Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: Online-First Articles

How cross–linguistic influence affects the use of duration in the production and perception of corrective and non–corrective focus types

ORCID logo | Bielefeld University
ORCID logo | University of Konstanz
Speakers use corrective focus as an explicit way to correct misunderstandings in communication. We investigate whether immersive contact with a rhythmically different language affects the production and perception of duration as a cue to corrective and non–corrective focus. We tested twenty-eight native speakers and sixty-four native listeners of Urdu, half of whom lived in Germany and used German as a second language, and half lived in Pakistan. German is a stress–timed language with head–prominence marking and makes intensive use of duration to mark corrective focus, while Urdu is a syllable–timed language with edge–prominence marking, which uses duration differently from German to mark focus types. Results showed that the majority language, German, affected focus processing in Urdu differently across modalities: In production, focus marking was not affected by country of residence, while in perception, Urdu speakers living in Germany were more sensitive to duration in the corrective focus context than Urdu speakers in Pakistan. We analyze this as cross–linguistic influence and argue that contact with a stress–timed, head–prominence majority language (here: German) affects the cue weighting in the native language Urdu in perception but not (yet) in production.
Keywords: corrective focus, non–corrective focus, duration, cross–linguistic influence, Urdu
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Duration as a cue to focus marking in Urdu–Hindi and German
    • 2.2Cross–linguistic influence on prosody from L2 to L1
    • 2.3Hypotheses
  • 3.Production experiment
    • 3.1Methods
      • 3.1.1Participants
      • 3.1.2Materials
      • 3.1.3Procedure
      • 3.1.4Data analysis
        • 3.1.4.1Acoustic analysis
        • 3.1.4.2Statistical analysis
    • 3.2Results
    • 3.3Discussion
  • 4.Perception experiment
    • 4.1Methods
      • 4.1.1Participants
      • 4.1.2Stimuli
      • 4.1.3Apparatus and procedure
      • 4.1.4Data analysis
    • 4.2Results
    • 4.3Discussion
  • 5.General discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Disclosure statement
  • Consent
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Data availability statement
  • References
Published online: 20 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22106.jab
References (80)
References
Altenberg, E. (2005). The judgment, perception, and production of consonant clusters in a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43 (1), 53–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atterer, M., & Ladd, R. (2004). On the phonetics and phonology of “segmental anchoring” of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics, 32 1, 177–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed–effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59 (4), 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed–effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beddor, P. S. (2009). A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language, 85 (4), 785–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Perception grammars and sound change. In M. J. Solé & D. Recasens (Eds.), The initiation of sound change. Perception, production, and social factors (pp. 37–55). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beddor, P. S., Coetzee, A. W., Styler, W., McGowan, K. B., & Boland, J. E. (2018). The time course of individuals’ perception of coarticulatory information is linked to their production: Implications for sound change. Language, 94 (4), 931–968. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Chládková, K. (2011). Asymmetries between speech perception and production reveal phonological structure. In W. S. Lee & E. Zee (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICPHS 2011 (pp. 328–331). Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2022). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (v. 6.3) [computer program]. Available at [URL] [retrieved 15.11.2022]
Brauer, M., & Curtin, J. J. (2018). Linear mixed–effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within–subjects and/or within–items. Psychological Methods, 23 (3), 389–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, B. (2004). Answers to the perception of thematic contrast and questions regarding the perception of thematic “non–contrast”. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004 (pp. 685–688), Nara, Japan.Google Scholar
Braun, B., & Biezma, M. (2019). Prenuclear L*+H activates alternatives for the accented word. Frontiers in Psychology, 101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, B., Dainora, A., & Ernestus, M. (2011). An unfamiliar intonation contour slows down on–line speech comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26 (3), 350–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, B., Galts, T., & Kabak, B. (2014). Lexical encoding of L2 tones: The role of L1 stress, pitch accent and intonation. Second Language Research, 30 (3), 323–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25 (7), 1044–1098. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E., & Kang, Y. (2013). Phonology and speech. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young–Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 529–554). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butt, M., Jabeen, F., & Bögel, T. (2016). Verb cluster internal wh–phrases in Urdu: Prosody, syntax and semantics/pragmatics. Linguistic Analysis, 40 (3–4), 445–487.Google Scholar
(2020). Ambiguity resolution via the syntax–prosody interface: The case of kya ‘what’ in Urdu/Hindi. In G. Kentner & J. Kremer (Eds.), Prosody in syntactic encoding (pp. 85–117). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cangemi, F., Krüger, M., & Grice, M. (2015). Listener–specific perception of speaker–specific productions in intonation. In S. Fuchs, D. Pape, C. Petrone, & P. Perrier (Eds.), Individual differences in speech production and perception (pp. 123–145). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chamorro, G., Sorace, A., & Sturt, P. (2016). What is the source of L1 attrition? The effect of recent L1 re–exposure on Spanish speakers under L1 attrition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19 (3), 520–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, A., Çetinçelik, M., Roncaglia–Denissen, M. P., & Sadakata, M. (2021). Native language, L2 experience, and pitch processing in music. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 13 (2), 218–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1969). An Acoustic and articulatory study of vowel reduction in four languages. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 7 (4), 295–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, E. (2019). Native speech plasticity in the German–English late bilingual Stefanie Graf: A longitudinal study over four decades. Journal of Phonetics, 73 1, 24–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, E., Mennen, I., & Kirby, J. M. (2012). Singing a different tune in your native language: First language attrition of prosody. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16 1, 101–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dhillon, R. K. (2010). Stress and tone in Indo–Aryan languages (Publication No. 3415170) [Doctoral dissertation, Yale University]. ProQuest.Google Scholar
Dmitrieva, O. (2019). Transferring perceptual cue–weighting from second language into first language: Cues to voicing in Russian speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 73 1, 128–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dua, H. (2009). Urdu. In K. Brown & S. Ogilvie (Eds.), Concise encyclopaedia of languages of the world (pp. 1133–1138). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2020). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. (Twenty–third edition, Online version: [URL] (accessed on 15.09.2020))
Einfeldt, M., Sevastjanova, R., Zahner–Ritter, K., Kazak, E., & Braun, B. (2023). The use of active learning systems for stimulus selection and response modelling perception experiments. Computer Speech & Language, 83 1, 101537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, G., & Romera, M. (2021). The influence of social factors on the prosody of Spanish in contact with Basque. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25 (1), 286–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, C., Pandey, P., & Kentner, G. (2016). The prosody of focus and givenness in Hindi and Indian English. Studies in Language, 40 (2), 302–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of ‘new’ and ‘similar’ phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of Equivalence Classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15 1, 47–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Bohn, O.–S. (2021). The revised speech learning model (SLM–r). In R. Wayland (Ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp. 3–83). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genzel, S., & Kügler, F. (2010). The prosodic expression of contrast in Hindi. In M. Hasegawa–Johnson, A. Bradlow, J. Cole, K. Livescu, J. Pierrehumbert, & C. Shih (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, 1431:1–4, Chicago, IL, USA. Retrieved from [URL]
Green, P., & MacLeod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: an R package for power analysis of generalised linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7 (4), 493–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrington, J., Kleber, F., Reubold, U., Schiel, F., & Stevens, M. (2018). Linking cognitive and social aspects of sound change using agent–based modeling. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10 1, 707–728. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, N. (2016). Convergence effects in Spanish–English bilingual rhythm. In J. Barnes, N. Veilleux, S. Shattuck–Hufnagel, & A. Brugos (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2016 (pp. 721–725). Boston, USA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hussain, S. (1997). Phonetic correlates of stress in Urdu (Publication No. 9814230) [Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, USA]. ProQuest.Google Scholar
Jabeen, F. (2019). Prosody and word order: Prominence marking in declaratives and wh–questions in Urdu/Hindi [Doctoral dissertation, University of Konstanz, Germany]. KOPS. [URL]
(2022). Word order, intonation, and prosodic phrasing: Individual differences in the production and identification of narrow and wide focus in Urdu. Languages, 7 (2). 103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jabeen, F., & Braun, B. (2018). Production and perception of prosodic cues in narrow and corrective focus in Urdu/Hindi. In K. Klessa, J. Bachan, A. Wagner, M. Karpiński, & D. Śledziński (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2018 (pp. 30–34). Poznań, Poland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jabeen, F., & Delais–Roussarie, E. (2020). The Accentual Phrase in Urdu/Hindi: A prosodic unit at the interplay between rhythm and intonation. In N. Minematsu, M. Kondo, T. Arai, & R. Hayashi (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2020 (pp. 542–546). Tokyo, Japan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jun, S. A. (2012). Prosodic typology. In S. A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 430–453). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kidwai, A. (2000). XP–adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and binding in Hindi–Urdu. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55 (3–4), 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kügler, F. (2008). The role of duration as a phonetic correlate of focus. In P. Barbosa, S. Madureira, & C. Reis (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008 (pp. 591–594). Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
Kügler, F., & Gollrad, A. (2015). Production and perception of contrast: The case of the rise–fall contour in German. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82 (13), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, H., Konieczny, L., & Hanulíková, A. (2019). Processing of unfamiliar accents in monolingual and bilingual children: Effects of type and amount of accent experience. Journal of Child Language, 46 (2), 368–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llompart, M., & Reinisch, E. (2019). Imitation in a second language relies on phonological categories but does not reflect the productive usage of difficult sound contrasts. Language and Speech, 62 (3), 594–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maastricht, L., Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2016). Prominence patterns in a second language: Intonational transfer from Dutch to Spanish and vice versa. Language Learning, 66 (1), 124–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maastricht, L., Krahmer, E., Swerts, M., & Prieto, P. (2019). Learning direction matters: A study on L2 rhythm acquisition by Dutch learners of Spanish and Spanish learners of Dutch. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41 1, 87–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1992). Losing English as a first language. The Modern Language Journal, 76 1, 190–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manetta, E. (2012). Reconsidering rightward scrambling: Postverbal constituents in Hindi–Urdu. Linguistic Inquiry, 43 (1), 43–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. (2013). Languages in contact in a world marked by change and mobility. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, 18 (2), 7–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I. (2004). Bi–directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speakers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics, 32 1, 543–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I., & Chousi, D. (2018). Prosody in first–generation adult immigrants and second–generation heritage–language users: The timing of prenuclear rising accents. In K. Klessa, J. Bachan, A. Wagner, M. Karpiński, & D. Śledziński (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2018 (pp. 828–832). Poznań, Poland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I., Reubold, U., Endes, K., & Mayr, R. (2022, April 20–22). L2–induced changes in native intonation: An investigation of four dimensions of intonation in English migrants to Austria. [Conference presentation]. 10th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech (New Sounds 2022), Barcelona, Spain.
Moulines, E., & Charpentier, F. (1990). Pitch–synchronous waveform processing techniques for text–to–speech synthesis using diphones. Speech Communication, 9 1, 453–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagle, C. (2018). Examining the temporal structure of the perception–production link in second language acquisition: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 68 (1), 234–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patil, U., Kentner, G., Gollrad, A., Kügler, F., Féry, C., & Vasishth, S. (2008). Focus, word order and intonation in Hindi. Journal of South Asian Linguistics, 1 (1), 55–72.Google Scholar
Piccinini, P. & Arvaniti, A. (2021). Dominance, mode, and individual variation in bilingual speech production and perception. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9 (4–5), 628–658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puri, V. (2018). Focus in Indian English and Hindi late and simultaneous bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8 (3), 343–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (v. 4.3.11) [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Rahman, T. (2019). Mother tongue education policy in Pakistan. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 364–381). Taylor and Francis Group. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ribbert, A., & Kuiken, F. (2010). L2–induced changes in the L1 of Germans living in the Netherlands. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (1), 41–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saleem-ud-Din, S. M., & Anjum, S. (Eds.). (2013). Oxford Urdu–English dictionary. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schertz, J., Carbonell, K., & Lotto, A. J. (2020). Language specificity in phonetic cue weighting: Monolingual and bilingual perception of the stop voicing contrast in English and Spanish. Phonetica, 77 (3), 186–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. (2011). Language Attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, G. (2022). Asymmetrical cross–language phonetic interaction: Phonological implications. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 12 (2), 103–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., Kim, S., Shin, S., & Cho, T. (2021). Re–examining the effect of phonological similarity between the native– and second–language intonational systems in second–language speech segmentation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24 (2), 401–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trouvain, J., & Braun, B. (2020). Sentence prosody in a second language. In C. Gussenhoven & A. Chen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody (pp. 605–618). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turk, A., Nakai, S., & Sugahara, M. (2006). Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: A practical guide. In S. Sudhoff, D. Lenertova, R. Meyer, S. Pappert, P. Augurzky, I. Mleinek, N. Richter, & J. Schließer (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 1–28). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34 1, 459–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vijayakrishnan, K. G. (2003). Stress and tone in Punjabi. Language in India, 3 (11), 32.Google Scholar
Zahner-Ritter, K., Einfeldt, M., Wochner, D., James, A., Dehé, N., & Braun, B. (2022). Three kinds of rising–falling contours in German wh–questions: Evidence from form and function. Frontiers in Communication, 7 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zerbian, S. (2015). Markedness considerations in L2 prosodic focus and givenness marking. In E. Delais–Roussarie, M. Avanzi, & S. Herment (Eds.), Prosody and language in contact. Prosody, phonology and phonetics (pp. 7–27). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Krieger, Svenja & Miriam Geiss
2024. Intonation of polar questions in German-dominant heritage speakers of Italian. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.