe taalgids, 53: 248-54. Moulines, E. and Verhelst, E. (1995). ‘Time-domain and frequency-domain techniques for prosodic modification of speech’. In: W.B. Kleijn and K.K. Paliwal, eds., Speech coding and synthesis. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 519-555. Nooteboom, S.G. and Cohen, A. (1976). Spreken en verstaan. Een inleiding tot de experimentele fonetiek [Speaking and understanding. An introduction to experimental phonetics], Assen: van Gorcum. Pitrelli, J.F., Beckman, M.E. and Hirschberg, J. (1994). Evaluation of prosodic transcription reliability in the ToBI framework. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Yokohama, 1: 123-126. Remijsen, A.C. and Heuven, V.J. van (1999). Gradient and categorical pitch dimensions in Dutch: Diagnostic test’. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco, 1865-1868. Remijsen, A.C. and Heuven, V.J. van (2003). Linguistic versus paralinguistic status of prosodic contrasts, the case of high and low pitch in Dutch. In: J.M. van de Weijer, V.J. van Heuven, H.G. van der Hulst (eds.): The phonological spectrum. Volume II: Suprasegmental structure. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory nr. 235. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 225-246. Rietveld, A.C.M. and Heuven, V.J. van (2001). Algemene Fonetiek [General Phonetics]. Bussum: Coutinho. Slis, I.H. and Cohen, A. (1969). On the complex regulating the voiced-voiceless distinction, Language and Speech, 80-102: 137-155. Taylor, P. (1998). Analysis and synthesis of intonation using the TILT model. Unpublished manuscript, Centre for Speech Technology Research, University of Edinburgh.
The Position of Frisian in the Germanic Language Area Charlotte Gooskens and Wilbert Heeringa 1.IntroductionAmong the Germanic varieties the Frisian varieties in the Dutch province of Friesland have their own position. The Frisians are proud of their language and more than 350,000 inhabitants of the province of Friesland speak Frisian every day. Heeringa (2004) shows that among the dialects in the Dutch language area the Frisian varieties are most distant with respect to standard Dutch. This may justify the fact that Frisian is recognized as a second official language in the Netherlands. In addition to Frisian, in some towns and on some islands a mixed variety is used which is an intermediate form between Frisian and Dutch. The variety spoken in the Frisian towns is known as Town Frisian10. The Frisian language has existed for more than 2000 years. Genetically the Frisian dialects are most closely related to the English language. However, historical events have caused the English and the Frisian language to diverge, while Dutch and Frisian have converged. The linguistic distance to the other Germanic languages has also altered in the course of history due to different degrees of linguistic contact. As a result traditional genetic trees do not give an up-to-date representation of the distance between the modern Germanic languages. In the present investigation we measured linguistic distances between Frisian and the other Germanic languages in order to get an impression of the effect of genetic relationship and language contact for the position of the modern Frisian language on the Germanic language map. We included six Frisian varieties and one Town Frisian variety in the investigation. Furthermore, eight Germanic standard languages were taken into account. Using this material, we firstly wished to obtain a hierarchical classification of the Germanic varieties. From this classification the position of (Town) Frisian became clear. Secondly, we ranked all varieties with respect to each of the standard Germanic languages as well as to (Town) Frisian. The rankings showed the position of (Town) Frisian with respect to the standard languages and the position of the standard languages with respect to (Town) Frisian. In order to obtain a classification of varieties and establish rankings, we needed a tool that can measure linguistic distances between the varieties. Bolognesi and Heeringa (2002) investigated the position of Sardinian dialects with respect to different Romance languages using the Levenshtein distance, an algorithm with which distances between word pronunciations are calculated. In our investigation we used the same methodology. In Section 2, we will present the traditional ideas about the genetic relationship between the Germanic languages and discuss the relationship between Frisian and the other Germanic languages. At the end of the section we will discuss the expected outcome of the linguistic distance measurements between Frisian and the other Germanic languages. In Section 3 the data sources are described and in Section 4 the method for measuring linguistic distances between the language varieties is presented. The results are presented in Section 5, the discussion of which is presented in Section 6.
|