Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (3)
- Vokal (3)
- Diphthong (1)
- Englisch (1)
- German vowels (1)
- Gesprochene Sprache (1)
- Grammatik (1)
- Phonetik (1)
- Phonologie (1)
- abstractness (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (4) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (3)
Notions such as “corpus-driven” versus “theory-driven” bring into focus the specific role of corpora in linguistic research. As for phonology with its intrinsic focus on abstract categorical representation, there is a question of how a strictly corpus-driven approach can yield insight into relevant structures. Here we argue for a more theory-driven approach to phonology based on the concept of a phonological grammar in terms of interacting constraints. Empirical validation of such grammars comes from the potential convergence of the evidence from various sources including typological data, neutralization patterns, and in particular patterns observed in the creative use of language such as acronym formation, loanword adaptation, poetry, and speech errors. Further empirical validation concerns specific predictions regarding phonetic differences among opposition members, paradigm uniformity effects, and phonetic implementation in given segmental and prosodic contexts. Corpora in the narrowest sense (i.e. “raw” data consisting of spontaneous speech produced in natural settings) are useful for testing these predictions, but even here, special purpose-built corpora are often necessary.
In diesem Beitrag werden drei quantitative Studien vorgestellt, mit deren Hilfe untersucht wird, ob neben dem robusten Längenunterschied auch Qualitätsunterschiede für die deutschen <a>-Laute vorhanden sind (z.B. <Saat> versus <satt>). Auf Basis von ausgewählten Korpora und instrumentalphonetischen Messungen kann dieser Zusammenhang bestätigt werden. Zudem zeigen sich signifikante Unterschiede in den dynamischen
Verläufen der beiden Vokale.
We present evidence for the analysis of the vowels in English <say> and <so> as biphonemic diphthongs /ɛi/ and /əu/, based on neutralization patterns, regular alternations, and foot structure. /ɛi/ and /əu/ are hence structurally on a par with the so called “true diphthongs” /ɑi/, /ɐu/, /ɔi/, but also share prosodic organization with the monophthongs /i/ and /u/. The phonological evidence is supported by dynamic measurements based on the American English TIMIT database.
Calculations of F2-slopes proved to be especially suited to distinguish the relevant groups in accordance with their phonologically motivated prosodic organizations.