Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T05:59:34.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No perceptual reorganization for Limburgian tones? A cross-linguistic investigation with 6- to 12-month-old infants*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2017

STEFANIE RAMACHERS ,
SUSANNE BROUWER  and
PAULA FIKKERT
STEFANIE RAMACHERS*
Affiliation:
Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
SUSANNE BROUWER
Affiliation:
Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
PAULA FIKKERT
Affiliation:
Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
*
Address for correspondence: Stefanie Ramachers, Erasmusplein 1, Nijmegen 6500 HD, the Netherlands. e-mail: s.ramachers@let.ru.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the fact that many of the world's languages use lexical tone, the majority of language acquisition studies has focused on non-tone languages. Research on tone languages has typically investigated well-known tone languages such as Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese. The current study looked at a Limburgian dialect of Dutch that uses lexical pitch differences, albeit in a rather restricted way. Using a visual habituation paradigm, 6- to 12-month-old Limburgian and Dutch infants were tested for their ability to discriminate Limburgian tones. The results showed that both Limburgian and Dutch infants discriminate the Limburgian tones throughout their first year of life. The role of linguistic experience, acoustic salience, and the degree of similarity to the native prosodic system are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , March 2018 , pp. 290 - 318
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

[*]

This research was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (322-75-001) to the first author, and appears as part of the first author's dissertation. Thanks to all participating parents and their infants from Nijmegen and Roermond, the Baby Research Center in Nijmegen, daycare center ‘Ot en Sien’ in Roermond, and GGD Limburg Noord in Roermond. We also thank Carlos Gussenhoven for his helpful knowledge and advice on the Limburgian tones and on stimuli preparation, as well as for his feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks also to the research group First Language Acquisition at Radboud University Nijmegen for valuable discussion, and to two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Bakker, F. & Hout, R. van (2012). De afgrenzing tussen de noordelijke en zuidelijke dialecten in Noord-Limburg. Taal en Tongval 64(2), 159–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: a perceptual assimilation model. In Goodman, J. & Nusbaum, H. (eds), The development of speech perception: the transition from speech to spoken words, 167–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language research, 171–204. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. & Jones, C. (1998). Stimulus-alternation preference procedure to test infant speech discrimination. Infant Behavior and Development 21, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109(2), 775–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W. & Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of perceptual reorganization for non-native speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14(3) 345–60.Google Scholar
van Bezooijen, R. & van den Berg, R. (1999). Word intelligibility of language varieties in the Netherlands and Flanders under minimal conditions. In van Bezooijen, R. & Kager, R. (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 16, 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blom, E., Boerma, T., Bosma, E., Cornips, L. & Everaert, E. (2017). Cognitive advantages of bilingual children in different sociolinguistic contexts. Frontiers in Psychology 8(552). Online <doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00552>.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.22. Online <http://www.praat.org/>.Google Scholar
Bosch, L. & Ramon-Casas, M. (2011). Variability in vowel production by bilingual speakers: Can input properties hinder the early stabilization of contrastive categories? Journal of Phonetics 39, 514–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, B. & Johnson, E. (2011). Question or tone 2? How language experience and linguistic function guide pitch processing. Journal of Phonetics 39, 585–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, G. (1977). Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Chen, A. & Kager, R. (2016). Discrimination of lexical tones in the first year of life. Infant and Child Development, 25 426–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, L. (2014). Socio-syntax and variation in acquisition: problematizing monolingual and bidialectal acquisition. In Grohmann, K. K. (Ed.), Three factors and beyond: socio-syntax and language acquisition. Special issue of Linguistic Variation 14(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driessen, G. (2006). Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995–2003. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen 75, 103–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, S. (2000). The phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M. & Schlichting, L. (2005). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III-NL. Amsterdam: Pearson.Google Scholar
Durrant, S., Delle Luche, C., Cattani, A. & Floccia, C. (2015). Monodialectal and multidialectal infants’ representation of familiar words. Journal of Child Language 42, 447–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fennell, C. T., Tsui, A. S. & Hudon, T. M. (2016). Speech perception in simultaneously bilingual infants. In Nicoladis, E. & Montanari, S. (eds), Bilingualism across the lifespan, 43–62. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A. & Hurtado, N. (2006). Names in frames: infants interpret words in sentence frames faster than words in isolation. Developmental Science 9(3), F33–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fournier, R. (2008). Perception of the tone contrast in East-Limburgian dialects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Fournier, R., Gussenhoven, C., Jensen, O. & Hagoort, P. (2010). Lateralization of tonal and intonational pitch processing: an MEG study. Brain Research 1328, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fournier, R., Verhoeven, J., Swerts, M. & Gussenhoven, C. (2006): Perceiving word prosodic contrasts as a function of sentence prosody in two Dutch Limburgian dialects. Journal of Phonetics 34(1), 29–48.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
Geffen, S. & Mintz, T. (2011). Seven-month-olds discrimination of statements and questions. In Biller, A. K., Chung, E. Y. & Kimball, A. E. (eds), Online Supplement of the Proceedings of the 36th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goss, S. (2015). The effects of internal and experience-based factors on the perception of lexical pitch accent by native and nonnative Japanese listeners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2000a). On the origin and development of the Central Franconian tone contrast. In Lahiri, A. (ed.), Analogy, leveling, markedness: principles of change in phonology and morphology, 215–60. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2000b). The lexical tone contrast of Roermond Dutch in Optimality Theory. In Horne, M. (ed.), Prosody: theory and experiment, 129–67. Amsterdam: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2001). Suprasegmentals. In Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds), International encyclopedia of the social and the behavioural sciences, 15294–98. Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). Tone in Germanic: comparing Limburgian with Swedish. In Fant, G., Fujisaki, H., Cao, J., & Xu, Y. (eds), From traditional phonology to modern speech processing, 129–36. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2005). Transcription of Dutch intonation. In Jun, S.-A. (ed.), Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing, 118–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. & Bruce, G. (1999). Word prosody and intonation. In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, 233–66. Berlin, New-York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. & Peters, J. (2008). De tonen van het Limburgs. Nederlandse Taalkunde 13(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. & van der Vliet, P. (1999). The phonology of tone and intonation in the Dutch dialect of Venlo. Journal of Linguistics 35, 99–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallé, P., Chang, Y.-C. & Best, C. (2004). Identification and discrimination of Mandarin Chinese tones by Mandarin Chinese vs. French listeners. Journal of Phonetics 32(3), 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, P. (2000). Acquiring the phonology of lexical tone in infancy. Lingua 110, 581–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. F., Graf Estes, K., Wang, T. & Saffran, J. R. (2015). From flexibility to constraint: the contrastive use of lexical tone in early word learning. Child Development 86(1), 10–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heijmans, L. (2003). The relationship between tone and vowel length in two neighboring Dutch Limburgian dialects. In Fikkert, P. & Jakobs, H. (eds), Development in prosodic systems, 7–46, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, B., Bijeljac-Babic, R., Herold, B., Weissenborn, J. & Nazzi, T. (2009). Language specific prosodic preferences during the first half year of life: evidence from German and French infants. Infant Behavior and Development 32, 262–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horowitz, F. D. (1975). Visual attention, auditory stimulation, and language discrimination in infants. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 39(5/6), Serial No. 158.Google Scholar
Houston, D., Horn, D., Qi, R., Ting, J. & Gao, S. (2007). Assessing speech discrimination in individual infants. Infancy 12(2), 119–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyman, L. M. (2009). How (not) to do phonological typology: the case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jusczyck, P. W., Cutler, A. & Redanz, N. J. (1993). Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English. Child Development 64, 675–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kats, J. C. (1985). Remunjs Woardebook. Roermond: H. van der Marck en Zonen.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. (2016). Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone-accent dialects. Phonology 33, 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. (2000). The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Degushi, T., Kiritani, S. & Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science 9, F13–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, P., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N. & Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by six months of age. Science 255, 606–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L. & Kager, R. (2014). Perception of tones by infants learning a non-tone language. Cognition 133, 385–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattock, K. & Burnham, D. (2006). Chinese and English infants’ tone perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization. Infancy 10, 241–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattock, K., Molnar, M., Polka, L. & Burnham, D. (2008). The developmental course of lexical tone perception in the first year of life. Cognition 106, 1367–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meints, K. & Woodford, A. (2008). Lincoln Infant Lab Package 1.0: a new programme package for IPL, Preferential Listening, Habituation and Eyetracking. Online: <http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/psychology/babylab.htm>..>Google Scholar
Narayan, C. R., Werker, J. F. & Beddor, P. S. (2010). The interaction between acoustic salience and language experience in developmental speech perception: evidence from nasal place discrimination. Developmental Science 13(3), 407–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nazzi, T., Floccia, C. & Bertoncini, J. (1998). Discrimination of pitch contours by neonates. Infant Behavior and Development 21, 779–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, W., Archibald, J., Aronoff, , M. & Rees-Miller, J. (eds) (2001). Contemporary linguistics. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Ota, M. (2003). The development of lexical pitch accent systems. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48(3/4), 357–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picton, T. W., Alain, C., Otten, L., Ritter, W. & Achim, A. (2000). Mismatch negativity: different water in the same river. Audiology and Neuro-Otology 5, 111–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polka, L. & Bohn, O. (1996). A cross-language comparison of vowel perception in English-learning and German-learning infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100(1), 577–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polka, L. & Werker, J. F. (1994). Developmental changes in perception of nonnative vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 421–35.Google ScholarPubMed
Quam, C. & Swingley, D. (2010). Phonological knowledge guides 2-year-olds' and adults' interpretation of salient pitch contours in word learning. Journal of Memory and Language 62, 135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, A., Burnham, D., Kasisopa, B., Reilly, R., Attina, V., Rattanasone, N. X. & Best, C. T. (2014). Perceptual assimilation of lexical tone: the roles of language experience and visual information. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 77, 571–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riad, T. (2013). The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Y., Sogabe, Y. & Mazuka, R. (2009). Development of hemispheric specialization for lexical pitch-accent in Japanese infants. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(11), 2503–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Y., Sogabe, Y. & Mazuka, R. (2010). Discrimination of phonemic vowel length by Japanese infants. Developmental Psychology 46(1), 106–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaefer, V. & Darcy, I. (2014). Lexical function of pitch in the first language shapes cross-linguistic perception of Thai tones. Laboratory Phonology 5(4), 489–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés., N. & Bosch, L. (2009). Developmental shift in the discrimination of vowel contrasts in bilingual infants: Is the distributional account all there is to it? Developmental Science 12, 874–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, L. & Fu, C. S. L. (2016). A new view of language development: the acquisition of lexical tone. Child Development 87(3), 834–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, L., Hui, T. J., Chan, C. & Michnick Golinkoff, R. (2014). Influences of vowel and tone variation on emergent word knowledge: a cross-linguistic investigation. Developmental Science 17(1), 94–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skoruppa, K., Pons, F., Christophe, A., Bosch, L., Dupoux, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Alves Limussuri, R. & Peperkamp, S. (2009). Language-specific stress perception by 9-month-old French and Spanish infants. Developmental Science 12(6), 914–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, C. E. (1977). The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal of Child Language 4(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
So, C. & Best, C. T. (2010). Cross-language perception of non-native tonal contrasts: effects of native phonological and phonetic influences. Language and Speech 53(2), 273–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
So, C. & Best, C. T. (2014). Phonetic influences on English and French listeners’ assimilation of Mandarin tones to native prosodic categories. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36, 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soderstrom, M., Ko, E.-S. & Nevzorova, U. (2011). It's a question? Infants attend differently to yes/no questions and declaratives. Infant Behavior and Development 34, 107–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stager, C. L. & Werker, J. F. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nature 388, 381–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tamaoka, K., Saito, N., Kiyama, S., Timmer, K. & Verdonschot, R. (2014). Is pitch accent necessary for comprehension by Japanese speakers? – An ERP investigation. Journal of Neurolinguistics 27, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsao, F. M. (2008). The effect of acoustical similarity on lexical tone perception of one-year-old Mandarin learning infants. Chinese Journal of Psychology 50(2), 111–24.Google Scholar
Tsushima, T., Takizawa, O., Sasaki, M., Shiraki, S., Nishi, K., Kohno, M., Menyuk, P. & Best, C. T. (1994). Discrimination of English /r-l/ and /w-y/ by Japanese infants at 6–12 months: language-specific developmental changes in speech perception abilities. In 1994 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 1695–8. Yokohama, Japan.Google Scholar
Turk, A., Nakai, S. & Sugahara, M. (2006). Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: a practical guide. In Sudhoff, S., Lenertová, D., Meyer, R., Pappert, S., Augurzky, P., Mleinek, I., Richter, N. & Schließer, J. (eds), Methods in empirical prosody research, 1–27. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Voorhoeve, J. (1973). Safwa as a restricted tone system. Studies in African Linguistics 4(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Behne, D., Jongman, A. & Sereno, J. (2004). The role of linguistic experience in the hemispheric processing of lexical tone. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 449–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Weijer, J. (2001). The importance of single-word utterances for early word recognition. Proceedings of Early Language Acquisition (ELA2001). Lyon: France.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F. & Tees, R. C. (1992). The organization and re-organization of human speech perception. Annual Review of Neuroscience 15, 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werth, A. (2011). Perzeptionsphonologische Grundlagen der Prosodie. Eine Analyse der mittelfränkischen Tonakzentdistinktion. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Wetterlin, A. (2007). The lexical specification of Norwegian tonal word accents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
van de Wijngaard, T. & Keulen, R. (2007). De indeling van de Limburgse dialecten. In Keulen, R., van de Wijngaard, T., Crompvoets, H. & Walraven, F. (eds), Riek van klank. Inleiding in de Limburgse dialecten, 15–23. Sittard: Veldeke Limburg.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: a professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation LREC, Genoa, Italy.Google Scholar
Wu, X., Tu, J.-Y. & Wang, Y. (2012). Native and nonnative processing of Japanese pitch accent. Applied Psycholinguistics 33, 623–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z. (2000). From traditional Chinese phonology to modern speech technology: realization of tone and intonation in spoken Chinese. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 2000), Vol. 1, B1–B12.Google Scholar
Yeung, H. H., Chen, K. H. & Werker, J. (2013.). When does native language input affect phonetic perception? The precocious case of lexical tone. Journal of Memory and Language 68(2), 123–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, M. (2002). Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar