sounds, prosodic effects vary in reference to individual word forms: in fact, a wider pitch range or higher pitch may not always be appropriate. As shown in Figures 5a-c, a particular pitch contour may be implicit in the production of a specific OW, such as monotonal (telephone) compared with a rising variable pitch in (frog) or a brring brring ribbit falling variable pitch in (horse): here we see pitch being used variably to represent the neigh OW in question. This accounts for the variability observed in Figures 1 and 2 above, as well as, to some extent, the use of reduplication in some OWs (e.g. but woof woof, quack quack) not others (e.g. neigh, meow). Insert Figures 5a-c about here Discussion Our results confirm the four hypotheses set out in the introduction: OWs were produced more saliently than their CW counterparts in relation to pitch (both mean pitch and pitch range – Hypothesis 1), duration (Hypothesis 2), frequency (Hypothesis 3) and word isolation (Hypothesis 4). This analysis has thus shown that production of OWs is more mothers’ salient across-the-board than their production of the corresponding CWs. Furthermore, we observed some important trends in the stylistic features of OW production: proximity of pairings was found to be an important feature of OW production, as OWs occurred almost exclusively in close proximity to often immediately next to their CW counterpart. – – Finally, the idiosyncratic nature of individual OW forms and the sound effects that typically accompany them were found to influence the various prosodic features used in mothers’ production of these forms. OWs were found to be more salient than their CW counterparts with regard to both f0 and pitch range, giving OWs special prominence in the input. However, the analysis of infants’ pitch range gave mixed results: while OWs featured wider pitch excursions than their CW counterparts, their increased duration appeared to account for this. Indeed, rate of pitch
sounds, prosodic effects vary in reference to individual word forms: in fact, a wider pitch range or higher pitch may not always be appropriate. As shown in Figures 5a-c, a particular pitch contour may be implicit in the production of a specific OW, such as monotonal brring brring (telephone) compared with a rising variable pitch in ribbit (frog) or a falling variable pitch in neigh (horse): here we see pitch being used variably to represent the OW in question. This accounts for the variability observed in Figures 1 and 2 above, as well as, to some extent, the use of reduplication in some OWs (e.g. woof woof, quack quack) but not others (e.g. neigh, meow). Insert Figures 5a-c about here Discussion Our results confirm the four hypotheses set out in the introduction: OWs were produced more saliently than their CW counterparts in relation to pitch (both mean pitch and pitch range – Hypothesis 1), duration (Hypothesis 2), frequency (Hypothesis 3) and word isolation (Hypothesis 4). This analysis has thus shown that mothers’ production of OWs is more salient across-the-board than their production of the corresponding CWs. Furthermore, we observed some important trends in the stylistic features of OW production: proximity of pairings was found to be an important feature of OW production, as OWs occurred almost exclusively in close proximity to – often immediately next to – their CW counterpart. Finally, the idiosyncratic nature of individual OW forms and the sound effects that typically accompany them were found to influence the various prosodic features used in mothers’ production of these forms. OWs were found to be more salient than their CW counterparts with regard to both f0 and pitch range, giving OWs special prominence in the infants’ input. However, the analysis of pitch range gave mixed results: while OWs featured wider pitch excursions than their CW counterparts, their increased duration appeared to account for this. Indeed, rate of pitch
IDS_paper_revised_Jul_2016_final_for_PURE.docx