Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 33 - Cross-Linguistic Consistency of Speech Rhythms and Pending Questions: Evidence from Bilingual and Second-Language Speakers

  • from Section 5 - Rhythm across Languages
  • Edited by Lars Meyer, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Antje Strauss, University of Konstanz
  • Book:
    Rhythms of Speech and Language
    Published online:
    23 April 2026
    Print publication:
    07 May 2026, pp 597-609
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    A long-standing debate among scholars continues concerning the validity of rhythmic classification of the world’s languages. In order to address the remaining questions, it is key to further explore the speech production by bilinguals with 2L1s and second-language speakers. According to the majority of previous studies, results from bilinguals are intermediate between those of the two kinds of monolinguals, and results from second-language speakers are influenced by the rhythms of their first languages, which appear to support the rhythmic classification. However, several questions remain. The first is how to classify languages that exhibit characteristics of multiple rhythmic types. The second is that previous studies generally demonstrate that languages are more or less stress-timed, syllable-timed, or mora-timed, rather than strictly belonging to a single rhythm category. The third is that the proposed rhythmic measures are not comprehensive, and new measures are needed to account for the morphological and syntactic components of languages.