How Native Prosody Affects Pitch Processing during Word Learning in Limburgian and Dutch Toddlers and Adults

Abstract

In this study, Limburgian and Dutch 2.5- to 4-year-olds and adults took part in a word learning experiment. Following the procedure employed by Quam and Swingley (2010) and Singh et al. (2014), participants learned two novel word-object mappings. After training, word recognition was tested in correct pronunciation (CP) trials and mispronunciation (MP) trials featuring a pitch change. Since Limburgian is considered a restricted tone language, we expected that the pitch change would hinder word recognition in Limburgian, but not in non-tonal Dutch listeners. Contrary to our expectations, both Limburgian and Dutch children appeared to be sensitive to pitch changes in newly learned words, indicated by a significant decrease in target fixation in MP trials compared to CP trials. Limburgian and Dutch adults showed very strong naming effects in both trial types. The results are discussed against the background of the influence of the native prosodic system.

The Diversity of Tone Languages and the Roles of Pitch Variation in Non-tone Languages: Considerations for Tone Perception Research

“…In the other, Cantonese 3rd-graders' lexical tone sensitivity was found to correlate with their sensitivity to lexical stress in L2-English words (Choi et al, 2017). The remaining article (Ramachers et al, 2017) took an important additional step away from the past by using a European pitch accent language, Limburgian, rather than an Asian contour tone language in which tones carry high functional load in the lexicon but no grammatical function. Limburgian's binary level-tone distinction, which is embedded in a complex intonation system, carries a low functional load, but contributes both to lexical items and to a morphological alternation for a few frequent nouns in which falling pitch indicates plurality.…”

The Effects of Lexical Pitch Accent on Infant Word Recognition in Japanese

“…Mandarin infants, therefore, are exposed to words whose pitch pattern alternates between a dipping contour and a rising contour, potentially leading them to inaccurately encode both dipping and rising patterns as contextually constant representations of Tone 3 words. Variability is also a potential factor behind the apparently late pitch phonology development in Limburgian ( Ramachers et al, 2017 ). Like Japanese, Limburgian has one type of tonal contrast that is lexically assigned to a syllable in each word, but its pitch realization varies dramatically across intonational contexts (e.g., declarative, interrogative, and continuation) ( Gussenhoven and van der Vliet, 1999 ).…”

“…Like Japanese, Limburgian has one type of tonal contrast that is lexically assigned to a syllable in each word, but its pitch realization varies dramatically across intonational contexts (e.g., declarative, interrogative, and continuation) ( Gussenhoven and van der Vliet, 1999 ). Ramachers et al (2017) trained 2.5- to 4-year-olds on novel word-object associations and subsequently tested their word recognition using a mispronunciation design. Their Limburgian learners fixated on the target object even when they heard a pitch-mismatched version of the novel word, suggesting that the pitch differences were not treated as a lexical contrast.…”

Perception and lexical encoding of tone in a restricted tone language: Developmental evidence from Limburgian

“…Limburgian and Dutch 2,5-to 4-year-olds as well as adults took part in a word learning experiment [34]. Following the procedure employed by [35] and [36], participants learned two novel word-object mappings.…”