Question or tone 2? : How language experience and linguistic function guide pitch processing.

dc.contributor.authorBraun, Bettina
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Elizabethdeu
dc.date.accessioned2011-12-06T10:46:21Zdeu
dc.date.available2011-12-06T10:46:21Zdeu
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description.abstractHow does language experience shape pitch processing? Do speakers of tone languages, which use pitch to signal lexical contrasts (e.g., Mandarin Chinese) attend to pitch movements more closely than speakers of intonation languages (e.g., English)? Contradictory findings have been reported in the literature. In the current study, we hypothesize that listeners should be particularly attentive to any pitch information that signals meaningful information in the native language. This includes pitch movements signaling lexical contrasts (present in tone languages only) as well as postlexical contrasts (present in all languages). Both Mandarin and Dutch listeners performed speeded ABX match to sample tasks on the same sets of nonsense words. As predicted, the same pitch movements were attended to differentially by the two language populations depending on the role that information played in the native language. Mandarin speakers were more attentive than Dutch listeners to pitch movements as these signaled potential lexical contrasts in Mandarin (but not Dutch). Importantly, Dutch listeners were more attentive to pitch movements signaling postlexical information than to pitch movements signaling no meaningful information. These findings underscore the importance of postlexical information in online speech processing, and explain apparent contradictions in the literature.eng
dc.description.versionpublished
dc.identifier.citationFirst publ. in: Journal of Phonetics ; 39 (2011), 4. - pp. 585-594deu
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.wocn.2011.06.002deu
dc.identifier.ppn354263048deu
dc.identifier.urihttp://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/14632
dc.language.isoengdeu
dc.legacy.dateIssued2011-12-06deu
dc.rightsterms-of-usedeu
dc.rights.urihttps://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/deu
dc.subjectPitchdeu
dc.subjectlexical tonedeu
dc.subjectintonationdeu
dc.subjectpostlexicaldeu
dc.subjectcross-linguisticdeu
dc.subjectDutchdeu
dc.subjectChinesedeu
dc.subject.ddc400deu
dc.titleQuestion or tone 2? : How language experience and linguistic function guide pitch processing.eng
dc.typeJOURNAL_ARTICLEdeu
dspace.entity.typePublication
kops.citation.bibtex
@article{Braun2011Quest-14632,
  year={2011},
  doi={10.1016/j.wocn.2011.06.002},
  title={Question or tone 2? : How language experience and linguistic function guide pitch processing.},
  number={4},
  volume={39},
  issn={0095-4470},
  journal={Journal of Phonetics},
  pages={585--594},
  author={Braun, Bettina and Johnson, Elizabeth}
}
kops.citation.iso690BRAUN, Bettina, Elizabeth JOHNSON, 2011. Question or tone 2? : How language experience and linguistic function guide pitch processing.. In: Journal of Phonetics. 2011, 39(4), pp. 585-594. ISSN 0095-4470. Available under: doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.06.002deu
kops.citation.iso690BRAUN, Bettina, Elizabeth JOHNSON, 2011. Question or tone 2? : How language experience and linguistic function guide pitch processing.. In: Journal of Phonetics. 2011, 39(4), pp. 585-594. ISSN 0095-4470. Available under: doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.06.002eng
kops.citation.rdf
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/14632">
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:contributor>Johnson, Elizabeth</dc:contributor>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:contributor>Braun, Bettina</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Braun, Bettina</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/14632"/>
    <dc:creator>Johnson, Elizabeth</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>First publ. in: Journal of Phonetics ; 39 (2011), 4. - pp. 585-594</dcterms:bibliographicCitation>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">How does language experience shape pitch processing? Do speakers of tone languages, which use pitch to signal lexical contrasts (e.g., Mandarin Chinese) attend to pitch movements more closely than speakers of intonation languages (e.g., English)? Contradictory findings have been reported in the literature. In the current study, we hypothesize that listeners should be particularly attentive to any pitch information that signals meaningful information in the native language. This includes pitch movements signaling lexical contrasts (present in tone languages only) as well as postlexical contrasts (present in all languages). Both Mandarin and Dutch listeners performed speeded ABX match to sample tasks on the same sets of nonsense words. As predicted, the same pitch movements were attended to differentially by the two language populations depending on the role that information played in the native language. Mandarin speakers were more attentive than Dutch listeners to pitch movements as these signaled potential lexical contrasts in Mandarin (but not Dutch). Importantly, Dutch listeners were more attentive to pitch movements signaling postlexical information than to pitch movements signaling no meaningful information. These findings underscore the importance of postlexical information in online speech processing, and explain apparent contradictions in the literature.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/14632/2/braun_question.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-12-06T10:46:21Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-12-06T10:46:21Z</dc:date>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dcterms:title>Question or tone 2? : How language experience and linguistic function guide pitch processing.</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/14632/2/braun_question.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:issued>2011</dcterms:issued>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
kops.description.openAccessopenaccessgreen
kops.flag.knbibliographytrue
kops.identifier.nbnurn:nbn:de:bsz:352-146324deu
kops.sourcefieldJournal of Phonetics. 2011, <b>39</b>(4), pp. 585-594. ISSN 0095-4470. Available under: doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.06.002deu
kops.sourcefield.plainJournal of Phonetics. 2011, 39(4), pp. 585-594. ISSN 0095-4470. Available under: doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.06.002deu
kops.sourcefield.plainJournal of Phonetics. 2011, 39(4), pp. 585-594. ISSN 0095-4470. Available under: doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.06.002eng
kops.submitter.emailbarbara.werner@uni-konstanz.dedeu
relation.isAuthorOfPublicatione372682d-f849-4a24-954c-77ea5327008c
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoverye372682d-f849-4a24-954c-77ea5327008c
source.bibliographicInfo.fromPage585
source.bibliographicInfo.issue4
source.bibliographicInfo.toPage594
source.bibliographicInfo.volume39
source.identifier.issn0095-4470
source.periodicalTitleJournal of Phonetics

Dateien

Originalbündel

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 1 von 1
Vorschaubild nicht verfügbar
Name:
braun_question.pdf
Größe:
525.68 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
braun_question.pdf
braun_question.pdfGröße: 525.68 KBDownloads: 749

Lizenzbündel

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 1 von 1
Vorschaubild nicht verfügbar
Name:
license.txt
Größe:
1.92 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Beschreibung:
license.txt
license.txtGröße: 1.92 KBDownloads: 0