Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:09:15.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's comprehension of intonation as a marker for discourse topic collaboration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Gary Holdgrafer  and
Thomas F. Campbell
Gary Holdgrafer*
Affiliation:
The University of Alberta
Thomas F. Campbell
Affiliation:
Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta
*
Gary Holdgrafer, Ph.D., Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, 11044 Garneau Professional Building, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaT6G OT2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two prerecorded productions of the “What's this?” question were presented to Grade 2, 4, and 6 children and to adults over a series of trials in a referential communication task. One production contained emphatic stress on the word “this” and the other production contained equal stress on both words. For each question presentation the experimenter selected a colored picture of an object from a deck that was the match to one of two picture choices in view of the subjects. The students guessed on successive presentations whether a different picture (new topic collaboration) or the same picture (old topic collaboration) had been selected based on the presence or absence of emphatic stress in the questions. No feedback was given to the students throughout the experimental procedure. Use of intonation as a marker for topic collaboration appeared by Grade 4, which is in support of other similar research.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 373 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

REFERENCES

Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A., & Smith, S. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: A crosslinguistic study. Cognition, 11, 245–299.Google Scholar
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C., Devescovi, A., Natale, F., & Venza, V. (1984). A crosslinguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolinger, D. L. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Language, 48, 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T. F., & Shriberg, L. D. (1982). Associations among pragmatic functions, linguistic stress, and natural phonological processes in speech-delayed children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 547–553.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, and topics. In Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27–55). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1974). An experiment involving comprehension of intonation in children from 7 to 10. Journal of Child Language. 1, 221–232.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic systems and intonation in English. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1981). Clinical linguistics. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., Morton, K. B., & Smith, J. O. (1968). Peabody language development kit. American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Hornby, P. A. (1971). Surface structure and the topic-comment distinction: A developmental study. Child Development, 42, 1975–1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwan, S. J., & Siegel, G. M. (1982). The effects of feedback on referential communication of preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 224–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keenan, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1976). Topic as a discourse notion. In Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 337–384). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1976). Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: A crosscultural developmental study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 539–558.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Price, D. (1980). The development of the comprehension of topic-comment marking. In Ingram, D., Peng, C. C., & Dale, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international congress for the study of child language. Lanham, MD.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kleigl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.Google Scholar
Rees, N. S., & Shulman, M. (1978). I don't understand what you mean by comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 43, 208–219.Google Scholar