Emotional and linguistic prosody development in Polish children: Three different paths

Joanna Śmiecińska

doi:10.1515/psicl-2016-0020

Published by De Gruyter Mouton October 10, 2016

Emotional and linguistic prosody development in Polish children: Three different paths

Joanna Śmiecińska

From the journal Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0020

You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to this content through either of these. Showing a limited preview of this publication:

Abstract

The development of prosodic competence in children is a complex process. Various, often conflicting developmental paths have been proposed in the literature, with both the general testing method and language specific factors seeming to be responsible for the variety of the outcomes. In the present study receptive prosodic skills of over 100 Polish children aged 3;6–11 were assessed and compared to the skills of young adults (20–30) in three tasks; emotion recognition of single word utterances, question vs. statement distinction, and synthetic vs. recorded human voice discrimination. No age effect was found in the emotion recognition task; the question vs. statement distinction ability had a clear developmental threshold at the age between 7 and 8, and the ability to spot rhythmic and temporal distortions of synthetic speech gradually improved with age, but was generally not developed in 3;6 to 5;6 year olds. The results suggest a complex path of acquisition of the above skills.

Keywords: Prosody development; emotional prosody; linguistic prosody; synthetic speech recognition; Polish prosody

References

Aguert, M., V. Laval, A. Lacroix, S.G. Ludovic Le Bigot and P. Allen. 2013. “Inferring emotions from speech prosody: Not so easy at age five”. PLoS ONE 8: e83657.10.1371/journal.pone.0083657Search in Google Scholar

Alm, P.A. 2004. “Stuttering and the basal ganglia circuits: A critical review of possible relations”. Journal of Communication Disorders 37. 325–369.10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.03.001Search in Google Scholar

Baltaxe C.A. 1991. “Vocal communication of affect and its perception in three-to four-year-old children”. Perceptual and Motor Skills 72(3). 1187–1202.10.2466/pms.1991.72.3c.1187Search in Google Scholar

Bryant G.A, and H.C. Barrett. 2007. “Recognizing intentions in infant-directed speech: Evidence for universals”. Psychological Science 18(8). 746–751.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01970.xSearch in Google Scholar

Collier, R. 1974. “Laryngeal muscle activity, subglottal air pressure, and the control of pitch in speech”. Haskins Laboratories Reports, available at: <http://www.haskins.yale.edu/sr/sr039/sr039.html>. Last accessed 03 Sep 2015.Search in Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 1979. “Prosodic development”. In: Fletcher, P. and M. Garman (eds.), Language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 33–48.Search in Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 1982. Profiling linguistic disability. London: E. Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Diehl, J. and R. Paul. 2009. “The assessment and treatment of prosodic disorders and neurological theories of prosody”. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 11(4). 287–292.10.1080/17549500902971887Search in Google Scholar

Fairbanks, G. and W. Pronovost. 1939. “An experimental study of the pitch characteristics of the voice during the expression of emotion”. Speech Monographs 6. 87–104.10.1080/03637753909374863Search in Google Scholar

Fairbanks, G. and L. Hoaglin. 1941. “An experimental study of the durational characteristics of the voice during the expression of emotion”. Speech Monographs 8. 85–90.10.1080/03637754109374888Search in Google Scholar

Fletcher, P. and M. Garman. 1979. Language acquisition: Studies in first language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Foley, M., F.E. Gibbon and S. Peppé. 2011. “Benchmarking typically developing children’s prosodic performance on the Irish version of the Profiling Elements of Prosody in Speech-Communication (PEPS-C)”. Journal of Clinical Speech and Language Studies 18. 19–41.10.3233/ACS-2011-18105Search in Google Scholar

George, M.S., P. Parekh, N. Rosinsky, T.A. Ketter, T.A. Kimbrell, K.M. Heilman, P. Herscovitch and R.M. Post. 1996. “Understanding emotional prosody activates right hemisphere regions”. Archives of Neurology 53(7). 665–670.10.1001/archneur.1996.00550070103017Search in Google Scholar

Gordon, E. 1986. Intermediate measures of music audiation: A music aptitude test for children, grades one through four. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Grassmann, S. and M. Tomasello. 2010. “Prosodic stress on a word directs 24-montholds’ attention to a contextually new referent”. Journal of Pragmatics Journal of Pragmatics 42(11). 3098–3105.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.019Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, E.K. and P. Jusczyk. 2001. “Word segmentation by 8-month-olds: When speech cues count more than statistics”. Journal of Memory and Language 44. 548–567.10.1006/jmla.2000.2755Search in Google Scholar

Jusczyk, P. 1993. “Infants’ sensitivity to the sound patterns of native language words”. Journal of Memory and Language 32(3). 402–420.10.1006/jmla.1993.1022Search in Google Scholar

Kaszczuk, M. and Ł. Osowski. 2017. “The IVO Software Blizzard 2007 entry: Improving Ivona speech synthesis system”. Proceedings of Blizzard 2007 in conjunction with the Sixth ISCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis, Bonn, Germany. Available at: <http://festvox.org/blizzard/bc2007/blizzard_2007/full_papers/blz3_010.pdf>. Last accessed 31 Jan 2016.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, S., M. Bulut, C.M. Lee, A. Kazemzadeh, C. Busso and S. Narayanan. 2004. “Study of acoustic correlates associated with emotional speech”. Proceedings of the 148 ASA Meeting, San Diego, California. Available at: <http://acoustics.org/pressroom/httpdocs/148th/yildirim.html>. Last accessed 09 Sep 2015.Search in Google Scholar

Marshall, C. R, S Harcourt-Brown, F Ramus, and H. K. J van der Lely. 2009. “The Link between Prosody and Language Skills in Children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) And/or Dyslexia”. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 44 (4). 466–88. 10.1080/1368282080259164310.1080/13682820802591643Search in Google Scholar

Morgan, J.L. and J.R. Saffran. 1995. “Emerging integration of sequential and suprasegmental information in preverbal speech segmentation”. CDEV Child Development 66(4). 911–936.10.2307/1131789Search in Google Scholar

Morton, J.B. and S.E. Trehub. 2001. “Children’s understanding of emotion in speech”. Child Development 72. 834–843.10.1111/1467-8624.00318Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, K. 2013. “Universals and variation in question intonation: A comparative study of Hawaiian and HCE speech melodies”. Proceedings of University of Texas, Austin Symposium about Language and Society, April 2013. Available at: <http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/proceedings/2013/Murphy_final.pdf>. Last accessed 08 Sep 2015.Search in Google Scholar

Oberfeld, D., W. Heeren, J. Rennies, J. Verhey and J. Snyder. 2012. “Spectro-temporal weighting of loudness”. PLoS ONE 7(11). e50184.10.1371/journal.pone.0050184Search in Google Scholar

Patel, A.D. 2008. Music, language, and the brain. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pell, M.D., L. Monetta, S. Paulmann and S.A. Kotz. 2009. “Recognizing emotions in a foreign language”. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 33. 107–120.10.1007/s10919-008-0065-7Search in Google Scholar

Pell, M.D. 1998. “Recognition of prosody following unilateral brain lesion: Influence of functional and structural attributes of prosodic contours”. Neuropsychologia Neuropsychologia 36(8). 701–715.10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00008-6Search in Google Scholar

Peppé, S. and J. McCann. 2003. “Profiling Elements of Prosody in Speech-Communication (PEPS-C)”. Available at <http://www.peps-c.com/index.html>. Last accessed 08 Sep 2015.Search in Google Scholar

Peppé, S. 2009. “Why is prosody in speech-language pathology so difficult?” International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 11(4). 258–271.10.1080/17549500902906339Search in Google Scholar

Peppé, S. 2011. “Assessment of prosodic ability in atypical populations, with special reference to high-functioning autism”. In: Stojanovik, V. and J. Setter (eds.), Speech prosody in atypical populations: Papers in assessment and remediation. Guildford: J&R Press. 1–23.Search in Google Scholar

Pichon S. and C. Kell. 2013. “Affective and sensorimotor components of emotional prosody generation”. Journal of Neuroscience 33(4). 1640–1650.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3530-12.2013Search in Google Scholar

Ross, E.D. 1981. “The aprosodias. Functional-anatomic organization of the affective components of language in the right hemisphere”. Archives of Neurology 38(9). 561–569.10.1001/archneur.1981.00510090055006Search in Google Scholar

Ross, E.D. and M.M. Mesulam. 1979. “Dominant language functions of the right hemisphere? Prosody and emotional gesturing”. Archives of Neurology 36(3). 144–148.10.1001/archneur.1979.00500390062006Search in Google Scholar

Rymarczyk, K. 1999. “Zaburzenia prozodii emocjonalnej i lingwistycznej u pacjentów za uszkodzeniami mózgu” [Disorders of emotional and linguistic prosody in brain lesion patients]. Przegląd Psychologiczny 1–2. 135–150.Search in Google Scholar

Santens, P., M. De Letter, J. Van Borsel, J. De Reuck and J. Caemaert. 2003. “Lateralized effects of subthalamic nucleus stimulation on different aspects of speech in Parkinson’s disease”. Brain and Language 87(2). 253–258.10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00142-1Search in Google Scholar

Sauter, D.A., F. Eisner, P. Ekman and S.K. Scott. 2010. “Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(6). 2408–2412.10.1073/pnas.0908239106Search in Google Scholar

Schirmer, A. and S.A. Kotz. 2006. “Beyond the right hemisphere: Brain mechanisms mediating vocal emotional processing”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(1). 24–30.10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.009Search in Google Scholar

Snedeker, J. and S. Yuan. 2008. “Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults)”. Journal of Memory and Language 58. 574–608.10.1016/j.jml.2007.08.001Search in Google Scholar

Sobin, C. and A. Murray. 1999. “Emotion in speech: The acoustic attributes of fear, anger, sadness, and joy”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(4). 347–365.10.1023/A:1023237014909Search in Google Scholar

Stifter, C.A. and N.A. Fox. 1986. “Preschool children’s ability to identify and label emotions”. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 10(4). 255–266.10.1007/BF00987483Search in Google Scholar

Van Lacker Sidtis, D., N. Pachana, J.L. Cummings and J.J. Sidtis. 2005. “Dysprosodic speech following basal ganglia insult: Toward a conceptual framework for the study of the cerebral representation of prosody”. Brain and Language 97. 135–153.10.1016/j.bandl.2005.09.001Search in Google Scholar

Wells, B., S. Peppé and N. Goulandris. 2004. “Intonation development from five to thirteen”. Journal of Child Language 31(4). 749–778.10.1017/S030500090400652XSearch in Google Scholar

Wysocka, M. 2012. Prozodia mowy w percepcji dzieci. [Speech prosody in children’s perception]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.Search in Google Scholar

Zatorre, R.J. and P. Belin. 2001. “Spectral and temporal processing in human auditory cortex”. Cerebral Cortex 11(10). 946–953.10.1093/cercor/11.10.946Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, P., S. Crain and L. Zhan. 2012. “Sometimes children are as good as adults: The pragmatic use of prosody in children’s on-line sentence processing”. Journal of Memory and Language 67(1). 149–164.10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.005Search in Google Scholar

Appendix 1

Percentage Results by Respondent

Resp. No.	Gender	Age in months	Like% 7	Quest% 7	Display mode 1 =booklet; 2=computer	Ivona% 6
1.	m	42	0.86	0.86	2
2.	m	58	0.86	0.86	2
3.	f	61	0.86	0.86	1
4.	m	67	0.86	0.43	1
5.	m	48	1.00	1.00	1
6.	m	48	1.00	0.43	1
7.	f	51	1.00	0.00	1
8.	f	51	1.00	0.00	2
9.	f	51	1.00	0.00	1
10.	f	51	1.00	0.00	1
11.	m	52	1.00	0.00	2
12.	m	53	1.00	0.00	2
13.	f	53	1.00	0.00	1
14.	m	53	1.00	0.43	1
15.	m	53	1.00	0.00	2
16.	m	54	1.00	1.00	1
17.	f	54	1.00	1.00	2
18.	m	54	1.00	0.86	2
19.	m	56	1.00	0.57	2
20.	m	56	1.00	0.43	1
21.	m	56	1.00	0.00	1
22.	m	57	1.00	0.43	2
23.	m	60	1.00	1.00	2
24.	f	62	1.00	0.57	2
25.	m	62	1.00	1.00	1
26.	f	62	1.00	0.57	2
27.	f	63	1.00	0.14	1
28.	m	64	1.00	0.57	2
29.	m	64	1.00	0.43	1
30.	f	64	1.00	0.71	1
31.	f	65	1.00	1.00	1
32.	m	66	1.00	0.71	2
33.	f	66	1.00	0.57	2
34.	m	66	1.00	0.43	2
35.	m	67	1.00	1.00	1
36.	m	68	1.00	0.57	2
37.	m	68	1.00	0.43	2
38.	m	69	1.00	0.86	2
39.	m	69	1.00	0.43	1
40.	f	69	1.00	0.57	2
41.	f	71	1.00	0.43	1
42.	m	71	1.00	0.43	1
43.	f	71	1.00	0.00	2
44.	m	71	1.00	0.43	2
45.	m	72	1.00	1.00	1
46.	m	74	1.00	0.00	1
47.	m	75	1.00	1.00	2
48.	m	76	1.00	0.86	2
49.	m	76	1.00	0.29	2
50.	m	76	1.00	0.00	2
51.	f	77	1.00	0.57	2
52.	f	77	1.00	1.00	1
53.	m	78	1.00	0.57	2
54.	f	82	1.00	1.00	2	0.83
55.	m	83	1.00	0.00	1
56.	m	95	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
57.	m	98	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
58.	f	101	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
59.	f	113	1.00	1.00	1	0.67
60.	m	113	1.00	1.00	2	0.83
61.	f	115	1.00	1.00	2	0.83
62.	f	115	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
63.	m	117	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
64.	m	117	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
65.	m	118	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
66.	f	118	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
67.	f	121	1.00	1.00	1	0.83
68.	f	121	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
69.	f	121	1.00	1.00	2	0.50
70.	f	121	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
71.	f	121	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
72.	f	122	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
73.	f	123	1.00	1.00	1	0.83
74.	f	123	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
75.	m	124	1.00	1.00	2	0.50
76.	f	129	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
77.	f	240	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
78.	m	240	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
79.	m	252	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
80.	f	252	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
81.	f	252	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
82.	m	252	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
83.	f	252	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
84.	f	264	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
85.	f	264	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
86.	f	264	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
87.	f	264	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
88.	m	288	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
89.	m	288	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
90.	m	288	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
91.	f	300	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
92.	f	324	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
93.	m	336	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
94.	f	336	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
95.	f	336	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
96.	f	348	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
97.	f	360	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
98.	m	360	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
99.	f	360	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
100.	m	360	1.00	1.00	2	1.00
101.	f	360	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
102.	m	360	1.00	1.00	1	1.00
103.	f	41				0.67
104.	m	41				0.33
105.	m	43				0.83
106.	m	44				0.50
107.	f	44				0.33
108.	m	48				0.50
109.	m	48				0.33
110.	m	49				0.50
111.	m	51				0.67
112.	m	52				0.50
113.	m	53	0.50
114.	m	54	0.33
115.	m	55	0.33
116.	m	55	0.50
117.	m	59	0.50
118.	m	62	0.33
119.	f	62	0.33
120.	m	65	0.33
121.	m	67	0.33
122.	m	71	1.00
123.	m	77	1.00
124.	m	77	1.00
125.	f	77	0.83
126.	m	78	0.50
127.	m	78	0.67
128.	m	80	0.67
129.	f	80	0.83
130.	f	80	0.83
131.	m	81	0.67
132.	m	81	1.00
133.	m	83	0.83
134.	m	84	1.00
135.	m	84	0.83
136.	m	84	0.50
137.	f	84	0.83
138.	f	85	1.00
139.	f	85	1.00
140.	f	85	1.00
141.	f	86	0.67
142.	m	86	1.00
143.	f	86	1.00
144.	f	86	1.00
145.	f	86	0.50
146.	m	87	0.50
147.	m	87	0.67
148.	m	87	0.33
149.	f	87	0.83
150.	m	90	0.33
151.	m	91	0.50
152.	f	91	0.83
153.	f	93	0.83
154.	m	93	0.17
155.	m	93	0.33
156.	f	93	0.50
157.	f	94	0.33
158.	f	95	0.33
159.	f	97	0.50
160.	m	97	0.67
161.	f	98	0.83
162.	m	99	0.67
163.	f	99	0.50
164.	m	101	1.00
165.	m	102	1.00
166.	m	103	0.67
167.	m	103	1.00
168.	f	103	0.83
169.	f	104	1.00
170.	m	104	0.83
171.	f	105	0.83
172.	m	106	0.83
173.	f	106	1.00
174.	f	107	0.00
175.	f	112	0.83
176.	f	113	0.83
177.	m	114	1.00
178.	m	118	1.00
179.	f	119	0.67
180.	m	119	0.67
181.	m	120	1.00
182.	m	240	1.00
183.	f	252	1.00
184.	f	264	1.00
185.	m	264	1.00
186.	f	264	1.00
187.	f	264	1.00
188.	f	264	1.00
189.	m	264	1.00
190.	f	264	1.00
191.	m	264	1.00
192.	f	264	1.00
193.	f	264	1.00
194.	f	264	1.00
195.	f	264	1.00
196.	f	264	1.00
197.	m	264	1.00
198.	m	264	1.00
199.	m	264	1.00
200.	m	276	1.00
201.	m	288	1.00
202.	m	348	1.00
203.	f	360	1.00
204.	f	360	1.00
205.	f	360	1.00

Appendix 2

Kruskal-Wallis test for independent variables, pair-wise comparisons – groups 1–4, Question test.

	Test statistics	St. error	Standardised test statistics	Significance	Corrected sig.
1–2	−6.717	7.398	−.908	.364	1.000
1–3	−44.952	8.226	−5.464	.000	.000
1–4	−44. 952	7.821	−5.748	.000	.000
2–3	−38.235	7.398	−5.168	.000	.000
2–4	−38.235	6.945	−5.506	.000	.000
3–4	.000	7.821	.000	1.000	1.000

Each row tests the H0 that the distributions in samples 1 and 2 are the same. Significance level = 0.05.

Appendix 3

Kruskal-Wallis test for independent variables, pair-wise comparisons – groups 1–5, IVONA test.

	Test statistics	St. error	Standardised test statistics	Significance	Corrected sig.
1–3	−34.187	11.282	−2.889	.004	.039
1–2	−47.311	11.746	−4.028	.000	.001
1–4	−61.253	12.112	−5.057	.000	.000
1–5	−89.053	10.725	−8.303	.000	.000
3–2	13.34	10.544	1.246	.213	1.000
3–4	−27.075	10.950	−2.473	.013	.134
3–5	−54.875	9.393	−5. 842	.000	.000
2–4	−13.941	10.861	−1.284	.199	1.000
2–5	−41.741	9.289	−4.494	.000	.000
4–5	−27.800	9.748	−2.852	.004	.043