American Perception of Casual Catalan Speech

American Perception of Casual Catalan Speech

INTRODUCTION:
RESULTS: Timecourse & percentages of word recognition for Natives & Non-natives.
RESULTS (continued):
o L2 listeners assimilate new, phonetically·distinct sounds
to existing L1 categories [Perceptual Assimilation Model
(PAM), e.g., 1].
o NNS show a lower peak % than
NS in 10/16 cases, 5/16 = sig.diff (4
= p < 0.05; 1 = p < 0.01)
o L1 phonology acts as a filter, stripping foreign sounds of
L1 phonetically·irrelevant features, which may/may not be
important phonologically in L2 [2].
* $#
&
+
o As L2 proficiency advances, L1 phonetic categories may
“evolve” to include phonetic features relevant for L2
[Speech Learning Model (SLM), 2].
* $#
)
o AIM: Explore word recognition in casual speech
perception by Native Catalan & Non·native American
listeners.
,
EXPERIMENT:
o A natural Catalan sentence, composed of frequent
vocabulary, Em sap greu que cap dels dos xicots no em
pugui donar un cop de mà.
Gloss: ‘I regret that neither of the two boys can give me a
hand.’
Reduced transcription:
1
2
3
2 22
1
, - )
% +
/ / / / / /
B & (
, - ) % + B
/ / / / / //
/ / /
& (,
/ /
/ /
/
!
)
& ' (
"
%
&
* $#
+
* $#
,+ ,B ,& ,( - - 2,
/ ]
)
o Gates presented to: Natives: 12 Catalans (CAT) &
Non·natives: 12 Americans (AM) recruited from the BCN
area. Mean length of NNS L2 experience 15 yrs.
,
PROCEDURE
%
&
/ / / /
, ,, ,- ,) ,%
%
1
affected by a mix of reduction processes: 1) assimilation, 2)
weakening, & 3) deletion, was gated in 80 ms steps for a
total of 32 tokens as follows:
[
$
.
$ $ / 0 1 2 $ / $3# 4 * $# 0 1 $ 5 31
1
61 5 7 6 5 & 8 3 $
7
3
1
25 * 5
4 66
> $ ; $ ;7 7 5
7 $ 9 3 $ 7 $ : $ ; 7 3 7 7 * $ # 1 3 3 < 55 4 $ 5
4 = '
31 *$5 1 16 /
* $# $ 4
/
6 $
* 5
$5
63$
?
% @
?
@
15 1
A
% @
Canonical transcription:
1
#
#
/ /
/ /
o As in Shockey [3] & Pearman [4], after each gate,
subjects wrote what they heard in “normal” Catalan
orthography.
ANALYSIS
o 1st correct id of each lexical item noted & %s at peak
points of recognition per item as well as cumulative group
total %s at last gate (32) compared for NS vs. NNS.
o Chi square tests conducted on differences in peak %s &
final group %s per item.
o NNS show a later peak % than NS
in 5/16 cases
.
o NNS show a lower final group total
% than NS in 14/16 cases, only 5/16
= sig.diff (4 = p < 0.05; 1 = p < 0.01)
.
o Cases which show a sig. lower pk
% & a sig. lower final group total %:
PUGUI, DONAR, UN. NNS id
inhibited by: 1) parsing, e.g.,
“puguidon”, 2) misinterpretation of
segments, e.g., [ ] frequently as /d/,
& 3) missed nasals, e.g.,
possibly due to lack of nasalization
in the preceding V as in AmE .
DISCUSSION:
o Though differences in peak %s
between AM & CAT are prominent
(NNS = lower peak 2/3rd of the time,
sig. diff = 1/3rd of the time),
differences regarding a time lag for
AM are not prominent. This contrasts
with other work which emphasized an
NNS time lag [e.g., 4, 5, 6].
o Specific series: “PUGUI DONAR
UN” led to a sig. lower peak % & a sig.
lower final group total % for AM
versus CAT.
CONCLUSION:
#
#
$
.
9 $ / 0
7 $9 3 $ 7
31 *$5 1 16
,
,,
,-
,%
,+ ' -
,( ' -
,& ' -
1 2 $ / $3# 4 * $# 0 1 $ 5 31
1
61 5 7 $ & 8 3 $
25 * 5
4 66
$ : $ ; 7 3 7 7 * $ # 1 3 3 < 55 4 $ 5
4 = '
/
* $# $ 4
/
6 $
* 5
$5
?
% @
?
- '-
7
3
1
> $ ; $ ;7 7 5
@
15 1
A
% @
o The combination of results—lower
NNS peak %s, but absence of a
considerable time lag—underscores
that some members of the NNS group
were able to process the signal in a
Catalan way, as it was input; however,
the majority were not able to
consistently do so, hence the high # of
cases of a lower final NNS total %.
REFERENCES
[1] Best, C. (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. 171·204).
Timonium, MA: York Press.
[2] Flege, J. (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).
Timonium, MA: York Press.
[3] Shockey, L. (1997). Perception of reduced forms by native and non·native speakers of English. In J.
Leather & A. James (Eds.), New Sounds 97. Proceedings of the Third Symposium on the Acquisition of
Second-Language Speech. (University of Klagenfurt, 8·11 September 1997) (Pp. 314·319). Klagenfurt:
University of Klagenfurt.
[4] Pearman, A. (2003). Native & non·native perception of English casual speech. M.A. Thesis,
presented December 2003, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
[5] Koster, C. (1987). Word Recognition in Foreign and Native Language, Dordrecht: Foris.
[6] Nooteboom, S., & Truin, P. (1980). Word recognition from fragments of spoken words by native and
non·native listeners. IPO Annual Progress Report, 15, 42·47.
**Supported by grant BFF2001-2498, Ministry of Science & Technology, Spain