1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Volume 14, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 5
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

We investigated the effect of auditory exposure on the recognition of full (, canonical) and reduced (, with weakened or deleted sounds) word forms by beginner second language (L2) learners. We taught three participant groups the same French schwa words. One group was trained only on the full (, with schwa) forms, one group on the reduced forms (, without schwa) only, and one group on both the full and reduced forms of each word. We then tested participants’ recognition of both forms in an auditory lexical decision task. We found that participants’ accuracy for a form was proportional to the exposure they received at training for that form. Both participants’ groups trained on one form recognized the untrained form in about a third of the trials. We conclude that exposure is a crucial factor in learning L2 reduced forms and that listeners use both retrieval from storage and goodness of fit (including reconstruction) mechanisms, in the same way for full as for reduced forms.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22043.mor
2023-06-29
2025-06-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.22043.mor
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lab.22043.mor.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22043.mor&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ahmadian, M., & Matour, R.
    (2014) The Effect of Explicit Instruction of Connected Speech Features on Iranian EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension Skill. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(2), 227–236. 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.227
     https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.227 [Google Scholar]
  2. Askildson, V.
    (2008) What do Teachers and Students Want from a Foreign Language Textbook?, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.
  3. Blees, G. J., Mak, W. M., & ten Thije, J. D.
    (2014) English as a lingua franca versus lingua receptiva in problem-solving conversations between Dutch and German students. Applied Linguistics Review, 5(1), 173–193. 10.1515/applirev‑2014‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2014-0008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boersma, P., Weenink, D.
    (2001) Praat, a System for Doing Phonetics by Computer. Glot International, 51, 341–345.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brand, S., & Ernestus, M.
    (2018) Listeners’ processing of a given reduced word pronunciation variant directly reflects their exposure to this variant: evidence from native listeners and learners of French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 1240–1259. 10.1080/17470218.2017.1313282
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1313282 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, J. D., & Hilferty, A.
    (1986) The effectiveness of teaching reduced forms of listening comprehension. Relc Journal, 17(2), 59–70. 10.1177/003368828601700204
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828601700204 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brysbaert, M.
    (2013) Lextale_fr a fast, free, and efficient test to measure language proficiency in french. Psychologica Belgica, 53(1), 23–23. 10.5334/pb‑53‑1‑23
     https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-53-1-23 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bürki, A., Ernestus, M., Gendrot, C., Fougeron, C., Frauenfelder, U.
    (2011) What affects the presence versus absence of schwa and its duration: A corpus analysis of connected speech?The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 3980–3991. 10.1121/1.3658386
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3658386 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bürki, A., & Frauenfelder, U. H.
    (2012) Producing and recognizing words with two pronunciation variants: evidence from novel schwa words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 796–824. 10.1080/17470218.2011.634915
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.634915 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bürki, A., Viebahn, M. C., Racine, I., Mabut, C., & Spinelli, E.
    (2018) Intrinsic advantage for canonical forms in spoken word recognition: myth or reality?Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(4), 494–511. 10.1080/23273798.2017.1388412
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1388412 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M.
    (1995) Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 141–158. 10.1093/applin/16.2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chan, R. K. W. C., & Leung, J. H. C. L.
    (2014) Implicit learning of L2 word stress regularities. Second Language Research, 30(4), 463–484. 10.1177/0267658313510169
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313510169 [Google Scholar]
  13. Côté, M.-H., & Morrisson, G. S.
    (2007) The nature of the schwa/zero alternation in French clitics: experimental and non-experimental evidence. Journal of French Language Studies, 17(2), 159–186. 10.1017/S0959269507002827
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269507002827 [Google Scholar]
  14. Content, A., Mousty, P., & Radeau, M.
    (1990) BRULEX. Une base de données lexicales informatisée pour le français écrit et parlé. L’Année Psychologique, 90(4), 551–566. 10.3406/psy.1990.29428
     https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.1990.29428 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dumay, N., Gaskell, M. G., & Feng, X.
    (2004) A day in the life of a spoken word. InK. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp.339–344). Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gaskell, M. G., & Dumay, N.
    (2003) Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 891, 105–132. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00070‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00070-2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ernestus, M.
    (2009) The roles of reconstruction and lexical storage in the comprehension of regular pronunciation variants. Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of the international speech communication association (Interspeech 2009). (pp.1875–1878). Brighton. 10.21437/Interspeech.2009‑544
     https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2009-544 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ernestus, M., Baayen, H., & Schreuder, R.
    (2002) The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 162–173. 10.1006/brln.2001.2514
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2514 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ernestus, M., Dikmans, M. E., & Giezenaar, G.
    (2017) Advanced second language learners experience difficulties processing reduced word pronunciation variants. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 1–20. 10.1075/dujal.6.1.01ern
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.6.1.01ern [Google Scholar]
  20. Ernestus, M., & Warner, N.
    (2011) An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 391, 253–260. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(11)00055‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(11)00055-6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fonseca-Greber, B., & Waugh, L. R.
    (2003) The Subject Clitics of Conversational European French: Morphologization, Grammatical Change, Semantic Change, and Change in Progress. InR. Núñez-Cedeño, L. López, & R. Cameron (Eds.), A romance perspective on language knowledge and use (pp.99–117). Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.238.10fon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.238.10fon [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldinger, S. D.
    (1996) Words and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1166–83. 10.1037/0278‑7393.22.5.1166
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1166 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grammont, M.
    (1914) Traité Pratique de Prononciation Française, Paris, Delagrave.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hansen, A. B.
    (1994) Etude du E caduc – stabilisation en cours et variations lexicales. Journal of French Language Studies, 41, 25–54. 10.1017/S0959269500001964
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500001964 [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson, K.
    2004 Massive reduction in conversational American English. Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on spontaneous speech: data and analysis (pp.29–54). Tokyo.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kennedy, S., & Blanchet, J.
    (2014) Language awareness and perception of connected speech in a second language. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 92–106. 10.1080/09658416.2013.863904
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863904 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2017) Lmer test package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  28. Léon, P.
    (2005) Phonétisme et prononciations du français (4ème édition). Armand Colin, Paris.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P.
    (1998) Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. InC. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.15–42). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Matter, J. F.
    (1986) À la recherche des frontières perdues. Étude sur la perception de la parole en français. De Werelt.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Morano, L., Ernestus, M., & ten Bosch, L.
    (2015) Schwa reduction in low-proficiency L2 speakers: Learning and generalization. InM. Wolters, J. Livingstone, B. Beattie, R. Smith, M. MacMahon, J. Stuart-Smith, & J. Scobbie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS 2015). University of Glasgow.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Nouveau, D.
    (2012) Limites perceptives de l’e caduc chez des apprenants néerlandophones. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 60–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. van Oostendorp, M.
    (2012) Quantity and the three-syllable window in Dutch word stress. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(6), 343–358. 10.1002/lnc3.339
     https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.339 [Google Scholar]
  34. Peirce, J. W.
    (2007) Psychopy – psychophysics software in python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pierrehumbert, J.
    (2002) Word-specific phonetics. InC. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7. 10.1515/9783110197105.101
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197105.101 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pitt, M. A.
    (1998) Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception & Psychophysics, 601, 941–951. 10.3758/BF03211930
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211930 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2009) How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(1), 19–36. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., & Tat, M.
    (2011) Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3), 304–311. 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.07.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  39. Powell, M. J.
    (2009) The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Report DAMTP 2009/NA06 (pp.26–46). University of Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. R Development Core Team
    R Development Core Team 2007 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. www.R-project.org
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Racine, I.
    (2008) Les effets de l’effacement du Schwa sur la production et la perception de la parole en français. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Geneva. archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:602
  42. Racine, I., Bürki, A., & Spinelli, E.
    (2014) The implication of spelling and frequency in the recognition of phonological variants: evidence from pre-readers and readers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(7), 893–898. 10.1080/01690965.2013.832784
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.832784 [Google Scholar]
  43. Racine, I., & Grosjean, F.
    (2000) Influence de l’effacement du schwa sur la reconnaissance des mots en parole continue. L’année psychologique, 100(3), 393–417. 10.3406/psy.2000.28649
     https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2000.28649 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2002) La production du e caduc facultatif est-elle prévisible ? un début de réponse. Journal of French Language Studies, 12(3), 307–326. 10.1017/S0959269502000340
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269502000340 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ranbom, L. J., & Connine, C. M.
    (2007) Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 273–298. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rastle, K., McCormick, S. F., Bayliss, L., & Davis, C. J.
    (2011) Orthography influences the perception and production of speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1588–94. 10.1037/a0024833
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024833 [Google Scholar]
  47. Seyfarth, S.
    (2014) Word informativity influences acoustic duration: effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition, 133(1), 140–155. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  48. Shockey, L., & Bond, D.
    (2015) Casual speech phonology and perception of further languages: The case of Latvian. InM. Wolters, J. Livingstone, B. Beattie, R. Smith, M. MacMahon, J. Stuart-Smith, & J. Scobbie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS 2015). University of Glasgow.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Spinelli, E., & Gros-Balthazard, F.
    (2007) Phonotactic constraints help to overcome effects of schwa deletion in French. Cognition, 104(2), 397–406. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ziegler, J. C., & Ferrand, L.
    (1998) Orthography shapes the perception of speech: the consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(4), 683–689. 10.3758/BF03208845
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208845 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22043.mor
Loading
Second language learners acquire reduced word forms just like they acquire full forms
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14, 708 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22043.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22043.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22043.mor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): exposure; L2 acquisition; pronunciation variation; reduction; speech recognition

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