Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:43:45.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An integrated account of the effects of acoustic variability in first language and second language: Evidence from amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2007

MITCHELL S. SOMMERS  and
JOE BARCROFT
MITCHELL S. SOMMERS
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
JOE BARCROFT
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined how three different sources of stimulus variability—overall amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate—affect second language (L2) vocabulary learning. Native English speakers learned Spanish words in presentation formats with no variability, moderate variability, and high variability. Dependent measures were accuracy and latency of picture-to-Spanish and Spanish-to-English recall. The findings indicated that variability sources that do not affect first language (L1) word identification (amplitude, fundamental frequency) do not affect L2 vocabulary learning. Conversely, variability in speaking rate, which negatively affects L1 word identification, positively affected L2 vocabulary learning. These findings are consistent with an integrated account in which sources of variability that affect phonetically relevant properties of speech impede L1 speech processing but improve L2 vocabulary learning.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 231 - 249
Copyright
2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Assmann P., Nearey T. M., & Hogan J. (1982). Vowel identification: Orthographic, perceptual, and acoustic aspects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 975– 989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baken R. J. (1987). Clinical measurement of speech and voice. London: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Barcroft J. (2001). Acoustic variation and lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 563– 590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft J., & Sommers M. S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 387– 414.Google Scholar
Bradlow A. R., Nygaard L. C., & Pisoni D. B. (1999). Effects of talker, rate, and amplitude variation on recognition memory for spoken words. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 206– 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow A. R., Pisoni D. B., Akahane-Yamada R., & Tohkura Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299– 2310.Google Scholar
Church B. A., & Schacter D. L. (1994). Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: Implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 521– 533.Google Scholar
Goldinger S. D., Pisoni D. B., & Logan J. S. (1991). On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 152– 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardison D. M. (2003). Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context, and talker variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 495– 522.Google Scholar
Lively S. E., Logan J. S., & Pisoni D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: II. The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242– 1255.Google Scholar
Lively S. E., Pisoni D. B., Yamada R. A., & Tohkura, et al. (1994). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: III. Long-term retention of new phonetic categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2076– 2087.Google Scholar
Logan J. S., Lively S. E., & Pisoni D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874– 886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullennix J. W., Pisoni D. B., & Martin C. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365– 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nygaard L. C., Sommers M. S., & Pisoni D. B. (1995). Effects of stimulus variability on perception and representation of spoken words in memory. Perception and Psychophysics, 57, 989– 1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmeri T. J., Goldinger S. D., & Pisoni D. B. (1993). Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 309– 328.Google Scholar
Sommers M. S., & Barcroft J. (2006). Stimulus variability and the phonetic relevance hypothesis: Effects of variability in speaking style, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate on spoken word identification, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2406– 2416.Google Scholar
Sommers M. S., Nygaard L. C., & Pisoni D. B. (1994). Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition. I. Effects of variability in speaking rate and overall amplitude. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 1314– 1324.Google Scholar
Takayanagi S., Dirks D. D., & Moshfegh A. (2002). Lexical and talker effects on word recognition among native and non-native listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45, 585– 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar