1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 11, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Lects constitute prototype categories (Gitte Kristiansen 2003). This implies that central/prototypical speakers are more easily identified as members of a specific lect (Kristiansen et al. 2018). The prototypicality of elements within natural categories have generally been measured through direct questions, indirect questions, or reaction time. Nonetheless, abstract categories (e.g., foreign accents) may be difficult to examine via questions. Following previous research that analyzed the use of the Levenshtein Distance (LD) (Vladimir I. Levenshtein 1965) to predict foreign-accentedness (Martijn Benjamin Wieling et al. 2014) or the intelligibility of foreign accents (Jurado-Bravo 2021), this study explores the use of LD as a predictor of prototypicality of Spanish-accented English. The LD between 50 Spanish speakers of English and different prototype benchmarks were calculated. These recordings were used as speech stimuli in an accent identification test. Reaction time measures were collected and correlated to the calculated LD. Results suggest that the LD to the stereotypical prototype can partly predict the prototypicality of Spanish-accented English.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00117.jur
2024-06-06
2024-12-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00117.jur
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altendorf, U.
    (2016) Caught between Aristotle and Miss Marple…-A Proposal for a Perceptual Prototype Approach to “Estuary English”. Complutense Journal of English Studies241, 131–154. 10.5209/CJES.54452
     https://doi.org/10.5209/CJES.54452 [Google Scholar]
  2. Atagi, E., & Bent, T.
    (2013) Auditory free classification of nonnative speech. Journal of Phonetics, 41(6), 509–519. 10.1016/j.wocn.2013.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2013.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2016) Auditory free classification of native and nonnative speech by nonnative listeners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 241–263. 10.1017/S014271641400054X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641400054X [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, W., Eddington, D., & Nay, L.
    (2009) Dialect identification: The effects of region of origin and amount of experience. American Speech, 84(1), 48–71. 10.1215/00031283‑2009‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2009-004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beijering, K., Gooskens, C., & Heeringa, W.
    (2008) Predicting intelligibility and perceived linguistic distances by means of the Levenshtein algorithm. InM. van Koppen & B. Botma (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2008 (pp.13–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/avt.25.05bei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.25.05bei [Google Scholar]
  6. Bent, T., Atagi, E., Akbik, A., & Bonifield, E.
    (2016) Classification of regional dialects, international dialects, and nonnative accents. Journal of Phonetics, 581, 104–117. 10.1016/j.wocn.2016.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berger, B., Waterman, M. S., & Yu, Y. W.
    (2021) Levenshtein distance, sequence comparison and biological database search. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 67(6), 3287–3294. 10.1109/TIT.2020.2996543
     https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2020.2996543 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bloem, J., Wieling, J., & Nerbonne, J.
    (2016) Automatically identifying characteristic features of non-native English accents. InM.-H. Côté, R. Knooihuizen & J. Nerbonne (Eds.), The future of dialects: Selected papers from methods in dialectology XV (pp.155–172). Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Boughton, Z.
    (2006) When perception isn’t reality: Accent identification and perceptual dialectology in French. Journal of French Language Studies, 16(3), 277–304. 10.1017/S0959269506002535
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269506002535 [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell-Kibler, K.
    (2012) The implicit association test and sociolinguistic meaning. Lingua, 122(7), 753–763. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clopper, C. G.
    (2004) Linguistic experience and the perceptual classification of dialect variation. Ph.D. dissertation. Bloomington: Indiana University.
  12. Díaz-Campos, M., & Navarro-Galisteo, I.
    (2009) Perceptual categorization of dialect variation in Spanish. InJ. Collentine, M. García, B. A. Lafford & F. A. M. Marín (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (pp.179–195). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Flege, J. E.
    (1984) The detection of French accent by American listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 761, 692–707. 10.1121/1.391256
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.391256 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gnevsheva, K.
    (2018) Variation in foreign accent identification. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(8), 688–702. 10.1080/01434632.2018.1427756
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1427756 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gooskens, C.
    (2007) The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(6), 445–467. 10.2167/jmmd511.0
     https://doi.org/10.2167/jmmd511.0 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gooskens, C., Heeringa, W., & Beijering, K.
    (2008) Phonetic and lexical predictors of intelligibility. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2(1–2), 63–81. 10.3366/E1753854809000317
     https://doi.org/10.3366/E1753854809000317 [Google Scholar]
  17. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K.
    (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. 10.1037/0022‑3514.74.6.1464
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 [Google Scholar]
  18. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R.
    (2003) Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. 10.1037/0022‑3514.85.2.197
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197 [Google Scholar]
  19. Heeringa, W. J.
    (2004) Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance. Ph.D. dissertation. Groningen: University of Groningen.
  20. Jurado-Bravo, M. Á.
    (2018) The intelligibility of Spanish regional accents in L2 English after tailored Lingua Franca Core instruction: A critical empirical analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
  21. (2021) Exploring the Use of Levenshtein Distances to Calculate the Intelligibility of Foreignaccented Speech. InG. Kristiansen, K. Franco, S. De Pascale, L. Rosseel & W. Zhang (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics revisited (pp.153–164). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110733945‑013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110733945-013 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2022) Identificación automática de hablantes prototípicos [Automatic identification of prototypical speakers]. (Oral presentation). L Simposio – IV Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística. Madrid (Spain).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kenworthy, J.
    (1987) Teaching English pronunciation. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kochančikaitė, R., & Roll, M.
    (2022) Phonetic and phonological variation in vowel discrimination performance: Effect of Swedish vowel categories and dialects. Proceedings of Fonetik 2022: Fonetik 2022-the XXXIIIrd Swedish Phonetics Conference-Fonetik 2022-the XXXIIIrd Swedish Phonetics Conference. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kristiansen, G.
    (2003) How to do things with allophones: Linguistic stereotypes as cognitive reference points in social cognition. InR. Dirven, R. Frank & M. Pütz (Eds.), Cognitive models in language and thought: Ideologies, metaphors and meanings (pp.69–120). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892901.69
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892901.69 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2008) Style-shifting and shifting styles: A socio-cognitive approach to lectal variation. InG. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp.45–90). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199154.1.45
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154.1.45 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kristiansen, G., Zenner, E., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2018) English as a lingua franca in Europe: The identification of L1 and L2 accents: A multifactorial analysis of pan-European experimental data. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 494–518. 10.1075/rcl.00019.kri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00019.kri [Google Scholar]
  28. Leiner, D. J.
    (2022) SoSci survey (Version 3.3.17). Retrieved fromwww.soscisurvey.com
  29. Levenshtein, V. I.
    (1965) Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 101, 707–710.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Loudermilk, B. C.
    (2015) Implicit attitudes and the perception of sociolinguistic variation. InA. Prikhodkine & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Responses to language varieties: Variability, processes and outcomes (pp.137–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.39.06lou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.39.06lou [Google Scholar]
  31. Marzo, S., Zenner, E., & Van de Mieroop, D.
    (2018) When third-wave sociolinguistics and prototype analysis meet: The social meaning of sibilant palatalization in a Flemish Urban Vernacular. InE. Zenner, A. Backus & E. Winter-Froemel (Eds.), Cognitive contact linguistics: Placing usage, meaning and mind at the core of contact-induced variation and change (pp.127–156). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110619430‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110619430-005 [Google Scholar]
  32. McKenzie, R. M.
    (2008) The role of variety recognition in Japanese university students’ attitudes towards English speech varieties. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(2), 139–153. 10.2167/jmmd565.0
     https://doi.org/10.2167/jmmd565.0 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2010) The social psychology of English as a global language: Attitudes, awareness and identity in the Japanese context. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑8566‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8566-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2015) The sociolinguistics of variety identification and categorisation: Free classification of varieties of spoken English amongst non-linguist listeners. Language Awareness, 24(2), 150–168. 10.1080/09658416.2014.998232
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2014.998232 [Google Scholar]
  35. McKenzie, R. M., Huang, M., Ong, T. T., & Snodin, N.
    (2019) Socio-psychological salience and categorisation accuracy of speaker place of origin. Lingua, 2281, Article 102705. 10.1016/j.lingua.2019.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mompeán-González, J. A.
    (2001) A comparison between English and Spanish subjects’ typicality ratings in phoneme categories: A first report. International Journal of English Studies, 1(1), 115–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (2004) Category overlap and neutralization: The importance of speakers’ classifications in phonology. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(4), 429–469. 10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.429
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.429 [Google Scholar]
  38. Montgomery, C.
    (2012) The effect of proximity in perceptual dialectology. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(5), 638–668. 10.1111/josl.12003
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12003 [Google Scholar]
  39. Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Morton, S. L.
    (2006) The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition; New York, 28(1), 111–131. 10.1017/S0272263106060049
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060049 [Google Scholar]
  40. Nerbonne, J., & Heeringa, W. J.
    (2001) Computational comparison and classification of dialects. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica 2001(9), 69–84. 10.1515/dig.2001.2001.9.69
     https://doi.org/10.1515/dig.2001.2001.9.69 [Google Scholar]
  41. Piske, T., MacKay, I. R. A., & Flege, J. E.
    (2001) Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29(2), 191–215. 10.1006/jpho.2001.0134
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0134 [Google Scholar]
  42. Polzenhagen, F., & Xia, X.
    (2015) Language, culture, and prototypicality. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.253–268). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Pustka, E.
    (2009) A prototype-theoretic model of Southern French. InK. Beeching, N. Armstrong & F. Gadet (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation in contemporary French (pp.77–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.26.07pus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.26.07pus [Google Scholar]
  44. Raumolin-Brunberg, H.
    (1994) Prototype categories and variation studies. InR. Fernández, M. F. Márquez & J. J. Calvo (Eds.), English historical linguistics (pp.287–303). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.113.29rau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.113.29rau [Google Scholar]
  45. Rosch, E.
    (1973) On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. InT. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and acquisition of language (pp.111–144). New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑505850‑6.50010‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50010-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
    (1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive psychology, 7(4), 573–605. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rosseel, L.
    (2017) New approaches to measuring the social meaning of language variation: Exploring the personalized implicit association test and the relational responding task. Ph.D. dissertation. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
  49. Rosseel, L., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2018) Measuring language attitudes using the personalized implicit association test: A case study on regional varieties of Dutch in Belgium. Journal of Linguistic Geography, 6(1), 20–39. 10.1017/jlg.2018.3
     https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2018.3 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schimke, S., Vielhauer, C., & Dittmann, J.
    (2004) Using adapted Levenshtein distance for on-line signature authentication. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Cambridge, UK, 931–934. 10.1109/ICPR.2004.1334412
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2004.1334412 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2010) Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system?. InD. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp.101–134). Berlin: Gruyter de Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226423.101
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.101 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Rey, M.
    (1986) The relationship between category typicality and concept familiarity: Evidence from Spanish- and English-speaking monolinguals. Memory & Cognition, 141, 150–163. 10.3758/BF03198375
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198375 [Google Scholar]
  53. Sindic, D., & Reicher, S. D.
    (2008) The instrumental use of group prototypicality judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1425–1435. 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  54. van Bezooijen, R., & Gooskens, C.
    (1999) Identification of language varieties: The contribution of different linguistic levels. Journal of language and social psychology, 18(1), 31–48. 10.1177/0261927X99018001003
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X99018001003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Watson, R.
    (2019) Language as category: Using prototype theory to create reference points for the study of multilingual data. Language and Cognition, 11(1), 125–164. 10.1017/langcog.2019.9
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.9 [Google Scholar]
  56. Weinberger, S. H.
    (2015) Speech accent archive. Retrieved fromaccent.gmu.edu
  57. Wieling, M. B.
    (2012) A quantitative approach to social and geographical dialect variation. Ph.D. dissertation. Groningen: University of Groningen.
  58. Wieling, M. B., Bloem, J., Mignella, K., Timmermeister, M., & Nerbonne, J.
    (2014) Measuring foreign accent strength in English: Validating Levenshtein Distance as a measure. Language Dynamics and Change, 4(2), 253–269. 10.1163/22105832‑00402001
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00402001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Woehrling, C., & Boula de Mareüil, P.
    (2006) Identification of regional accents in French: Perception and categorization. Proceedings of Interspeech 2006, 1511–1514. 10.21437/Interspeech.2006‑303
     https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2006-303 [Google Scholar]
  60. Yang, L., Fu, S., Luo, Y., Wang, Y., & Zhao, W.
    (2021) A clustering method of encrypted video traffic based on Levenshtein Distance. 2021 17th International Conference on Mobility, Sensing and Networking (MSN), 1–8. 10.1109/MSN53354.2021.00017
     https://doi.org/10.1109/MSN53354.2021.00017 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00117.jur
Loading
Foreign accent identification, prototypicality, and lectometric methods
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11, 180 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00117.jur
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00117.jur
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00117.jur
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accent identification; foreign accent; lectometry; perception; prototype theory

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error