Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-30T19:22:51.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-examining the effect of phonological similarity between the native- and second-language intonational systems in second-language speech segmentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2020

Annie Tremblay ,
Sahyang Kim ,
Seulgi Shin  and
Taehong Cho
Annie Tremblay*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Sahyang Kim
Affiliation:
Hongik University
Seulgi Shin
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Taehong Cho
Affiliation:
Hanyang University
*
Address for correspondence: Annie Tremblay, Department of Linguistics, 1541 Lilac Lane, Blake Hall Rm 426, Lawrence, KS66045, E-mail atrembla@ku.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates how phonological and phonetic aspects of the native-language (L1) intonation modulate the use of tonal cues in second-language (L2) speech segmentation. Previous research suggested that prosodic learning is more difficult if the L1 and L2 intonations are phonologically similar but phonetically different (French–Korean) than if they are phonologically different (English–French/Korean) (Prosodic-Learning Interference Hypothesis; Tremblay, Broersma, Coughlin & Choi, 2016). This study provides another test of this hypothesis. Korean listeners and French-speaking and English-speaking L2 learners of Korean in Korea completed an eye-tracking experiment investigating the effects of phrase tones in Korean. All groups patterned similarly with the phrase-final tone, but, unlike Korean and French listeners, English listeners showed early benefits from the phrase-initial tone (signaling word-initial boundaries in English). Importantly, French listeners patterned like Korean listeners with both tones. The Prosodic-Learning Interference Hypothesis is refined to suggest that prosodic learning difficulties may not be persistent for immersed L2 learners.

Keywords

intonationtonal cuessecond-language speech segmentationKorean
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , March 2021 , pp. 401 - 413
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bates, D, Maechler, B, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, ME and Elam, GA (1997) Guidelines for ToBI labeling. The Ohio State University Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Beckman, ME and Pierrehumbert, J (1986) Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook 3, 255–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, CT and Tyler, MD (2007) Nonnative and second-language speech perception. In Munro, MJ & Bohn, O-S (Eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P and Weenink, D (2017) Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.36). Retrieved from http://www.praat.orgGoogle Scholar
Brown, M, Salverda, AP, Dilley, LC and Tanenhaus, MK (2011) Expectations from preceding prosody influence segmentation in online sentence processing. Psychon Bull Rev 18, 1189–1196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, M, Salverda, AP, Dilley, LC and Tanenhaus, MK (2015a) Metrical expectations from preceding prosody influence perception of lexical stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41, 306–323.Google Scholar
Brown, M, Salverda, AP, Gunlogson, C and Tanenhaus, MK (2015b) Interpreting prosodic cues in discourse context. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 30, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, T, McQueen, JM and Cox, EA (2007) Prosodically driven phonetic detail in speech processing: The case of domain-initial strengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics 35, 210–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christophe, A, Peperkamp, S, Pallier, C, Block, E and Mehler, J (2004) Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access I. Adult data. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 523–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clopper, CG (2002) Frequency of stress patterns in English: A computational analysis. Indiana University Linguistics Club Working Papers Online, 2. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/iulcwpGoogle Scholar
Creel, SC (2014) Tipping the scales: auditory cue weighting changes over development. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 40, 1146–1160.Google ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A and Carter, DM (1987) The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language 2, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, JE (1995) Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 233–273). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Grant, BK (1979) Guide to Korean characters. Seoul, South Korea: Hollym International Corporation.Google Scholar
Ito, K, Jincho, N, Minai, U, Yamane, N and Mazuka, R (2012) Intonation facilitates contrast resolution: Evidence from Japanese adults and 6-year olds. Journal of Memory and Language 66, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, K and Speer, SR (2008) Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 541–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jun, S-A (1998) The Accentual Phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology 15, 189–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S-A (2000) K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labeling conventions. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 99, 149–173.Google Scholar
Jun, S-A and Fougeron, C (2000) A phonological model of French intonation. In Botinis, A (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, Modeling and Technology (pp. 209–242). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S-A and Fougeron, C (2002) Realizations of accentual phrase in French intonation. Probus 14, 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S (2006) Hangual and teaching pronunciation to beginners. The Education of Korean Language 18, 217–244.Google Scholar
Kim, S, Broersma, M and Cho, T (2012) The use of prosodic cues in learning new words in an unfamiliar language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S and Cho, T (2009) The use of phrase-level prosodic information in lexical segmentation: evidence from word-spotting experiments in Korean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125, 3373–3386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S, Mitterer, H and Cho, T (2018) A time course of prosodic modulation in phonological inferencing: The case of Korean post-obstruent tensing. PLoS One 13, e0202912, 0202911-0202928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuznetsova, A, Brockhoff, B and Christensen, H (2016) Tests in linear mixed effects models. Version 2.0.32. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ladd, DR (2012) Intonational Phonology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McQueen, JM and Viebahn, MC (2007) Tracking recognition of spoken words by tracking looks to printed words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60, 661–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehler, J and Dupoux, E (1994) What infants know: The new cognitive science of early development. Cambride, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Michelas, A and D'Imperio, M (2010) Accentual phrase boundaries and lexical access in French. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Retrieved from http://speechprosody2010.illinois.edu/papers/100882.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mirman, D (2014) Growth curve analysis and visualization using R. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Mirman, D, Dixon, JA and Magnuson, JS (2008) Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 475–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mok, P, Yin, Y, Setter, J and Nayan, NM (2016) Assessing knowledge of English intonation patterns by L2 speakers. In J. Barnes, A. Brugos, S. Shattuck-Hufnagel, & N. Veilleux (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 Speech Prosody Conference (pp. 543–547). Boston.Google Scholar
Ortega-Llebaria, M and Colantoni, L (2014) L2 English intonation: Relations between form-meaning associations, access to meaning, and L1 transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36, 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega-Llebaria, M, Nemogá, M and Presson, N (2015) Long-term experience with a tonal language shapes the perception of intonation in English words: How Chinese-English bilinguals perceive “Rose?” vs. “Rose”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega-Llebaria, M, Olson, DJ and Tuninetti, A (2018) Explaining Cross-Language Asymmetries in Prosodic Processing: The Cue-Driven Window Length Hypothesis. Lang Speech, 23830918808823.Google Scholar
Park, EC (2008) Literacy experience in Korean: Implications for learning to read in a second language. In Koda, K & Zehler, AM (Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first- and second-language literacy development (pp. 201–221). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J (1980) The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Unpublished dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J and Hirschberg, J (1990) The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, P, Morgan, J and Pollack, M (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. P271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Puga, K, Fuchs, R, Setter, J and Mok, P (2017) The Perception of English Intonation Patterns by German L2 Speakers of English. Paper presented at the Interspeech 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salverda, AP, Dahan, D and McQueen, JM (2003) The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition 90, 51–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salverda, AP, Dahan, D, Tanenhaus, MK, Crosswhite, K, Masharov, M and McDonough, J (2007) Effects of prosodically modulated sub-phonetic variation on lexical competition. Cognition 105, 466–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spinelli, E, Grimault, N, Meunier, F and Welby, P (2010) An intonational cue to word segmentation in phonemically identical sequences. Atten Percept Psychophys 72, 775–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steffman, J (2019) Intonational structure mediates speech rate normalization in the perception of segmental categories. Journal of Phonetics 74, 114–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, I and Taylor, M (1995) Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A, Broersma, M and Coughlin, CE (2018) The functional weight of a prosodic cue in the native language predicts the learning of speech segmentation in a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21, 640–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A, Broersma, M, Coughlin, CE and Choi, J (2016) Effects of the native language on the learning of fundamental frequency in second-language speech segmentation. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tremblay, A, Cho, T, Kim, S and Shin, S (2019) Phonetic and phonological effects of tonal information in the segmentation of Korean speech: An artificial-language segmentation study. Applied Psycholinguistics 40, 1221–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A, Coughlin, CE, Bahler, C and Gaillard, S (2012) Differential contribution of prosodic cues in the native and non-native segmentation of French speech. Laboratory Phonology 3, 385–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A, Namjoshi, J, Spinelli, E, Broersma, M, Cho, T, Kim, S, Martínez-García, MT and Connell, K (2017) Experience with a second language affects the use of fundamental frequency in speech segmentation. PLoS One 12, e0181709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tremblay, A and Ransijn, J (2015) Model selection and post-hoc analysis for (G)LMER models. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/LMERConvenienceFunctions/Google Scholar
Tremblay, A and Spinelli, E (2014) English listeners' use of distributional and acoustic-phonetic cues to liaison in French: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Speech 57, 310–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, MD and Cutler, A (2009) Cross-language differences in cue use for speech segmentation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126, 367–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Leussen, J-W and Escudero, P (2015) Learning to perceive and recognize a second language: the L2LP model revised. Frontiers in Psychology 6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, A and Cutler, A (2006) First-language phonotactics in second-language listening. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119, 597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welby, P (2006) French intonational structure: Evidence from tonal alignment. Journal of Phonetics 34, 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welby, P (2007) The role of early fundamental frequency rises and elbows in French word segmentation. Speech Communication 49, 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Tremblay et al. supplementary material

Tremblay et al. supplementary material

Download Tremblay et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 823.2 KB