Cover not available

In:The Acquisition of Reference
Edited by Ludovica Serratrice and Shanley E.M. Allen
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 15] 2015
► pp. 83–104

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Children’ use of intonation in reference and the role of input

Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.15.04che
Studies of children’s use of intonation in reference are few in number but are diverse in terms of theoretical frameworks and intonational parameters. In the current review, I present a re-analysis of the referents in each study, using a three-dimension approach (i.e., referential givenness-newness, relational givenness-newness, contrast), discuss the use of intonation at two levels (phonetic, phonological), and compare findings from different studies within a single framework. The patterns stemming from these studies may be limited in generalisability but can serve as initial hypotheses for future work. Furthermore, to shed light on the role of input in the acquisition of intonational encoding of referents, I examine caregivers’ use of intonation in reference in infant direct speech. In addition, I discuss how future research can advance our knowledge of these issues.
References (48)
References
Bard, E.G., & Aylett, M. (1999). The dissociation of deaccenting, givenness, and syntactic role in spontaneous speech. In J.J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa, M. Ohala, D. Granville, & A.C. Bailey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1753–1756). San Francisco, CA: University of California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, S. (2006). The intonation of givenness: Evidence from German. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, S., Becker, J., Grice, M., & Mücke, D. (2007). Tonal and articulatory marking of focus in German. In J. Trouvain & W.J. Barry (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1029–1032). Dudweiler: Pirrot.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, S., & Grice, M. (2006). The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1636–1657. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, S., & Hadelich, K. (2003). Accent type and givenness: An experiment with auditory and visual priming. In M. Solé, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1811–1814). Rundle Mall, SA, Australia: Causal Productions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H., & Gut, U. (2005). The relationship between syntactic and prosodic organisation in early multiword speech. Journal of Child Language, 32(1), 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.L. (1983). Intonation and gesture. American Speech, 58(2), 156–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H., & Morgan, J. (2010). Is early word-form processing stress-full? How natural variability supports recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 60(4), 241–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, B. (2006). Phonetics and phonology of thematic contrast in German. Language and Speech, 49(4), 451–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W.L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R.S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, A. (2009). The phonetics of sentence-initial topic and focus in adult and child Dutch. In M. Vigário, S. Frota, & M.J. Freitas (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology: Interactions and interrelations (pp. 91–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Is there really an asymmetry in the acquisition of the focus-to-accentuation mapping. Lingua, 120(8), 1926–1939. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2011a). Tuning information structure: Intonational realisation of topic and focus in child Dutch. Journal of Child Language, 38, 1055–1083. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2011b). The developmental path to phonological encoding of focus in Dutch. In S. Frota, G. Elordieta, & P. Prieto (Eds.), Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension (pp. 93–109). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2014). Production-comprehension (a)symmetry: Individual differences in the acquisition of prosody focus-marking. In N. Campbell, D. Gibbon, & D. Hirst (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Speech Prosody Conference. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, A., & Fikkert P. (2007a). Intonation of early two-word utterances in Dutch. In J. Trouvain, & J.B. William (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Dudweiler: Pirrot GmbH.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, A., & Fikkert, P. (2007b). Dutch 3-year-olds’ use of intonation in marking topic and focus. Poster presented at Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA), Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cristia, A. (2013). Input to language: The phonetics and perception of infant-directed speech. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(3), 157–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Swinney, D.A. (1987). Prosody and the development of comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 14(1), 145–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Ruiter, L. (2010). Studies on intonation and information structure in child and adult German (Doctoral dissertation). Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernald, A., & Mazzie, C. (1991). Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 209–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, C., & Tokura, H. (1995). The given-new contract in speech to infants. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(3), 287–310. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flemming, E. (2008). The role of pitch range in focus marking. Slides from a talk given at the Workshop on Information Structure and Prosody, Studiecentrum Soeterbeeck, Ravenstein, Netherlands. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and focus. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 175–196). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English II. Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), 199–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanssen, J., Peters, J., & Gussenhoven, C. (2008). Prosodic effects of focus in Dutch declaratives. In P.A. Barbosa, S. Madureira, & C. Reis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Speech Prosody Conference (pp. 609–612). Campinas: Editora RG/CNPq.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, S., & Warren, P. (1994). Phonetic influences on the intelligibility of conversational speech. Journal of Phonetics, 22(4), 493–511.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornby, P.A., & Hass, W.A. (1970). Use of contrastive stress by preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 13(2), 359–399.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ito, K. (2014). Children’s pragmatic use of prosodic prominence. In D. Matthews (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 199–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kitamura, C., & Burnham, D. (2003). Pitch and communicative intent in mothers’ speech: Adjustments for age and sex in the first year. Infancy, 4(1), 85–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, D.R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Striano, T., & Tomasello, M. (2006). 12- and 18-month-olds point to provide information for others. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 173–187. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molnár, V. (2002). Contrast from a contrastive perspective. In I. Kruijff-Korbayová & M. Steedman (Eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 147–161). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, C., & D’Entremont, B. (2001). Developmental changes in pointing as a function of attentional focus. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2(2), 109–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, A., Höhle, B., Schmitz, M., & Weissenborn, J. (2006). Focus-to-stress alignment in 4- to 5-year-old German-learning children. In A. Belletti, E. Bennati, C. Chesi, E. Di Domenico, & I. Ferrari (Eds.), Proceedings of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition 2005 (pp. 379–392). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, M.E. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Haberl, K. (2003). Understanding attention: 12- and 18-month-olds know what’s new for other persons. Developmental Psychology, 39(5), 906–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realisation of information packaging. Linguistics, 34(3), 459–519. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watson, D., Arnold, J.E., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2005). Not just given and new: The effects of discourse and task based constraints on acoustic prominence. Poster presented at the 2005 CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Acoustic prominence and reference accessibility in language production. Proceedings of the Third Speech Prosody Conference. <[URL]>
Wells, B., & Local, J. (1993). The sense of an ending: A case of prosodic delay. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 7(1), 59–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wells, B., Peppé, S., & Goulandris, N. (2004). Intonation development from five to thirteen. Journal of Child Language, 31(4), 749–778. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wieman, L.A. (1976). Stress patterns in early child language. Journal of Child Language, 3, 283–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., & Watson, D. (2008). Acoustic emphasis in four year olds. Cognition, 107(3), 1093–1101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Thorson, Jill C., Lauren R. Franklin & James L. Morgan
2023. Role of Pitch in Toddler Looking toNewandGivenReferents in American English. Language Learning and Development 19:4 ► pp. 458 ff. DOI logo
Klein, Janina, Stéphane Jullien & Gwendoline Fox
2021. Explorations in the relations between reference, syntactic constructions and prosody. In The Acquisition of Referring Expressions [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 28], ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
THORSON, Jill C. & James L. MORGAN
2021. Prosodic realizations ofnew,given, andcorrectivereferents in the spontaneous speech of toddlers. Journal of Child Language 48:3 ► pp. 541 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Aoju
2018. Get the focus right across languages. In The Development of Prosody in First Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 23], ► pp. 295 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Anqi & Aoju Chen
2018. The developmental path to adult-like prosodic focus-marking in Mandarin Chinese-speaking children. First Language 38:1 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue