Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:49:50.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic realizations of new, given, and corrective referents in the spontaneous speech of toddlers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2020

Jill C. THORSON  and
James L. MORGAN
Jill C. THORSON*
Affiliation:
University of New Hampshire, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Durham, New Hampshire, USA
James L. MORGAN
Affiliation:
Brown University, Department of Cognitive, Linguistic & Psychological Sciences, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
*
*Corresponding author: University of New Hampshire, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 4 Library Way, Durham, New Hampshire, 03824, USA; Email: jill.thorson@unh.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our motivation was to examine how toddler (2;6) and adult speakers of American English prosodically realize information status categories. The aims were three-fold: 1) to analyze how adults phonologically make information status distinctions; 2) to examine how these same categories are signaled in toddlers’ spontaneous speech; and 3) to analyze the three primary acoustic correlates of prosody (F0, intensity, and duration). During a spontaneous speech task designed as an interactive game, a set of target nouns was elicited as one of three types (new, given, corrective). Results show that toddlers primarily used H* across information status categories, with secondary preferences for deaccenting given information and for using L+H* for corrective information. Only duration distinguished information status, and duration, average pitch, and intensity differentiated pitch accent types for both adults and children. Discussion includes how pitch accent selection and input play a role in guiding prosodic realizations of information status.

Keywords

prosodyacoustic-phoneticsfirst language acquisitioninformation status
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , May 2021 , pp. 541 - 568
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, J. E. (2008). THE BACON not the bacon: How children and adults understand accented and unaccented noun phrases. Cognition, 108(1), 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, A., & Garding, G. (2007). Dialectal variation in the rising accents of American English. In Cole, J. & Hualde, J. H. (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 9: Change in Phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Baltaxe, C. A. (1984). Use of contrastive stress in normal, aphasic, and autistic children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 27(1), 97–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckman, M. E., & Ayers, G. E. (1997). Guidelines for ToBI labelling (version 3). The Ohio State University Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Behrens, H., & Gut, U. (2005). The relationship between prosodic and syntactic organization in early multiword speech. Journal of Child Language, 32(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birch, S., & Clifton, C. Jr (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38(4), 365–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3). Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1965). Forms of English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1983). Intonation and gesture. American Speech, 58(2), 156–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1989). Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H., & Morgan, J. L. (2010). Is early word-form processing stress-full? How natural variability supports recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 60(4), 241–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breen, M. E. (2007). The identification and function of English prosodic features (PhD Thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Breen, M. E., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 1044–1098. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.504378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Harvard U. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugos, A., Veilleux, N., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2006). 6.9.11 Transcribing prosodic structure of spoken utterances with ToBI. January IAP presented at the MIT OpenCourseWare, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from https://ocw.mit.eduGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, S. (2004). Phonetic dimensions of intonational categories-the case of L+H* and H*. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004, an International Conference. Nara, Japan.Google Scholar
Calhoun, S. (2006). Intonation and information structure in English. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
Calhoun, S. (2012). The theme/rheme distinction: Accent type or relative prominence? Journal of Phonetics, 40(2), 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and Topic. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chen, A. (2010). Is there really an asymmetry in the acquisition of the focus-to-accentuation mapping? Lingua, 120(8), 1926–1939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A. (2011). The developmental path to phonological focus-marking in Dutch. In Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension (pp. 93–109). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A. (2012). The prosodic investigation of information structure. In Krifka, M. & Musan, R. (Eds.), The expression of information structure (pp. 249–286). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Chen, A. (2015). Children's use of intonation in reference and the role of input. In Serratrice, L. & Allen, S. E. M. (Eds.), The acquisition of reference (pp. 83–104). John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A., & Fikkert, P. (2007). Intonation of early two-word utterances in Dutch. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), 315–320. Pirrot.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, R. O. (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1–40). Norwood, NH: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E., Eady, S. J., & Mueller, P. R. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77(6), 2142–2156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 292–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00001-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Ruiter, L. E. (2014). How German children use intonation to signal information status in narrative discourse. Journal of Child Language, 41(5), 1015–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Ruiter, L. E. (2015). Information status marking in spontaneous vs. Read speech in story-telling tasks – Evidence from intonation analysis using GToBI. Journal of Phonetics, 48, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.10.008Google Scholar
Eady, S. J., & Cooper, W. E. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80(2), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.394091CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Face, T. L. (2001). Focus and early peak alignment in Spanish intonation. Probus, 13, 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D. J., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., & Bates, E. (2007). MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: User's guide and technical manual (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., & Tokura, H. (1995). The given-new contract in speech to infants. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(3), 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünloh, T., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Young children's intonational marking of new, given and contrastive referents. Language Learning and Development, 11(2), 95–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2014.889530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (2003). Information Structure and Referential Givenness/Newness: How Much Belongs in the Grammar? In Müller, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 122–142). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and focus. The Handbook of Pragmatics, 175(196), 12.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274. https://doi.org/10.2307/416535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2002). Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002, First International Conference, 47–57. Aix-en-Provence, ProSig and Université de Provence Laboratoire Parole et Language.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2005). Transcription of Dutch intonation. In Jun, S.-A. (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 118–145). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2008). Types of focus in English. In Lee, C., Gordon, M., & Büring, D. (Eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation. Studies in linguistics and philosophy (Vol. 82, pp. 83–100). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanssen, J. E. G., Peters, J., & Gussenhoven, C. (2008). Prosodic effects of focus in Dutch declaratives. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008, an International Conference, 609–612. Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
Hardin, J. W., & Hilbe, J. M. (2002). Generalized estimating equations. Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, N., & Sosa, J. M. (2007). The prosody of topic and focus in spontaneous English dialogue. In Lee, C., Gordon, M., & Büring, D. (Eds.), Topic and Focus: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation (pp. 101–120). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, L. E. (2007). German 5-year-olds’ intonational marking of information status. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress on Phonetic Sciences, 1557–1560. Saarbrücken, Germany.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H. P. J. M., Roland, F., & Liang, J. C. P. (1996). The marking of new information in children's narratives: a comparison of English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 23(3), 591–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, J. (1993). Pitch accent in context predicting intonational prominence from text. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1–2), 305–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornby, P. A., & Hass, W. A. (1970). Use of Contrastive Stress by Preschool Children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 13(2), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1302.395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ito, K., Speer, S., & Beckman, M. E. (2004). Informational status and pitch accent distribution in spontaneous dialogue in English. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004, an International Conference, 279–282. Nara, Japan.Google Scholar
Jun, S-A. (2006). Intonational phonology of Seoul Korean Revisited. Japanese-Korean Linguistics, 14, 15–26. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Katz, J., & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87(4), 771–816.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R., & Morton, R. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics, 25(3), 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1996). Information structure and sentence form: Topic focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1978). Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: A cross-cultural developmental study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(5), 539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, A., Höhle, B., Schmitz, M., & Weissenborn, J. (2005). Focus-to-stress alignment in 4-to 5-year-old German-learning children. In Belletti, A., Bennati, E., Chesi, C., DiDomenico, E., & Ferrari, I. (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Development. Proceedings of GALA 2005 (pp. 379–392). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. B. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311).Google Scholar
Pitrelli, J. F., Beckman, M. E., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Evaluation of prosodic transcription labeling reliability in the ToBI framework. Third International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.Google Scholar
Prieto, P., Estrella, A., Thorson, J., & Vanrell, M. D. M. (2012). Is prosodic development correlated with grammatical and lexical development? Evidence from emerging intonation in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Child Language, 39(02), 221–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500091100002XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romøren, A. S. H., & Chen, A. (2015). Quiet is the New Loud: Pausing and Focus in Child and Adult Dutch. Language and Speech, 58(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830914563589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanchéz-Alvarado, C., Arias, A., Fernández, E. G., McAlister, I., & Armstrong, M. E. (2018). Mother's use of F0 after the first year of life in American English and Peninsular Spanish. In MacDonald, J. E. (Ed.), Contemporary Trends in Hispanic And Lusophone Linguistics, 281–308. John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. (1979). A real early stage: an unzipped condensation of a dissertation n child language. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (Eds.), Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Turk, A. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 193–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708572CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sityaev, D., & House, J. (2003). Phonetic and phonological correlates of broad, narrow and contrastive focus in English. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), 1819–1822. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (1991). Structure and intonation. Language, 67, 262–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, M. (2007). Information-structural semantics for English intonation, In Lee, C., Gordon, M., & Büring, D. (Eds.), Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation (pp. 247–266). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (2014). The surface-compositional semantics of English intonation. Language, 90, 2–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrdal, A. K., & McGory, J. (2000). Inter-transcriber reliability of ToBI prosodic labeling. Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. (2000). Analysis and synthesis of intonation using the tilt model. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(3), 1697–1714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terken, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing ‘given’ information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech, 37(2), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terken, J., & Nooteboom, S. G. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2(3–4), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34(3), 459–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 905–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690961003589492CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008a). Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106(3), 1548–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. G., Tanenhaus, M., & Gunlogson, C. (2008b). Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science, 32(7), 1232–1244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802138755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieman, L. A. (1976). Stress patterns of early child language. Journal of Child Language, 3(2), 283–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, E., & Watson, D. G. (2008). Acoustic emphasis in four year olds. Cognition, 107(3), 1093–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, Y., & Xu, C. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33(2), 159–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, A., & Chen, A. (2018). The developmental path to adult-like prosodic focus-marking in Mandarin Chinese-speaking children. First Language, 38(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723717733920CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Thorson and Morgan supplementary material

Thorson and Morgan supplementary material

Download Thorson and Morgan supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 8.5 MB