Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-44mx8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-17T20:39:36.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stress processing in Mandarin and Korean second language learners of English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2013

CANDISE Y. LIN ,
MIN WANG ,
WILLIAM J. IDSARDI  and
YI XU
CANDISE Y. LIN*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
MIN WANG
Affiliation:
Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
WILLIAM J. IDSARDI
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
YI XU
Affiliation:
Department of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, University College London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Candise Lin, Dept of Human Development, 3304 Benjamin Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined stress processing among Mandarin and Korean second language learners of English and English monolinguals. While both English and Mandarin have contrastive stress at the word-level, Korean does not. Consequently, Mandarin speakers may have an advantage over Korean speakers in English stress processing, even when matched for their general English proficiency. Experiment 1 assessed participants’ stress encoding ability for nonwords in a short-term memory task. Experiment 2 examined the effect of stress in online word recognition in a lexical decision task by manipulating word frequency, stress location, and vowel quality. The results of both experiments support an advantage for English and Mandarin speakers over Korean speakers in stress processing of real words and nonwords. Only Korean speakers’ lexical judgment of nonwords was modulated by word frequency, suggesting that they do not utilize stress in lexical access. Only English speakers’ word recognition was facilitated by vowel quality changes. These results suggest that the abilities of non-native speakers to process stress in their L2 is influenced by the characteristics of the stress systems in their L1.

Keywords

stress processingsecond language acquisitioncross-linguistic influenceprosody
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 316 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The first author was supported by the NSF IGERT award DGE-9791455 to the University of Maryland. We would like to thank the five native English speakers who recorded the auditory stimuli and the Mandarin and Korean speakers who completed the pre-experimental familiarity ratings. We thank the editor, Dr. David Green, and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions.

References

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1982). The trait structure of cloze test scores. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 61–70.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Method, 39, 445–459.Google Scholar
Bates, D. M. (2005). Fitting generalized linear mixed models in R: Using the lme4 package. R News: The Newsletter of the R Project, 5, 27–30.Google Scholar
Bates, D. [M.], & Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: Generalized linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-37 [software].Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realistic perspective on cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, pp. 171–206. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of perceptual reorganization of nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 345–360.Google ScholarPubMed
Best, C. T., & Strange, W. (1992). Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 109/110, 89–108.Google Scholar
Borden, G., Gerber, A., & Milsark, G. (1983). Production and perception of the /r/–/l/ contrast in Korean adults learning English. Language Learning, 33, 499–526.Google Scholar
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., & Xu, Y. (2006). Production of weak elements in speech – evidence from F0 patterns of neutral tone in Standard Chinese. Phonetica, 63, 47–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christophe, A., Peperkamp, S., Pallier, C., Block, E., & Mehler, J. (2004). Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access I: Adult data. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 523–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clopper, C. (2002). Frequency of stress patterns in English: A computational analysis. IULC Working Papers Online 2. [Available at https://www.indiana.edu/~iulcwp/pdfs/02-clopper02.pdf; retrieved Janurary 13, 2013.]Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd edn.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1986). Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech, 29, 201–220.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Carter, D. M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech & Language, 2, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culter, A., & van Donselaar, W. (2001). Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech, 44, 171–195.Google Scholar
Duanmu, S. (2007). The phonology of standard Chinese (2nd edn.). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Mehler, J. (1997). A destressing “deafness” in French? Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 406–421.Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Peperkamp, S., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). A robust method to study stress “deafness”. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1606–1618.Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Peperkmap, S., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2010). Limits on bilingualism revisited: Stress “deafness” in simultaneous French–Spanish bilinguals. Cognition, 114, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupoux, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Navarrete, E., & Peperkamp, S. (2008). Persistent stress “deafness”: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition, 106, 682–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J. E. (1992). Speech learning in a second language. In Ferguson, C., Menn, L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, and implications, pp. 565–604. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues, pp. 233–273. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O.-S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & MacKay, I. R. A. (2004). Perceiving vowels in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 1–34.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Schirru, C., & MacKay, I. R. A. (2003). Interacction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication, 40, 467–491.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 765–768.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech, 1, 126–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “L” and “R”. Neuropsychologia, 9, 317–323.Google Scholar
Grainger, J. (1990). Word frequency and neighborhood effects in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 228–244.Google Scholar
Guion, S. (2005). Knowledge of English word stress patterns in early and late Korean–English bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 503–533.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (2009). Introductory phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y., Kettermann, A., & Siebert, C. (2003). A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87, B47–B57.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (1995). A phonetic study of stress in Korean. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 98, 2893.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (1998). The accentual phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology, 15, 189–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (2000). K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labelling conventions (version 3.1). http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/jun/ktobi/K-tobi.html, retrieved Janurary 13, 2013.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (2005). Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In Jun, S.-A. (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, pp. 201–229. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. (1993). Preference for the predominant stress pattern of English words. Child Development, 64, 675–687.Google Scholar
Kager, R. (2007). Feet and metrical stress. In de Lacy, P. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, pp. 195–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. (1999). Finnish: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kim, S., Broersma, M., & Cho, T. (2012). The use of prosodic cues in processing an unfamiliar language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 415–444.Google Scholar
Kim, S., & Cho, T. (2009). The use of phrase-level prosodic information in lexical segmentation: Evidence from word-spotting experiments in Korean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3373–3386.Google Scholar
Lee, B., Guion, S. G., & Harada, T. (2006). Acoustic analyses of the production of unstressed English vowels by early and late Korean and Japanese bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 287–513.Google Scholar
Lin, M., & Yan, J. (1980). Beijinghua qingsheng de shengxue xingzhi [Acoustic properties of Mandarin neutral tone]. Dialect, 3, 166–178.Google Scholar
Lin, T. (1985). Tantao Beijing hua qingsheng xingzhi de chubu shiyan [Preliminary experiments on the nature of Mandarin neutral tone]. In Lin, T. & Wang, L. (eds.), Working Papers in Experimental Phonetics, pp. 1–26. Beijing: Beijing University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, T., & Wang, W. (1984). Shengdiao ganzhi wenti [Perception of tones]. Zhongguo Yuyan Xuebao [Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics], 2, 59–69.Google Scholar
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.Google Scholar
Mehler, J., Jusczyk, P. W., Lambertz, G., Halsted, N., Bertoncini, J., & Amiel-Tison, C. (1988). A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29, 144–178.Google Scholar
Miyawaki, K., Strange, W., Verbrugge, R., Liberman, A., Jenkins, J., & Fujimura, O. (1975). An effect of language experience: The discrimination of /r/ and /l/ by native speakers of Japanese and English. Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, S. (2004). Lexical exception in stress systems: Arguments from early language acquisition and adult speech perception. Language, 80, 98–126.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S., & Dupoux, E. (2002). A typological study of stress “deafness”. In Gussenhoven, C. & Warner, N. (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7, pp. 203–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1968). French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shen, X. S. (1993). Relative duration as a perceptual cue to stress in Mandarin. Language and Speech, 36, 415–433.Google Scholar
Skoruppa, K., Pons, F., Christophe, A., Bosch, L., Dupoux, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Limissuri, R. A., & Peperkamp, S. (2009). Language-specific stress perception by 9-month-old French and Spanish infants. Developmental Science, 12, 914–919.Google Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soto-Faraco, S., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Cutler, A. (2001). Segmental and suprasegmental mismatch in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 412–432.Google Scholar
Swets, J. A. (1996). Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics: Collected papers. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Syntrillium Software (2003). http://cooledit-pro.software.informer.com/.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2008). Is second language lexical access prosodically constrained? Processing of word stress by French Canadian second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 553–584.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2009). Phonetic variability and the variable perception of L2 word stress by French Canadian listeners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 35–62.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Coughlin, C. E., Bahler, C., & Gaillard, S. (2012). Differential contribution of prosodic cues in the native and non-native segmentation of French speech. Journal of Laboratory Phonology, 3, 385–423.Google Scholar
Tyler, M. D., & Cutler, A. (2009). Cross-language differences in cue use for speech segmentation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 367–376.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 1–25.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H. (2009). Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Xu, Y., & Xu, C. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 159–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar