Chapter published in:

The Development of Prosody in First Language Acquisition
Edited by Pilar Prieto and Núria Esteve-Gibert
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 23] 2018
► pp. 295–314

Chapter 15. Get the focus right across languages

Acquisition of prosodic focus-marking in production

Aoju Chen | Utrecht University

Languages differ in both the use of prosody in focus marking and prosodic systems. In the light of recent studies of acquisition of prosodic focus marking in typologically different languages, we argue that typological differences have direct influences on acquisition of prosodic focus marking. More specifically, differences in reliance on phonetic uses of prosody and transparency of how prosody is used phonologically to encode focus can lead to cross-linguistic differences in rate of acquisition. Differences in whether the prosodic means involved are also used for lexical purposes and in interface between prosody and word order can trigger cross-linguistic differences in route of acquisition.

Published online: 24 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.23.15che

References

Arnhold, A., Chen, A., & Järvikivi, J.

(2016) Acquiring complex focus-marking: Finnish four- to five-year-olds use prosody and word order in interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1886.

Arvaniti, A.

(2009) Rhythm, timing and the timing of rhythm. Phonetica, 66(108), 46–63.

Behrens, H., & Gut, U.

(2005) The relationship between prosodic and syntactic organization in early multiword speech. Journal of Child Language, 32(1), 1–34.

Bavin, E. L.

(1995) Language acquisition in crosslinguistic perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1), 373–396.

Baumann, S., Becker, J., Grice, M., & Mücke, D.

(2007) Tonal and articulatory marking of focus in German. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences – Saarbrücken, 1029–1032.

Baumann, S., & Kügler, F.

(2015) Prosody and information status in typological perspective – Introduction to the special issue. Lingua, 165, 179–182.

Bouma, G.

(2008) Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject- and object-fronting. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Groningen.

Bruce, G.

(1998) Allmän och svensk prosodi. Lunds Universitet: Institutionen för Lingvistik.

(2007) Components of a prosodic typology of Swedish intonation. In T. Riad, & C. Gussenhoven (Eds.), Tones and tunes. Typological and comparative studies in word and sentence prosody (Vol. 1, pp.113–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chao, Y. R.

(1965) A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Chen, A.

(2009) The phonetics of sentence-initial topic and focus in adult and child Dutch. In M. C. Vigario, S. Frota, & M. J. Freitas (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology: Interactions and interrelations (pp.91–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

(2011a) Tuning information packaging: Intonational realization of topic and focus in child Dutch. Journal of Child Language, 38(5), 1055–1083.

(2011b) The developmental path to phonological encoding of focus in Dutch. In S. Frota, P, Prieto, & G. Elordieta (Eds.) Prosodic production, perception and comprehension (pp.93–109). Berlin: Springer.

(2015) Children’s use of intonation in reference and the role of input. In L. Serratrice, & S. Allen (Eds.), The acquisition of reference (pp.83–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chen, A.

(2016, May). Different children different prosody: Inpidual differences in prosodic development. Keynote lecture at Speech Prosody 2016, Boston, USA.

Chen, A. & Fikkert, P.

(2007) Intonation of early two-word utterances in Dutch. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences – Saarbrücken, 315–320.

Chen, A., & Höhle, B.

(2018) Four- to five-year-olds‘ use of word order and prosody in focus marking in Dutch Linguistics Vanguard..

Frey, W.

(2006) Contrast and movement to the German prefield. In V. Molnár, & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp.235–264). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Frota, S.

(2000) Prosody and focus in European Portuguese: Phonological phrasing and intonation. New York, NY: Garland.

Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K., & Özçalişkan, Ş.

(eds.) (2008) Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Gussenhoven, C.

(2004) The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gussenhoven, C., & Bruce, G.

(1999) Word prosody and intonation. In H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems of the languages of Europe (pp.233–271). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hanssen, J., Peters, J., & Gussenhoven, C.

(2008) Prosodic effects of focus in Dutch declaratives. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Speech Prosody – Campinas, 609–612.

Hornby, P. A., & Hass, W. A.

(1970) Use of contrastive stress by preschool children. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 13(2), 395–399.

İşsever, S.

(2003) Information structure in Turkish: The word order-prosody interface. Lingua, 113, 1025–1053.

Jun, S. A.

(2005) Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In S.-A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp.201–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katz, J., & Selkirk, E.

(2011) Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87(4), 771–816.

Keller, F., & Alexopoulou, T.

(2001) Phonology competes with syntax: Experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of Information Structure. Cognition, 79(3), 301–372.

Ladd, D. R.

(1980) The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

(1996) Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lambrecht, K.

(1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, F., & Xu, Y.

(2005) Parallel encoding of focus and interrogative meaning in Mandarin intonation. Phonetica, 62, 70–87.

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.

Müller, A., Höhle, B., Schmitz, M., & Weissenborn, J.

(2006) Focus-to-stress alignment in 4 to 5-year-old German-learning children. Proceedings of the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition Conference 2005 – Siena, 393–407.

Pierrehumbert, J. B.

(1980) The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Unpublished PhD dissertation. MIT.

Roberts, C.

(2012) Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.

Röher, C., Baumann, S., & Grice, M.

(2015) The effect of verbs on the prosodic focus marking of information status: Production and perception in German. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences – Glasgow, 1–5.

Romøren, A. S. H.

(2016) Hunting Highs and Lows: The acquisition of prosodic focus marking in Swedish and Dutch. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Utrecht University.

Romøren, A. S. H., & Chen, A.

(2015a) Quiet is the new loud: Pausing and focus in child and adult Dutch. Language and Speech, 58(1), 8–23.

Rømoren, A. S. H., & Chen, A.

(2015b) The acquisition of prosodic focus marking in Central Swedish: Sorting out lexical and post-lexical tones. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences – Glasgow, 318–330.

Sauermann, A., Höhle, B., Chen, A., & Järvikivi, J.

(2011) Intonational marking of focus in different word orders in German children. Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics – Los Angeles, 313–322.

Slobin, D. I.

(1982) Universal and particular in language acquisition. In E. Wanner, & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp.128–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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 – Barcelona, 1819–1822.

Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E.

(1996) The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34(3), 459–519.

Wieman, L. A.

(1976) Stress patterns of early child language. Journal of Child Language, 3(2), 283–286.

Wong, P.

(2012) Acoustic characteristics of three-year-olds‘ correct and incorrect monosyllabic Mandarin lexical tone productions. Journal of Phonetics, 40(1), 141–151.

Wonnacott, E., & Watson, D. G.

(2008) Acoustic emphasis in four year olds. Cognition, 107(3), 1093–1101.

Xu, Y.

(1999) Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of pitchcontours. Journal of Phonetics, 27(1), 55–105.

Yang, A.

(2017) Prosodic focus-marking in Mandarin Chinese-speaking and Seoul Korean-speaking children. PhD dissertation. LOT: Utrecht.

Yang, A., & Chen, A.

(2014a) Prosodic focus marking in Chinese four- and eight-year-olds. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody – Dublin, 713–717.

(2014b) Prosodic focus marking in child and adult Mandarin Chinese. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages – Nijmegen, 54–58.

(2018) The developmental path to adult-like prosodic focus-marking in Mandarin Chinese-speaking children. First Language, 38(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723717733920

Yang, A., Cho, T., Kim, S., & Chen, A.

(2015) Phonetic focus-marking in Korean-speaking 7- to 8-year-olds and adults. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences – Glasgow, 1–5.

Cited by

Cited by other publications

Esteve-Gibert, Núria & Bahia Guellaï

2018. Prosody in the Auditory and Visual Domains: A Developmental Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 9

Hübscher, Iris & Pilar Prieto

2019. Gestural and Prosodic Development Act as Sister Systems and Jointly Pave the Way for Children’s Sociopragmatic Development. Frontiers in Psychology 10

Llanes-Coromina, Judith, Ingrid Vilà-Giménez, Olga Kushch, Joan Borràs-Comes & Pilar Prieto

2018. Beat gestures help preschoolers recall and comprehend discourse information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 172 ► pp. 168 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 june 2020. 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.