The independent effects of prosodic structure and information status on tonal coarticulation: Evidence from Wenzhou Chinese by Scholz, Franziska , p; The acoustics of English vowels in the speech of Dutch learners before and after pronunciation training by Smakman, Dick , p; The use of Chinese dialects: Increasing or decreasing?
Survey on the use of Chongqing dialect by Tang, Chaoju , p; Durational effects of phrasal stress by Turk, Alice , p; Affricates in English as a natural class by Weijer, Jeroen van de , p; Index, p??? More Books in Linguistics See All. Australia's Original Languages An introduction. In Stock. Write Ways. Teaching Language in Context.
Grammar Matters. Fair Dinkum! Aussie Slang. Macquarie Dictionary 7th Edition. Macquarie Concise Dictionary Seventh Edition. Political Correctness Gone Mad? Schaum's Outline of Italian Grammar 4th Edition. Item Added: Above and Beyond the Segments. View Wishlist. In relative terms, however, the situation is much more as predicted.
First of all, nonnatives with a shared interlanguage enjoy the same intelligibility benefit as two natives, with positive R-ISIB values of 6. There is a clear difference, then, between the matched and the non-matched interlanguage pairs to the effect that no benefit remains when speaker and listener have different native languages. The idea of a native speaker handicap, however, is not supported by the aggregate data.
Above And Beyond The Segments Experimental Linguistics And Phonetics 2014
It is not the case that a nonnative listener is at a greater disadvantage when communicating with a native speaker than when communicating with a nonnative with whom he does not share the native language background. On the basis of the literature, we formulated two hypotheses with respect to the effect of the specific composition of a speaker-listener pair involving different combinations of native and nonnative interactants.
The first hypothesis predicted 1a that two nonnatives will understand each other in English best when they have the same native-language background i. These subhypotheses proved false when tested in absolute terms but were clearly supported by the data when evaluated in relative R-ISIB terms. In fact, in relative terms, nonnative speaker-listener pairs enjoy the same interlanguage benefit as native speaker-native listener pairs — as long as speaker and listener have the same mother tongue. On the strength of this latter finding, hypothesis 1c has to be rejected.
The above state of affairs suggests that the earlier tripartite division of interlocuters in terms of a native speakers and listeners, b nonnative speaker-listener pairs with a shared interlanguage, and c those with non-shared, that is, mixed, interlanguages is not supported by our R-ISIB results. The meta-analysis boils down to a very simple and clear-cut binary division in intelligibility between native and nonnative speakers of a language.
When two interactants share the same native language, they enjoy the advantage of a shared phonology. When two interactants do not have the same mother tongue, their mutual intelligibility is poorer. Here, it does not matter whether both interactants are nonnative or whether a foreigner communicates with a native — the point is that they do not share any interlanguage. Also Hypothesis 2 predicted that the effects would be stronger when evaluated in relative rather than in absolute scores.
The analysis of variance indicated an effect size in R-ISIB that was three times larger than when analyzed in absolute scores. Hypothesis 2 is therefore confirmed: relative scores work better than absolute scores. As we pointed out in the introduction, it has been observed that nonnative listeners of English often have the intuition that they understand a fellow nonnative talker, that is, one with whom they share a common mother tongue, better than a native speaker of English.
We conclude, therefore, that the proper way of evaluating the concept of the ISIB, as formulated by Bent and Bradlow , is in relative rather than in absolute terms. In summary, we now have at our disposal a way to quantify the ISIB in a way that works and that matches intuitions that were formulated in the literature which were not matched when absolute intelligibility scores were examined earlier. Also, we now know that there is a clear and motivated difference between communication that involves interactants who share the same native language whether speaking in their mother tongue or in a nonnative language and communication involving interactants who do not share the interlanguage.
This insight is new. Together these two points constitute the contribution this article adds to what was known about factors that determine speech intelligibility among native and nonnative interlocutors. She is currently pursuing research several types of Chinese-accented English and on cross-linguistic speaker identification.
Vincent J. Over 40 doctoral dissertations were written under his co- supervision. The discrepancy is due to rounding errors. The slight discrepancy is due to greater rounding accuracy in the computations underlying the table.
The present numbers are correct. It has been pointed out that the materials produced by the speaker groups differ substantially in terms of conceptual comprehensibility — so that no straightforward comparisons between speaker and listener groups can be made. When the speaker of a language is more difficult to understand, for whatever reason, this will affect the main effect of speaker but not the speaker by listener interaction, that is, not the R-ISIB.
National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Iperception v. Published online Nov Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Corresponding author. Email: moc. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3. This article has been corrected. See Iperception.
- The Water We Eat: Combining Virtual Water and Water Footprints.
- By Keith Brown and Jim Miller.
- Jewish Choices: American Jewish Denominationalism!
Abstract Two hypotheses have been advanced in the recent literature with respect to the so-called Interlanguage Speech Intelligibility Benefit ISIB : a nonnative speaker will be better understood by a another nonnative listener than a native speaker of the target language will be a only when the nonnatives share the same native language matched interlanguage or b even when the nonnatives have different mother tongues non-matched interlanguage. Keywords: Nonnative speech perception, interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit, matched interlanguage, non-matched interlanguage, linear modeling.
Introduction Do non-native listeners understand foreign-accented English better than native English, especially when the non-natives share the same mother tongue? A Relative R-ISIB Linear modeling is a statistical technique that allows a researcher to decompose the relationship between stimulus properties and response scores into main effects and interactions between main effects e. Table 1.hukusyuu-mobile.com/wp-content/prey/2378-how-to.php
Above And Beyond The Segments Experimental Linguistics And Phonetics
Speakers Listeners a Raw absolute scores b Deviations from grand mean Ch. Open in a separate window. Table 2. Meta-Analysis: Testing the ISIB Hypotheses on Aggregated Data In this section, we will test the restricted shared interlanguage and generalized mixed interlanguage versions of the ISIB hypothesis on a collection of data taken from three studies that address the issue. Literature Data Smith and Rafiqzad The earliest study to compare the intelligibility of native and nonnative English in a sufficiently complete matrix of speaker and listener groups with a variety of language backgrounds was probably done by Smith and Rafiqzad Table 3.
Shared interlanguage Mixed interlanguage One native All native Bent and Bradlow Bent and Bradlow examined the interlanguage benefit in a database with mutual intelligibility scores in English obtained for five types of speakers: one high-proficiency and one low-proficiency Korean L2 speaker of English, one high-proficiency and one low-proficiency Chinese L2 speaker of English, and one native speaker of American English.
Wang Wang ran a large study on the mutual intelligibility of Dutch, Mandarin, and American speakers of English. Predictions We will now perform a statistical analysis across all data that were discussed above. Conclusion and Discussion On the basis of the literature, we formulated two hypotheses with respect to the effect of the specific composition of a speaker-listener pair involving different combinations of native and nonnative interactants.
References Bent, T.
- Books & E-books - Phonetics (SLP /) - Subject Guides at Grand Valley State University;
- By Geert Booij!
- Breaking the Stranglehold: The Liberation of Grenada.
- Linguist List - Reviews Available for the Book?
- Duck Commander Kitchen Presents Celebrating Family and Friends: Recipes for Every Month of the Year?
- Refine your editions:;
The Interlanguage speech intelligibility Benefit.