Meaning and form in the acquisition of English intonation
1
Meaning and form in the acquisition of English intonation Marta Ortega-Llebaria + ; Laura Colantoni* & Charlotte Roger + + University of Pittsburgh; *University of Toronto Introduction Acquiring L2 intonation involves: • Acquiring language-specific form-meaning association • while teasing apart universal from language-specific tone uses [1] Problem: • No models of L2 intonation (but cf. [2]) • No studies on the production-perception link in intonation • Only few studies looking at intonation in context (cf. [3],[4]) Goal: • To investigate how speakers of typologically different languages (Mandarin & Spanish) perceive and produce English contrastive focus with and without reference to contextual meaning General Hypothesis: • Production and perception of intonation should be more difficult in tasks where the speaker has to attach a contextual meaning to a given contour, especially for L2 speakers. Methods Tasks & Stimuli: Contextualized tasks (in relation to a story) De-contextualized tasks Participants: 10 Controls; 10 Advanced Mandarin ELLs; 8 Advanced Spanish ELLs Measurements: Perception: mean correct answers Production: mean pitch and duration of stressed vowels of S, V, and O Results Perception: - Overall more correct answers in no-context than in-context sentences. • Mandarin speakers: approach native-like performance in both tasks • Spanish speakers: close to chance except in no-context task when focus is on the verb Production without context: - Overall, there is more variability in L2-speakers than in controls. • Only Mandarin speakers approach native-like use of duration and pitch, especially when focus is on the subject and verb. • Spanish speakers consistently mark focus by using durational differences; • Pitch: not all speakers use it consistently (bi-modal distribution). Those participants who did not use pitch, inserted a pause after the word in focus. Production in-context: - Both, L2-speakers and controls used strategies other than pitch and duration to mark focus. -Controls and L2 speakers differed in the type and frequency of strategies used -Type: • All participants: cleft sentences and negation • Only L2-speakers: pauses, single-word answers, pseudo-cleft, increased intensity on focused word - Frequency: • Controls systematically used increased pitch and duration to mark the word in focus. Other strategies were used sporadically. • Both L2 groups preferred using other strategies than pitch and duration. Pauses and single-word answers were the most frequent strategies. Discussion and Conclusion (1) Mapping of meaning and form: • All participants are more successful in de-contextualized than in contextualized utterances. • These differences are larger among L2 speakers, and, in particular, among Mandarin ELLs. • Spanish ELLs underperformed controls in all tasks. Mandarin ELLs were native-like at imitating intonational contours but failed at producing those same patterns in contextualized tasks. (2) Perception and production: • Strong link between perception and production in de- contextualized tasks for all groups. • This link is not as strong for L2 speakers in contextualized tasks (cf. [3] & [4]). (3) L1 effects: • Spanish: (1) effect of position: focus on the verb not frequent in L1, and therefore perceived and produced in L2 [6] ; (2) cues to mark focus: duration seems to be the preferred parameter, against e.g. [7]. Perception in-context and no-context Production without context Production with context References: We recorded our version of “The Frog Story” Production task: 24 questions and 15 targets (corrective focus on the subject, verb or object) Perception task: 24 stimuli/15 targets One question and three possible answers Production tasks Imitation of isolated and de- contextualized sentences with focus on S, V or O Perception task: Matching task: a model utterance + three low-passed filter contours. Pitch Duration Mean of Correctly Perceived Answers Mean of Correctly Perceived Answers Mean of Correctly Perceived Answers Speakers’ first language Speakers’ first language Speakers’ first language L1 Spanish L1 Mandarin [1] Ohala, J. (1983). An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica, 41, 1-16. [2] Trofimovich, P. and Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: effects of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second language acquisition 28, 1-30. [3] Grabe, E., Rosner, B, García Albea, J. & Zhou, X. 2003. Perception of English intonation by English, Spanish and Chinese Listeners. Language & Speech 46.375-401. [4] Cruz Ferreira, M. (1984). Perception and interpretation of non-native intonation patterns. In: M.P.R van der Broecke & A. Cohen (eds.), Proceedings of the 10 th ICPhS. Utrecht, Dordrecht: Foris (565-569). [5] Prom-on, S., Xu, Y. and Thipakorn, B. (2009) Modeling tone and intonation in Mandarin and English as a process of target approximation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 405-424. [6] Flege, J. E. (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, MD: York Press. [7] Face, T. 2002. Local intonation marking of Spanish contrastive focus. Probus 14.71-92.
Transcript of Meaning and form in the acquisition of English intonation
Meaning and form in the acquisition of English intonationMarta Ortega-Llebaria+; Laura Colantoni* & Charlotte Roger+
+University of Pittsburgh; *University of Toronto
IntroductionAcquiring L2 intonation involves: • Acquiring language-specific form-meaning association • while teasing apart universal from language-specific tone uses [1]
Problem:• No models of L2 intonation (but cf. [2]) • No studies on the production-perception link in intonation• Only few studies looking at intonation in context (cf. [3],[4])
Goal:• To investigate how speakers of typologically different languages (Mandarin & Spanish) perceive and produce English contrastive focus with and without reference to contextual meaning
General Hypothesis:• Production and perception of intonation should be more difficult in tasks where the speaker has to attach a contextual meaning to a given contour, especially for L2 speakers.
MethodsTasks & Stimuli:
Contextualized tasks (in relation to a story)
De-contextualized tasks
Participants: 10 Controls; 10 Advanced Mandarin ELLs; 8 Advanced Spanish ELLs
Measurements:
Perception: mean correct answersProduction: mean pitch and duration of stressed vowels of S, V, and O
Results
Perception: - Overall more correct answers in no-context than in-context
sentences.• Mandarin speakers: approach native-like performance in
both tasks• Spanish speakers: close to chance except in no-context task
when focus is on the verb
Production without context: - Overall, there is more variability in L2-speakers than in controls.• Only Mandarin speakers approach native-like use of duration
and pitch, especially when focus is on the subject and verb.• Spanish speakers consistently mark focus by using durational
differences; • Pitch: not all speakers use it consistently (bi-modal distribution). Those participants who did not use pitch, inserted a pause after the word in focus.
Production in-context: - Both, L2-speakers and controls used strategies other than pitch and duration to mark focus.-Controls and L2 speakers differed in the type and frequency of strategies used-Type: • All participants: cleft sentences and negation • Only L2-speakers: pauses, single-word answers, pseudo-cleft,
increased intensity on focused word- Frequency:• Controls systematically used increased pitch and duration to mark
the word in focus. Other strategies were used sporadically.• Both L2 groups preferred using other strategies than pitch and
duration. Pauses and single-word answers were the most frequent strategies.
Discussion and Conclusion(1) Mapping of meaning and form:• All participants are more successful in de-contextualized than
in contextualized utterances. • These differences are larger among L2 speakers, and, in
particular, among Mandarin ELLs.• Spanish ELLs underperformed controls in all tasks. Mandarin
ELLs were native-like at imitating intonational contours but failed at producing those same patterns in contextualized tasks.
(2) Perception and production:• Strong link between perception and production in de-
contextualized tasks for all groups. • This link is not as strong for L2 speakers in contextualized tasks
(cf. [3] & [4]).
(3) L1 effects:• Spanish: (1) effect of position: focus on the verb not frequent
in L1, and therefore perceived and produced in L2 [6] ; (2) cues to mark focus: duration seems to be the preferred parameter, against e.g. [7].
Perception in-context and no-context
Production without context
Production with context
References:
We recorded our version of
“The Frog Story”
Production task: 24 questions and 15 targets
(corrective focus on the subject, verb or object)
Perception task: 24 stimuli/15 targets
One question and three possible answers
Production tasksImitation of isolated and de-
contextualized sentences with focus on S, V or O
Perception task:Matching task:
a model utterance + three low-passed filter contours.
Pitch
Duration
Mea
n of
Cor
rect
ly P
erce
ived
Ans
wer
s
Mea
n of
Cor
rect
ly P
erce
ived
Ans
wer
s
Mea
n of
Cor
rect
ly P
erce
ived
Ans
wer
s
Speakers’ first language Speakers’ first languageSpeakers’ first language
L1 Spanish L1 Mandarin
[1] Ohala, J. (1983). An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica, 41, 1-16. [2] Trofimovich, P. and Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: effects of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second language acquisition 28, 1-30. [3] Grabe, E., Rosner, B, García Albea, J. & Zhou, X. 2003. Perception of English intonation by English, Spanish and Chinese Listeners. Language & Speech 46.375-401. [4] Cruz Ferreira, M. (1984). Perception and interpretation of non-native intonation patterns. In: M.P.R van der Broecke & A. Cohen (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th ICPhS. Utrecht, Dordrecht: Foris (565-569). [5] Prom-on, S., Xu, Y. and Thipakorn, B. (2009) Modeling tone and intonation in Mandarin and English as a process of target approximation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 405-424. [6] Flege, J. E. (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, MD: York Press. [7] Face, T. 2002. Local intonation marking of Spanish contrastive focus. Probus 14.71-92.
