This chapter proposes a consensus system for the annotation of Standard German intonation within the framework of autosegmental-metrical phonology: GToBI. First, it provides a survey of existing studies of German intonation, including traditional auditory approaches as well as more recent phonological studies and instrumental analyses. It then gives a detailed exposition of GToBI, showing how the intonation contours considered to be distinctive in the surveyed works can be captured, and compares GToBI to three earlier autosegmental-metrical approaches to German intonation. Finally, it discusses a number of theoretical issues, such as whether pitch accents need to be represented with leading tones or not, how many levels of phrasing are required, and the status and distribution of phrase accents.

Many theories of intonational phonology have granted some special status to pitch features that occur at the edges of prosodic domains, contrasting them with prominence-lending pitch configurations. The standard American structuralist theory that flourished in the 1950s (Trager & Smith 1951) drew a clear distinction between PITCH PHONEMES and JUNCTURE PHONEMES, the former constituting the body of a contour and the latter describing the movements at the contour's end. Parallel to this development, a distinction was also drawn within the Prague School between the cumulative and delimitative functions of tonal phenomena (Trubetzkoy 1958), the former including prominence, the latter domainedge marking. Bolinger (especially 1970) distinguished 'accent' from 'intonation': ACCENT referred to the distinctive pitch shapes that accompany prominent stressed syllables (now generally known, following Bolinger, as pitch accents), while INTONATION included, among other things, distinctive pitch movements at the ends of contours. A distinction very similar, but not identical, to Bolinger's is made in the theory of intonation developed at the Institute for Perception Research (IPO) in the Netherlands (Cohen & 't Hart 1967, 't Hart et al. 1990), namely between PROMINENCE-LENDING and NON-PROMINENCE-LENDING pitch m o v e m e n t s .

It has been claimed that the long established neutralization of the voicing distinction in domain final position in German is phonetically incomplete. However, various studies leading to this claim have been criticized in terms of their methodology. In three production experiments and one perception experiment we address these methodological criticisms. In the first production study, we address the role of orthography. In a large scale auditory task using pseudowords, we confirm that neutralization is indeed incomplete and suggest that previous null results may simply be due to lack of statistical power. In two follow-up production studies (experiments 2 and 3), we rule out a potential confound of experiment 1, namely that the effect might be due to accommodation to the presented auditory stimuli. Here we bias the auditory stimuli against the phenomenon by manipulating the duration of the preceding vowel. While experiment 2 replicated our findings, experiment 3 failed to replicate incomplete neutralization statistically, even though we found numerical tendencies into the expected direction. Finally, in a perception study (experiment 4), we demonstrate that the subphonemic differences between final voiceless and "devoiced" stops are audible, but only barely so. Even though the present findings provide evidence for incomplete neutralization, the small effect sizes obtained further highlight the limits of investigating incomplete neutralization emphasizing the limited importance of this phenomenon for everyday speech communication. We argue that without postulating functional relevance, incomplete neutralization can be accounted for by recent models of lexical organization and is compatible with formal phonological models that entertain unpronounced projection relations.

No abstract

No abstract