Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T03:55:38.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How German children use intonation to signal information status in narrative discourse*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2013

LAURA E. DE RUITER
LAURA E. DE RUITER*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Bielefeld University – Bielefeld
*
Address for correspondence: Bielefeld University, Faculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies, PO Box 10 01 31, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany. e-mail: lauraherbst@yahoo.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research on adult German suggests that speakers use particular pitch accent types to signal the information status of discourse referents. This study investigates to what extent German five- and seven-year-olds have acquired this mapping. Semi-natural speech data was obtained from a picture-elicited narration task in which the information status was systematically varied. Surprisingly, data from an adult control group were inconsistent with the claim of a clear status-accent mapping, and demonstrated that adult scripted speech cannot be taken as a target model. However, compared with adults' unscripted speech productions, children were indeed adult-like in their information status marking. Both child groups accented new referents, but tended to deaccent given referents. Accessible referents (whose first mentions were less recent) were mostly realized like new referents. Differences between adults and children emerged in the use of intonation to structure narrations, suggesting that some functions of intonation may be acquired only later.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 5 , September 2014 , pp. 1015 - 1061
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

[*]

I would like to thank Melissa Bowerman, Bettina Braun, Aoju Chen, and Sarah Schimke for fruitful discussions and helpful comments, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of this article. Thanks also to Kathrin Kirsch for helping collect the data, and to Harald Baayen and Jan de Ruiter for support with the statistical analyses.

References

REFERENCES

Arnold, J. E. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(4), 495–527.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expressions: everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language 56(4), 521–36.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, A., Ladd, D. R. & Mennen, I. (2006). Phonetic effects of focus and ‘tonal crowding’ in intonation: evidence from Greek polar questions. Journal of Phonetics 48, 667–96.Google Scholar
Bates, D. M. & Sarkar, D. (2007). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes. R package version 0.9975-12. Available at <http://cran.r-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Baumann, S. (2006). The intonation of givenness – evidence from German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Baumann, S. & Grice, M. (2006). The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1636–57.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
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (1992–2008). Praat – doing phonetics by computer. Amsterdam: Institute of Phonetics.Google Scholar
Brown, G. (1983). Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction. In Cutler, A. & Ladd, D. R. (eds), Prosody: models and measurements, 67–77. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language 50, 111–33.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chen, A., Den Os, E. & De Ruiter, J. P. (2007). Pitch accent type matters for online processing of information status: evidence from natural and synthetic speech. Linguistic Review 23(2/3), 317–44.Google Scholar
Christophe, A., Gout, A., Peperkamp, S. & Morgan, J. (2003). Discovering words in the continuous speech stream: the role of prosody. Journal of Phonetics 31(3), 585–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84, 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (1996). Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (eds), Prosody in interaction, 11–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. (2011). Information tracking and encoding in early L1: linguistic competence vs. cognitive limitations. Journal of Child Language 38(4), 828–60.Google Scholar
De Ruiter, L. E. (2009). The prosodic marking of topical referents in the German ‘Vorfeld’ by children and adults. Linguistic Review 26(2/3), 329–54.Google Scholar
De Ruiter, L. E. (2011). Polynomial modeling of child and adult intonation in German spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 54(2), 199–223.Google Scholar
Emmory, K., Corina, D. & Bellugi, U. (1995). Differential processing of topographic and referential functions of space. In Emmory, K. & Snitzer, J. (eds), Language, gesture, and space, 43–62. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Emslie, H. C. & Stevenson, R. J. (1981). Pre-school children's use of articles in definite and indefinite expressions. Journal of Child Language 8(2), 313–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filippova, E. & Astington, J. W. (2008). Further development in social reasoning revealed in discourse irony understanding. Child Development 79(1), 126–38.Google Scholar
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. (2006). Data analyisis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, M. & Baumann, S. (2002). Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191, 267–98.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2005). Transcription of dutch intonation. In Jun, S.-A. (ed.), Prosodic typology and transcription: a unified approach, 118–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. (2003). Children's discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H. P. J. M., Roland, F. & Liang, J. C. P. (1996). The marking of new information in children's narratives: a comparison of English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language 23(3), 591–619.Google Scholar
Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Hornby, P. A. & Hass, W. A. (1970). Use of contrastive stress by preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 13(2), 395–99.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A. & Redanz, N. J. (1993). Infants' preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development 64(3), 675–87.Google Scholar
Kail, M. & Hickmann, M. (1992). French children's ability to introduce referents in narratives as a function of mutual knowledge. First Language 12, 73–94.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Laan, G. P. M. (1997). The contribution of intonation, segmental durations, and spectral features to the perception of a spontaneous and a read speaking style. Speech Communication 22(1), 43–65.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds), Language sound structure: studies in phonology presented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students, 157–233. Boston: MIT Press.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, 539–58.Google Scholar
Möbius, B. & Jilka, M. (2007). Effects of syllable structure and nuclear pitch accents on peak alignment: a corpus-based analysis. In Trouvain, J. & Barry, W. J. (eds), Proceedings of ICPhS (Saarbrücken), 1173–76. Available on CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1926, 1955). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E. (eds), Intentions in communication, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potamianos, A. & Narayanan, S. (1998). Spoken dialog systems for children. Paper presented at the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Seattle, Washington. DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.1998.674401.Google Scholar
Pratt, M. W. & MacKenzie-Keating, S. (1985). Organizing stories: effects of development and task difficulty on referential cohesion in narrative. Developmental Psychology 21(2), 350–56.Google Scholar
Prieto, P., Estrella, A., Thorson, J. & Vanrell, M. D. (2012). Is prosodic development correlated with grammatical and lexical development? Evidence from emerging intonation in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Child Language 39(2), 221–57.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2008). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. & Thompson, S. A. (eds), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2), 361–82.Google Scholar
Snow, D. (1998). Children's imitations of intonation contours: are rising tones more difficult than falling tones? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41(3), 576–87.Google Scholar
Terken, J. M. B. (1984). The distribution of pitch accents in instructions as a function of discourse structure. Language and Speech 27(3), 269–89.Google Scholar
Terken, J. M. B. & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing ‘given’ information: effects of persistence of grammatical role and surface position. Language and Speech 37, 125–45.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Haberl, K. (2003). Understanding attention: 12- and 18-month-olds know what is new for other persons. Developmental Psychology 39(5), 906–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Eye-movements as a tool for bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions. In Trueswell, J. C. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (eds), Approaches to studying world-situated langauge use: bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions, 3–37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Watson, D., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Gunlogson, C. A. (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L+h*. Cognitive Science 32(7), 1232–44.Google Scholar
Whalen, D., Levitt, A. G. & Wang, Q. (1991). Intonational differences between the reduplicative babbling of French- and English-learning infants. Journal of Child Language 18(3), 501–16.Google Scholar
Wiemann, L. A. (1976). Stress patterns in early child language. Journal of Child Language 3(2), 283–86.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E. & Watson, D. G. (2008). Acoustic emphasis in 4-year-olds. Cognition 107(3), 1093–101.Google Scholar
Yaeger-Dror, M., Hall-Lew, L. & Deckert, S. (2003). Situational variation in intonational strategies. In Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C. F. (eds), Corpus analysis: language structure and language use, 209–24. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar