Show simple item record

Prosodic distances between different survey sites in Romance-speaking Europe

dc.creatorElvira-García, Wendy
dc.creatorTurculet, Adrian
dc.creatorBibiri, Anca-Diana
dc.creatorBaker Campbell, Annie
dc.creatorCerdà Massó, Ramon
dc.creatorFernández Planas, Ana M.a
dc.creatorRoseano, Paolo
dc.date2023-01-24
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-18T12:31:48Z
dc.date.available2023-10-18T12:31:48Z
dc.identifierhttps://onomazein.letras.uc.cl/index.php/onom/article/view/57859
dc.identifier10.7764/onomazein.ne11.05
dc.identifier.urihttps://revistaschilenas.uchile.cl/handle/2250/237487
dc.descriptionThe aim of this paper is to classify Romanian dialects from a prosodic point of view within the European Romance-speaking area. The data is part of the Multimedia Atlas of Romance Prosody - AMPER (Contini, 1992) and is analysed dialectometrically by means of ProDis (Elvira-García et al., 2015; Fernández Planas, 2016). The database includes more than 17,000 utterances produced by 48 speakers from 26 survey sites of 15 varieties of 6 Romance languages (Catalan, Spanish, Italian, Sardinian, Friulian and Romanian). The results show that the two main prosodic areas of Romanian (see Roseano, 2016b) remain separate when they are dialectometrized with data from other Romance languages. In addition, if one analyses questions and statements separately, it can be seen that questions allow us to distinguish geoprosodic areas more effectively than statements do (as suggested by previous studies such as Fernández Planas et al., 2015).en-US
dc.descriptionThe aim of this paper is to classify Romanian dialects from a prosodic point of view within the European Romance-speaking area. The data is part of the Multimedia Atlas of Romance Prosody - AMPER (Contini, 1992) and is analysed dialectometrically by means of ProDis (Elvira-García et al., 2015; Fernández Planas, 2016). The database includes more than 17,000 utterances produced by 48 speakers from 26 survey sites of 15 varieties of 6 Romance languages (Catalan, Spanish, Italian, Sardinian, Friulian and Romanian). The results show that the two main prosodic areas of Romanian (see Roseano, 2016b) remain separate when they are dialectometrized with data from other Romance languages. In addition, if one analyses questions and statements separately, it can be seen that questions allow us to distinguish geoprosodic areas more effectively than statements do (as suggested by previous studies such as Fernández Planas et al., 2015).es-ES
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherFacultad de Letras de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chilees-ES
dc.relationhttps://onomazein.letras.uc.cl/index.php/onom/article/view/57859/47089
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0es-ES
dc.sourceOnomázein ; Número especial XI: Aproximaciones actuales a la entonación en rumano y español; 5-32es-ES
dc.sourceOnomázein ; Special Issue XI: Current Approaches to Romanian and Spanish Intonation; 5-32en-US
dc.source0718-5758
dc.subjectAMPERes-ES
dc.subjectprosodyes-ES
dc.subjectdialectometryes-ES
dc.subjectRomanianes-ES
dc.subjectProDises-ES
dc.subjectAMPERen-US
dc.subjectprosodyen-US
dc.subjectdialectometryen-US
dc.subjectRomanianen-US
dc.subjectProDisen-US
dc.titleProsodic distances between different survey sites in Romance-speaking Europeen-US
dc.titleProsodic distances between different survey sites in Romance-speaking Europees-ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record