The influence of language background and exposure on phonetic accommodation

Abstract

This study examines whether language background, short-term exposure to monolingual and bilingual speech, and long-term exposure to monolingual and bilingual speech influences speech accommodation. To address this question, I examine whether English monolinguals and Spanish-English bilinguals, either from a predominately monolingual community or a predominately bilingual community, vary their speech when interacting with a monolingual English speaker versus a Spanish-English bilingual speaker. Additionally, I examine whether speakers are more likely to converge after being primed with monolingual English or Spanish-English bilingual speech. To test this, participants complete an interactive communication task, where they are presented with a 6x6 board on a computer screen and asked questions about the words on the board, which contain variables that differ in English and Spanish. Results show that both language background and long-term exposure to monolingual or bilingual speech in a speaker’s speech community influence accommodation.

Syntactic adaptation depends on perceived linguistic knowledge: Native English speakers differentially adapt to native and non-native confederates in dialogue

“…This inference was triggered in this case by the interlocutor's syntactic behaviour, which in turn elicited different patterns of adaptation in the context of speaking to a native or a nonnative interlocutor. This finding complements results from a small but growing body of work highlighting the role of socioperceptual factors on phonetic (Kim et al, 2011;Enzinna, 2018) and syntactic (Weatherholtz et al, 2014;Balcetis & Dale, 2005) adaptation. Our results however are not fully consistent with Weatherholtz et al, who found a mediating effect of perceived political affinity on the degree of PO/DO adaptation, but no evidence of divergence from a speaker of a different political orientation.…”

Phonetic Dissimilarity and L2 Category Formation in L2 Accommodation

“…Previous studies of L2 speech accommodation have shown that L2 speakers are able to accommodate toward native speakers in both shadowing tasks and spontaneous conversations (Althubyani, 2021; Cao, 2015; Chang, 2013; Enzinna, 2018; Hao & de Jong, 2016; Jia et al, 2006; Jiang & Kennison, 2022; Kim et al, 2011; Law et al, 2020; Lewandowski, 2012; Lewandowski & Jilka, 2019; Liu, 2017; Olmstead et al, 2021; Tobin, 2022; Tobin et al, 2018; Young, 1988; Zajac & Rojczyk, 2014). Among these studies, Kim et al (2011), Tobin (2022), Jia et al (2006), and Hao and de Jong (2016) are reviewed here, owing to their high relevance to the current project.…”

“…So far, only a handful of studies have taken individual differences in L2 accommodation into consideration (Althubyani, 2021; Lewandowski, 2012; Lewandowski & Jilka, 2019; Reiterer et al, 2013; Yu et al, 2013; Zellou, 2017): many studies tend to treat L2 speakers as a group of participants with a homogeneous accent. In L2 accommodation, some studies distinguish L2 speakers by their language experience (Chang, 2013; Enzinna, 2018). For example, Chang (2013) examined both experienced and inexperienced English learners of Korean in the USA and found that experienced learners changed less in their L1 than inexperienced learners.…”

“…Their results suggested that the bilingual speaker accommodated both her Portuguese and English VOTs toward the ambient language, suggesting bidirectional convergence in the speaker’s first language (L1) and L2. After Sancier and Fowler (1997), an increasing number of studies explored L2 speech accommodation using different designs or paradigms (Althubyani, 2021; Bullock & Toribio, 2009; Cao, 2015; Chang, 2013; Enzinna, 2018; Jia et al, 2006; Jiang & Kennison, 2022; Kim et al, 2011; Law et al, 2020; Olmstead et al, 2021; Tobin, 2022; Tobin et al, 2017, 2018; Zajac & Rojczyk, 2014).…”