Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 32:2 (2015) ► pp.231–267

The complex durational relationship of contour tones and level tones

Evidence from diachrony

The production of a contour tone requires a longer duration than the production of a level tone. This paper demonstrates that this durational relationship becomes considerably more complex when tones are realized on bimoraic sonorant units that can support both level tones and contour tones. Evidence comes from diachronic processes in which pitch and duration interact. In languages where (intrinsic) durational differences between two groups of bimoraic units lead to tonal contrasts, the longer units commonly receive a contour tone, and the shorter ones a level tone; yet over time, the units with the fully developed contour tone tend to shorten, and those with the level tone tend to lengthen. Ultimately, this can even lead to durational reversals between the units in question. The discussion focuses primarily on Franconian tone accent dialects but also incorporates data from Estonian, Hup, Las Norias Piman and North Low Saxon.
Keywords: relationship between tone and duration, tone accent, overlength, phonetics-phonology interface, tonogenesis, vowel shortening, vowel lengthening
Published online: 15 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.32.2.03koh
References (121)
Asu, Eva Liina, Pärtel Lippus, Pire Teras & Tuuli Tuisk. 2009. The realization of Estonian quantity characteristics in spontaneous speech. Nordic Prosody 101. 49–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Adolf. 1921. Die Schärfung in der moselfränkischen Mundart von Arzbach (Unterwesterwaldkreis). Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 451. 266–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Jennifer J. Venditti. 2010. Tone and intonation. In William J. Hardcastle & John Laver (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, 603–652. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Intonation. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C.L. Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., 485–532. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2006. The history of the Franconian tone contrast. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam manuscript.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. The history of the Franconian tone contrast. In Wolfgang Kehrein, Björn Köhnlein, Paul Boersma & Marc van Oostendorp (eds.), Segmental structure and tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logo
Bremer, Otto. 1929. Der Schleifton im Nordniedersächsischen. Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 531. 1–32.Google Scholar
Cajot, José. 2006. Phonologisch bedingter Polytonieverlust – eine tonlose Enklave südlich von Maastricht. In Michiel de Vaan (ed.), Germanic tone accents. First International Workshop on Franconian Tone Accents, Leiden, 13–14 June 2003 (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 131), 11–24. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Cumming, Ruth. 2011. The effect of dynamic fundamental frequency on the perception of duration. Journal of Phonetics 39(3). 375–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dogil, Grzegorz & Briony Williams. 1999. The phonetic manifestation of word stress. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, 272–334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eek, Arvo. 1980. Estonian quantity: Notes on the perception of duration. In Arvo Eek (ed.), Estonian papers in phonetics, 5–29. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian S. S. R., Institute of Language and Literature.Google Scholar
Eis, Gerhard. 1958. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Mittelhochdeutschen. Halle: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feyer, Ursula. 1941. Die Mundart des Dorfes Baden (Kreis Verden) grammatisch und phonetisch dargestellt, mit einer quantitativen Analyse der Vokale. Berlin: University of Berlin dissertation.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula & Haike Jacobs (eds.). 2003. Development in prosodic systems. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilles, Peter. 2002. Einflüsse der Rheinischen Akzentuierung auf die segmentelle Ebene. Evidenz aus dem Luxemburgischen. In Peter Auer, Peter Gilles & Helmut Spiekermann (eds.), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente (Linguistische Arbeiten 463), 265–282. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation [Published 1979. New York: Garland.].Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 1999. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, typology. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2002. A typology of contour tone restrictions. Studies in Language 25(3). 423–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, typology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1993. The Dutch foot and the chanted call. Journal of Linguistics 29(1). 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000a. The lexical tone contrast of Roermond Dutch in optimality theory. In Merle Horne (ed.), Intonation: Theory and experiment, 129–167. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logo_6Google Scholar
. 2000b. On the origin and development of the Central Franconian tone contrast. In Aditi Lahiri (ed.), Analogy, levelling, markedness, 215–260. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. A vowel height split explained: Compensatory listening and speaker control. Laboratory Phonology 91. 145–172.Google Scholar
. 2009. Vowel duration, syllable quantity, and stress in Dutch. In Kristin Hanson & Sharon Inkelas (eds.), The nature of the word: Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, 181–198. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. From Cologne to Arzbach: An account of the Franconian ‘tone reversal’. In Eva-Liina Asu & Partel Lippus (eds.), Nordic prosody. Proceedings of the XIth Conference, Tartu 2012, 11–24. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Wencui Zhou. 2013. Revisiting pitch slope and height effects on perceived duration. Interspeech 20131. 1365–1369.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Steven & Eric Zee. 1979. On the perception of contour tones. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 451. 150–164.Google Scholar
Hanssen, Judith. 2005. Tone and intonation in the dialect of Sittard. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen MA thesis.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Aditi Lahiri. 1992. Durationally specified intonation in English and Bengali. In Rolf Carlson, Lennart Nord & Johan Sundberg (eds.), 1990 Wenner-Gren Center conference on music, language, speech, and brain, 78–91. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heijmans, Linda. 2003. The relationship between tone and vowel length in two neighboring Dutch Limburgian dialects. In Paula Fikkert & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Development in prosodic systems, 7–46. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Ben. 2009. The phonological structure of the Limburg tonal accents. In Kuniya Nasukawa & Phillip Backley (eds.), Strength relations in phonology, 317–372. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The phonological representation of the Limburgian tonal accents. In Bert Botma & Roland Noske (eds.), Phonological explorations: Empirical, theoretical and diachronic issues, 227–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heuven, Vincent J.J.P. van. 2014. Stress and segment duration in Dutch. In René Kager, Janet Grijzenhout & Koen Sebregts (eds.), Where the principles fail: A festschrift for Wim Zonneveld on the occasion of his 64th birthday, 217–228. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Bruno. 1963. Experimentalphonetische Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung und Wertung der ‘durativen Funktion’ akzentuierter Vokale im Nordniedersächsischen. Hamburg: University of Hamburg dissertation.Google Scholar
Höder, Steffen. 2010. Das Lautsystem des Altenwerder Platt. Eine phonetisch-phonologische Bestandsaufnahme. Niederdeutsches Wort 501. 1–27.Google Scholar
. 2014. Low German: A profile of a word language. In Javier Caro Reina & Renata Szczepaniak (eds.), Syllable and word languages (Linguae & Litterae 40), 305–326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José I. 2012. Two Basque accentual systems and the notion of pitch-accent language. Lingua 122(13). 1335–1351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der. 2011. Pitch accent systems. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1003–1026. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Deconstructing stress. Lingua 122(13). 1494–1521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2006. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23(2). 225–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31(2). 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. In defense of prosodic typology: A response to Beckman & Venditti. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2011). 200–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Coda conditions on tone. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (20121). 189–204.Google Scholar
Iosad, Pavel. 2015. Pitch accent and prosodic structure in Scottish Gaelic: Reassessing the role of contact. In Martin Hilpert, Janet Duke, Christine Mertzlufft, Jan-Ola Östman & Michael Rießler (eds.), New trends in Nordic and general linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1913. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig/Berlin: BG Teubner.Google Scholar
Jong, Kenneth J. de. 1995. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 971. 491–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: Patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 321. 493–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kager, René & Violeta Martínez-Paricio. 2014. Antepenultimate mora effects: Typology and representation. Paper presented at the Workshop on Word Stress and Accent, Leiden, The Netherlands, August 17.
Kehrein, Wolfgang. 2007. Moraic stress in Franconian – and elsewhere. Paper presented at Phonetics and Phonology 4, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, October 8.
. Forthcoming. There’s no tone in Cologne: Against tone segment interactions in Franconian. In Wolfgang Kehrein, Björn Köhnlein, Paul Boersma & Marc van Oostendorp (eds.), Segmental structure and tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logo
Kingston, John. 2011. Tonogenesis. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 2304–2333. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logo’Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. Forthcoming. Livonian stød. In Wolfgang Kehrein, Björn Köhnlein, Paul Boersma & Marc van Oostendorp (eds.), Segmental structure and tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logo
Kohler, Klaus J. 2001. Überlänge im Niederdeutschen? In Robert Peters, Horst P. Pütz & Ulrich Weber (eds.), Vulpis Adolatio. Festschrift für Hubertus Menke zum 60. Geburtstag, 385–402. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn. 2011. Rule reversal revisited: Synchrony and diachrony of tone and prosodic structure in the Franconian dialect of Arzbach. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
. 2013. Optimizing the relation between tone and prominence: Evidence from Franconian, Scandinavian, and Serbo-Croatian tone accent systems. Lingua 1311. 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. A tonal semi-reversal in Franconian dialects: Rule A vs. Rule B. North-Western European Language Evolution 68(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. Synchronic alternations between monophthongs and diphthongs in Franconian: A metrical approach. In Wolfgang Kehrein, Björn Köhnlein, Paul Boersma & Marc van Oostendorp (eds.), Segmental structure and tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logo
. Manuscript. Tone accent does not imply lexical tone: Revisiting Estonian overlength. Leiden: Leiden University.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2007. The origin of the Franconian tone accents. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 63(1). 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuck, Walther. 1925. Die nordöstliche Sprachgrenze des Ermlandes. Teuthonista 21. 91–106.Google Scholar
Kuck, Walther & Peter Wiesinger. 1965. Die nordöstliche Sprachgrenze des Ermlandes. Deutsche Dialektgeographie 561. 107–171.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi & B. Elan Dresher. 1999. Open syllable lengthening in West Germanic. Language 75(4). 678–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laver, John. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leben, William R. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1960. Segmental and syllabic quantity in Estonian. American Studies in Uralic Linguistics 11. 21–82.Google Scholar
. 1976. Influence of fundamental frequency pattern on the perception of duration. Journal of Phonetics 41. 113–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1978. Polytonicity in the area surrounding the Baltic Sea. Nordic Prosody 11. 237–247.Google Scholar
. 2003. Prosodic change in progress: From quantity language to accent language. In Paula Fikkert & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Development in prosodic systems, 47–66. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse & Douglas G. Danforth. 1977. Foneettisten vihjeiden hierarkia viron kvantiteetin havaitsemisessa. Virittäjä 81(4). 404–411.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse & Pavle Ivić. 1986. Word and sentence prosody in Serbocroatian. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehnert-LeHouillier, Heike. 2007. The influence of dynamic F0 on the perception of vowel duration: Cross-linguistic evidence. In Jürgen Trouvain & William J. Barry (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences [ICPhS], 757–760. Dudweiler, Germany: Pirrot.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Liiv, Georg. 1961. Eesti keele kolme vältusastme vokaalide kestus ja meloodiatüübid. Keel ja Kirjandus 4(7–8). 412–424.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (NATO ASI Series D: Behavioural and Social Sciences 55), 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lippus, Pärtel, Karl Pajusalu & Jüri Allik. 2009. The tonal component of Estonian quantity in native and non-native perception. Journal of Phonetics 37(4). 388–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The role of pitch cue in the perception of the Estonian long quantity. In Sónia Frota, Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 82), 231–242. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lippus, Pärtel & Jaan Ross. 2011. Has Estonian quantity system changed in a century? Comparison of historical and contemporary data. In Wai-sum Lee & Eric Zee (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences [ICPhS], 1262–1265. Hong Kong: Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Meyer, Ernst A. 1896–1897. Zur Tonbewegung des Vokals im gesprochenen und gesungenen Einzelwort. Die neueren Sprachen 41. 1–21.Google Scholar
. 1903. Englische Lautdauer: Eine experimentalphonetische Untersuchung. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Miglio, Viola G. 1999. Interactions between markedness and faithfulness constraints in vowel systems. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Markedness and faithfulness in vowel systems. London: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 2005. Danish stød and Eastern Norwegian pitch accent: The myth of lexical tones. Paper presented at the 13th Manchester Phonology Meeting (mfm 13), Manchester, UK, May 26.
. 2007. Central Swedish pitch accent: A retro approach. Paper presented at the 4th Old World Conference in Phonology (OCP 4), Rhodes, Greece, January 19.
Morén-Duolljá, Bruce. 2013. The prosody of Swedish underived nouns: No lexical tones required. Nordlyd 40(1). 196–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Münch, Ferdinand. 1904. Grammatik der ripuarisch-fränkischen Mundart. Bonn: Cohen.Google Scholar
Niekerken, Walther. 1954. Zu den Problemen der Zweisprachigkeit im niederdeutschen Raum (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nordniedersächsischen). Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 761. 64–76.Google Scholar
Nörrenberg, Konstatin. 1884. Ein niederrheinisches accentgesetz. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 91. 402–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odden, David. 1997. Some theoretical issues in Estonian prosody. In Ilse Lehiste & Jaan Ross (eds.), Estonian prosody: Papers from a symposium, 165–195. Tallinn: Institute of Estonian Language. DOI logo
Ohala, John J. 1978. Production of tone. In Victoria A. Fromkin (ed.), Tone: A linguistic survey, 5–39. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 237–278. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. Forthcoming. Tone, final devoicing and assimilation in Moresnet. In Wolfgang Kehrein, Björn Köhnlein, Paul Boersma & Marc van Oostendorp (eds.), Segmental structure and tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logo
Peeters, Wim & Bert Schouten. 1989. Die Diphthongierung der westgermanischen î-und û-Laute im Limburgischen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 56(3). 309–318.Google Scholar
Peters, Jörg. 2006. The Cologne word accent revisited. In Michiel de Vaan (ed.), Germanic tone accents. First International Workshop on Franconian Tone Accents, Leiden, 13–14 June 2003 (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 131), 107–133. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2008. Tone and intonation in the dialect of Hasselt. Linguistics 461. 983–1018. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, David B. 1976. Fundamental frequency and perceived vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59(1). 39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plüschke, Mareike. 2013. Peak alignment in Estonian. Munich: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich dissertation.Google Scholar
Prehn, Maike. 2012. Vowel quantity and the fortis-lenis distinction in North Low Saxon. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation series.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. 1980. A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. Linguistic Inquiry 111. 511–562.Google Scholar
Remmel, Mart. 1975. The phonetic scope of Estonian: Some specifications. Preprint KKI-5. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian S.S.R., Institute of Language and Literature.Google Scholar
Rietveld, Toni, Joop Kerkhoff & Carlos Gussenhoven. 2004. Word prosodic structure and vowel duration in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 32(3). 349–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Stuart M. 1977. The effect of fundamental frequency patterns on perceived duration. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress and Status Report 11. 17–30.Google Scholar
Ruscher, Maria D.H. 1983. On the phenomenon of Schleifton in the dialect of Heikendorf. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen E. 1986. Die Mittelfränkischen Tonakzente (Rheinische Akzentuierung) (Mainzer Studien zur Sprach- und Volksforschung 8). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2002. Die sprachhistorische Genese der mittelfränkischen Tonakzente. In Peter Auer, Peter Gilles & Helmut Spiekermann (eds.), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente (Linguistische Arbeiten 463), 201–233. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaul, David L. 2006. Tonogenesis in a Piman variety. Sells/Tucson, AZ: Venito Garcia Library and Archives (Tohono O’odham Nation) & University of Arizona manuscript.
Stuhrmann, Johann. 1895–1898. Das Mitteldeutsche in Ostpreussen. Barms: Deutsch-Krone.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1989. Tonogenetic mechanisms in northern Mon-Khmer. Phonetica 461. 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teras, Pire. 2010. Quantity in Leivu. Linguistica Uralica 11. 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ternes, Elmar. 1981. Über Herkunft und Verbreitung der Überlänge in deutschen Dialekten. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Оskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds.), Phonologica 1980, 379–386. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
. 2006. Tone reversal in Franconian and elsewhere. North-Western European Language Evolution 481. 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teßmann, Wilhelm. 1969. Kurze Laut- und Formenlehre des Hochpreußischen (des Oberländischen und des Breslauschen). Jahrbuch d. Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg/Preußen 191. 115–171.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1981. Accents of English. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werth, Alexander. 2011. Perzeptionsphonologische Grundlagen der Prosodie. Eine Analyse der mittelfränkischen Tonakzentdistinktion (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 143). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Wijk, Nicolaas van. 1935. De klinkerrekking en de stoottoon voor stemhebbende medeklinkers in het Limburgs en in andere dialekten en talen. Nieuwe Taalgids 291. 405-41l.Google Scholar
. 1936. Rekking en stoottoon in het Limburgs. Onze Taaltuin 51. 179–183.Google Scholar
. 1939. De Rijns-Limburgse polytonie, vergeleken met de Kasjoebse. Onze Taaltuin 81. 146–152.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C.L. 2010. Tonal effects on perceived vowel duration. Laboratory Phonology 101. 151–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Jie. 2001. The effects of duration and sonority on contour tone distribution: Typological survey and formal analysis. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Bowern, Claire, John Charles Smith, Betsy Sneller, Meredith Tamminga, Jadranka Gvozdanović, John A. Goldsmith, Götz Keydana & Juliette Blevins
2024. Diachrony and Diachronica. Diachronica 41:1 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Köhnlein, Björn & Ian S. Cameron
2024. What word-prosodic typology is missing: Motivating foot structure as an analytical tool for syllable-internal prosodic oppositions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 42:3 ► pp. 1043 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Yu-An & Sang-Im Lee-Kim
2021. The effect of linguistic experience on perceived vowel duration: Evidence from Taiwan Mandarin speakers. Journal of Phonetics 86 ► pp. 101049 ff. DOI logo
Morrison, Donald Alasdair
2019. Metrical structure in Scottish Gaelic: tonal accent, glottalisation and overlength. Phonology 36:3 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo
Köhnlein, Björn
2016. Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone-accent dialects. Phonology 33:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Köhnlein, Björn
2018. Apparent exceptions to final devoicing in High Prussian: A metrical analysis. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 30:4 ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Köhnlein, Björn
2020. Tone Accent in North and West Germanic. In The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics, ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.