Eff t f li i ti d i l i ti ti f Th i l d tiEff t f li i ti d i l i ti ti f Th i l d tiEffects of linguistic and musical experience on non native perception of Thai vowel durationEffects of linguistic and musical experience on non native perception of Thai vowel durationEffects of linguistic and musical experience on non-native perception of Thai vowel durationEffects of linguistic and musical experience on non-native perception of Thai vowel durationEffects of linguistic and musical experience on non native perception of Thai vowel durationEffects of linguistic and musical experience on non native perception of Thai vowel durationec s o gu s c a d us ca e pe e ce o o a e pe cep o o a o e du a oec s o gu s c a d us ca e pe e ce o o a e pe cep o o a o e du a oAngela Cooper & Yue Wang k @ f & @ fAngela Cooper & Yue Wang akcooper@sfu ca & yuew@sfu cag p g akcooper@sfu.ca & yuew@sfu.ca

Simon Fraser University Canadap @ y @

Simon Fraser University, Canada

FindingsFindingsFindingsFindingsFindingsFindingsggPrevious researchPrevious research

Many languages such as Standard Thai utilize phonemic vowel length to contrast different word meanings Rate of speech has beenMany languages, such as Standard Thai, utilize phonemic vowel length to contrast different word meanings. Rate of speech has been found to have an impact on the ease of perceptibility of these distinctions, which can be a challenge for non‐native listeners [1, 2]. M d’ f h b tfound to have an impact on the ease of perceptibility of these distinctions, which can be a challenge for non native listeners [1, 2]. Previous research has suggested a relationship between musical experience and L2 proficiency reporting that musicians are more

Mean d’ scores for each group by rate  Different length conditionPrevious research has suggested a relationship between musical experience and L2 proficiency, reporting that musicians are more  Different length conditionaccurate at identifying and distinguishing non‐native segmental and suprasegmental contrasts [3 4 5] Results Discussion

4accurate at identifying and distinguishing non native segmental and suprasegmental contrasts [3, 4, 5].  Results Discussion

4The current study Rate Significantly higher Consistent with previous

4ThaiThe current study Rate: Significantly higher  Consistent with previous Thai4.1

ENMWe investigated the influence of linguistic and musical experience on non native perception of speaking rate varied Thai phonemic discrimination success at studies [1 2] which foundENM ENMWe investigated the influence of linguistic and musical experience on non‐native perception of speaking‐rate‐varied Thai phonemic  discrimination success at h i l l

studies [1, 2], which found l b i

ENM3.6EMvowel length distinctions using native listeners of Thai and English listeners with and without musical experience. each successively slower  slower rates to be easier to 3 EM 3 EMvowel length distinctions using native listeners of Thai and English listeners with and without musical experience. y

rate discriminate3 EM

Hypotheses rate. discriminate.

e 2 72.8Hypotheses

ore 2.7

2.8

1) Native vs. non‐native: 2 5sco

2 3 re

1) Native vs. non native: Group: No significant • Does not confirm2.52d'

 

2.2 2.32 3

2coa) native Thai listeners expected to be more accurate at identifying and discriminating “short” and “long” vowels than the EnglishGroup: No significant 

diffDoes not confirm

h th i (1 )

d 2.32

' sca) native Thai listeners expected to be more accurate at identifying and discriminating  short  and  long  vowels than the English 

ki tgroup differences hypothesis (1a); 2.1

2 0dgroups, across speaking rates discrimination task is less1.9 1.9 2.0

b) the native group not predicted to be as sensitive to within‐category differences (such as long vowels at fast and normal rates) asdiscrimination task is less

1b) the native group not predicted to be as sensitive to within‐category differences (such as long vowels at fast and normal rates) as linguistically relevant than identification focusing

11.1 1 0 1.1

1the non‐native group; the musically‐trained participants would be the most sensitive to these subtle acoustic differences linguistically relevant than identification, focusing d [ ] l h

1.01g p; y p p

2) Non native musically trained vs untrained: Given that musicians are trained to discern temporal distinctions in music English more on acoustic distinctions [6, 7]; may explain why 2) Non‐native musically trained vs. untrained: Given that musicians are trained to discern temporal distinctions in music, English  [ , ]; y p ynative/non native performance was comparablemusicians expected to be more accurate at identifying and discriminating non‐native vowel length distinctions than English non‐ native/non‐native performance was comparable0

0 6musicians expected to be more accurate at identifying and discriminating non native vowel length distinctions than English noni i ti l l t f t t f h 0 4Slow rate Normal rate Fast rate

0.6 0.5musicians, particularly at faster rates of speech

D t fi h th i (2) ti di ti ti0.4Slow rate Normal rate Fast rate

0 • Does not confirm hypothesis (2); acoustic distinctions 

Sl t N l t F t t may be salient enough for non‐musicians to detectSlow rate Normal rate Fast rate

M th dM th dmay be salient enough for non‐musicians to detect.

Stars denote statistical significance (p< 05) The lines indicate which groups or rates areMethodsMethods Stars denote statistical significance (p<.05). The lines indicate which groups or rates are significantly different (Here and elsewhere)MethodsMethods significantly different (Here and elsewhere).

Results DiscussionDiff t t diti

Results DiscussionDifferent rate conditionRate: ffRate:

i ifi l i i h i Results DiscussionG N b A ( ) L b k d M i l i i [A ( i )]

• Accuracy significantly  • Consistent with previous  Results Discussion4Group Number Age (avg. yrs) Language background Musical training [Avg. yrs. (min – max)]

y g yimproved at each

pfindings [1 2] where rate Rate pattern: fast normal Fast words may have been4p g ( g y ) g g g g [ g y ( )] improved at each  findings [1,2], where rate  Rate pattern: fast‐normal  Fast words may have been 

Thai 18 25 Standard Thai 2 9 (0 10) successively slower rate influenced perceptual accuracy rate pairs were so perceptuallyThai 18 25 Standard Thai 2.9 (0‐10) successively slower rate influenced perceptual accuracy f l th di ti ti

rate pairs were di i i t d i ifi tl

so perceptually bb i t d i d tof length distinctions discriminated significantly  abbreviated, perceived to 

Thai better than the slow‐ be short compared to3

ThaiEnglish non‐musician (ENM) 16 26 No experience with a language 2 4 (0 – 5) Group:

better than the slow‐ be short compared to 3

ENMEnglish non‐musician (ENM) 16 26 No experience with a language 

h l l h2.4 (0 5) Group:

Th i li h d C fi h h i (1 ) hnormal rate pairs normal  words. Mean ENM

using phonemic vowel length • Thai listeners had  • Confirms hypothesis (1a) that p

vowel to word ratio wasEMg p g

significantly higheryp ( )

native group would be morevowel‐to‐word ratio was 

English musician (EM) 16 22 Same as above 12.0 (6 – 20), formal instrumental training significantly higher  native group would be more  greater as rate decreased;

re

g ( ) ( ), gidentification accuracy than accurate across rates

greater as rate decreased; h d2co

identification accuracy than b th E li h

accurate across rates may have served as a 2

' scboth English groups

yperceptual cued• Hypothesis (2) not confirmed;perceptual cue.

i ifi diffHypothesis (2) not confirmed; 

i l i 1 7• No significant differences  musical experience not  1.7gbetween ENM and EM

psignificantly influential in Group: No group  Supports hypothesis (1b); 1.4 1.4

1between ENM and EM significantly influential in  G oup o g oup

difference found with d’Suppo ts ypot es s ( b);EM were more sensitive to

1.4 1.41

• produced by 2 native Thai speakers (1 male 1 female) linguistic category identification difference found with d’  EM were more sensitive to 1 0 1 0• produced by 2 native Thai speakers (1 male, 1 female) linguistic category identification

scores the fine‐grained acoustic0.91.0 1.0

Mean vowel Slow rate Normal rate Fast rateat 3 different speaking rates (slow, normal, fast) Rate x Group:

scores the fine grained acoustic di i i h h Th i

Mean vowel d ti ( )

Slow rate Normal rate Fast ratep g ( , , ) Rate x Group: distinctions than the Thai duration (ms) Long 320 210 120

• Thai listeners performed • Partially supports hypothesis • Significant effect of listenersLong 320 210 120

0Thai listeners performed i ifi l b h

Partially supports hypothesis (1 ) diff f

• Significant effect of  listenersShort 139 109 86 0significantly better than  (1a); no group difference at fast  Group obtained forShort 139 109 86

Slow rate‐Normal rate Fast rate‐Normal rateg y

both English groups at slow( ); g prate could be due to difficulty

Group obtained for percent different scores• 8 minimal pairs of monosyllabic real words with CVC structure contrasting in vowel length (e g sa:k and sak) All in low tone and

both English groups at slow  rate could be due to difficulty  percent different scores: • 8 minimal pairs of monosyllabic real words with CVC structure contrasting in vowel length (e.g. sa:k and sak).  All in low tone and  and normal rates level (very fast length EM discriminated thesevoiceless consonantal context.

and normal rates level (very fast length distinctions itho t conte t)

EM discriminated these i b h h Th i

voiceless consonantal context.5 pairs used in identification task

distinctions; without context) pairs better than the Thai o 5 pairs used in identification task. • No significant group

plisteners (M=62% vs 50%Dotted lines indicate significance for percent different scores

o 3 pairs used in discrimination task The discrimination trials (AB pairs) were created in 3 target conditions:No significant group 

diff flisteners (M=62% vs. 50%, Dotted lines indicate significance for percent different scores.

o 3 pairs used in discrimination task.  The discrimination trials (AB pairs) were created in 3 target conditions: difference at fast rate respectively)respectively)

Condition Description Example Diff l h & di iCondition Description Example Different length & rate condition4Different length Between‐category difference; pair of words at same speaking rate but differ in vowel length slow rate khotDifferent length & rate condition

4Different length Between category difference; pair of words at same speaking rate but differ in vowel length 3 t 1) l 2) l 3) f t

slow rate khotl t kh t 3 rates: 1) slow; 2) normal; 3) fast slow rate kho:t

R lt Di i) ) )

Diff t t Withi t diff i f d t diff t t b t h l l th l t kResults Discussion

Different rate Within category difference; pair of words at different rates but have same vowel length  slow rate sa:k3

g y p g 2 rate patterns: 1) slow + normal; 2) fast + normal normal rate sa:k Group: Both EM and ENM Non‐native group appears3

Th fi di h th i fl f li i ti i 2 rate patterns: 1) slow + normal; 2) fast + normal normal rate sa:k Group: Both EM and ENM 

i ifi tl b ttNon native group appears t b iti t thThese findings show the influence of linguistic experience on Different length & Pair of words containing one word with long vowel at fast rate and one word with short fast rate pha:k were significantly better  to be more sensitive to the

native and non‐native perception of phonemic vowel lengthDifferent length &  Pair of words containing one word with long vowel at fast rate and one word with short  fast rate pha:k g y

at discriminating these subtle acoustic distinction

re

native and non native perception of phonemic vowel length f f k

rate vowel at slow rate  slow rate phak at discriminating these  subtle acoustic distinction 

2coras a function of speaking rate.

ate o e at s o ate s o ate p apairs than the Thai  than the native group. The 2sc

p g pa s t a t e alisteners

t a t e at e g oup emean durational differenced'

 

Native listeners outperformed the non‐natives at identifying listeners mean durational difference Native listeners outperformed the non‐natives at identifying h d l l d h l for these pairs (19 ms) isshort and long vowel words across rates; however, language  for these pairs (19 ms)  is 

h h ll h1 1 2

g ; , g gbackground was not as influential for between category shorter than all other 

1 1.2background was not as influential for between‐category between category1 0discrimination. This difference may be due to the degree of between‐category 1.0discrimination. This difference may be due to the degree of 

li i ti l f th t k id tifi ti iTasks distinctions; native group0 5linguistic relevance of these tasks; identification requires Tasks distinctions; native group likely perceived it as a

0.5

0labelling of linguistic categories whereas discriminationIdentification1 likely perceived it as a 0labelling of linguistic categories, whereas discrimination Identification

within‐category differenceThai ENM EMfocuses more on acoustic distinctions [6, 7].• participants listened to individually‐presented stimuli and indicated whether it was a long‐vowel word or a short‐vowel word

within category difference.Thai ENM EM[ , ]participants listened to individually presented stimuli and indicated whether it was a long vowel word or a short vowel word 

ti li bl k d f t ( d f bl k t ti t b l d k ) Moreover the English listeners were more sensitive to the• stimuli were blocked for rate (order of block presentation counterbalanced across speakers) Moreover, the English listeners were more sensitive to the • given 2 seconds to make a response fine‐grained acoustic distinctions of within‐category and given 2 seconds to make a response g g y

minute between category differences (different length &Discrimination1 Referencesminute between‐category differences (different length & Discrimination References[1] Hirata Y Whitehurst E & Cullings E (2007) Training native English speakers to identify Japanese vowel length contrast with sentences at varied speaking rates

rate) While the mean durational differences for these• participants discriminated pairs of words based on vowel length and indicated whether each pair were the same word (e g both[1] Hirata, Y., Whitehurst, E., & Cullings, E. (2007). Training native English speakers to identify Japanese vowel length contrast with sentences at varied speaking rates. JASA 121(6) 3837‐3845rate). While the mean durational differences for these 

diti l th th b t t f t t• participants discriminated pairs of words based on vowel length and indicated whether each pair were the same word (e.g. both JASA, 121(6), 3837‐3845.

[2] Tajima K Kato H Rothwell A Akahane‐Yamada R & Munhall K (2008) Training English listeners to perceive phonemic length contrasts in Japanese JASA 123(1) 397‐413conditions were less than the between‐category fast rate short) or different words (e.g. one short and one long) [2] Tajima, K., Kato, H., Rothwell, A., Akahane Yamada, R., & Munhall, K. (2008). Training English listeners to perceive phonemic length contrasts in Japanese. JASA, 123(1), 397 413.[3] Sleve, L. R., & Miyake, A. (2006). Individual Differences in Second‐Language Proficiency: Does Musical Ability Matter? Psychological Science, 17(8), 675‐681.

pairs variant vowel‐to‐word ratios may have provided cues) ( g g)

• given 2 seconds to make a response[3] Sleve, L. R., & Miyake, A. (2006). Individual Differences in Second Language Proficiency: Does Musical Ability Matter? Psychological Science, 17(8), 675 681.[4] Milovanov, R., Tervaniemi, M., & Gustafsson, M. (2004). The impact of musical aptitude in foreign language acquisition. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on pairs, variant vowel‐to‐word ratios may have provided cues.• given 2 seconds to make a response [ ] , , , , , ( ) p p g g g q g f fMusic Perception & Cognition, Evanston, IL, pp. 717‐718.

M i l i i il id d t ithi1 Each main task was preceded by a familiarization section to acquaint participants with the procedure of the individual task

p g , , , pp[5] Alexander, J. A., Wong, P. C., & Bradlow, A. (2005). Lexical Tone Perception in Musicians and Non‐musicians. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2005. Lisbon, Portugal.

Musical experience primarily provided greater within‐1 Each main task was preceded by a familiarization section to acquaint participants with the procedure of the individual task.[6] Stevens, K. N., Liberman, A. M., Studdert‐Kennedy, M.,& Ohman, S.E.G. (1969). Cross language study of vowel perception. Language & Speech 12, 1–23.p p y p g

category discrimination and does not appear to influence [7] Ingram, J. C. L.. & Park, S‐G. (1998) Language, context, and speaker effects in the identification and discrimination of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese and Korean listeners. category discrimination and does not appear to influence Analysis JASA, 103(2), 1161‐1174.

broader linguistic category formation.Analysis

d d i (d’) b l d f h di i D i l l d (H) (F) hg g y•mean percent correct and d prime (d’) scores were tabulated for each condition. D prime was calculated as z(H) – z(F), where z are  Acknowledgments

W ld lik h k Akk C D id P R b Si d P i d T ikk i f h i i hi jp p ( ) p ( ) ( ),

standardized z scores and (H) and (F) are hit rate and false alarm rate respectivelyWe would like to thank Akkaporn Cooper, David Potter, Rebecca Simms and Parinda Tovikkai for their assistance on this project.Thi t d i t f d d b h t f th N t l S i d E i i R h C il f C d (NSERC Di G t 312457 2006)standardized z scores and (H) and (F) are hit‐rate and false‐alarm‐rate, respectively This study was in part funded by a research grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC Discovery Grant ‐ 312457‐2006).