Processing of word-level stress by Mandarin-speaking second language learners of English

Abstract

This study investigates whether second language learners’ processing of stress can be explained by the degree to which suprasegmental cues contribute to lexical identity in the native language. It focuses on Standard Mandarin, Taiwan Mandarin, and American English listeners’ processing of stress in English nonwords. In Mandarin, fundamental frequency contributes to lexical identity by signaling lexical tones, but only in Standard Mandarin does duration distinguish stressed–unstressed and stressed–stressed words. Participants completed sequence-recall tasks containing English disyllabic nonwords contrasting in stress. Experiment 1 used natural stimuli; Experiment 2 used resynthesized stimuli that isolated fundamental frequency and duration cues. Experiment 1 revealed no difference among the groups; in Experiment 2, Standard Mandarin listeners used duration more than Taiwan Mandarin listeners did. These results are interpreted within a cue-weighting theory of speech perception.

Is there an interlanguage intelligibility benefit in perception of English word stress?

“…F0 was the next strongest cue after F1/ F2 for English and Mandarin listeners, but duration and intensity were more important for Russian listeners. Similarly, Standard Mandarin listeners are influenced in their perception of stress minimal pairs, in a sequence recall task, by both duration and F0 cues; this contrasts with Taiwanese Mandarin listeners who attend primarily to F0, reflecting the lack of use of durational cues to word-level prominence asymmetries in Taiwanese Mandarin (Qin, Chien, & Tremblay, 2017). In lexical retrieval tasks, English listeners in fact rely primarily on segmental cues provided by unstressed vowel reduction: the true minimal pair 'forebear' (n.) [ˈfɔːbɛə] ~ 'forebear ' (v.) [fɔːˈbɛə]-in which there are no segmental cues to stress in the form of vowel reduction in the unstressed syllable-is homophonous in perception for English listeners (Cutler, 1986).…”

English Learners’ Use of Segmental and Suprasegmental Cues to Stress in Lexical Access: An Eye‐Tracking Study

“…If specific cues to stress in the L2 can be mapped onto different lexical representations in the L1, then it is likely that listeners will be able to use these cues to recognize words in the L2. To illustrate, Qin et al (2016) demonstrated that when F0 and duration cues to stress conflicted in a sequence recall task with English nonwords, Mandarin-speaking L2 learners of English more often relied on F0 than on duration whereas native English listeners relied on each cue about half of the time. The Mandarin listeners' results were attributed to the importance of F0 cues for identifying lexical tones in the L1.…”

“…The results of the sequence recall task revealed that Mandarin listeners were more accurate at encoding stress in English nonwords than both English and Korean listeners (English: 40.1%; Mandarin: 46.5%; Korean: 31.5%). The better performance of Mandarin listeners was attributed to their enhanced use of suprasegmental cues to stress due to the presence of lexical tones in their L1 (see also Qin, Chien, & Tremblay, ). Conversely, the results of the lexical decision task indicated that Mandarin listeners were less accurate than English listeners but more accurate than Korean listeners at rejecting incorrectly stressed English words (English: 81.6%; Mandarin: 60.1%; Korean: 40.2%).…”

Influence of within-category tonal information in the recognition of Mandarin-Chinese words by native and non-native listeners: An eye-tracking study

“…English listeners have been shown to use pitch height differences rather than pitch contour differences to perceive Mandarin tones (e.g., Bent, 2005;Chandrasekaran et al, 2010;Francis, Ciocca, Ma, & Fenn, 2008;Gandour, 1983;Guion & Pederson, 2007;Qin & Jongman, 2016;Qin & Mok, 2013). These findings have been attributed to the functional relevance of pitch height in English, for example in the realization of English stress (e.g., Beckman, 1986;Lieberman, 1960;Shen, 1989;White, 1981; see also Qin, Chien, & Tremblay, 2017). Because all three acoustic realizations of T1 in the present study are sufficiently flat to be categorized as T1…”