Intonation in
Italian varieties:
on what does
not differ (much)
Barbara Gili Fivela
Università del Salento & CRIL - Lecce, Italy
What does not differ (much)?
Outline of the talk
• Strong similarities and subtle differences across
varieties: Partial overview of AItI project (as part of the IARI
project)
– Same phonological analysis
– Very similar phonetic form, but different phonological analysis
• Two perception experiments involving speakers of
different varieties
– Which differences really matter in conveying pattern meaning?
Varieties taken into account
working groups
Milano - C. Avesani, B. Gili Fivela, G. Marotta, C. Di Biase
Torino – B. Gili Fivela, A. Romano, G. Interlandi
Firenze - C. Avesani
Siena - G. Bocci
Pisa - B. Gili Fivela
Lucca – G. Marotta, C.di Biase
Roma - R. Giordano, B. Gili Fivela, A. De Dominicis
Pescara – M. Barone, P. Prieto, B. Gili Fivela
Napoli - M. D'Imperio, C. Petrone, C. Crocco,
F. Cangemi, I. Alfano, R. Savy, R. Giordano
Salerno – C. Crocco, R. Giordano
Cosenza - P. Sorianello, C. Petrone, R. Giordano
Bari - M. Savino, M. Grice, J. Di Napoli
Lecce - A. Stella, S. D'Apolito, B. Gili Fivela
Method: details specific for Italian - I
As for the other Romance languages: Discourse completion
test (survey that evoke everyday situations; Prieto, 2001)
Speaker selection (for each variety)
• 5 speakers (2M -3F or 3M -2F)
• Age: 20-35 anni (flexible about this parameter)
• Instruction level: high school – university degree
Data elicitation
• Semi-random order of situation/contexts
• Situation and example response (on a sheet of paper or
ppt slide)
Method: details specific for Italian - II
• Two repetitions (= two different random orders were used)
For each repetition:
1) read the description of the situation and fully
uderstand it
2) Spontaneous production: freely respond (choosing
both syntactic form and lexical composition)
3) Read production: read the target sentence presented
as example, thinking of the situation
4 responses for each subject
• Spontaneous + read
• Spontaneous + read
Italian_ToBI
• Varieties listed above, henceforth referred to as:
MI, TO, FI, SI, PI, LU, RO, PE, NA, SA, CS, BA, LE
– Especially for some pragmatic types, analyses have to be
confirmed by recording more controlled materials
(segmental composition and prosodic structure)
• Most varieties have been described in previous
works (see refs by end of ppt)
…simplifying
• Quite complex picture in terms of shared/different
patterns across variety (Gili Fivela et al., under review)
• Various cases ranging from low to high cross-variety
similarity
1. varieties clearly differ in the phonological and phonetic
characteristics conveying the same function (e.g., yes-no
questions)
2. varieties are alike as for one pattern, usually showing
other options that differ across varieties (e.g. broad
focus, incredulous wh-question),
3. varieties show strongly similar phonetic shapes but
different analyses (e.g., narrow-contrastive focus)
Clear differences:
Yes-no questions
Yes-no questions
• High inter-variety variability in the pattern
used
• In most varieties
– more than one pattern may play a specific function
(e.g. information seeking)
– one pattern is common to many (sub)functions (e.g.
information seeking, confirmation seeking and echo)
Yes-no Questions – info seeking
No diatopic differences
depending on macro-areas
(e.g, North vs South; see
also Savino 2009a,b, 2012)
Yes-no questions - information seeking
Salerno – Yes-no Questions – info-seeking
Avete delle mandorle?
Lecce – Yes-no Questions – info-seeking
Avete delle mandorle ?
Florence – Yes-no Questions – info-seeking
Avete dei mandarini?
Pisa – Yes-no Questions – info-seeking
Scusi avete mica delle mandorle?
L+H* vs L+¡H
in two types of incredulity yes-no questions
seeking for new info (QUERY)
L+H* L-L%
Bari – Yes-no question
Anima mia ?
vs
challenging assumed given info (OBJECT)
L+¡H* L-L%
Bari – Yes-no question - incredulity
Anima mia ?!?
[high peak] phonologically relevant in this variety
(Savino & Grice 2007, 2011)
L+¡H vs. H*+L
Variation in incredulity yes-no questions
L+¡H* L-L%
Bari – Yes-no question - incredulity
Anima mia ?!?
H*+L L-L%
Pisa – Yn-Question - incredulity
Loredano un ingegnere ?!?
Similar phonetic shapes
but different analyses:
narrow-contrastive focus
Narrow (contrastive) focus statements
E.g.: Vorrei dei limoni “I’d like to have lemons”
No, Guarda che vivono a Milano “no, they livein Milan”
– L+H* L-L% (MI, TO, FI, SI , LU, NA )
or H*+L L-L% (RO, PI, CS, BA, LE, PE)
L+H* L-L%
H*+L L-L%
H*+L
Firenze - Contrastive focus:
Guarda che vivono a Milano
Bari - Contrastive focus:
Vorrei dei limoni
Narrow (contrastive) focus statements
E.g.: Vorrei dei limoni “I’d like to have lemons”
No, Guarda che vivono a Milano “no, they livein Milan”
– ¡H+L* L-L% (PE)
– H+L* L-L% (second option, e.g., MI, LU, NA)
¡H+L* L-L%
Pescara - Contrastive focus:
Guarda che vivono a Milano
Alignment issues:
analyses across and within varieties
• Different realizations within and across varieties
H*+L
Rise-fall
H*+L
Smooth slope of the rise
H*+L
Fall from H target in the syllable
On variability
• Same speaker
from Pisa
Italian
Pisa – Contrastive-corrective focus:
Guarda che vivono a Milano !
Pisa – Contrastive-corrective focus:
Guarda che vivono a Milano !
On variability
•
•
Roma - Contradictory statements
No, no, no. Guarda che vivono a Milano!
Pisa - Exclamative
Ma che buon odore di mandorle !
?
•
•
Roma – Yes-no Question info seeking (focal a
Avete per caso delle mandorle?
Pisa and Lecce
H*+L L-L%
Pisa – Contrastive-corrective focus:
Guarda che vivono a Milano !
Lecce – Contrastive-corrective focus:
Guarda che vivono a Milano !
Turin and Florence
L+H* L-L%
Turin – Contrastive-corrective focus:
Guarda che vivono a Milano
Florence – Contrastive-corrective focus:
Guarda che vivono a Milano !
One pattern shared by most (all?) varieties:
Incredulity wh-questions
Wh-Questions
Main general observations
• High inter-variety variability in the pattern used
for information seeking questions
– H+L* is the nuclear pitch accent in many varieties
– differentiation is related to edge tone choice
• Low inter-variety variability in the pattern used
for incredulity counter-expectational whquestions
Wh-Questions – Information seeking
Information seeking: H+L* L-H%
H+L* vs ¡H+L* ?
Lecce – wh-question
Cosa le regalerebbero ?
Milano – Wh-Question info seeking
Cosa le regalerebbero ?
Torino – Wh-Question info seeking
Cosa le regalerebbero ?
Information seeking
H+L* H-H%
Lucca – Wh-Question info seeking
Tu che cosa le regaleresti ?
Information seeking:
L+H* H-H% and L+H* L-L%
Roma – Wh-Question info seeking
Cosa le regalerebbero ?
Cosenza – Wh-Question info seeking
Cosa le regalerebbero ?
Information seeking:
L*+H H-H% and L*+H L-L%
Salerno – Wh-Question info seeking
Cosa le regalerebbero ?
Pescara – Wh-Question info seeking
Cosa le regalerebbero ?
Wh-Questions - incredulity
• Incredulity and anti-expectational questions
Typical sentence: Cosa ti volevano servire?
– Most varieties (e.g., MI, TO, FI, SI, PI, LU, RO, CS
LE) show L+H* H-H%
– L+H* realized with wide pitch excursion: L+¡H H-H%
Incredulity and anti-expectational wh-questions
L+H* vs L+¡H
H-H%
Productions by the same male speaker:
wider pitch excursion in incredulity wh-questions
Roma – Wh-Question - incredulity
Cosa ti volevano servire ?
Roma – Wh-Question info seeking
Cosa le regalerebbero ?
Lecce, Pisa and Turin
Lecce – Wh-Question - incredulity
Cosa ti volevano servire ?
Turin – Wh-Question incredulity Cosa ti
volevano servire ?
Pisa – Wh-Question - incredulity
Cosa ti volevano servire ?
Two perception experiments
1. varieties show strongly similar phonetic shapes but
different analyses (e.g., narrow-contrastive focus)
2. varieties are alike as for one pattern, usually showing
other options too (e.g. incredulous wh-question)
Experiment – I
Cross-variety perception:
narrow-contrastive focus
H*+L vs. L+H* LPisa and Lecce
Florence and Turin(?)
H*+L
Rise-fall
L+H* LRise-fall
• H*+L in Pisa and Lecce
Pisa, Lecce, Florence and Turin
Earlier peak, lower peak,
longer sylable duration
– detailed measurements (Gili Fivela, 2002, 2008; Vanrell et
al., 2011; Stella 2012); H* secondarily associated to the first
mora (Pisa Italian, Prieto et al. 2005)
• L+H* L- in Florence and Turin
– only for Florence, detailed measurements on target words
with different stress patterns (Avesani 2003)
(long term…) Goals and hypotheses
(Gili Fivela 2005, 2009, und. Rev)
1. Small phonetic differences motivated different analyses
related to the same function: How much do they matter?
2. How do speakers of different varieties perceive the same
continuum of variation from an ‘early-peak’ accent to a
later-peak accent?
•
•
No expected differences in function identification for
‘prototypical’ pattern represented in the continuum
Expected differences in relation to fine considerations of
correlates (e.g., F0 and duration; Vanrell et al., in print)
Method - I
• Checking alignment and scaling separately
• Stimuli
– Contrastive (correction) source
ho detto velava
'I said veiled'
– manipulation (from H*+L L- to L+H* L-):
steps: 8x15 ms (H and L alignment),
steps: 2x17 Hz (H scaling; 13Hz and 6Hz for Lows)
• repetitions:
5 (random order)
… ve
LA
va
Method - II
• Subjects from 4 varieties (age 25-35)
–
–
–
–
Pisa: 10 (Gili Fivela 2005, 2009, und. rev.)
Turin: 10 (Gili Fivela 2005, und. rev.)
Florence: 10 (Gili Fivela 2009, und. rev.)
Lecce: 10 (Gili Fivela und. rev.)
• Task: Identification
– Is it a peremptory and conclusive correction?
– Possible answers (keyboard): yes, no
• ANOVAs and Post-hoc
w
s
n
a
e
v
i
t
i
s
o
p
Results: Pisa and Lecce
f
o
Pisa
Lecce
risposte positive a favore di correzione
:11
s
,9
u,9
c
,8
,8
o
,7
f ,7
,6
e,6
v,5
,5
i
,4
t ,4
s
,3
,3
a
,2
r ,2
t
,1
n,1
o00
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mean of positive answers in favor of Contrastive
% correction
n
a
e
Media
m
1
,9
,8
,7
PR0 ,6
PR1 ,5
PR0-C
PR2 ,4
PR2-B
PR1
,3
,2
,1
0
al0
0
al1
1
al2
2
al3
3
al4
4
al5
5
al6
6
al7
7
al8
8
• subjects identify the stimuli with coherent correlates
• alignment and scaling steps are significant in relation to
subject answers (p<0.0001) and there is no statistical
interaction (p>0.05)
• Pisa and Lecce category shift:
– High, intermediate scaling: 66% of syllable; low scaling: 95.2%
Results: Turin and Florence
Turin
Florence
% correction
Media risposte positive a favore di correzione
• subjects identify the stimuli with coherent correlates
• alignment and scaling steps are significant in relation
to subject answers (p<0.0001) and there is no
statistical interaction (p>0.05)
• Turin and Florence category shift:
– High scaling: 66% of syllable; low scaling: 95.2%;
intermediate: 80.9%
Experiment I: Discussion
•
No differences in function identification for ‘prototypical’
pattern in the continuum (i.e. early steps and low scaling)
•
Differences in fine considerations of F0 correlates
– Pisa, Lecce ….and Turin(?) appear to be homogenous
– Florence subjects appear to accept high scaling for early
alignment and low scaling for later alignment
• F0 peak height is more free to vary?
• Consistent with the phonological analyses given (see
Vanrell et al. in print)
Experiment I: Discussion
• The perception of (prototypical) H*+L pitch pattern does not
change for speakers of different varieties
• The two (H*+L and L+H* L-) pitch patterns have extremely
similar shapes
A possibility to be checked and be discussed
• Different labels useful for single variety description
(e.g. 5-vowel phonological systems, showing mid
open/closed vowels): different varieties will show either
L+H* L or H*+L pitch accents for contrastive focus contexts
• Thinking of Italian as a whole, the pitch patterns showing an
early peak in the vowel could imply a secondary association of
H* (Prieto et al., 2005)
Experiment I: Discussion
• Prieto et al. (2005) proposed secondary association for
contrastive pitch accent in Pisa Italian,
– where the syllable is lengthened and H* is associated to the first
mora (H*]μ+L)
• Secondary association for cross-variety analysis of such
context would
– account for the fact that the peak is retracted within the vowel in
both H*+L and L+H* L- cases: H*]μ (shared feature)
– Would allow to express the cross variety differences in any case:
H*+L and L+H* L-, if needed, could correspond to different notations
H*]μ+L or H*]μ L– We would have a label to be used in case there is no clear idea yet on
the detailed properties of the low tone in a specific variety.
• In such case we could adopt just: H*]μ or H*]μ?L in the case a
fall is there and it is not known yet if it belongs to the pitch
accent or to an edge tone effect.
• T.B.D.
• Analysis may be applied to Pisa and Lecce (syllable
lengthening: Gili Fivela, 2002, 2008; Vanrell et al, 2011),
but we miss data for other varieties
• Further research question regards the perception of
(prototypical) H* L- (i.e. Florence pattern base)
• In few cases, the early peak alignment is found in pitch
accents used in questions (e.g., in Bari Italian)
–
are there real contrasts in some phonological systems or the
different functions are conveyed by other characteristics? E.g.,
final F0 level (or tone), global pitch range ….
Experiment – II
Check on production and
perception of
cross-variety realizations:
wh-incredulity questions
Incredulity and anti-expectational wh-questions
L+H* vs L+¡H*
H-H%
Rome: wider pitch excursion
in incredulity wh-questions
Roma – Wh-Question - incredulity
Cosa ti volevano servire ?
Roma – Wh-Question info seeking
Cosa le regalerebbero ?
Goal and hypothesis
1. Do listeners from one variety similarly judge crossvariety patterns ?
 Do speakers from different varieties really use pitch span to
express incredulity questions?
•
Hypothesis is that subjects rely on pitch range for
determining incredulity/surprise
Check on production: Method
• Three varieties: Turin (north), Pisa (center), Lecce (south)
• Selected occurrences of L+¡H* HH% in wh-incredulous and
comparable (question) contexts in the Atlas corpus
– Variable number of tokens per variety (other contours)
– Comparing is not an easy task (e.g. exortative-wh, listing
in wh-questions)
• F0 measurements (semitones)
1. L: end of pretonic syllable
2.H*: plateau start (usually, the end of the syllable)
3.Pitch span: 2) – 1)
• ANOVAs, Post-hoc and Correlations
Results: (In)credulity and pitch span
Males and females
incredulity vs mixed questions
contexts
*
*
*
Only females,
incredulity vs questions
(only 1 interrogative context
used for comparison)
*
*
*
• ANOVAs: ‘incredulity’ is significant (.05); ‘variety’ is not.
Results: (In)credulity and pitch register
Males and females
Incredulity vs mixed questions
contexts
Only females,
Incredulity vs regular
(only 1 interrogative context
used for comparison)
*
*
• ANOVAs: only on selected items
‘variety’ is significant (.05);
‘incredulity’ not significant
Perception: Method - I
• Stimuli
– Incredulity wh-question from the Atlas corpus
cosa ti volevano servire? ‘What did they mean to serve you?'
– 3 utterances x 3 different speakers for each variety
– 3 different pitch spans for each variety
– 2F and 1M (M for mid pitch span)
• Repetitions:
5 (random order)
45 stimuli in total
Turin
High 12
Pisa
Lecce
11
11
Mid
8
7
6
Low
6
5
4
Perception: Method - II
• Subjects (age 25-35)
– 10 from Lecce
• Task-I: Identification
– Is it a question uttered by someone who is
incredulous?
– Possible answers (keyboard): yes, no, I don’t know
• Task-II: incredulity rating
– 1-to-7 Lickert scale (poor-very strong)
Results: Identification and rating
*
*
*
*
*
*
• ANOVAs: ‘variety’, ‘span’ and speaker are significant (.05)
• Correlation between pitch span and both responses and
rating significant, although not high: Pearson (respectively,
0.34, 0.33) Spearman (0.35, 0.34)
Results: Interspeaker variation
Experiment II: Discussion
• Speakers appear to rely on pitch span independently of
the variety they listen to
– Categorical decision (strong inter-speaker variation)
– Incredulity rating (less inter-speaker variation)
• In both cases, other tasks and other cues would probably
change the overall picture
– Utterances in isolation are perceived differently than in context
(not only linguistic Claudwell 2000, Wichmann, Cauldwell 2003,
Nadeu, Prieto 2011; for incredulity, Sendra et al. 2013).
• Open issue: Are there differences for speakers that use
L+H* HH% in questions (e.g., Rome)?
Final discussion and conclusion
• Varieties of Italian show very peculiar aspects, but in
some cases they do not differ much, or not as much as it
may seem at first sight
• H*+L vs. H* L-%: very similar phonetic forms, perceived
similarly across varieties
– More data needed (e.g. on duration), but as long as the patterns
express the same function and are not co-present in the same
variety they could be both related to H* secondary association
(the shared cross-category, Italian characteristics)
• L+¡H* H-H% for incredulity wh-questions: cross variety
analysed as conveying a pitch span difference
– Speakers from different varieties use various pitch spans (no
register)
– Listeners appear to rely on pitch span in perception, independently
of the variety they listen to
Thank you for your attention!
Main references for the varieties considered
MILANO
Sardelli E. (2006). Due realtà linguistiche urbane a confronto (Roma e Milano): quali parametri prosodici per un modello
plausibile? In Savy R., Crocco C. (eds.) Atti del II Convegno Nazionale AISV (Associazione Italiana di Scienze della
Voce) “Analisi prosodica”, Salerno, dicembre 2005, pp. 363-378.
Sardelli E., Marotta G. (2007). Prosodic parameters for the detection of regional varieties in Italian. In Proceeding of ICPhS,
pp. 1281-1284.
TORINO
Besana S. (1999). Towards an analysis of Turinese Italian intonation and theoretical implications for intonational phonology.
PhD thesis, MIT
Interlandi G.M. (2003). L’intonazione delle interrogative polari in italiano torinese tra varietà di italiano regionale e nuova koiné.
Tesi di Dottorato, Università degli Studi di Pavia
Romano A., Interlandi G.M. (2002). Quale intonazione per il torinese? In A. Regnicoli (ed.), Atti delle XII Giornate di Studio del
Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale, Macerata 2001, pp. 117-122.
FIRENZE and SIENA
Avesani C. & Vayra M. (2003). Broad, narrow and contrastive focus in Florentine Italian. In In M.J. Solò, D. Recasens & J.
Romero (eds), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1803-1806).
Bocci G. (forthcoming) The syntax-prosody interface from a cartographic perspective: evidence from Italian. John Benjamins,
Linguistics Today.
Hirschberg, J., & Avesani, C. (2000). Prosodic disambiguation in English and Italian. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Intonation. Analysis,
modelling and technology (pp. 87-96). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marotta G. (2001) L’Intonation des Énoncés Interrogatifs Ouverts dans l’Italien Toscan. Speech Prosody 2002
Marotta G. (2005). Toscane centrale et Toscane occidentale. Profils de l’intonation italienne. In Géolinguistique, 3 (vol. fuori
serie), pp. 241-257.
Marotta G. & Sorianello P. (2001) La teoria autosegmentale dell’intonazione interrogativa in due varietà di italiano toscano
(Lucca e Siena). In proceedings of XXXIII Congresso S.L.I
Sardelli E. (1998). Verso una grammatica dell’intonazione. Uno studio sperimentale dei contorni melodici di due varietà
toscane (Siena-Pisa). Tesi di Laurea, Università degli Studi di Siena
Swerts M., Krahmer E. & Avesani C, (2002). Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: a comparative
analysis.. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 4 , 629-654.
Main references for the varieties considered
PISA
Gili Fivela B. (2002a). Tonal alignment in two Pisa Italian peak accents. In Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, Aix-en-Provence,
Laboratoire Parole et Langage, pp. 339-342.
Gili Fivela B. (2002b). L’intonazione nella varietà pisana di italiano: analisi delle caratteristiche principali. In Atti delle XII Giornate di Studio del Gruppo di
Fonetica Sperimentale, Macerata 2001, pp. 103-110.
Gili Fivela B. (2008) Intonation in Production and Perception: The Case of Pisa Italian. Memorie del Laboratorio di Linguistica della Scuola Normale
Superiore di Pisa, Edizioni dell'Orso, Alessandria,
Gili Fivela B., D’Imperio M. (2010). High peaks versus high plateaux in the identification of two pitch accents in Pisa Italian, Speech Prosody 2010,
Special Session on Shape, Scaling, and Alignment Effects in the Production and Perception of F0 Events 11-14 May, Chicago
Marotta G., Sardelli E. (2003). Sulla prosodia della domanda con soggetto postverbale in due varietà di italiano toscano (pisano e senese). In P. Cosi, E.
Magno Caldognetto, A. Zamboni (eds.), Voce canto parlato. Studi in onore di Franco Ferrero, pp. 205-212.
Marotta G. (2005). Toscane centrale et Toscane occidentale. Profils de l’intonation italienne. In Géolinguistique, 3 (vol. fuori serie), pp. 241-257.
Sardelli E. (1998). Verso una grammatica dell’intonazione. Uno studio sperimentale dei contorni melodici di due varietà toscane (Siena-Pisa). Tesi di
Laurea, Università degli Studi di Siena.
LUCCA
Marotta G. (2001). I toni accentuali nelle interrogative aperte (wh) dell’italiano di Lucca. In C. Bettoni, A. Zampolli and D. Zorzi (eds.) Atti del secondo
congresso di studi dell’Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, Forlì 2000, pp. 175-194.
Marotta G. (2002). L’intonation des énoncés interrogatifs ouverts dans l’italien toscan. In B. BEL and I. MARLIEN (eds.), Proceedings of the Speech
Prosody 2002 Conference, Aix-en-Provence, Laboratoire Parole et Langage, pp. 475-478.
Marotta G., Sorianello P. (1999). Question intonation in Sienese Italian. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences
(ICPhS’99), S. Francisco, USA, pp. 1161-1164.
Marotta G., Sorinello P. (2001). La teoria autosegmentale nell’analisi dell’intonazione interrogativa in due varietà di italiano toscano (Lucca e Siena). In
F. Albano, R. Sornicola (eds.), Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Napoli 1999, pp. 177-204.
Marotta G. (2005). Toscane centrale et Toscane occidentale. Profils de l’intonation italienne. In Géolinguistique, 3 (vol. fuori serie), pp. 241-257.
ROMA
De Dominicis, A., Assertive e interrogative a Bologna e Roma, in Regnicoli A. (a cura di) Atti delle XII Giornate di studio del GFS. Roma, Il Calamo
2002, pp. 129-136.
Giordano R., The intonation of polar questions in two central varieties of Italian, in Hoffmann R., Mixdorff D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Speech Prosody, Dresden, TUD Press 2006, DVD, paper 155.
Giordano R., Continuation tunes in two central varieties of Italian: phonetic patterns and phonological issues, in Botinis A. (ed.), Proceedings of the ISCA
Workshop on Experimental Linguistics, Athens, University of Athens 2008, pp. 87-90.
Giordano R., L’intonazione di interrogazione e di continuazione nell’italiano parlato a Roma e a Perugia, in Agostiniani L., Bonucci P. (a cura di),
L'italiano parlato di Firenze, Perugia e Roma, Firenze, Leo S. Olschki, in stampa.
Rossi M., Intonation in Italian, in Hirst D., Di Cristo A. (eds.), Intonation Systems. A survey, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1998, pp. 219-238.
Sardelli E. (2006). Due realtà linguistiche urbane a confronto (Roma e Milano): quali parametri prosodici per un modello plausibile? In SAVY R.,
CROCCO C. (eds.) Atti del II Convegno Nazionale AISV (Associazione Italiana di Scienze della Voce) “Analisi prosodica”, Salerno, dicembre
2005, pp. 363-378.
Sardelli E., Marotta G. (2007). Prosodic parameters for the detection of regional varieties in Italian. In Proceeding of ICPhS, pp. 1281-1284.
Main references for the varieties considered
NAPOLI
Caputo M. (1996). Le domande in un corpus di italiano parlato. Analisi prosodica e pragmatica. Tesi di Dottorato, Università
degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”.
Caputo M.R. (1997a). La Prosodia dei vocativi nell’italiano parlato a Napoli. In F. CUTUGNO (ed.), Atti delle VII Giornate di
Studio del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale, Napoli 1996, pp. 1-25.
Caputo M.R. (1997b). L’intonazione delle domande nell’italiano napoletano. Il continuum della modalità epistemica. In Atti del
XXXI Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Padova.
Crocco C. (2003). La relazione tra piano prosodico e piano informativo in due tipologie di mossa pragmatica del Map Task.
Tesi di Dottorato, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”.
Crocco C. (2006). Prosodia e funzioni delle domande polari in italiano napoletano. In SAVY R., CROCCO C. (eds.) Atti del II
Convegno Nazionale AISV (Associazione Italiana di Scienze della Voce) “Analisi prosodica”, Salerno, dicembre 2005, pp.
164-181.
D’Imperio M.P. (1997a). Breadth of focus, modality and prominence in Neapolitan Italian. In OSU Working Papers in
Linguistics, 50, pp. 19-39.
D’Imperio M.P. (1997b). Narrow Focus and Focal Accent in the Neapolitan Variety of Italian. In A. BOTINIS et al. (ed.),
Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications, Proceedings of the ESCA Workshop on Intonation, Athens, Greece, pp. 8790.
D’Imperio M.P. (1999). Tonal structure and pitch targets in Italian focus constituents. In Proceedings of the 14th International
Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS’99), 3, pp. 1757-1760.
D’Imperio M.P. (2000). The role of perception in defining tonal targets and their alignment. PhD thesis, Ohio State University,
USA.
D’Imperio M. (2001). Focus and tonal structure in Neapolitan Italian. In Speech Communication, 33, pp. 339-356.
D’Imperio M. (2002a). Italian Intonation: an overview and some questions. In Probus, 14, pp. 37-69.
Giordano R., Crocco C. (2005). Sul rapporto tra intonazione e articolazione informative. In Albano Leoni, Giordano (eds.),
Italiano parlato. Analisi di un dialogo, Liguori, Napoli, pp. 159-188.
Giordano R., Savy R. (2003). The intonation of instruct and explain in Neapolitan Italian. In Proceedings of the 15th
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS’03), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 603-606.
Petrone C. (2005). Effects of Raddoppiamento Sintattico on Tonal Alignment. In Proceedings of InterSpeech 2005, Lisbon,
Portugal, pp.1425-1428.
Petrone C. (2006). Raddoppiamento fonosintattico (RF) e ristrutturazione sillabica: il ruolo dell’allineamento tonale nella
produzione del RF nell’italiano di Napoli. In SAVY R., CROCCO C. (eds.), Atti del II Convegno Nazionale AISV
(Associazione Italiana di Scienze della Voce) “Analisi prosodica”, Salerno, dicembre 2005, pp. 331-345.
Main references for the varieties considered
COSENZA
Sorianello P. (1996) "Intonazione e sintassi: divergenze e convergenze sperimentali", Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica dell'Università degli Studi
della Calabria, Serie Linguistica 6-1996, Cosenza, P. Benvenuto Tipografia, pp. 35-51. ISSN: 1128-7675
Sorianello P. (1997) "Dal parlato letto al parlato spontaneo: indici prosodici a confronto", in Cutugno F. (acd), Fonetica e Fonologia degli stili dell'italiano
parlato, Atti delle VII Giornate di Studio del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale, C.I.R.A.S.S., Università degli Studi di Napoli ?Federico II?, Napoli
14-15 novembre 1996, Roma 1997, Esagrafica, pp. 89-110.
Sorianello P. (2001) ?Modelli intonativi dell?interrogazione in una varietà di italiano meridionale?, Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia, 2001, vol. 25, pp. 85108. ISSN: 1122-6331
Sorianello P. (2008) ?Per una definizione fonetica dei confini prosodici?, in M. Pettorino, A. Giannini, M. & R. Savy, (acd), Atti del Convegno
Internazionale, La comunicazione parlata, Napoli febbraio 2006, Napoli 2008, Liguori, 2 voll., pp. 310-330. ISBN/ISSN: 978-88-207-4022-1
Sorianello P. (2010) ?Il tipo esclamativo. Analisi delle risorse prosodiche e percettive?, (2010), in Cutugno F., Maturi P., Savy R., Abete G. & I. Alfano (a
cura di), Parlare con le persone, parlare con le macchine. La dimensione internazionale della comunicazione verbale, Atti del 6° Convegno
Nazionale dell?AISV (Associazione Italiana Scienze della Voce), Napoli 3-5 febbraio 2010, Torriana, EDK, 2010, pp. 85-104. ISBN:978-88-6368142-0.
Sorianello P. (2011) ?Aspetti pragmatici e prosodici dell?atto esclamativo?, Studi Linguistici e Filologici Online (SLIFO) 9, 2011, pp. 1-46. ISSN 17245230
BARI-I
Gili Fivela, B. & Savino, M. (2003) “Segments, syllables and tonal alignment: a study on two varieties of Italian”, Proc. of ICPhS 2003 (International
Conference on Phonetic Sciences) Barcelona 2-8 August 2003, 2933-2936.
Grice, M & Savino, M. (2004), Information Structure and Questions – Evidence from Task-Oriented Dialogues in a Variety of Italian, in P. Gilles & J.
Peters (eds.), “Regional Variation in Intonation”, 161-187, Niemeyer: Tuebingen.
Grice, M. & Savino, M. (1995), “Low tone versus 'sag' in Bari Italian intonation; a perceptual experiment”, Proceedings of the XIII International Congress
of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm 13-19 August 1995, vol. 4, 658-661.
Grice, M. & Savino, M. (1995), Intonation and communicative function in a regional variety of Italian, PHONUS 1, Institut fuer Phonetik/Phonologie,
Universitaet des Saarlandes, 19-32.
Grice, M. & Savino, M. (1997), “Can pitch accent type convey information status in yes-no questions?”, Proceedings of the ACL workshop “Concept-toSpeech Generation Systems”, Madrid 14 July 1997, 29-38.
Grice, M. & Savino, M. (2003a), Map Tasks in Italian: asking questions about given, accessible and new information, Catalan Journal of Linguistics,
special issue on Romance Intonation (P.Prieto, editor), vol.2, 153-180.
Grice, M. & Savino, M. (2003b), “Question type and information structure in Italian”, Proc. of the international workshop Prosodic Interfaces, Nantes, 2729 March 2003, 117-122.
Grice, M., Benzmueller, R., Savino, M., Andreeva, B. (1995) “The intonation of queries and checks across languages: data from Map Task dialogues”,
Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm 13-19 August 1995, vol. 3, 648-651.
Grice, M., D’Imperio, M., Savino, M., Avesani, C. (2005), Strategies for intonation labelling across varieties of Italian, in: Sun-Ah Jun (Ed.), “Prosodic
Typology: the Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing”, 362-389, New York: Oxford University Press.
Grice, M., Savino, M. & Refice, M. (1997), “The intonation of questions in Bari Italian: do speakers replicate their spontaneous speech when reading?”,
PHONUS 3, Institut fuer Phonetik, Univ. des Saarlandes, 1-7.
Refice, M., Savino, M., Grice, M. (1997), “A contribution to the estimation of naturalness in the intonation of Italian spontaneous speech”, in Procedings
of EUROSPEECH 97, Rhodos 22-25 Sept. 1997, vol. 2, 783-786.
Savino, M. & Grice, M. (2007), “The role of pitch range in realising pragmatic contrasts – The case of two question types in Italian”, Proceedings of the
XVI International Conference of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2007), Saarbruecken 6-10 August 2007, 1037-1040.
Main references for the varieties considered
BARI - II
Savino, M. & Grice, M. (2011), The perception of negative bias in Bari Italian question, in S. Frota, G. Elodierta, P. Prieto (eds), “Prosodic categories:
production, perception and comprehension”, 187-206, Springer: Dordrecht.
Savino, M. & M. Refice (1996), “L’intonazione dell’italiano di Bari nel parlato letto e in quello spontaneo”, Atti delle VII Giornate di Studio del Gruppo di
Fonetica Sperimentale dell’Associazione Italiana di Acustica: “Fonetica e fonologia degli stili del parlato”, Naples 14-15 Nov. 1996, 79-88.
Savino, M. (1997), Il ruolo dell’intonazione nell’interazione comunicativa. Analisi strumentale delle domande polari in un corpus di dialoghi spontanei
(varietà di Bari), PhD dissertation, University of Bari & Polytechnics of Bari, Italy.
Savino, M. (2000), “Descrizione autosegmentale-metrica di alcune tipologie intonative dell'italiano di Bari”, in E. Burr (ed.), ‘Tradizione & Innovazione.
Linguistica e Filologia Italiana alle soglie del nuovo millennio’, Atti del VI Convegno Internazionale della SILFI (Società Internazionale di
Linguistica e Filologia Italiana), Duisburg 28 June - 2 July 2000, (Cesati: Firenze, 2006), 163-178.
Savino, M. (2001), “Non-finality and pre-finality in Bari Italian intonation: a preliminary account”, Proc. of Eurospeech 2001, Aalborg 3-7 Sept. 2001,
vol.2, 939-942.
Savino, M. (2003), “Sul ruolo dell’intonazione nel (pre)segnalare i confini di unità del discorso: un esperimento percettivo”, Atti delle XV Giornate del
Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale dell’AIA (Associazione Italiana di Acustica), Viterbo, 4-6 Dec. 2003, 203-208.
Savino, M. (2004), Intonational Cues to Discourse Structure in a Variety of Italian, in P. Gilles & J. Peters (eds.), “Regional Variation in Intonation”, 145159, Niemeyer: Tuebingen.
Savino, M. (2006), Strategie prosodiche di turnazione in dialoghi italiani Map Task, Atti del VI Convegno Nazionale dell’AItLA (Associazione Italiana di
Linguistica Applicata), Naples 9-10 Feb. 2006, 303-330.
Savino, M. (2009a), “Where is the rise in Italian yes-no question intonation? A corpus-based study on regional accents”, poster presented at the
conference Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia (PaPI 2009), Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 17-18 June 2009.
Savino, M. (2009b), “Intonational features for identifying regional accents of Italian”, Proc. of INTERSPEECH 2009 (10th Annual Conference of the
International Speech Communication Association), Brighton 6-10 Sept. 2009, 2423-2426.
Savino, M. (to appear), The intonation of polar questions in Italian: where is the rise?, Journal of the International Phonetic Association.
Savino, M., Grice, M., Gili Fivela, B., Marotta, G. (2006) Intonational cues to discourse structure in Bari and Pisa Italian: perceptual evidence, Proc. of
Speech Prosody 2006, Dresden.
LECCE
Romano, A. (1998), Analisi comparata di alcuni schemi intonativi di base (frasi affermative e interrogative) di due varietà salentine (salentino
meridionale e centrale), in Studi Linguistici Salentini, 23, 23-46.
Romano, A. (1999), Analyse des structures prosodiques des dialectes et de l'italien régional parlés dans le Salento: approche linguistique et
instrumentale, Tesi di Dottorato, Université Stendhal, Grenoble, France.
Romano, A. (2000), Variabilità degli schemi intonativi dialettali e persistenza di tratti prosodici nell'italiano regionale: considerazioni sulle varietà
salentine, in A. Zamboni et alii (a cura di), "La dialettologia oggi fra tradizione e nuove tecnologie", Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Università di
Pisa, Pisa, Italia, 10-12 Febbraio, 73-91.
Stella A., Gili Fivela B. (2009) “L'intonazione nel parlato dell'area leccese: prime osservazioni dal punto di vista autosegmentale-metrico”, in L. Romito,
V. Galatà, R. Lio (eds.), Atti del Convegno Nazionale AISV (Associazione Italiana di Scienze della Voce) "La fonetica sperimentale. Metodo e
applicazioni", a cura di Università della Calabria, 3-5 dicembre 2007, EDK Editore SRL, RN, ISBN 9788863680461, pp.260-293.