ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE IPA
Standard Austrian German
Sylvia Moosmuller
Acoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences
[Link]@[Link]
Carolin Schmid
Acoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences
[Link]@[Link]
Julia Brandstatter
Acoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences
[Link]@[Link]
The development of Standard Austrian German (SAG; de-AT) is closely linked to the
development of Standard German German (SGG; de-DE) as spoken in Northern Germany.
Traditionally, SAG is strongly geared towards SGG norms. The orientation towards SGG
norms goes back to at least 1750, when Maria Theresia ordered the adoption of the Upper
Saxonian norms in place at that time (Ebner 1969, Wiesinger 1989). Since then, SAG
pronunciation is modelled on SGG and Austrian newsreaders are instructed according to
the norms of Dudens (2005) Ausspracheworterbuch and Siebs (1958, with an addendum for
Austria) (Wachter-Kollpacher 1995, Soukup & Moosmuller 2011). This procedure leads to an
inconsistent usage of SGG features in Austrian broadcasting media (Wiesinger 2009, Soukup
& Moosmuller 2011, Hildenbrandt & Moosmuller 2015). Therefore, from a methodological
point of view, pronunciation used in the Austrian broadcasting media is unsuitable for defining
SAG (Moosmuller 2015).
Instead, some authors claim that SAG needs to be defined according to criteria of
acceptability and described against the background of the social and regional characteristics
extracted from the results of analyses of acceptability (see Moosmuller 1991, Soukup 2009,
Goldgruber 2011). According to these analyses, SAG is spoken by educated speakers with an
academic background. Regionally, SAG is located in the urban centres, especially Salzburg
and Vienna. Educated speakers who make use of South Bavarian characteristics are not
considered as speakers of SAG (Moosmuller 1991).
The present description of SAG is based on two corpora, one collected from 1984 to
1988, comprising 100 speakers,1 and the other from 2011 to 2013, comprising 48 speakers.
1
The corpus contains speakers from Innsbruck, Graz, Salzburg, and Vienna (Moosmuller 1991:1314).
Journal of the International Phonetic Association (2015) 45/3
C International Phonetic Association
doi:10.1017/S0025100315000055
340 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA
A smaller corpus of six speakers was collected in 2002 (Moosmuller 2007). The examples
presented below are collected from a 43-year-old male speaker, born and raised in Vienna,
with an academic education, who served as the model speaker. His parents were also born
and raised in Vienna and have an academic education.2
Analyses of production reveal that SAG is largely the outcome of a contact situation
(Brandstatter & Moosmuller 2015). SAG stands between SGG and the Middle Bavarian
dialects (MBDs). MBDs form the basis of SAG pronunciation, yet the phonological system
is modelled on SGG. The differences are to be found in fine phonetic details, which will be
described below.
Consonants
Bilabial Labio- Alveolar Post- Palatal Velar Uvular
dental alveolar Glottal
Plosive p b t d k
Nasal m n
Trill r
Fricative f v s c x h
Affricate pf ts t ks
Approximant j
Lateral l
approximant
The table presents the consonant phonemes of SAG. A speaker-specific representation has
to be assumed regarding the trill. The chart lists both the uvular trill and the alveolar trill.
Most speakers make use of a uvular production (either trill or fricative). However, for those
speakers who exclusively apply an alveolar production (either trill or approximant), /r/ has to
be assumed. The chart also lists cases whose phonemic status is discussed in the literature.
These are the velar nasal consonant [] (see e.g. Lass 1984; Kohler 1995, 1999 for a phonemic
status of [], see e.g. Vennemann 1970, Dressler 1981 for an abstract analysis of []), the
affricates (see Ungeheuer 1969, Kohler 1995 for a biphonematic analysis, Luschutzky 1985,
Dogil & Jessen 1989, Wiese 1996 for a monophonematic treatment; for an extensive discussion
see Berns 2013), and the complementarily distributed palatal and velar fricatives (see Dressler
1977; Kohler 1990, 1995; Wiese 1996).
In order to provide an impression of the phonological and phonetic variation present in
the reading of the word lists, a narrow transcription was chosen in the illustration.
/p/ [ps] Pass passport /b/ [bs] Bass bass
[sIp] Sippe clan [sib] Siebe sieves
/t/ [tI] Tisch table /d/ [d] Dach roof
[mit] Mitte center [mid] Mieder bodice
/k/ [kx] Koch cook // [ut] Gut property
[h] Hecke hedge [he] Hege gamekeeping
2
These criteria have been developed from the results of the analyses discussed above and have been applied
to all SAG speakers of Vienna.
Sylvia Moosmuller, Carolin Schmid, Julia Brandstatter: Standard Austrian German 341
/f/ [fi] Fisch fish /v/ [s] Vase vase
[of] Ofen stove [lv] Lowe lion
/s/ [sn] Sonne sun
[vs] Wasser water /m/ [mn] Mann man
// [ul] Schule school [hm] Hammer hammer
[hn] huschen to dart /n/ [nt] Naht seam
/c/ [lict] Licht light [kn] Kanne pot
[x, ] [l] Loch hole [] [hu] Hunger hunger
/h/ [hos] Hose trousers [kk] krank ill
/pf/ [bft] Pferd horse // [os] Rose rose
[bfl] Apfel apple [le] Lehrer teacher
// [t] Zeit time /j/ [jm] Jammer sorrow
[hn] hetzen to rush [kjk] Kajak kayak
// [ecjn] Tschechien The Czech Republic /l/ [lstIk] lustig funny
[hen] hatscheln to pet [hl] Halle hall
[ks] [sf] Xaver Xaver (first name)
[hs] Hexe witch
With the exception of the labiodental fricative, all obstruents are voiceless. Plosives are
distinguished by aspiration (as measured by VOT) and closure duration (Moosmuller & Ringen
2004). In formal speech styles, e.g. reading, the VOT of lenis plosives ranges between 5 ms and
20 ms; the VOT range of fortis plosives lies between 40 ms and 60 ms (Moosmuller 2011a).
In spontaneous speech, though, bilabial and alveolar fortis and lenis plosives might collapse,
especially in word-initial position, so that packen to pack and backen to bake become
homophonous: [bk].3 Neutralisation of bilabial and alveolar plosives is a characteristic of
MBDs. In the case of the velar plosive, lenition might occur before sonorants, e.g. klauben
[lbm ] to pick up, Kraft [ft] strength, Knie [ni] knee. Preceding front vowels,
the velar plosive might be subjected to affrication (Moosmuller & Ringen 2004), e.g. Kubel
[kx y:bl] bucket. In intervocalic position, lenis plosives might be pronounced either voiced
or as voiced fricatives, especially in unstressed positions, e.g. aber [b] or [] but, oder
[od] or [o] or, rege [e] or [e] busy. After nasal consonants, lenis plosives are
voiced, e.g. Hunde [hnd] dogs, except word-finally, e.g. Hund [hnd] or [hnt] dog.
The labiodental fricative /v/ is mostly pronounced as an approximant []. In intervocalic
position, /s/ might be voiced, e.g. Reise [az] journey. The velar fricative [x] alternates
with [], an alternation that has also been described for SGG (Kohler 1990). However, in
SAG, [x] is also observed after [], i.e. the distribution of the velar and the uvular fricative is
less clear-cut in SAG than in SGG (for comparison, see the realisations of Koch cook and
Loch hole in the list of examples above). Generally, orthographic <h> is not pronounced
in word-medial, unstressed position, e.g. Ehe [e]4 marriage.
The alveolar nasal consonant /n/ is usually subjected to both regressive and progressive
place assimilation, e.g. anbeten [mbedn] to worship, Anfahrt [ft]5 approach,
Angeber [eb] braggart, geben [ebm ] to give, kaufen [kf] to buy, Regen
[e] rain.
SAG features a wide variety of realisations of the trill. In approximately the past 40 years,
the pronunciation norm has changed from an alveolar to a uvular trill. The latter is mostly
3
The in-text examples refer to optional phonological processes which are not easy to elicit in the task of
reading a wordlist. Therefore, the examples are embedded in sentences. Thus, most of the phonological
processes were realised by our model speaker.
4
The pronunciation of [h] in Ehe is a result of reading pronunciation.
5
In Anfahrt, the model speaker did not apply nasal assimilation.
342 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA
pronounced as a fricative, either voiced or voiceless. Alveolar trills are still in use, mostly
pronounced as an approximant. In final position and before consonants, the // is vocalised to
either [] or [], e.g. Vater [ft] or [ft] father or Kirche [kIx]6 church. Preceding
//, the vowel quality of [+constricted]7 vowels usually changes to [constricted], before
r-vocalisation takes place, e.g. Moor [m]8 bog. Reduction of the sequence er to [] is only
allowed in unstressed prefixes, e.g. verkaufen [fkf] or [fkf] to sell. However,
reduction to [] is not allowed in prefixes without consonantal onset, e.g. erlauben [lbm ]9
to allow. Following //, // is vocalised as well, however, the result of vocalisation, [], is
absorbed, e.g. Parlament [plmnt] parliament, rar [] scarce. In intervocalic position,
// is preserved. Again, in case of a preceding [+constricted] vowel, a change in vowel quality
takes place and [] emerges, e.g. Lehrer [l] teacher.
The vocalisation of the lateral is a process of MBDs which might be applied in SAG.
In most varieties of MBDs, front vowels preceding /l/ are rounded. The lateral is vocalised
to [e] after rounded vowels. In the case of front rounded vowels, the vocalised lateral [e] is
absorbed by the preceding vowel, whereas it is preserved after back rounded vowels. It has
to be emphasised that l-vocalisation in SAG is restricted to unstressed positions and to high
frequent words, as in e.g. also [eso] also or halt [hed] just.
Vowels
In SAG, 13 vowels are distinguished. They are plotted here on the conventional vowel chart.10
/i/ [bid] bieder stuffy /u/ [mus] Mus gruel
/I/ [bId] Bitte request // [bus] Bus bus
/y/ [hyt] Hute hats /o/ [od] oder or
// [hd] Hutte hut // [t] Otter otter
/e/ [bet] Beet patch // [st] Saat seed
[kef] Kafer beetle [st] satt replete
// [bt] Bett bed
// [hl] Hohle cave
// [hl] Holle hell
6
After vocalisation of the trill, place assimilation of /c/ to the preceding vowel [] takes place in SAG and
MBDs (see also Hildenbrandt 2013 for a discussion).
7
Since the terms tense and lax are rather misleading for describing the vowel quality difference of
the respective vowels (see e.g. Mooshammer 1998 for a discussion), Moosmuller (2007) introduced the
feature [constricted] in order to describe vowel quality differences in SAG.
8
In this example, our model speaker did not change the quality of the vowel, but produced [mo].
9
In this example, our model speaker assimilated [] to []. Note that the result is a full vowel [], and
not a reduced vowel [].
10
It is explicitly stated in the Handbook of the IPA that the vowel quadrilateral must be regarded as an
abstraction and not as a direct mapping of the tongue position (IPA 1999: 12).
Sylvia Moosmuller, Carolin Schmid, Julia Brandstatter: Standard Austrian German 343
The vowels are best described with respect to their location of constriction,11 tongue height,
and rounding. Compared to the e-vowels and their rounded cognates, the i-vowels and
their rounded cognates hold a more fronted constriction location. Therefore, /i/ and /e/ are
distinguished by horizontally moving the tongue from a mid-palatal to a pre-palatal position,
without considerable changes in tongue height. Acoustically, this difference is reflected by an
approximation of F3 and F4 in the case of /i/, and an approximation of F2 and F3 in the case
of /e/ (Stevens 1999: 277f.). The front vowels are subdivided into unrounded and rounded;
the vowels on the right of the front-vowels cluster denote the rounded cognates, the vowels
on the left of the front-vowels cluster denote the unrounded cognates. For the back vowels,
X-ray studies on vowel articulation proved that a retraction of the tongue is needed to form
a constriction in the upper pharynx for /o/ and // and in the lower pharynx for //, while /u/
and // are articulated in the region of the soft palate (see e.g. Fant 1965; Straka 1978; Wood
1979, 1982).12
The intermediate position of SAG, between MBDs and SGG, is most apparent in the
articulation of high vowels. Whilst MBDs distinguish high vowels by quantity, i.e. /i i u
u/,13 in SGG, they are distinguished by quality, i.e. /i I y u /. Primary quantity distinction
is assumed for the vowel /()/ (Jessen et al. 1995, Simpson 1998). Since SAG is geared
towards SGG, high vowels are distinguished by quality as well. However, only a few speakers
are able to consistently sustain this distinction, as already observed over a century ago by
Luick (1904, see also Wiesinger 2009). Most speakers, with speaker-specific differences, tend
to neutralilze /i/ and /I/, especially in velar context (Brandstatter & Moosmuller 2015; for
an articulatory analysis see Harrington, Hoole & Reubold 2012). Similar results have been
obtained for the high vowel pairs /y/ and /u/ (Brandstatter, Kase & Moosmuller 2015).
The model speaker produces [+constricted] high vowels in Mitte [mit] center, Fisch [fi]
fish, Licht [lict] light (see examples illustrating consonants above), and Bus [bus] bus
(see examples illustrating vowels above).
A similar situation is to be found regarding the vowels /e/ and //. In MBDs, the
development of Middle High German e led to a situation which was termed e-confusion in
traditional dialectology (Kranzmayer 1956, Scheuringer 1990). In the Viennese dialect, since
the late 1960s, a merger of expansion is observed with regard to the e-vowels (Seidelmann
1971, Moosmuller 2011b), which has also spread to the western parts of Austria, e.g. Salzburg
(Moosmuller & Scheutz 2013). Muhr (2007: 41) claims that in SAG, the quality of the open-
mid vowel [] is rather closed and proposes to symbolise this vowel with [e]. In our data, we
observed a speaker-specific treatment of this opposition. Most speakers distinguish /e/ and //
according to SGG norms but some speakers make no clear distinction between these vowels;
// is sometimes pronounced as [e], and /e/ is sometimes pronounced as [].
Long //, as exemplified by Kafer [kef] beetle, is still assumed by Iivonen (1987). In
our material, however, // has completely merged with /e/ (Moosmuller 2007: 52).
With the exception of [],14 which is the result of r-vocalisation, full vowels occur in
unstressed positions, a further trait of MBDs. /e/, as in e.g. the prefixes be- or ge-, is pronounced
[e], e.g. betrunken [betk] drunken or gekauft [ekft] bought, and unstressed //
is pronounced as [], e.g. Sonne [sn] sun or Tische [tI] tables. Reduced vowels, as
exemplified in the transcribed passage below, are extremely rare. In labial context, unstressed
/e / might be rounded, as exemplified in Sippe [sIp] clan, Schule [ul] school, Hute
[hyt] hats, or Hutte [hd] hut.
11
Adding the location of constriction to the description of vowels improves transparency of many
phonological processes, including the complementary distribution of the palatal and the velar/uvular
fricative, since a-vowels have a pharyngeal constriction location (see also Fant 1965).
12
This description resembles the description of consonants which has been advocated by Catford (1977).
13
The vowel system of MBDs contains no front, rounded vowels.
14
It should be mentioned that in MBDs, r-vocalisation results in a full vowel [].
344 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA
However, another MBDs process, namely the deletion of the vowel /e/ in the prefix
<ge-> might occur in SAG spontaneous speech. As a typical feature of especially young
SAG speakers, this process is applied in, e.g. gesagt said, which is reduced to [skt]. It
has to be noted, however, that, contrary to MBDs, the quality of the stressed vowel // is
preserved, whereas MBDs would demand //.
Diphthongs
Three diphthongs are distinguished in SAG: /a /.
/a/ [sed] Seide silk
// [hos] Haus house
// [lt] Leute people
Diphthongs exhibit a large range of realisation variants. Ulbrich (2003), who performed
an auditive analysis of five Austrian newsreaders, counted 23 different realisations of the
diphthong /a/, ranging from [a] to monophthongised [], 19 different realisations of the
diphthong //, ranging from [ao]15 to monophthongised [], and 23 different realisations of
the diphthong //, ranging from [ I] to monophthongised [].16 Similar results have been
obtained in our data of Viennese SAG speakers (Vollmann & Moosmuller 1999, Moosmuller
& Vollmann 2001). As an influence of the Viennese monophthongisation, which affected the
Viennese dialect and changed the diphthongs /a/ and //17 to // and //, respectively, a
tendency to assimilate the onset of the diphthong to the offset can also be observed in the
Viennese variant of SAG. Assimilation regarding tongue height can be observed in the case
of /a/ []. In the case of //, rounding of the onset might take place, resulting in [],
and in the case of //, delabialisation of the onset might occur, resulting in []. It should be
noted that in SAG, monophthongisation is restricted to unstressed positions.
Prosody
Intonation
Standard Austrian German is an intonation language. To convey postlexical meanings at a
suprasegmental level, the prosodic parameters f0, duration, and amplitude are used (Wunderli
1981: 292).
Intonation units are distinguished primarily by final syllable-lengthening and by resetting
f0 between two intonation units. SAG shows an overall tendency of the f0 contour to gradually
drift downwards over the course of an utterance, between a declining top line connecting the f0
peaks and a declining baseline connecting the f0 valleys. Imperative sentences have a higher
and longer initial f0 (the nucleus contour is mostly H or H +^H; H +L occurs less frequently)
and a lower final f0 than declaratives, questions, and continuative utterances. This results in
15
In our material of SAG speakers, the first part of the diphthong // is realised with dark [] throughout.
16
Monophthongisations of // rather surface as [] in our material.
17
// does not exist in MBDs.
Sylvia Moosmuller, Carolin Schmid, Julia Brandstatter: Standard Austrian German 345
a higher mean f0 and a stronger overall declination. Declarative sentences show a negative
overall slope as well, but it is weaker and restricted to the second half of the utterance. The
nucleus contour of declaratives is mostly L +H. Monotonal L occurs more rarely. In most
cases, partial questions are also pronounced with a declining f0, but they can also have the
rising final contour typical of yesno-questions. In yesno-questions, the overall f0 movement
is rising, although a negative slope in the first half of the utterance is common. The initial f0
and the mean f0 are higher in yesno-questions than in declarative sentences. The final rise
takes place mainly in the second half of the utterance, and the target point is the highest within
the utterance. H +^H is the most common nucleus contour, although L +H can be observed
as well. Like yesno-questions, continuative utterances also have a final rise with the highest
utterance frequency as target point, and, furthermore, they have the same nucleus contours
H +^H and L +H. However, unlike yesno-questions, mean f0 in continuative utterances is as
low as in declaratives, the overall f0 contour is relatively flat, and the final rise has a smaller
f0 range.18
In a cross-linguistic study of the intonation of read declarative sentences in Standard
varieties of German, Ulbrich (2005) found some gradual differences between SAG and SGG.
Her results suggest that compared to SGG, in SAG speakers make more and longer sentence-
internal pauses. Moreover, speaking rate is lower and the f0 range over the means of all peaks
and valleys within an utterance is larger. SAG also shows greater quantitative differences
between accentuated and unaccentuated syllables, the former exhibiting longer duration. In
pre-nuclear high tones and nuclear L +H syllables, f0 range of rising f0 is larger in SAG than
in SGG. Additionally, there is a steeper fall from a high-nucleus syllable.
In the realisation of information structure, duration, amplitude, and relative height of the
focus peak are gradually increased with narrowing focus, while the mean f0 over the utterance
decreases. In narrow contrastive focus, a high peak can be observed shortly before the focused
word, followed by a steep fall, resulting in either <H +L or <H+L (Schmid & Moosmuller
2013).
Word stress
Like SGG, SAG has variable word stress, which depends on morphological rules. Mostly,
stress is realised on the lexical root, and, consequently, often on the first syllable. Affixes
can either be stressed or unstressed. In compounds, stress usually falls on the first syllable.
Additional syllables can have secondary stress. The position of word stress may have a
distinctive function. It can be grammatically distinctive, e.g. Perfekt perfect (ling.), N and
perfekt perfect, ADJ, or semantically distinctive, e.g. ubersetzen to ferry across a river
vs. u bersetzen translate. Some stress placements differ from SGG, e.g. Kaffee coffee or
Tabak tobacco (see Wiesinger 2009 for an overview).
Acoustic analysis of stressed and unstressed vowels in disyllabic words in nucleus position
shows that SAG as well as SGG use f0, duration, intensity, and vowel quality (formants) to
convey word stress. However, different tendencies are observed between the two language
varieties, especially concerning f0 and formants: SAG speakers realise the unstressed vowels
more often with higher f0 values than the preceding stressed vowels. Especially in the
realisations of male speakers, formant values of stressed and unstressed e-vowels largely
overlap. Unstressed vowels often preserve a full vowel quality.
Transcription of The north wind and the sun
ntvIndndsn
nst dIdn sIc ntvIndntsn | efninm bedn old dk ve |
lsvnd | dIn n vmmntl ehlt ds vegs dhkm si dn
18
The annotation of pitch contours follows the GToBI standards (see Grice & Baumann 2002), further
phonetic descriptions are made after acoustic analysis.
346 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA
nik | ds dejenI fn dldn slt | ddevnd tsI vd |
snmntl ststsin d ntvInt blis mIt l mt | je me blis |
dsdo fsd hylt sId vnd Insn mntl n d vmddi sn dI luft
midn fndlI dln | nnxveni obli tso d vnd s nmntl
s d msd ntIn tsuebm | dsI sn fn Inm bedn dI dk v
Acknowledgements
The study was performed within the project Gehobenes Deutsch in Osterreich, funded by the FWF
from 1984 to 1988, and within the project I 536-G20 Vowel tensity in Standard Austrian and Standard
German, funded by the FWF from 2011 to 2013. We are grateful for the helpful comments of three
anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of the paper.
References
Berns, Janine. 2013. Friction between phonetics and phonology: The status of affricates. Utrecht: LOT
Dissertation Series.
Brandstatter, Julia, Christian Kase & Sylvia Moosmuller. 2015. Quality and quantity in high vowels in
Standard Austrian German. In Adrian Leemann, Marie-Jose Kolly, Volker Dellwo & Stephan Schmid
(eds.), Trends in phonetics and phonology in German-speaking Europe, 7992. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
Brandstatter, Julia & Sylvia Moosmuller. 2015. Neutralisierung der hohen ungerundeten Vokale in der
Wiener Standardsprache A sound change in progress? In Glauniger & Lenz (eds.), 183203.
Catford, J. C. 1977. Fundamental problems in phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dogil, Grzegorz & Michael Jessen. 1989. Phonologie in der Nahe der Phonetik. Die Affrikaten im
Polnischen und Deutschen. In Martin Prinzhorn (ed.), Phonologie, 223279. Opladen: Westdeutscher
Verlag.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1977. Grundlagen der Morphonologie. Wien: Osterreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1981. External evidence for an abstract analysis of the German velar nasal. In
Didier L. Goyvaerts (ed.), Phonology in the 1980s, 445467. Ghent: Story-Scientia.
Duden. 2005. Das Ausspracheworterbuch, 6th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
Ebner, Jakob. 1969. Duden Wie sagt man in Osterreich? Mannheim & Wien: Bibliographisches Institut.
Fant, Gunnar. 1965. Formants and cavities. 5th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS V),
120141.
Glauniger, Manfred & Alexandra Lenz (eds.). 2014. Standarddeutsch in Osterreich theoretische und
empirische Ansatze. Wien: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Goldgruber, Barbara E. 2011. Einstellungen zu Dialekt und Standardsprache in Osterreich. MA
dissertation, Universitat Wien.
Grice, Martine & Stefan Baumann. 2002. Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191,
267298.
Harrington, Jonathan, Phil Hoole & Ulrich Reubold. 2012. A physiological analysis of high front, tenselax
vowel pairs in Standard Austrian and Standard German. Italian Journal of Linguistics 24, 158183.
Hildenbrandt, Tina. 2013. Ach, ich und die r-Vokalisierung: On the difference in the distribution of [x]
and [c] in Standard German and Standard Austrian German. MA dissertation, Universitat Wien.
Hildenbrandt, Tina & Sylvia Moosmuller. 2015. The pronunciation of <-ig> in three varieties of Austria.
In Eivind Torgersen, Stian Harstad, Brit Mhlum & Unn Ryneland (eds.), Language Variation
European Perspectives V: Selected papers from the 7th International Conference on Language Variation
in Europe (ICLaVE 7), Trondheim, June 2013, 111128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Iivonen, Antti. 1987. Monophthonge des gehobenen Wiener Deutsch. Folia Linguistica XXI(24), 293
336.
Sylvia Moosmuller, Carolin Schmid, Julia Brandstatter: Standard Austrian German 347
IPA [International Phonetic Association] (ed.). 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association:
A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jessen, Michael, Krzysztof Marasek, Katrin Schneider & Kathrin Clahen. 1995. Acoustic correlates of
word stress and the tense/lax opposition in the vowel system of German. 13th International Congress
of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XIII), vol. 4, 428431.
Kohler, Klaus. 1990. Comment on German. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 20(2),
4446.
Kohler, Klaus. 1995. Einfuhrung in die Phonetik des Deutschen, 2nd edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Kohler, Klaus. 1999. German. In IPA (ed.), 8689.
Kranzmayer, Eberhard. 1956. Historische Lautgeographie des gesamtbairischen Dialektraumes. Graz &
Koln: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger.
Lass, Roger. 1984. Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luick, Karl. 1904. Deutsche Lautlehre. Mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Sprechweise Wiens und der
o sterreichischen Alpenlander. Leipzig & Wien: Franz Deuticke.
Luschutzky, Hans-Christian. 1985. Zur Phonologie der Affrikaten. MA dissertation, Universitat Wien.
Mooshammer, Christine. 1998. Experimentalphonetische Untersuchungen zur artikulatorischen
Modellierung der Gespanntheitsopposition im Deutschen. Forschungsberichte des Instituts fur Phonetik
und Sprachliche Kommunikation der Universitat Munchen 36, 3192.
Moosmuller, Sylvia. 1991. Hochsprache und Dialekt in Osterreich. Soziophonologische Untersuchungen
zu ihrer Abgrenzung in Wien, Graz, Salzburg und Innsbruck. Koln & Weimar: Bohlau.
Moosmuller, Sylvia. 2007. Vowels in Standard Austrian German: An acoustic-phonetic and phonological
analysis. Habilitationsschrift, Universitat Wien.
Moosmuller, Sylvia. 2011a. Aussprachevarianten im Osterreichischen Standarddeutsch. In Ines Bose &
Baldur Neuber (eds.), Interpersonelle Kommunikation: Analyse und Optimierung, 193199. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang.
Moosmuller, Sylvia. 2011b. Sound changes and variation in the Viennese dialect. In Katarzyna Dziubalska-
Koaczyk & Kamila Dbowska-Kozowska (eds.), On words and sounds: A selection of papers from
the 40th PLM, 2009, 134147. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Moosmuller, Sylvia. 2015. Methodisches zur Bestimmung der Standardaussprache in Osterreich. In
Glauniger & Lenz (eds.), 163182.
Moosmuller, Sylvia & Catherine O. Ringen. 2004. Voice and aspiration in Austrian German plosives. Folia
Linguistica XXXVIII(12), 4362.
Moosmuller, Sylvia & Hannes Scheutz. 2013. Chain shifts revisited: The case of monophthongisation
and e-confusion in the city dialects of Salzburg and Vienna. In Peter Auer, Javier Caro Reina &
Goz Kaufmann (eds.), Language Variation European Perspectives IV: Selected papers from the Sixth
International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 6), Freiburg, 2011, 173186.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Moosmuller, Sylvia & Ralf Vollmann. 2001. Naturliches Driften im Lautwandel: Die
Monophthongierung im Osterreichischen Deutsch. Zeitschrift fur Sprachwissenschaft 20(1), 4265.
Muhr, Rudolf. 2007. Osterreichisches Ausspracheworterbuch, o sterreichische Aussprachedatenbank.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Scheuringer, Hermann. 1990. Sprachentwicklungen in Bayern und Osterreich. Hamburg: Buske.
Schmid, Carolin & Sylvia Moosmuller. 2013. Gender differences in the phonetic realization of semantic
focus. ProsodyDiscourse Interface (IDP 2013), 119123.
Seidelmann, Erich. 1971. Lautwandel und Systemwandel in der Wiener Stadtmundart. Ein
strukturgeschichtlicher Abri. Zeitschrift fur Dialektologie und Linguistik 38, 145166.
Siebs, Theodor. 1958. Deutsche Hochsprache. Buhnenaussprache. 17th, revised edition, edited by
Helmut de Boor & Paul Diels. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Simpson, Adrian P. 1998. Deutsche Vokale spontan und gelesen. Arbeitsberichte des Instituts fur Phonetik
und digitale Sprachverarbeitung (AIPUK) 33, 33217.
Soukup, Barbara. 2009. Dialect use as interaction strategy: A sociolinguistic study of contextualization,
speech perception, and language attitudes in Austria. Wien: Braunmuller.
348 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA
Soukop, Barbara & Sylvia Moosmuller. 2011. Standard language in Austria. In Tore Kristiansen &
Nikolas Coupland (eds.), Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe, 3946.
Oslo: Novus Press.
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1999. Acoustic phonetics, 2nd edn. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Straka, Georges. 1978. A propos du classement articulatoire des voyelles. In Hans-Heinrich Wangler (ed.),
Festschrift fur Otto von Essen, 437460. Hamburg: Buske.
Ulbrich, Christiane. 2003. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Aussprache der Diphthonge in der
deutschen und o sterreichischen Standardvarietat. In Eva-Maria Krech & Eberhard Stock (eds.),
Gegenstandsauffassung und aktuelle phonetische Forschungen der halleschen Sprechwissenschaft,
161203. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Ulbrich, Christiane. 2005. Phonetische Untersuchungen zur Prosodie der Standardvarietaten des
Deutschen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in der Schweiz und in Oesterreich. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
Ungeheuer, Gerold. 1969. Das Phonemsystem der deutschen Hochlautung. In Helmut de Boor, Hugo Moser
& Christian Winkler (eds.). Siebs. Deutsche Aussprache. Reine und gemaigte Hochlautung mit
Ausspracheworterbuch, 19th, revised edition, 2742. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Vennemann, Theo. 1970. The German velar nasal. Phonetica 22, 6582.
Vollmann, Ralf & Sylvia Moosmuller. 1999. The change of diphthongs in Standard Viennese German:
The diphthong /a/. 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XIV), vol. 1, 345348.
Wachter-Kollpacher, Eva. 1995. Die Sprecherschulung im ORF. In Rudolf Muhr, Richard Schrodt
& Peter Wiesinger (eds.), Osterreichisches Deutsch. Linguistische, sozialpsychologische und
sprachpolitische Aspekte einer nationalen Variante des Deutschen, 269279. Wien: Holder Pichler-
Tempsky.
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wiesinger, Peter. 1989. Standardsprache und Mundarten in Osterreich. In Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Deutsche
Gegenwartssprache. Tendenzen und Perspektiven (Jahrbuch des Instituts fur Deutsche Sprache, 1989),
218232. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wiesinger, Peter. 2009. Die Standardaussprache in Osterreich. In Eva-Maria Krech, Eberhard Stock,
Ursula Hirschfeld & Lutz-Christian Anders (eds.), Deutsches Ausspracheworterbuch, 229258. Berlin:
de Gruyter.
Wood, Sidney. 1979. A radiographic analysis of constriction locations for vowels. Journal of Phonetics 7,
2543.
Wood, Sidney. 1982. X-ray and model studies of vowel articulation (Working Papers 23). Ph.D. dissertation,
Lunds universitet.
Wunderli, Peter. 1981. Kontrastive Intonationsanalyse (FranzosischDeutsch) und die zukunftigen
Aufgaben der Intonationsforschung. Zeitschrift fur franzosische Sprache und Literatur 91, 289322.
