Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry

4 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.558
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.813

CiteScore 2017: 0.56

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.403
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.876

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 29, Issue 1


Prosodic focus with and without post-focus compression: A typological divide within the same language family?

Yi Xu, / Szu-wei Chen, / Bei Wang,
Published Online: 2012-02-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0006


There is increasing evidence that many languages encode prosodic focus not only with phonetic variations in the focused component itself, but also with a reduction of pitch range and intensity of the post-focus components, a strategy known as post-focus compression (PFC). However, evidence is also emerging that in many other languages prosodic encoding of focus is markedly different, suggesting that PFC might be related to factors such as the presence of lexical tone, stress or the availability of morphosyntactic means of signaling focus. The current study investigated the production and perception of focus in Taiwanese, Taiwan Mandarin and Beijing Mandarin, three languages/dialects that are all tonal and that have similar morphosyntactic means for indicating focus. Results showed clear evidence of PFC in Beijing Mandarin but lack of it in Taiwanese and Taiwan Mandarin, suggesting that PFC is independent of the factors mentioned above. Most interestingly, Taiwan Mandarin seems to have lost PFC due to close contact with Taiwanese despite its effectiveness as demonstrated by the perceptual experiment. The new findings, taken together with other recent finding about prosodic focus, seem to suggest that PFC is a “hard-to-evolve” prosodic feature that may have a single historical origin. Thus there is a need for large scale experimental research to explore the cross-linguistic distribution of PFC, so as to broaden our understanding of not only prosodic typology, but also language contact, bilingualism and language evolution in general.

About the article

Published Online: 2012-02-21

Published in Print: 2012-03-01

Citation Information: , Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 131–147, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0006.

Export Citation

© 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Chunsheng Yang
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2018
Hamed Rahmani, Toni Rietveld, and Carlos Gussenhoven
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2018, Volume 3, Number 1, Page 13
Bei Wang, Yi Xu, and Qifan Ding
Phonetica, 2018, Page 24
Zhaohong Wu and Marta Ortega-Llebaria
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2017, Volume 141, Number 3, Page 2263
Hae-Sung Jeon and Francis Nolan
Laboratory Phonology, 2017, Volume 8, Number 1
Yong-Cheol Lee, Ting Wang, and Mark Liberman
Frontiers in Psychology, 2016, Volume 7
Vahideh Abolhasanizadeh, Mahmood Bijankhan, and Carlos Gussenhoven
Lingua, 2012, Volume 122, Number 13, Page 1380

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in