■当前的研究调查了自闭症和典型发育(TD)粤语三语儿童的英语韵律重点标记,并研究了与以英语为母语的儿童相比在这方面的潜在差异。
■招募了48名参与者,每组16名演讲者(讲粤语的自闭症[CASD],说广东话的TD[CTD],和会说英语的TD[ETD]儿童),并设计提示问题以引出所需的焦点类型(即,广泛,狭窄,和对比焦点)。平均持续时间,平均基频(F0),F0范围,平均强度,和F0曲线被用作线性混合效应模型拟合和与群体和聚焦条件相关的功能数据分析的声学相关(即,广泛,狭窄,和对比预,on-,和后焦点)。
■CTD组通过减少平均持续时间而具有焦点后压缩(PFC)模式,缩小F0范围,降低平均值F0,F0曲线,在狭窄和对比的后焦点条件下,单词的平均强度,而CASD组仅平均持续时间缩短,F0曲线降低。然而,CTD组和CASD组均未显示大量的焦点扩张(OFE)模式。ETD组通过增加平均持续时间来标记OFE,平均F0,平均强度,和更高的F0曲线在聚焦条件下的单词。
■在PFC方面,CTD组比CASD组使用更多的声学线索。在使用OFE方面,ETD组与CASD和CTD组不同。此外,CASD和CTD组在使用持续时间和强度方面均显示出积极的第一语言迁移,潜在的,在使用F0进行韵律焦点标记时成功获得。同时,说广东话和说英语的团体之间使用OFE的差异,不是PFC,可能表明说广东话的儿童在OFE之前获得PFC。
UNASSIGNED: The current study investigated English prosodic focus marking by autistic and typically developing (TD) Cantonese trilingual children, and examined the potential differences in this regard compared to native English-speaking children.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-eight participants were recruited with 16 speakers for each of the three groups (Cantonese-speaking autistic [CASD], Cantonese-speaking TD [CTD], and English-speaking TD [ETD] children), and prompt questions were designed to elicit desired focus type (i.e., broad, narrow, and contrastive focus). Mean duration, mean fundamental frequency (F0), F0 range, mean intensity, and F0 curves were used as the acoustic correlates for linear mixed-effects model fitting and functional data analyses in relation to groups and focus conditions (i.e., broad, narrow, and contrastive pre-, on-, and post-focus).
UNASSIGNED: The CTD group had post-focus compression (PFC) patterns via reducing mean duration, narrowing F0 range, and lowering mean F0, F0 curve, and mean intensity for words under both narrow and contrastive post-focus conditions, while the CASD group only had shortened mean duration and lowered F0 curves. However, neither the CTD group nor CASD group showed much of on-focus expansion (OFE) patterns. The ETD group marked OFE by increasing mean duration, mean F0, mean intensity, and higher F0 curve for words under on-focus conditions.
UNASSIGNED: The CTD group utilized more acoustic cues than the CASD group when it comes to PFC. The ETD group differed from the CASD and CTD groups in the use of OFE. Furthermore, both the CASD and CTD groups showed positive first language transfer in the use of duration and intensity and, potentially, successful acquisition in the use of F0 for prosodic focus marking. Meanwhile, the differences in the use of OFE between the Cantonese-speaking and English-speaking groups, not PFC, might indicate that Cantonese-speaking children acquire PFC prior to OFE.