Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Non-word repetition may reveal different errors in naive listeners and second language learners

  • Holliday, Jeffrey J. (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University) ;
  • Hong, Minkyoung (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University)
  • Received : 2019.10.24
  • Accepted : 2020.01.30
  • Published : 2020.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The perceptual assimilation of a nonnative phonological contrast can change with linguistic experience, resulting in naïve listeners and novice second language (L2) learners potentially assimilating the members of a nonnative contrast to different native (L1) categories. While it has been shown that this sort of change can affect the discrimination of the nonnative contrast, it has not been tested whether such a change could have consequences for the production of the contrast. In this study, L1 speakers of Mandarin Chinese who were (1) naïve to Korean, (2) novice L2 learners, or (3) advanced L2 learners participated in a Korean non-word repetition task using word-initial sibilants. The initial CVs of their repetitions were then played to L1 Korean listeners who categorized the initial consonant. The naïve talkers were more likely to repeat an initial /sha/ as an affricate, whereas the L2 learners repeated it as a fricative, in line with how these listeners have been shown to assimilate Korean sibilants to Mandarin categories. This result suggests that errors in the production of new words presented auditorily to nonnative listeners may be driven by how they perceptually assimilate the nonnative sounds, emphasizing the need to better understand what drives changes in perceptual assimilation that accompany increased linguistic experience.

Keywords

References

  1. Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171-206). Baltimore, DE: York Press.
  2. Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: commonalities and complementarities. In O. S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In Honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13-34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  3. Cebrian, J. (2007). Old sounds in new contrasts: L2 production of the English tense-lax vowel distinction. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1637-1640). Saarbrucken, Germany.
  4. Chakraborty, R., Domsch, C., & Gonzales, M. D. (2011). Articulatory behaviors of nonnative speakers: Role of L2 proficiency and accent modification. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113(1), 311-330. https://doi.org/10.2466/11.17.21.28.PMS.113.4.311-330
  5. Coady, J. A., & Evans, J. L. (2008). Uses and interpretations of non-word repetition tasks in children with and without specific language impairments (SLI). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820601116485
  6. Duncan, T. S., & Paradis, J. (2016). English language learners' nonword repetition performance: The influence of age, L2 vocabulary size, length of L2 exposure, and L1 phonology. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(1), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0020
  7. Edwards, J., Beckman, M. E., & Munson, B. (2004). The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(2), 421-436. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/034)
  8. Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233-277) Baltimore, DE: York Press.
  9. Holliday, J. J. (2012). The acoustic realization of the Korean sibilant fricative contrast in Seoul and Daegu. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 4(1), 67-74. https://doi.org/10.13064/KSSS.2012.4.1.067
  10. Holliday, J. J. (2014a). The perception of Seoul Korean fricatives by listeners from five different native dialect and language groups. Korean Linguistics, 16(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1075/kl.16.2.01hol
  11. Holliday, J. J. (2014b). The perceptual assimilation of Korean obstruents by native Mandarin listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(3), 1585-1595. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4863653
  12. Holliday, J. J. (2016). Second language experience can hinder the discrimination of nonnative phonological contrasts. Phonetica, 73(1), 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000443312
  13. Jeon, W. (2005). A study on Chinese students' mistakes in pronouncing Korean: Focusing on consonant (Master's thesis). Sungkyunkwan University, Korea.
  14. Kallay, J., & Holliday, J. J. (2012, September). Using spectral measures to differentiate Mandarin and Korean sibilant fricatives. Proceedings of the INTERSPEECH 2012 (pp. 118-121). Portland, OR.
  15. Lee, H., & Jongman, A. (2016). Effects of tone on the three-way laryngeal distinction in Korean: An acoustic and aerodynamic comparison of the Seoul and South Kyungsang dialects. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42(2), 145-169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100312000035
  16. Li, H. (2015). Korean fricative /s, ss/ analysis' pronunciation based on Chinese beginners. The Journal of Korean Language Education Research, 2, 129-143.
  17. Mathot, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314-324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
  18. Munson, B., Edwards, J., & Beckman, M. E. (2005). Relationships between nonword repetition accuracy and other measures of linguistic development in children with phonological disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(1), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/006)
  19. R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.5.2) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
  20. RStudio Team (2016). RStudio: Integrated development for R (version 1.1.463) [Computer software]. Boston, MA: RStudio. Retrieved from http://www.rstudio.com/
  21. Sturman, H. W., Baker-Smemoe, W., Carreno, S., & Miller, B. B. (2016). Learning the Marshallese phonological system: The role of cross-language similarity on the perception and production of secondary articulations. Language and Speech, 59(4), 462-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830915614603
  22. Tyler, M. D., Best, C. T., Faber, A., & Levitt, A. G. (2014). Perceptual assimilation and discrimination of non-native vowel contrasts. Phonetica, 71(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356237
  23. Wagner, K. O. C., & Baker-Smemoe, W. (2013). An investigation of the production of ejectives by native (L1) and second (L2) language speakers of Q'eqchi' Mayan. Journal of Phonetics, 41(6), 453-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2013.08.002
  24. Wickham, H. (2019). tidyverse: Easily Install and Load the 'Tidyverse'. R package version 1.3.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse
  25. Windsor, J., Kohnert, K., Lobitz, K. F., & Pham, G. T. (2010). Cross-language nonword repetition by bilingual and monolingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(4), 298-310. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0064)
  26. Yao, W. (2007). Teaching pronunciation of the Korean language for the Chinese learners (Master's thesis). Silla University, Korea.
  27. Zhang, J. (2019, August). Feature-specific advantages in L3 phonological acquisition. Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 3740-3744). Melbourne, Australia.