Baumann, Stefan

Profile Picture
Email Address
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
First Name

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
No Thumbnail Available

Annotation of German Intonation : DIMA compared with other annotation systems

2019, Kügler, Frank, Baumann, Stefan, Andreeva, Bistra, Braun, Bettina, Grice, Martine, Neitsch, Jana, Niebuhr, Oliver, Peters, Jörg, Röhr, Christine T., Schweitzer, Antje

Annotating intonation is a considerable challenge, since not only intonational form but also its meaning are complex in terms of their internal make-up and contextual variation. Since the advent of the autosegmental- metrical approach to intonation in the 1980s, the annotation of intonation has continued to be a matter of debate, witnessed by the current discussion around the proposed International Prosodic Alphabet (IPrA), with a reported need for a more surface- related annotation that serves as a basis for phonological categorisation. The DIMA system accounts for such a level by providing a phonetically informed annotation of an intonation contour that nevertheless reflects its phonological core. DIMA is a consensus system for the annotation of German intonation that analyses intonation at three distinct levels: phrasing, tones and prominences. The present paper compares DIMA with other annotation systems such as GToBI, ToGI, IViE, KIM, RaP, and IPrA.

No Thumbnail Available

Interpreting the Scope of Negation in Three Varieties of German : The Effect of Prosodic Cues

2011, Rathcke, Tamara, Baumann, Stefan

This paper presents two perception experiments on three German varieties investigating the effect of pause, intonation contour and peak alignment on (1) the scope of negation and (2) the strength of phrasal breaks. Subjects from Kiel, Vienna and Düsseldorf participated in both experiments which drew on the same set of stimuli. Results show that the interpretation of prosodic cues is task-specific, with intonation contour being predominantly used for scope disambiguation and pause being used for phrasing. This implies that the question of how German listeners resolve scope ambiguities cannot simply be attributed to the presence or absence of a phrasal break between the main and the subordinate clause. The interpretation of scope as wide vs. narrow rather depends on a more general impression of ‘cohesion’ between the clauses as indicated by prosodic means.

Thumbnail Image

DIMA : Annotation guidelines for German intonation

2015, Kügler, Frank, Smolibocki, Bernadett, Arnold, Denis, Baumann, Stefan, Braun, Bettina, Grice, Martine, Jannedy, Stefanie, Michalsky, Jan, Niebuhr, Oliver, Peters, Jörg

This paper presents newly developed guidelines for prosodic annotation of German as a consensus system agreed upon by German intonologists. The DIMA system is rooted in the framework of autosegmental-metrical phonology. One important goal of the consensus is to make exchanging data between groups easier since German intonation is currently annotated according to different models. To this end, we aim to provide guidelines that are easy to learn. The guidelines were evaluated running an inter-annotator reliability study on three different speech styles (read speech, monologue and dialogue). The overall high κ between 0.76 and 0.89 (depending on the speech style) shows that the DIMA conventions can be applied successfully.

No Thumbnail Available

Disambiguating the scope of negation by prosodic cues in three varieties of German

2013-07, Baumann, Stefan, Rathcke, Tamara

Two perception experiments were conducted with subjects from Kiel, Düsseldorf and Vienna to investigate the role prosody plays (a) in resolving scope of negation ambiguities and (b) in judging the strength of phrasal breaks in German. The prosodic means tested were pause, intonation contour and peak alignment. Results reveal that the relevance of the cues varies depending on the task: for the (semantic) scope disambiguation task, intonation contour proves to be the most decisive factor, whereas presence of pause turns out to be most influential for the (metalinguistic) phrasing task. This result implies that the question of how German listeners resolve scope ambiguities cannot simply be attributed to the presence or absence of a phrasal break between a main and a subordinate clause. It rather seems to depend on a more general perception of ‘cohesion’ between the two clauses as indicated by prosodic means. Flat hat contours and late peak alignment patterns lead to a higher level of cohesion and an increase in wide scope interpretations, whereas pointed hats with early peak accents are typical of narrow scope readings. The results further reveal a significant difference between the varieties due to an increased number of narrow scope readings in Viennese listeners. Since Viennese German displays later peaks than Northern varieties, this outcome suggests that Viennese subjects interpret (late) peaks as earlier than listeners from Kiel and Düsseldorf.