The functional weight of a prosodic cue in the native language predicts the learning of speech segmentation in a second language

Abstract

This study newly investigates whether the functional weight of a prosodic cue in the native language predicts listeners’ learning and use of that cue in second-language speech segmentation. It compares English and Dutch listeners’ use of fundamental-frequency (F0) rise as a cue to word-final boundaries in French. F0 rise signals word-initial boundaries in English and Dutch, but has a weaker functional weight in English than Dutch because it is more strongly correlated with vowel quality in English than Dutch. English- and Dutch-speaking learners of French matched in French proficiency and experience, and native French listeners completed a visual-world eye-tracking experiment in French where they monitored words ending with/out an F0 rise (replication of Tremblay, Broersma, Coughlin & Choi, 2016). Dutch listeners made earlier/greater use of the F0 rise than English listeners, and in one condition they made greater use of F0 rise than French listeners, extending the cue-weighting theory to speech segmentation.

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

“…The processes that underlie speech perception and comprehension and the resulting outcomes are indeed modulated by intonation in native listeners (e.g., Brown, Salverda, Dilley & Tanenhaus, 2011, 2015a; Brown, Salverda, Gunlogson & Tanenhaus, 2015b; Christophe, Peperkamp, Pallier, Block & Mehler, 2004; Ito, Jincho, Minai, Yamane & Mazuka, 2012; Ito & Speer, 2008; Kim & Cho, 2009; Kim, Mitterer & Cho, 2018; Salverda, Dahan & McQueen, 2003; Salverda, Dahan, Tanenhaus, Crosswhite, Masharov & McDonough, 2007; Spinelli, Grimault, Meunier & Welby, 2010; Steffman, 2019). Yet, the learning of intonational cues in second/foreign-language (L2) speech perception and comprehension has received little attention in research, at least compared to the learning of segmental (i.e., consonant, vowel) information (for examples of L2 studies on the perception and/or comprehension of intonation, see Mok, Yin, Setter & Nayan, 2016; Ortega-Llebaria & Colantoni, 2014; Ortega-Llebaria, Nemogá & Presson, 2015; Ortega-Llebaria, Olson & Tuninetti, 2018; Puga, Fuchs, Setter & Mok, 2017; Tremblay, Broersma & Coughlin, 2018; Tremblay et al, 2016; Tremblay, Coughlin, Bahler & Gaillard, 2012). Accordingly, the theories and models that have been proposed to explain L2 speech perception and comprehension have often focused on the learning of segmental categories (e.g., Best & Tyler, 2007; Flege, 1995; van Leussen & Escudero, 2015) and in general have little to say about the learning of intonation.…”

The effect of overnight consolidation in the perceptual learning of non-native tonal contrasts

“…For instance, as illustrated in Fig 1, segmentally identical words that contain different lexical tones in Cantonese (/si 55/ ‘silk’ (Tone 1 (T1)), /si 25/ ‘history’ (T2), /si 33/ ‘to try’ (T3), /si 21/ ‘time’ (T4), /si 23/ ‘city’ (T5), and /si 22/ ‘matter’ (T6) [39]) and in Mandarin (e.g., /paā/ ‘eight’ (T1), /paá/ ‘to pull out’ (T2), /pǎ/ ‘to hold’ (T3), /paà/ ‘father’ (T4) [40]) differ in meaning. While pitch is the primary cue in tone perception, listeners with different language backgrounds attend to different pitch dimensions under the influence of their L1 prosodic system [41–44, also see 45,46]. Cantonese listeners were found to use both pitch contour (i.e., tone shape; falling vs. rising tones) and pitch height (i.e., average height; higher vs. lower tones) to distinguish their native tonal contrasts [41,44].…”

Second and Third Language Learners’ Sensitivity to Japanese Pitch Accent Is Additive

“…Theoretically, this information-based model is in line with a cue-centric approach of perception and transfer (e.g., Chang, 2018). How pitch informs words in an L1 and its relative functional load drive how F0 cues are initially weighted and transferred to an L2 (e.g., Schaefer & Darcy, 2014; Tremblay, Broersma, & Coughlin, 2017). During L2 acquisition, new pitch patterns are learned and F0 cue weighting changes as more words informed by pitch are acquired (Holt & Lotto, 2006).…”