Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:44:32.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The developmental trajectories of attention distribution and segment-tone integration in Dutch learners of Mandarin tones*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

TING ZOU ,
YIYA CHEN  and
JOHANNEKE CASPERS
TING ZOU*
Affiliation:
Leiden University Center for Linguistics
YIYA CHEN
Affiliation:
Leiden University Center for Linguistics Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition
JOHANNEKE CASPERS
Affiliation:
Leiden University Center for Linguistics Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition
*
Address for correspondence: Ting Zou, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Postbus 9515, NL-2300 RA LeidenNetherlands, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates how beginner and advanced Dutch learners of Mandarin process tonal information. An ABX task was adopted to investigate phonological discrimination of Mandarin tones and segment-tone integration in Dutch learners of Mandarin, with both native Mandarin and Dutch speakers (without tonal learning experience) as control groups. Results showed a developmental path in lexical tone processing. The beginner learners could not process tonal contrast adequately at the phonological level, and they processed segmental and tonal information separately, like native Dutch listeners without Mandarin experience. The advanced learners showed a good phonological discrimination of tonal contrasts. They showed a more native-like pattern in distributing their attention between segmental and tonal information, and they processed the two dimensions in an integrated manner, similar to native Mandarin listeners. This suggests that the acquisition of new tonal categories in L2 involves a redistribution of attention along perceptual dimensions and the development of segment-tone integration.

Keywords

lexical tone learningattention redistributionsegment-tone integrationDutch learners of Mandarin
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , November 2017 , pp. 1017 - 1029
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

1

For some African and Asian languages, tone can be used to signal grammatical information. In this paper, tone language refers to languages in which tones are solely used to convey lexical meaning.

*

We would like to thank the Chinese Scholarship Council for the scholarship to Ting Zou and the European Research Council for the ERC-Starting Grant (206198) to Yiya Chen. Many thanks to Prof. Vincent van Heuven, the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, and all the participants.

References

Bartoń, K. (2015). MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.15.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bent, T., Bradlow, A. R., & Wright, B. A. (2006). The influence of linguistic experience on the cognitive processing of pitch in speech and nonspeech sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 97–103.Google ScholarPubMed
Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influence in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In Goodman, J. & Nusbaum, H. (eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words, pp. 167–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 345–360.Google Scholar
Best, C.T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Bohn, O. & Munro, M. J. (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege, pp. 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Braun, B., & Johnson, E. K. (2011). Question or tone 2? How language experience and linguistic function guide pitch processing. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 585–594.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. In Archibald, J. (ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory, pp. 4–63. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. (2012). Message-related variation. In: Cohn, A., Fourgeron, C., Huffman, M. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., & Gussenhoven, C. (2008). Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 724–746.Google Scholar
Chen, M. Y. (2000). Tone sandhi: Patterns across Chinese dialects (Vol. 92). Cambridge University 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.Google Scholar
Cho, T., Jun, S. A., & Ladefoged, P. (2002). Acoustic and aerodynamic correlates of Korean stops and fricatives. Journal of phonetics. 30 (2), 193–228.Google Scholar
Cole, J. (2015). Prosody in context: a review. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 30 (1-2), 1–31.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and speech, 40, 141–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Mehler, J. (1997). A destressing ‘deafness’ in French?. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 406–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, E., Peperkamp, S., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). A robust method to study stress ‘deafness’. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1606–1618.Google Scholar
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. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, pp. 233–277. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Francis, A. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2002). Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 349–366.Google Scholar
Gandour, J. T. (1983). Tone perception in far Eastern languages. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandour, J., Wong, D., Hsieh, L., Weinzapfel, B., Van Lancker, D., & Hutchins, G. D. (2000). A crosslinguistic PET study of tone perception. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 12, 207–222.Google Scholar
Garner, W. R. (1976). Interaction of stimulus dimensions in concept and choice processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 98–123.Google Scholar
Garner, W. R. (2014). The processing of information and structure. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L. (1993). Feature distribution and biased estimation of visual displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 564–579.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123 (2), 178–200.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Pruitt, J. C. (2000). An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107 (5), 2711–2724.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C., Rietveld, T., Kerkhoff, J., & Terken, J. (2003). ToDI second edition. http://todi.let.kun.nl/ToDI/home.htm.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2005). Transcription of Dutch Intonation. In Jun, S. A. (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, pp. 118–145. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hallé, P. A., Chang, Y. C., & Best, C. T. (2004). Identification and discrimination of Mandarin Chinese tones by Mandarin Chinese vs. French listeners. Journal of Phonetics. 32 (3), 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R., & Masuda, K. (2008). Development of the ability to lexically encode novel second language phonemic contrasts. Second Language Research, 24, 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heeren, W. F. L., & Schouten, M. E. H. (2008). Perceptual development of phoneme contrasts: How sensitivity changes along acoustic dimensions that contrast phoneme categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 2291–2302.Google Scholar
Heeren, W. F. L., & Schouten, M. E. H. (2010). Perceptual development of the Finnish/t-tː/distinction in Dutch 12-year-old children: A training study. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 594–603.Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363.Google Scholar
Krishnan, A., Xu, Y., Gandour, J., & Cariani, P. (2005). Encoding of pitch in the human brainstem is sensitive to language experience. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 161–168.Google Scholar
Lin, M., & Francis, A. L. (2014). Effects of language experience and expectations on attention to consonants and tones in English and Mandarin Chinese. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136 (5), 2827–2838.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2004). Detection theory: A user's guide. Psychology press.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 4 (2), 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 115, 39–57.Google Scholar
Repp, B. H., & Lin, H. B. (1990). Integration of segmental and tonal information in speech perception: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Phonetics, 18, 481–495.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Turk, A. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 25, 193–247.Google Scholar
So, C. K., & Best, C. T. (2010). Cross-language perception of non-native tonal contrasts: Effects of native phonological and phonetic influences. Language and speech. 53 (2), 273–293.Google Scholar
So, C. K., & Best, C. T. (2011). Categorizing Mandarin tones into listeners’ native prosodic categories: The role of phonetic properties. Pozna ń Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47, 133–145.Google Scholar
So, C. K., & Best, C. T. (2014). Phonetic influences on English and French listeners' assimilation of Mandarin tones to native prosodic categories. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36 (2), 195–221.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (2011). Automatic selective perception (ASP) of first and second language speech: A working model. Journal of phonetics. 39 (4), 456–466.Google Scholar
Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1995). The limits of extended naturalistic exposure on the perceptual mastery of English /r/ and /l/ by adult Japanese learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16 (4), 379–405.Google Scholar
Tong, Y., Francis, A. L., & Gandour, J. T. (2008). Processing dependencies between segmental and suprasegmental features in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, V. J., & Kirsner, R. S. (2004). Phonetic or phonological contrasts in Dutch boundary tones?. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 21, 102–113.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Sereno, J. A., Jongman, A., & Hirsch, J. (2003). fMRI evidence for cortical modification during learning of Mandarin lexical tone. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 1019–1027.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Spence, M. M., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (1999). Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3649–3658.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (1994). Production and perception of coarticulated tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2240–2253.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (2001). Sources of tonal variations in connected speech. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 17, 1–31.Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Gandour, J., Talavage, T., Wong, D., Dzemidzic, M., Tong, Y., & Lowe, M. (2006). Activation of the left planum temporale in pitch processing is shaped by language experience. Human Brain Mapping, 27 (2), 173–183.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (2002). Tone. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zatorre, R. J., & Gandour, J. T. (2008). Neural specializations for speech and pitch: moving beyond the dichotomies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363 (1493), 1087–1104.Google Scholar