Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton March 9, 2018

Four- to five-year-olds’ use of word order and prosody in focus marking in Dutch

  • Aoju Chen EMAIL logo and Barbara Höhle
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard


This study investigated Dutch-speaking four- to five-year-olds’ use of word order and prosody in distinguishing focus types (broad focus, narrow focus, and contrastive narrow focus) via an interactive answer-reconstruction game. We have found an overall preference for the unmarked word order SVO and no evidence for the use of OVS to distinguish focus types. But the children used pitch and duration in the subject-nouns to distinguish focus types in SVO sentences. These findings show that Dutch-speaking four- to five-year-olds differ from their German- and Finnish-speaking peers, who show evidence of varying choice of word order to mark specific focus types, and use prosody to distinguish focus types in subject and object nouns in both SVO and OVS sentences. These comparisons suggest that typological differences in the relative importance between word order and prosody can lead to differences in children’s use of word order and prosody in unmarked and marked word orders. A more equal role of word order and prosody in the ambient language can stimulate more extensive use of prosody in the marked word order, whereas a more limited role of word order can restrict the use of prosody in the unmarked word order.


Arnhold, Anja, Aoju Chen & Juhani Järvikivi. 2016. Acquiring complex focus-marking: Finnish four- to five-year-olds use prosody and word order in interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 1886. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01886.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01886Search in Google Scholar

Baumann, Stefan, Johannes Becker & Martine Grice & Doris Mücke. 2007. Tonal and articulatory marking of focus in German. In Jürgen Trouvain & William J. Barry (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1029–1032. Saarbrücken: University of Saarland.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5(9/10). 341–345.Search in Google Scholar

Bouma, G. 2008. Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject- and object-fronting. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 66, University of Groningen. in Google Scholar

Chen, Aoju. 2009. The phonetics of sentence-initial topic and focus in adult and child Dutch. In Marina Vigário, Sónia Frota & Maria Freitas (eds.), Phonetics and phonology: Interactions and interrelations, 91–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/cilt.306.05cheSearch in Google Scholar

Chen, Aoju. 2010. Is there really an asymmetry in the acquisition of the focus-to-accentuation mapping. Lingua 120. 1926–1939.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.012Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Aoju. 2011a. Tuning information packaging: intonational realization of topic and focus in child Dutch. Journal of Child Language 38(5). 1055–1083.10.1017/S0305000910000541Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Aoju. 2011b. The developmental path to phonological encoding of focus in Dutch. In Sónia Frota, Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Prosodic production, perception and comprehension, 93–109. Heidelberg, London & New York: Springer Netherlands.10.1007/978-94-007-0137-3_5Search in Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 2006. Wide Focus Object Fronting. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (Vol. 8). Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Frey, Werner. 2006. Contrast and movement to the German prefield. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus, 235–264. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110922011.235Search in Google Scholar

Hanssen, Judith, Jörg Peters & Carlos Gussenhoven. 2008. Prosodic effects of focus in Dutch declaratives. In Plinio Almeida Barbosa, Sandra Madureira & Cesar Reis (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Speech Prosody, 609–612. Campinas, Brazil: Editora RG/CNPq.Search in Google Scholar

Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar

Oostdijk, Nelleke. 2000. The Spoken Dutch Corpus. Outline and first evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Vol. 2, 887–894.Search in Google Scholar

Romøren, Anna-Sara & Aoju Chen. 2014. Accentuation, pitch and pausing as cues to focus in child Dutch. In Will Orman & Matthew James Valleau (eds.), Online Proceedings Supplement of the 38th Boston University Conference on Language Development, 1–12. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sauermann, Antje, Barbara Höhle, Aoju Chen & Juhani Järvikivi. 2011. Intonational marking of focus in different word orders in German children. In Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 313–322. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

Schwab J. A. 2006. Multinomial logistic regression: Basic relationships and complete problems. Retrieved in 2006 from in Google Scholar

Vallduví, Enric & Elisabet Engdahl. 1996. The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 34(3). 459–519.10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459Search in Google Scholar

Vilkuna, Maria. 1995. Discourse configurationality in Finnish. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 244–268. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wonnacott, Elizabeth & Duane G. Watson. 2008. Acoustic emphasis in four year olds. Cognition 107(3). 1093–1101. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007. in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-11-21
Accepted: 2017-12-12
Published Online: 2018-03-09

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 11.12.2023 from
Scroll to top button