Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T18:31:23.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonetically Low Tone–Phonologically High Tone, and Vice Versa*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Thorstein Fretheim
Thorstein Fretheim
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Trondheim, N-7055 Draguoll, Norway.
Get access

Abstract

The phonological Highs and Lows of prosodic feet in East Norwegian utterances do not always coincide temporally with the phonetic Highs and Lows associated with the pitch contours characteristic of Accent 1 and Accent 2. This paper accounts for two distinct types of discrepancy between actual pitch level and perceived pitch level, i.e. phonological pitch level, in certain prosodically well-defined cases where pitch peaks appear to occur “too late”. In order to determine what is phonologically High or Low in a given prosodic foot, you often have to consider phonetic aspects of the pitch contours of the immediately preceding or the immediately following foot.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , June 1987 , pp. 35 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

REFERENCES

Endresen, R. T. 1977. An alternative theory of stress and tonemes in Eastern Norwegian. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap 31, 21–46.Google Scholar
(Reprinted in Jahr, E. H. and Lorentz, O. (eds.), Prosodi/Prosody. Oslo: Novus, 1983.)Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1981. The prosodic structure of Norwegian tag sequences. In Fretheim, T. (ed.), Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: Tapir, 141–152.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1984a. What is accent and what is stress in East Norwegian sentence prosody? University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 28–63.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1984b. Discrete features of East Norwegian intonation contours. In Elert, C.-C., Johansson, I. and Strangert, E. (eds.), Nordic Prosody III. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 67–77.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1986a. Identifying tone groups in East Norwegian. In Evensen, L. (ed.), Nordic Research in Text Linguistics. Trondheim: Tapir, 137–154.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1986b. Pragmatics and intonation. In Verschueren, J. and Papi, M. B. (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective. Proceedings from the 1st International Pragmatics Conference, Viareggio, Italy, 1985. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. M. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gårding, E. 1983. Superposition as an invariant feature of intonation. Paper read at a symposium on “Invariance and Variability”, MIT, 1983.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. & Joos, M. 1952. Tone and intonation in East Norwegian. Acta Philologica Scandinavica 22, 41–64.Google Scholar
(Reprinted in Jahr, E. H. and Lorentz, O. (eds.), Prosodi/Prosody. Oslo: Novus, 1983.)Google Scholar
Lorentz, O. 1984. Stress and tone in an accent language. In Elert, C.-C., Johansson, I. and Strangert, E. (eds.), Nordic Prosody III. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 165–178.Google Scholar