Lexical function of pitch in the first language shapes cross-linguistic perception of Thai tones

Abstract

Determining the factors involved in the non-native perception of the pitch patterns of tones is complicated by the fact that all languages use pitch to various extents, whether linguistic (e.g., intonation) or non-linguistic (e.g., singing). Moreover, many languages use pitch to distinguish lexical items with varying degrees of functional load and differences in inventory of such pitch patterns. The current study attempts to understand what factors determine accurate naïve (= non-learner) perception of non-native tones, in order to establish the baseline for acquisition of a tonal L2. We examine the perception of Thai tones (i.e., three level tones, two contour tones) by speakers of languages on a spectrum of lexically contrastive pitch usage: Mandarin (lexical tone), Japanese (lexical pitch accent), English (lexical stress), and Korean (no lexically contrastive pitch). Results suggest that the importance of lexically contrastive pitch in the L1 influences non-native tone perception so that not all non-tonal language speakers possess the same level of tonal sensitivity, resulting in a hierarchy of perceptual accuracy. Referencing the Feature Hypothesis (McAllister et al. 2002), we propose the Functional Pitch Hypothesis to model our findings: the degree to which linguistic pitch differentiates lexical items in the L1 shapes the naïve perception of a non-native lexically contrastive pitch system, e.g., tones.

Perception and lexical encoding of tone in a restricted tone language: Developmental evidence from Limburgian

“…Our results demonstrated that Limburgian adults are significantly more accurate than Dutch adults in betweencategory variation trials, which is most likely due to the lexical distinctiveness of tone in Limburgian. This is in line with previous research suggesting that tone language speakers are at an advantage in discriminating lexical tones compared to naïve non-tone language speakers (e.g., [27][28][29][30][31]).…”

Influence of pitch dimensions on non-native tone perception by Dutch and Mandarin listeners

“…In general, Mandarin listeners showed better performance than Dutch listeners in encoding all pitch contrasts, which could be explained by the function of pitch used in their native languages. According to the Feature Hypothesis [4] [12], the more prominent a certain phonetic or phonological dimension is in the native language, the easier it might be to learn to discern and use that dimension for non-native phonological processing. Pitch variations distinguish lexical meaning in Mandarin while pitch is one of acoustic correlates in lexical stress in Dutch.…”

“…Previous studies have shown that Mandarin listeners form phonologically contrastive categories of native tones [1] [2] [3]. Compared with non-tone language listeners, they were found to have an advantage when perceiving non-native tonal contrasts (Thai tones), due to the important function of pitch in their native language [4].…”

How Native Prosody Affects Pitch Processing during Word Learning in Limburgian and Dutch Toddlers and Adults

“…Importantly, in non-tone languages like Dutch and English, pitch is not used to distinguish between words – except in a few very rare minimal pairs that differ in word stress (e.g., Dutch VOORkomen ‘appear’ vs. voorKOMEN ‘prevent’), in which case pitch is only one of several correlated cues to stress. The fact that pitch is not lexically distinctive in non-tone languages might prevent speakers of these languages from distinguishing monosyllables that differ in pitch only ( Schaefer and Darcy, 2014 ) and from encoding pitch information when building novel lexical representations ( Braun et al, 2014 ).…”

“…Despite the abovementioned functional differences, non-tone language listeners often show sensitivity to non-native lexical tones (e.g., Hallé et al, 2004 ; So and Best, 2010 , 2014 ; Liu and Kager, 2014 ; Ramachers et al, 2017 ). This sensitivity is mostly shown in perceptual tasks without lexical involvement (i.e., discrimination tasks; e.g., Broselow et al, 1987 ; So and Best, 2008 , 2010 , 2014 ; Liu and Kager, 2014 ; Schaefer and Darcy, 2014 ; Ramachers et al, 2017 ). Several factors have been put forward recently to account for these findings, the most important one being the role of prosody in the L1.…”