Research has demonstrated differences in the characteristics of infant-directed speech (IDS) based on age (Stern et al., 1983) and sentence-type (Geffen and Mintz, 2017) but has not examined the two factors together. The current study evaluates whether the acoustics of IDS differ as a function of child's age and sentence-type. The study combines two corpora of native-English adult speakers. Both Corpus1(9mo) (described in Geffen and Mintz, 2017), from the Brent corpus of the CHILDES database (Brent and Siskind, 2001) and Corpus2 (12mo) (described in Thompson, 2019), from naturalistic home-recordings, included statements, yes/no and wh-questions, and were acoustically coded in Praat. Three 2-way mixed ANOVAs with Age (9 and 12 months; between-subjects factor) and Sentence-Type (S, WH, YN; within-subjects factor) on OverallF0range, FinalVowelDuration, and FinalVowelF0range found main effects of Age, and Age X Sentence-Type interaction for OverallF0range. There was also a significant effect of Age on FinalVowelDuration. Results demonstrated a developmental shift in acoustic characteristics of IDS, with more exaggerated prosody to younger infants, supporting Stern et al. (1983) and suggests that IDS to older children no longer privileges prosody as strongly. Future studies should investigate whether similar developmental adjustments in IDS occur in languages other than English.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
October 2020
Meeting abstract. No PDF available.
October 01 2020
The impact of child age and sentence-type on the acoustics of infant-directed speech
Susan Geffen;
Susan Geffen
Univ. of La Verne, 420 South Madison Ave., 201, Pasadena, CA 91101, [email protected]
Search for other works by this author on:
Tianlin Wang
Tianlin Wang
Univ. at Albany, Albany, NY
Search for other works by this author on:
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 148, 2500–2501 (2020)
Citation
Susan Geffen, Tianlin Wang; The impact of child age and sentence-type on the acoustics of infant-directed speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1 October 2020; 148 (4_Supplement): 2500–2501. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5146937
Download citation file:
72
Views
Citing articles via
All we know about anechoic chambers
Michael Vorländer
Day-to-day loudness assessments of indoor soundscapes: Exploring the impact of loudness indicators, person, and situation
Siegbert Versümer, Jochen Steffens, et al.
A survey of sound source localization with deep learning methods
Pierre-Amaury Grumiaux, Srđan Kitić, et al.
Related Content
English-learning infants’ perception of boundary tones
J Acoust Soc Am (October 2016)
Orchestra listening conditions—Some reflections on reflections
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (March 2023)
Assuming an engineering mindset in acoustical design: Helping clients get the most for their money
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (March 2023)
Prosodic exaggeration within infant-directed speech: Consequences for vowel learnability
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (May 2017)
A multimodal corpus of speech to infant and adult listeners
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (November 2013)