Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:21:39.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The limits of metrical segmentation: intonation modulates infants' extraction of embedded trochees*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2015

KATHARINA ZAHNER ,
MUNA SCHÖNHUBER  and
BETTINA BRAUN
KATHARINA ZAHNER*
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz
MUNA SCHÖNHUBER
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz
BETTINA BRAUN
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz
*
Address for correspondence: Katharina Zahner, University of Konstanz – Linguistics, PO Box 186, 78457 Konstanz, Germany. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We tested German nine-month-olds’ reliance on pitch and metrical stress for segmentation. In a headturn-preference paradigm, infants were familiarized with trisyllabic words (weak–strong–weak (WSW) stress pattern) in sentence-contexts. The words were presented in one of three naturally occurring intonation conditions: one in which high pitch was aligned with the stressed syllable and two misalignment conditions (with high pitch preceding vs. following the stressed syllable). Infants were tested on the SW unit of the WSW carriers. Experiment 1 showed recognition only when the stressed syllable was high-pitched. Intonation of test items (similar vs. dissimilar to familiarization) had no influence (Experiment 2). Thus, German nine-month-olds perceive stressed syllables as word onsets only when high-pitched, although they already generalize over different pitch contours. Different mechanisms underlying this pattern of results are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 43 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 1338 - 1364
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We thank Sophie Egger and Jana Schlegel for recording, acoustic analyses, recruitment of participants, and testing. We are very grateful to Janet Grijzenhout, head of the Baby Speech Laboratory at the University of Konstanz, for making available the lab's database and facilities as well as insightful comments. We also acknowledge support from an AFF research grant from the University of Konstanz awarded to Bettina Braun (FP 15/10). Further, we thank René Kager and Anne Cutler for discussion on the experiments and data, and in particular Elizabeth Johnson for sharing her invaluable HPP expertise and for very helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Finally, we owe special thanks to two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their suggestions and remarks.

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, H. R., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]: Linguistic data consortium. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bartels, S., Darcy, I. & Höhle, B. (2009). Schwa syllables facilitate word segmentation for 9-month-old German-learning infants. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Somerville, MA.Google Scholar
Baumann, S. & Grice, M. (2006). The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1636–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, S. & Hadelich, K. (2003). Accent type and givenness: an experiment with auditory and visual priming. Paper presented at the 5th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Baumann, S. & Röhr, C. (2015). The perceptual prominence of pitch accent types in German. Paper presented at the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Bion, R. A. H., Benavides-Varela, S. & Nespor, M. (2011). Acoustic markers of prominence influence infants' and adults' segmentation of speech sequences. Language and Speech 54, 123–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.14, retrieved from <http://www.praat.org/>..>Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H. & Morgan, J. L. (2010). Is early word-form processing stress-full? How natural variability supports recognition. Cognitive Psychology 60(4), 241–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, B. (2006). Phonetics and phonology of thematic contrast in German. Language and Speech 49, 451–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cumming, G. & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist 60(2), 170–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A. (2005). Lexical stress. In Pisoni, D. B. & Remez, R. E. (eds), The handbook of speech perception, 264–89. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. (2012). Native listening: language experience and the recognition of spoken words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delattre, P. (1969). An acoustic and articulatory study of vowel reduction in four languages. International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching (IRAL) 7, 294–325.Google Scholar
Dogil, G. (1995). Phonetic correlates of word stress. Arbeitspapiere des Instituts für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung der Universität Stuttgart 2(2), 1–60.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. (1985). Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development 8(2), 181–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A. & Kuhl, P. (1987). Acoustic determinants of infant preference for motherese speech. Infant Behavior and Development 10(3), 279–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, C. (1998). German word stress in optimality theory. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 101–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frota, S., Butler, J. & Vigário, M. (2014). Infants’ perception of intonation: Is it a statement or a question? Infancy 19(2), 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1, 126–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, M., Baumann, S. & Benzmüller, R. (2005). German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Sun-Ah, J. (ed.), Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 55–83), Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. S. F. & Diehl, R. L. (2007). Perception of rhythmic grouping: testing the iambic/trochaic law. Perception & Psychophysics 69(1), 113–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, B. P. (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Houston, D. M. & Jusczyk, P. W. (2000). The role of talker-specific information in word segmentation by infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26(5), 1570–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Jessen, M., Marasek, K. & Claßen, K. (1995). Acoustic correlates of word stress and the tense/lax opposition in the vowel system of German. Paper presented at the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. K. (2012). Bootstrapping language: Are infant statisticians up to the job? In Rebuschat, P. & Williams, J. (eds), Statistical learning and language acquisition, 55–89. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. K. & Jusczyk, P. W. (2001). Word segmentation by 8-month-olds: when speech cues count more than statistics. Journal of Memory and Language 44(4), 548–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. K. & Seidl, A. H. (2009). At 11 months, prosody still outranks statistics. Developmental Science 12(1), 131–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, E. K. & Tyler, M. D. (2010). Testing the limits of statistical learning for word segmentation. Developmental Science 13(2), 339–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jusczyk, P. W. & Aslin, R. N. (1995). Infants’ detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology 29(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jusczyk, P. W., Hohne, E. A. & Bauman, A. (1999). Infants’ sensitivity to allophonic cues for word segmentation. Perception & Psychophysics 61(8), 1465–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jusczyk, P. W., Houston, D. M. & Newsome, M. (1999). The beginnings of word segmentation in English-learning infants. Cognitive Psychology 39(3), 159–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Mandel, D. R., Myers, J., Turk, A. & Gerken, L. (1995). The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception. Infant Behavior and Development 18(1), 111–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren-Portnoy, T., Floccia, C., DePaolis, R. A., Vihman, M. M., Delle Luche, C., Durrant, S., Duffy, H., White, L. & Goslin, J. (2015). British English infants segment words only with exaggerated infant-directed speech stimuli. Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Infant Language Development (WILD), Stockholm.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. (1991). Terminal intonation patterns in single-accent utterances of German: phonetics, phonology and semantics. Arbeitsberichte des Instituts für Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung der Universität Kiel (AIPUK) 25, 115–85.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. (2012). The perception of lexical stress in German: effects of segmental duration and vowel quality in different prosodic patterns. Phonetica 69, 68–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuijpers, C. T., Coolen, R., Houston, D. M. & Cutler, A. (1998). Using the head-turning technique to explore cross-linguistic performance differences. In Rovee-Collier, C., Lipsitt, L. & Hayne, H. (eds), Advances in infancy research, Vol. 12, 205–20. Stamford: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, M. D. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Bayesian cognitive modeling: a practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1960). An acoustic-phonetic study of internal open juncture. Phonetica 5, 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lleó, C. (2002). The role of markedness in the acquisition of complex prosodic structures by German–Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism 6, 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mattys, S. L., Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A. & Morgan, J. L. (1999). Phonotactic and prosodic effects on word segmentation in infants. Cognitive Psychology 38(4), 465–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooshammer, C. (2010). Acoustic and laryngographic measures of the laryngeal reflexes of linguistic prominence and vocal effort in German. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 127(2), 1047–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nazzi, T., Floccia, C. & Bertoncini, J. (1998). Discrimination of pitch contours by neonates. Infant Behavior and Development 21(4), 779–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niebuhr, O. (2007). Perzeption und kognitive Verarbeitung der Sprechmelodie. Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Untersuchungen. New York: Mouten de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nix, A. J., Mehta, G., Dye, J. & Cutler, A. (1993). Phoneme detection as a tool for comparing perception of natural and synthetic speech. Computer Speech and Language 7, 211–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, D., Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M. & Butterfield, S. (2006). Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 53, 146–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, B., Kohler, K. & Wesener, T. (2005). Melodische Satzakzentmuster in prosodischen Phrasen deutscher Spontansprache – Statistische Verteilung und sprachliche Funktion [Melodic sentence accent patterns in spontaneous German prosodic phrases – statistical distribution and linguistic function]. In Kohler, K., Kleber, F. & Peters, B. (eds), Prosodic structures in German spontaneous speech (AIPUK 35a), 185–201. Kiel: IPDS.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274(5294), 1926–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, K. & Möbius, B. (2007). Word stress correlates in spontaneous child-directed speech in German. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Antwerp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, K. E. & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1990). The timing of prenuclear high accents in English. In Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. E. (eds), Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and the physics of speech, 72–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, L. (2008). Influences of high and low variability on infant word recognition. Cognition 106(2), 833–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, L., Morgan, J. L. & White, K. S. (2004). Preference and processing: the role of speech affect in early spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 51(2), 173–89.Google Scholar
Singh, L., White, K. S. & Morgan, J. L. (2008). Building a word-form lexicon in the face of variable input: influences of pitch and amplitude on early spoken word recognition. Language Learning and Development 4(2), 157–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiessen, E. D. & Erickson, L. C. (2013). Discovering words in fluent speech: the contribution of two kinds of statistical information. Frontiers in Psychology 3, 590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiessen, E. D., Hill, E. A. & Saffran, J. R. (2005). Infant-directed speech facilitates word segmentation. Infancy 7, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiessen, E. D. & Saffran, J. R. (2003). When cues collide: use of stress and statistical cues to word boundaries by 7- to 9-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology 39(4), 706–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiessen, E. D. & Saffran, J. R. (2004). Spectral tilt as a cue to word segmentation in infancy and adulthood. Perception & Psychophysics 66(5), 779–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Truckenbrodt, H. (2007). Upstep on edge tones and on nuclear accents. In Gussenhoven, C. & Riad, T. (eds), Tones and tunes. Vol. 2: experimental studies in word and sentence prosody, 349–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heugten, M. & Johnson, E. K. (2012). Infants exposed to fluent natural speech succeed at cross-gender word recognition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55(2), 554–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vihman, M. M., Nakai, S., DePaolis, R. A. & Hallé, P. (2004). The role of accentual pattern in early lexical representation. Journal of Memory and Language 50(3), 336–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellmann, C., Holzgrefe, J., Truckenbrodt, H., Wartenburger, I. & Höhle, B. (2012). How each prosodic boundary cue matters: evidence from German infants. Frontiers in Psychology 3, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Wong supplementary material S1

Wong supplementary material

Download Wong supplementary material S1(File)
File 153 KB