ArticleCoDAS2022
Hesitations and relative proeminence in prosodic constituents in children's speech.
Article in CoDAS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeto verify if hesitations would occur, preferably, in strong or weak positions of four of the prosodic constituents: phonological utterance, intonational phrase, phonological phrase and clitic group.
methodsthe data were extracted from a bank composed of 147 interview situations recorded with children aged 5-6 years. Was used the principle of relative prominence for the analysis of prosodic constituents. From this principle, the hesitant occurrences identified in prominent elements in the organization of each of the prosodic constituents was considered as for strong position and, as in a weak position, the hesitant occurrences identified in parts of constituents that surround the prominent positions. The judges detected 2.399 hesitant occurrences.
resultsthe following total hesitations were identified in strong and weak positions, respectively: (1) in the phonological utterance = 305 (28.37%) and 770 (71.63%); (2) in the intonational phrase = 285 (20.67%) and 1094 (79.33%); (3) in the phonological phrase = 129 (16.49%) and 653 (83.51%); and (4) in the clitic group = 154 (15.21%) and 859 (84.79%).
conclusionalthough hesitant occurrences have been identified in strong positions in all prosodic constituents analyzed, there was prevalence due to the weak position. This result corroborates studies that claim that hesitations would occur in non-nuclear prosodic portions. Furthermore to this confirmation, the results reinforce the effectiveness of the prosodic phonology model in relation to the principle of relative prominence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.