1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Volume 15, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Speakers use corrective focus as an explicit way to correct misunderstandings in communication. We investigate whether immersive contact with a rhythmically different language affects the production and perception of duration as a cue to corrective and non–corrective focus. We tested twenty-eight native speakers and sixty-four native listeners of Urdu, half of whom lived in Germany and used German as a second language, and half lived in Pakistan. German is a stress–timed language with head–prominence marking and makes intensive use of duration to mark corrective focus, while Urdu is a syllable–timed language with edge–prominence marking, which uses duration differently from German to mark focus types. Results showed that the majority language, German, affected focus processing in Urdu differently across modalities: In production, focus marking was not affected by country of residence, while in perception, Urdu speakers living in Germany were more sensitive to duration in the corrective focus context than Urdu speakers in Pakistan. We analyze this as cross–linguistic influence and argue that contact with a stress–timed, head–prominence majority language (here: German) affects the cue weighting in the native language Urdu in perception but not (yet) in production.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22106.jab
2023-10-20
2026-05-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.22106.jab
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altenberg, E.
    (2005) The judgment, perception, and production of consonant clusters in a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 53–80. 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.53
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.53 [Google Scholar]
  2. Atterer, M., & Ladd, R.
    (2004) On the phonetics and phonology of “segmental anchoring” of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics, 321, 177–197. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(03)00039‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00039-1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M.
    (2008) Mixed–effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed–effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beddor, P. S.
    (2009) A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language, 85(4), 785–821. 10.1353/lan.0.0165
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0165 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2012) Perception grammars and sound change. InM. J. Solé & D. Recasens (Eds.), The initiation of sound change. Perception, production, and social factors (pp.37–55). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.323.06bed
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.323.06bed [Google Scholar]
  7. Beddor, P. S., Coetzee, A. W., Styler, W., McGowan, K. B., & Boland, J. E.
    (2018) The time course of individuals’ perception of coarticulatory information is linked to their production: Implications for sound change. Language, 94(4), 931–968. 10.1353/lan.2018.0051
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0051 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boersma, P., & Chládková, K.
    (2011) Asymmetries between speech perception and production reveal phonological structure. InW. S. Lee & E. Zee (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICPHS 2011 (pp.328–331). Hong Kong.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2022) Praat: doing phonetics by computer (v. 6.3) [computer program]. Available atwww.praat.org/ [retrieved15.11.2022]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brauer, M., & Curtin, J. J.
    (2018) Linear mixed–effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within–subjects and/or within–items. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 389–411. 10.1037/met0000159
     https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000159 [Google Scholar]
  11. Braun, B.
    (2004) Answers to the perception of thematic contrast and questions regarding the perception of thematic “non–contrast”. InB. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004 (pp.685–688), Nara, Japan.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Braun, B., & Biezma, M.
    (2019) Prenuclear L*+H activates alternatives for the accented word. Frontiers in Psychology, 101. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01993
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01993 [Google Scholar]
  13. Braun, B., Dainora, A., & Ernestus, M.
    (2011) An unfamiliar intonation contour slows down on–line speech comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 350–375. 10.1080/01690965.2010.492641
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.492641 [Google Scholar]
  14. Braun, B., Galts, T., & Kabak, B.
    (2014) Lexical encoding of L2 tones: The role of L1 stress, pitch accent and intonation. Second Language Research, 30(3), 323–350. 10.1177/0267658313510926
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313510926 [Google Scholar]
  15. Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E.
    (2010) Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 1044–1098. 10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.504378 [Google Scholar]
  16. Broselow, E., & Kang, Y.
    (2013) Phonology and speech. InJ. Herschensohn & M. Young–Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.529–554). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Butt, M., Jabeen, F., & Bögel, T.
    (2016) Verb cluster internal wh–phrases in Urdu: Prosody, syntax and semantics/pragmatics. Linguistic Analysis, 40(3–4), 445–487.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2020) Ambiguity resolution via the syntax–prosody interface: The case of kya ‘what’ in Urdu/Hindi. InG. Kentner & J. Kremer (Eds.), Prosody in syntactic encoding (pp.85–117). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110650532‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110650532-004 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cangemi, F., Krüger, M., & Grice, M.
    (2015) Listener–specific perception of speaker–specific productions in intonation. InS. Fuchs, D. Pape, C. Petrone, & P. Perrier (Eds.), Individual differences in speech production and perception (pp.123–145). Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Chamorro, G., Sorace, A., & Sturt, P.
    (2016) What is the source of L1 attrition? The effect of recent L1 re–exposure on Spanish speakers under L1 attrition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 520–532. 10.1017/S1366728915000152
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000152 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen, A., Çetinçelik, M., Roncaglia–Denissen, M. P., & Sadakata, M.
    (2021) Native language, L2 experience, and pitch processing in music. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 13(2), 218–237. 10.1075/lab.20030.che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.20030.che [Google Scholar]
  22. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M.
    (1968) The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Delattre, P.
    (1969) An Acoustic and articulatory study of vowel reduction in four languages. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 7(4), 295–326. 10.1515/iral.1969.7.4.295
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1969.7.4.295 [Google Scholar]
  24. de Leeuw, E.
    (2019) Native speech plasticity in the German–English late bilingual Stefanie Graf: A longitudinal study over four decades. Journal of Phonetics, 731, 24–39. 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. de Leeuw, E., Mennen, I., & Kirby, J. M.
    (2012) Singing a different tune in your native language: First language attrition of prosody. International Journal of Bilingualism, 161, 101–116. 10.1177/1367006911405576
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911405576 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dhillon, R. K.
    (2010) Stress and tone in Indo–Aryan languages (Publication No. 3415170) [Doctoral dissertation, Yale University]. ProQuest.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dmitrieva, O.
    (2019) Transferring perceptual cue–weighting from second language into first language: Cues to voicing in Russian speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 731, 128–143. 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.12.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dua, H.
    (2009) Urdu. InK. Brown & S. Ogilvie (Eds.), Concise encyclopaedia of languages of the world (pp.1133–1138). Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D.
    (Eds.) (2020) Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. (Twenty–third edition, Online version: www.ethnologue.com (accessed on15.09.2020))
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Einfeldt, M., Sevastjanova, R., Zahner–Ritter, K., Kazak, E., & Braun, B.
    (2023) The use of active learning systems for stimulus selection and response modelling perception experiments. Computer Speech & Language, 831, 101537. 10.1016/j.csl.2023.101537
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2023.101537 [Google Scholar]
  31. Elordieta, G., & Romera, M.
    (2021) The influence of social factors on the prosody of Spanish in contact with Basque. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(1), 286–317. 10.1177/1367006920952867
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920952867 [Google Scholar]
  32. Féry, C., Pandey, P., & Kentner, G.
    (2016) The prosody of focus and givenness in Hindi and Indian English. Studies in Language, 40(2), 302–339. 10.1075/sl.40.2.02fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.2.02fer [Google Scholar]
  33. Flege, J. E.
    (1987) The production of ‘new’ and ‘similar’ phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of Equivalence Classification. Journal of Phonetics, 151, 47–65. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30537‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30537-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Flege, J. E., & Bohn, O.–S.
    (2021) The revised speech learning model (SLM–r). InR. Wayland (Ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp.3–83). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108886901.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108886901.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Genzel, S., & Kügler, F.
    (2010) The prosodic expression of contrast in Hindi. InM. Hasegawa–Johnson, A. Bradlow, J. Cole, K. Livescu, J. Pierrehumbert, & C. Shih (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, 1431:1–4, Chicago, IL, USA. Retrieved fromhttps://www.isca-speech.org/archive_v0/sp2010/sp10_143.html
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Green, P., & MacLeod, C. J.
    (2016) SIMR: an R package for power analysis of generalised linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. 10.1111/2041‑210X.12504
     https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504 [Google Scholar]
  37. Harrington, J., Kleber, F., Reubold, U., Schiel, F., & Stevens, M.
    (2018) Linking cognitive and social aspects of sound change using agent–based modeling. Topics in Cognitive Science, 101, 707–728. 10.1111/tops.12329
     https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12329 [Google Scholar]
  38. Henriksen, N.
    (2016) Convergence effects in Spanish–English bilingual rhythm. InJ. Barnes, N. Veilleux, S. Shattuck–Hufnagel, & A. Brugos (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2016 (pp.721–725). Boston, USA. 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016‑148
     https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-148 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hussain, S.
    (1997) Phonetic correlates of stress in Urdu (Publication No. 9814230) [Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, USA]. ProQuest.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Jabeen, F.
    (2019) Prosody and word order: Prominence marking in declaratives and wh–questions in Urdu/Hindi [Doctoral dissertation, University of Konstanz, Germany]. KOPS. nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-19mbzsf16gr5x7
  41. (2022) Word order, intonation, and prosodic phrasing: Individual differences in the production and identification of narrow and wide focus in Urdu. Languages, 7(2). 103. 10.3390/languages7020103
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020103 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jabeen, F., & Braun, B.
    (2018) Production and perception of prosodic cues in narrow and corrective focus in Urdu/Hindi. InK. Klessa, J. Bachan, A. Wagner, M. Karpiński, & D. Śledziński (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2018 (pp.30–34). Poznań, Poland. 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018‑6
     https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-6 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jabeen, F., & Delais–Roussarie, E.
    (2020) The Accentual Phrase in Urdu/Hindi: A prosodic unit at the interplay between rhythm and intonation. InN. Minematsu, M. Kondo, T. Arai, & R. Hayashi (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2020 (pp.542–546). Tokyo, Japan. 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2020‑111
     https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2020-111 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jun, S. A.
    (2012) Prosodic typology. InS. A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp.430–453). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kidwai, A.
    (2000) XP–adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and binding in Hindi–Urdu. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Krifka, M.
    (2008) Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3–4), 243–276. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kügler, F.
    (2008) The role of duration as a phonetic correlate of focus. InP. Barbosa, S. Madureira, & C. Reis (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008 (pp.591–594). Campinas, Brazil.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kügler, F., & Gollrad, A.
    (2015) Production and perception of contrast: The case of the rise–fall contour in German. Frontiers in Psychology, 61. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01254
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01254 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2017) lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ladd, D. R.
    (1980) The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  52. Levy, H., Konieczny, L., & Hanulíková, A.
    (2019) Processing of unfamiliar accents in monolingual and bilingual children: Effects of type and amount of accent experience. Journal of Child Language, 46(2), 368–392. 10.1017/S030500091800051X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500091800051X [Google Scholar]
  53. Llompart, M., & Reinisch, E.
    (2019) Imitation in a second language relies on phonological categories but does not reflect the productive usage of difficult sound contrasts. Language and Speech, 62(3), 594–622. 10.1177/0023830918803978
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918803978 [Google Scholar]
  54. Maastricht, L., Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M.
    (2016) Prominence patterns in a second language: Intonational transfer from Dutch to Spanish and vice versa. Language Learning, 66(1), 124–158. 10.1111/lang.12141
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12141 [Google Scholar]
  55. Maastricht, L., Krahmer, E., Swerts, M., & Prieto, P.
    (2019) Learning direction matters: A study on L2 rhythm acquisition by Dutch learners of Spanish and Spanish learners of Dutch. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 411, 87–121. 10.1017/S0272263118000062
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000062 [Google Scholar]
  56. Major, R. C.
    (1992) Losing English as a first language. The Modern Language Journal, 761, 190–208. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1992.tb01100.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb01100.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Manetta, E.
    (2012) Reconsidering rightward scrambling: Postverbal constituents in Hindi–Urdu. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(1), 43–74. 10.1162/LING_a_00073
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00073 [Google Scholar]
  58. Matras, Y.
    (2013) Languages in contact in a world marked by change and mobility. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, 18(2), 7–13. 10.3917/rfla.182.0007
     https://doi.org/10.3917/rfla.182.0007 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mennen, I.
    (2004) Bi–directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speakers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics, 321, 543–563. 10.1016/j.wocn.2004.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mennen, I., & Chousi, D.
    (2018) Prosody in first–generation adult immigrants and second–generation heritage–language users: The timing of prenuclear rising accents. InK. Klessa, J. Bachan, A. Wagner, M. Karpiński, & D. Śledziński (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2018 (pp.828–832). Poznań, Poland. 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018‑167
     https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-167 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mennen, I., Reubold, U., Endes, K., & Mayr, R.
    (2022, April20–22). L2–induced changes in native intonation: An investigation of four dimensions of intonation in English migrants to Austria. [Conference presentation]. 10th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech (New Sounds 2022), Barcelona, Spain.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Moulines, E., & Charpentier, F.
    (1990) Pitch–synchronous waveform processing techniques for text–to–speech synthesis using diphones. Speech Communication, 91, 453–467. 10.1016/0167‑6393(90)90021‑Z
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(90)90021-Z [Google Scholar]
  63. Nagle, C.
    (2018) Examining the temporal structure of the perception–production link in second language acquisition: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 68(1), 234–270. 10.1111/lang.12275
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12275 [Google Scholar]
  64. Patil, U., Kentner, G., Gollrad, A., Kügler, F., Féry, C., & Vasishth, S.
    (2008) Focus, word order and intonation in Hindi. Journal of South Asian Linguistics, 1(1), 55–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Piccinini, P. & Arvaniti, A.
    (2021) Dominance, mode, and individual variation in bilingual speech production and perception. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9(4–5), 628–658. 10.1075/lab.17027.pic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17027.pic [Google Scholar]
  66. Puri, V.
    (2018) Focus in Indian English and Hindi late and simultaneous bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(3), 343–371. 10.1075/lab.15009.pur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.15009.pur [Google Scholar]
  67. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2023) R: A language and environment for statistical computing (v.4.3.11) [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rahman, T.
    (2019) Mother tongue education policy in Pakistan. InA. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp.364–381). Taylor and Francis Group. 10.4324/9781315666235‑26
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666235-26 [Google Scholar]
  69. Ribbert, A., & Kuiken, F.
    (2010) L2–induced changes in the L1 of Germans living in the Netherlands. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(1), 41–48. 10.1017/S1366728909990320
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990320 [Google Scholar]
  70. Saleem-ud-Din, S. M., & Anjum, S.
    (Eds.) (2013) Oxford Urdu–English dictionary. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Schertz, J., Carbonell, K., & Lotto, A. J.
    (2020) Language specificity in phonetic cue weighting: Monolingual and bilingual perception of the stop voicing contrast in English and Spanish. Phonetica, 77(3), 186–208. 10.1159/000497278
     https://doi.org/10.1159/000497278 [Google Scholar]
  72. Schmid, M.
    (2011) Language Attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511852046
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511852046 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schwartz, G.
    (2022) Asymmetrical cross–language phonetic interaction: Phonological implications. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 12(2), 103–132. 10.1075/lab.19092.sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.19092.sch [Google Scholar]
  74. Tremblay, A., Kim, S., Shin, S., & Cho, T.
    (2021) Re–examining the effect of phonological similarity between the native– and second–language intonational systems in second–language speech segmentation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(2), 401–413. 10.1017/S136672892000053X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672892000053X [Google Scholar]
  75. Trouvain, J., & Braun, B.
    (2020) Sentence prosody in a second language. InC. Gussenhoven & A. Chen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody (pp.605–618). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Turk, A., Nakai, S., & Sugahara, M.
    (2006) Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: A practical guide. InS. Sudhoff, D. Lenertova, R. Meyer, S. Pappert, P. Augurzky, I. Mleinek, N. Richter, & J. Schließer (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp.1–28). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110914641.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110914641.1 [Google Scholar]
  77. Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E.
    (1996) The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 341, 459–519. 10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459 [Google Scholar]
  78. Vijayakrishnan, K. G.
    (2003) Stress and tone in Punjabi. Language in India, 3(11), 32.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Zahner-Ritter, K., Einfeldt, M., Wochner, D., James, A., Dehé, N., & Braun, B.
    (2022) Three kinds of rising–falling contours in German wh–questions: Evidence from form and function. Frontiers in Communication, 71. 10.3389/fcomm.2022.838955
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.838955 [Google Scholar]
  80. Zerbian, S.
    (2015) Markedness considerations in L2 prosodic focus and givenness marking. InE. Delais–Roussarie, M. Avanzi, & S. Herment (Eds.), Prosody and language in contact. Prosody, phonology and phonetics (pp.7–27). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑45168‑7_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45168-7_2 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22106.jab
Loading
How cross–linguistic influence affects the use of duration in the production and perception of corrective and non–corrective focus types
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 15, 152 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22106.jab
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22106.jab
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22106.jab
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corrective focus; cross–linguistic influence; duration; non–corrective focus; Urdu

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error