Cover not available

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

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

Chapter 15
Get the focus right across languages

Acquisition of prosodic focus-marking in production

 | Utrecht University
Published online: 24 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.23.15che
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.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • An overview of methods
    • The picture/video-description task
    • The picture-matching game
    • The answer-reconstruction game
  • Acquisition of prosodic focus marking across languages
    • Effects of reliance on phonetic uses of prosody
    • Effects of transparency in phonological uses of prosody
    • Effects of lexical use of pitch
    • Effects of relative importance of prosody and word order in focus marking
  • Conclusions
  • Future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (53)
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arvaniti, A. (2009). Rhythm, timing and the timing of rhythm. Phonetica, 66(108), 46–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H., & Gut, U. (2005). The relationship between prosodic and syntactic organization in early multiword speech. Journal of Child Language, 32(1), 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavin, E. L. (1995). Language acquisition in crosslinguistic perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1), 373–396. 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. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouma, G. (2008). Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject- and object-fronting. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruce, G. (1998). Allmän och svensk prosodi. Lunds Universitet: Institutionen för Lingvistik.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. (1965). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.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. C. Vigario, 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
(2011a). Tuning information packaging: Intonational realization of topic and focus in child Dutch. Journal of Child Language, 38(5), 1055–1083. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, A. (2016, May). Different children different prosody: Inpidual differences in prosodic development. Keynote lecture at Speech Prosody 2016, Boston, USA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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..Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frota, S. (2000). Prosody and focus in European Portuguese: Phonological phrasing and intonation. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
İşsever, S. (2003). Information structure in Turkish: The word order-prosody interface. Lingua, 113, 1025–1053. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, J., & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87(4), 771–816. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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
Liu, F., & Xu, Y. (2005). Parallel encoding of focus and interrogative meaning in Mandarin intonation. Phonetica, 62, 70–87. 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
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.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
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wieman, L. A. (1976). Stress patterns of early child language. Journal of Child Language, 3(2), 283–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wong, P. (2012). Acoustic characteristics of three-year-olds‘ correct and incorrect monosyllabic Mandarin lexical tone productions. Journal of Phonetics, 40(1), 141–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., & Watson, D. G. (2008). Acoustic emphasis in four year olds. Cognition, 107(3), 1093–1101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (1999). Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of pitchcontours. Journal of Phonetics, 27(1), 55–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, A. (2017). Prosodic focus-marking in Mandarin Chinese-speaking and Seoul Korean-speaking children. PhD dissertation. LOT: Utrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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/10.1177/0142723717733920Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Liu, Jingyao & Ziyin Mai
2025. Production of only/zhi(you)-Focus by Bilingual Children and Parents in Naturalistic Interactions: A Multi-Domain Analysis. Journal of Child Language ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Destruel, Emilie, Louise Lalande & Aoju Chen
2024. The development of prosodic focus marking in French. Frontiers in Psychology 15 DOI logo
Filipe, Marisa G., Cátia Severino, Marina Vigário & Sónia Frota
2024. Development and validation of a parental report of toddlers’ prosodic skills. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 38:6 ► pp. 509 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Bruce Xiao, Si Chen, Fang Zhou, Jiang Liu, Cheng Xiao, Angel Chan & Tempo Tang
2024. English Prosodic Focus Marking by Cantonese Trilingual Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 67:3 ► pp. 782 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Anqi, Taehong Cho, Sahyang Kim & Aoju Chen
2024. Prosodic focus marking in Seoul Korean-speaking children: the use of prosodic phrasing. Frontiers in Psychology 15 DOI logo
Pronina, Mariia, Pilar Prieto, Luca Bischetti & Valentina Bambini
2023. Expressive Pragmatics and Prosody in Young Preschoolers are More Closely Related to Structural Language than to Mentalizing. Language Learning and Development 19:3 ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Aoju & Bhuvana Narasimhan
2022. A proposal for research on the acquisition of prosodic focus marking in diverse languages: A response to Kidd and Garcia (2022). First Language 42:6 ► pp. 745 ff. DOI logo
Esteve‐Gibert, Núria, Hélène Lœvenbruck, Marion Dohen & Mariapaola D'Imperio
2022. Pre‐schoolers use head gestures rather than prosodic cues to highlight important information in speech. Developmental Science 25:1 DOI logo
Kidd, Evan & Rowena Garcia
2022. Where to from here? Increasing language coverage while building a more diverse discipline. First Language 42:6 ► pp. 837 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Jing & Ping Tang
2022. 2022 13th International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing (ISCSLP), ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo
SURÁNYI, Balázs & Lilla PINTÉR
2022. Children's comprehension of prosodically marked focus in Hungarian: How mandatory syntactic focus-marking affects the trajectory of acquisition. Journal of Child Language 49:4 ► pp. 824 ff. DOI logo
Pronina, Mariia, Iris Hübscher, Ingrid Vilà-Giménez & Pilar Prieto
2021. Bridging the Gap Between Prosody and Pragmatics: The Acquisition of Pragmatic Prosody in the Preschool Years and Its Relation With Theory of Mind. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
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 DOI logo
Esteve-Gibert, Núria & Bahia Guellaï
2018. Prosody in the Auditory and Visual Domains: A Developmental Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 9 DOI logo
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. 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