Perceptual Learning of Intonation Contour Categories in Adults and 9‐ to 11‐Year‐Old Children: Adults Are More Narrow‐Minded

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod; Olejarczuk, Paul; Redford, Melissa A.

doi:10.1111/cogs.12345

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 138 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both Experiments 1 and 2, listeners fixated more on contrastive alternatives to the subject noun (e.g., diver upon hearing swimmer ) when it was produced with a prenuclear L ∗ +H accent (which may signal a contrastive topic interpretation) compared to a prenuclear L+H ∗ accent (which is most compatible with a broad focus interpretation). Hence, claims in the literature that prenuclear accents are ornamental, mainly used for rhythmic purposes and remembered and processed poorly (Büring, 2007; Calhoun, 2010; Kapatsinski et al, 2017; Roettger and Cole, 2018) do not hold for all prenuclear accents alike. Clearly, in German, prenuclear L ∗ +H stands out in that respect.…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prenuclear L∗+H Activates Alternatives for the Accented Word

Braun

Biezma

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous processing studies have shown that constituents that are prosodically marked as focus lead to an activation of alternatives. We investigate the processing of constituents that are prosodically marked as contrastive topics. In German, contrastive topics are prosodically realized by prenuclear L∗+H accents. Our study tests (a) whether prenuclear accents (as opposed to nuclear accents) are able to activate contrastive alternatives, (b) whether they do this in the same way as constituents prosodically marked as focus with nuclear accents do, which is important for semantic modeling, and (c) whether the activation of alternatives is caused by pitch accent type (prenuclear L∗+H as contrastive accent vs. prenuclear L+H∗ as non-contrastive accent) or by differences in F0-excursion (related to prominence). We conducted two visual-world eye-tracking studies, in which German listeners heard declarative utterances (e.g., The swimmer wanted to put on flappers) and watched displays that depicted four printed words: one that was a contrastive alternative to the subject noun (e.g., diver), one that was non-contrastively related to it (e.g., sports), the object (e.g., flappers), which had to be clicked, and an unrelated distractor. Experiment 1 presented participants with two naturally produced intonation conditions, a broad focus control condition with a prenuclear L+H∗ accent on the subject and a contrastive topic condition with a prenuclear L∗+H accent. The results showed that participants fixated more on the contrastive alternative when the subject was produced with an L∗+H accent, with the same effect size and timing as reported for focus constituents. Experiment 2 resynthesized the stimuli so that peak height and F0-excursion were the same across intonation conditions. The effect was the same, but the time course was slightly later. Our results suggest that prenuclear L∗+H immediately leads to the activation of alternatives during online processing, and that the F0-excursion of the accent lends little. The results are discussed with regard to the processing of contrastive focus accents and theories of contrastive topic.

show abstract

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Semantically, prenuclear accents have been described as ornamental (Büring, 2007), serving a mostly rhythmic purpose (Calhoun, 2010; Chodroff and Cole, 2018). In a learning paradigm, Kapatsinski et al . (2017) showed that listeners focus more on the nuclear contour and largely ignore the prenuclear accents (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prenuclear L∗+H Activates Alternatives for the Accented Word

Braun

Biezma

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, students raging from 18 to 24 years old (27 participants) marked only 14 inflectional adjectives as possible. These findings, however, are not surprising as younger speakers are almost always more accepting in their judgments than older speakers (see Kapatsinski, Olejarczuk & Redford, 2017).…”

Section: How Common Are Inflectional Adjectives From Analytical Units?mentioning

confidence: 93%

Are There Analytical Adjectives in Russian?

Sokolova

Edberg

2019

Vestnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the scholarly literature there has been a discussion on whether modern Russian is developing more analytical tendencies, with special attention to new nominal compounds such as VIP-zal 'VIP lounge', veb- stranica ‘web page’. Traditionally, such units are described in terms of “analytical adjectives”, which covers all nominal non-inflectional units related to a head noun (Panov 1960, 1971). The data analyzed in this article suggest that what has previously been described as “analytical adjectives” constitutes at least three different patterns: 1) nominal [N[N]] compounds that roughly represent two groups: type (a) where the first component (modifier) should be a loan word (units like internet, veb, top, etc., the head noun of such compounds can be of Russian origin); type (b) where the second component (head noun) tends to be a loan word, whereas the modifier can be of Russian origin (this type is characteristic of names and titles like Gorbačev-fond ‘The Gorbachev foundation’) 2) appositions that mostly include abbreviations and names of styles and can be used both pre-positionally and post-positionally to the head noun (units like VIP); 3) a contracted pattern (potential stump compounds, or blends, like internacional-sem’ja from the inflectional adjective internacional’nyj ‘international’ and the noun semja ‘family’). The third pattern was productive in Soviet discourse (cf. zapčasti from zap[asnyje] ‘replacement’ časti ‘parts’) and seems to be regaining productivity. The presence of these three patterns affects not only the system of Russian word-formation but also the Russian grammatical system in general, since it evokes various intermediate cases between adjectives and compounding elements. We present a very general overview of the aforementioned patterns based on the data from a corpus study, an Internet study and a linguistic experiment.

show abstract

“…They also have been described as having lesser acoustic prominence than nuclear accents and are less likely than nuclear accents to be perceived as prominent by listeners (Cole et al 2019). In artificial language learning experiments with English-speaking participants, these prenuclear components of the intonation contour are not paid attention to as much as nuclear components (Kapatsinski et al 2017). Taken together, these findings suggest that prenuclear accents are, at a minimum, less relevant for expressing speaker-intended meaning, justifying their minor role in the literature on meaning and intonation.…”

Section: Positional Biases -Prenuclear Vs Nuclear Tunesmentioning

confidence: 99%