Relations between prosodic variables and communicative functions.

J Flax; M Lahey; K Harris; A Boothroyd

doi:10.1017/s030500090001326x

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2010503

Relations between prosodic variables and communicative functions.

J Flax·M Lahey·K Harris·A Boothroyd

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Three children were observed interacting with their mothers at three different times: before the onset of single words, when vocabulary consisted of 10 words, and when vocabulary consisted of 50 words. Relations between communicative functions and acoustic analyses of prosodic variables (i.e. rise vs. nonrise of terminal contours) were studied. Considerable variability was found among the children in the number of rises produced overall and those produced for any function. Each child's use of rise was fairly constant over time and rises were produced relatively more frequently than nonrises with functions requiring a response from the listener. Factors affecting similarities and differences are discussed.

Explore related subjects

Child Language Child, Preschool Communication Female Humans Infant Language Development Male Mother-Child Relations Speech Acoustics Vocabulary Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J Flax, M Lahey, K Harris, A Boothroyd. 1991. Relations between prosodic variables and communicative functions.. https://doi.org/10.1017/s030500090001326x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Theory and methods in the study of the development of case and agreement: a response to Schütze.

Two recent papers Wexler, Schütze & Rice (1998) and Rispoli (1999a) reach different conclusions concerning the relationship between finiteness marking and pronoun case errors. Wexler et al. claim they are linked, whereas Rispoli finds little evidence for such a linkage. Wexler et al. discounted data from children who made pronoun case errors in 100% of their attempts at a subject pronoun, whereas Rispoli (1999a) included data from such children. This methodological difference may account for our differing conclusions. Schütze (2001) defends the omission of these data, claiming that children who make a pronoun case error 100% of the time do so because the correct pronoun case form is not in the child's productive inventory. Longitudinal data is presented showing the inadequacy of this assumption. Children may err without variation after a period of variation, indicating that these children have knowledge of the correct form. Apparent methodological differences between the two papers reveal deeper theoretical biases. The paradigm building approach taken by Rispoli views longitudinal variation of this sort as a reflection of lexical retrieval principles at work in a developing paradigm. In contrast, the Agr/Tns Omission Model of Wexler et al. finds such variation an uncomfortable inconvenience.

Child Language↗

PubMed2002

The development of subject-auxiliary inversion in English wh-questions: an alternative analysis.

Rowland & Pine (2000) present an analysis of the development of subject-auxiliary inversion in wh-questions in the speech of Adam from the Brown corpus. They show that there is an uninversion period in which the child fails to invert the subject and auxiliary in wh-questions, and they argue that this is a function of the frequency of wh-word + auxiliary collocations in the input: the more frequent a particular collocation is in the input, the more likely it is to be inverted in the child's speech. In this note an alternative analysis is proposed: the initial position of the tensed auxiliary signals interrogative illocutionary force, and the auxiliaries which are most reliably inverted are those that are overtly tensed morphologically. This analysis not only accounts for Rowland & Pine's data but also extends to inversion in yes-no questions. The analysis predicts three different patterns for the development of inversion in both types of questions, and it is shown that all three are attested.

Child Language↗

PubMed2001

Developmental language and speech disability.

Speech disabilities (articulation deficits) and language disorders--expressive (vocabulary) receptive (language comprehension) are not uncommon in children. An overview of these along with a global description of the impairment of communication as well as clinical characteristics of language developmental disorders are presented in this article. The diagnostic tables, which are applied in the European and Anglo-American speech areas, ICD-10 and DSM-IV, have been explained and compared. Because of their strengths and weaknesses an alternative classification of language and speech developmental disorders is proposed, which allows a differentiation between expressive and receptive language capabilities with regard to the semantic and the morphological/syntax domains. Prevalence and comorbidity rates, psychosocial influences, biological factors and the biological social interaction have been discussed. The necessity of the use of standardized examinations is emphasised. General logopaedic treatment paradigms, specific therapy concepts and an overview of prognosis have been described.

Child Language↗