Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T14:43:43.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

33 - Bilingual Speech Intelligibility

from Part VI - Variables and Outcomes of Bilingual Speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2024

By
Ann R. Bradlow
Edited by
Mark Amengual
Mark Amengual
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents the Talker–Listener–Language, or TL2, framework for analyzing variation in speech intelligibility in conversational interactions between interlocutors from different language backgrounds. The TL2 framework is based on three fundamental relations: (a) the relation between the talker and the language being spoken (Talker–LBS), which can vary from low proficiency L2 to L1; (b) the relation between the listener and the language being spoken (Listener–LBS), which also varies from low proficiency L2 to L1; and (c) the relation between the language repertoires of the interlocutors (Talker–Listener), which can either match or mismatch. The central claim of the TL2 framework is that each of the three language relations influences speech intelligibility both independently and through modulation of the others. Evidence from various independent strands of research on speech intelligibility for L1 and L2 talkers and listeners is reviewed to support this claim. The TL2 framework is thus presented as both a coherent perspective on prior research on bilingual speech intelligibility and a map for future research.

Keywords

speech intelligibilityinterlanguage intelligibilityclear speechperceptual adaptation to L2 speechconversational interaction
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology , pp. 746 - 766
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

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.)

References

Babel, M. (2009). Phonetic and social selectivity in speech accommodation. [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley].Google Scholar
Bent, T. & Baese-Berk, M. (2021). Perceptual learning of accented speech. In Pardo, J. S., Nygaard, L. C., Remez, R. E., & Pisoni, D. B., eds., The Handbook of Speech Perception, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 428–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bent, T. & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1600–1610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blasingame, M. & Bradlow, A. R. (2020). Early versus extended exposure in speech perception learning: Evidence from switched-dominance bilinguals. Languages, 5(4), 39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blasingame, M. & Bradlow, A. R. (2021). Intelligibility of first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) speech by switched-dominance Spanish-English bilinguals. JASA Express Letters, 1(3), 035201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghini, G. & Hazan, V. (2018). Listening effort during sentence processing is increased for non-native listeners: A pupillometry study. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghini, G. & Hazan, V. (2020). Effects of acoustic and semantic cues on listening effort during native and non-native speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147(6), 3783–3794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borrie, S. A., McAuliffe, M. J., & Liss, J. M. (2012). Perceptual learning of dysarthric speech: A review of experimental studies. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 55(1), 290–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A. R. & Alexander, J. (2007). Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), 2339–2349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A. R & Bent, T. (2002). The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(1), 272–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A. R. & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106(2), 707–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A. R. & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(4), 2074–2085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouwer, S., Van Engen, K. J., Calandruccio, L., & Bradlow, A. R. (2012). Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: Language familiarity and semantic content. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(2), 1449–1464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruggeman, L. & Cutler, A. (2020). No L1 privilege in talker adaptation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(3), 681–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, D., Kitamura, C., & Vollmer-Conna, U. (2002). What’s new, Pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science, 296(5572), 1435–1435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calandruccio, L., Dhar, S., & Bradlow, A. R. (2010). Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(2), 860–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, M., García Lecumberri, M. L., & Barker, J. (2008). The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(1), 414–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., Pickering, M. J., & Sorace, A. (2008). Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 528–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drozdova, P., van Hout, R., & Scharenborg, O. (2016). Lexically-guided perceptual learning in non-native listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(5), 914–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, A. L. & Love, J. (2020). Listening effort: Are we measuring cognition or affect, or both? WIREs Cognitive Science, 11, e1514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
French, N. R. & Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19, 90–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Lecumberri, M. L., Cooke, M., & Cutler, A. (2010). Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review. Speech Communication, 52(11–12), 864–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granlund, S., Hazan, V., & Baker, R. (2012). An acoustic–phonetic comparison of the clear speaking styles of Finnish-English late bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 40(3), 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R., Smith, B. L., Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2008). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for native speakers of Mandarin: Production and perception of English word-final voicing contrasts. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 4, 664–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazan, V. & Baker, R. (2011). Acoustic-phonetic characteristics of speech produced with communicative intent to counter adverse listening conditions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(4), 2139–2152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazan, V., Grynpas, J., & Baker, R. (2012). Is clear speech tailored to counter the effect of specific adverse listening conditions? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(5), EL371–EL377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazan, V., Tuomainen, O., & Pettinato, M. (2016). Suprasegmental characteristics of spontaneous speech produced in good and challenging communicative conditions by talkers aged 9–14 years. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 59, S1569–S1607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazan, V., Tuomainen, O., & Taschenberger, L. (2019). Subjective evaluation of communicative effort for younger and older adults in interactive tasks with energetic and informational masking. In Kubin, G. and Kačič, Z., eds., Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association – INTERSPEECH 2019. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA), pp. 3098–3102.Google Scholar
Hazan, V., Tuomainen, O., Tu, L., et al. (2018). How do aging and age-related hearing loss affect the ability to communicate effectively in challenging communicative conditions? Hearing Research, 369, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazan, V., Uther, M., & Grunland, S. (2015). How does foreigner-directed speech differ from other forms of listener-directed clear speaking styles? In Wolters, M., Livingstone, J., Beattie, B., Smith, R., MacMahon, M., Stuart-Smith, J., & Scobbie, J. M., eds., Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2015). Glasgow: Glasgow University. www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0346.pdf.Google Scholar
Hwang, J., Brennan, S. E., & Huffman, M. K. (2015). Phonetic adaptation in non-native spoken dialogue: Effects of priming and audience design. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, S., Walley, A. C., & Flege, J. E. (2005). Lexical frequency and neighborhood density effects on the recognition of native and Spanish-accented words by native English and Spanish listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(2), 896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keerstock, S. & Smiljanic, R. (2018). Effects of intelligibility on within‐ and cross‐modal sentence recognition memory for native and non‐native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(5), 2871–2881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keerstock, S. & Smiljanic, R. (2019). Speaking clearly improves listeners’ recall. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 146(6), 4604–4610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M., Horton, W., & Bradlow, A. R. (2011). Phonetic accommodation between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Laboratory Phonology, 2, 125–156.Google Scholar
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levis, J. M. (2020). Revisiting the intelligibility and nativeness principles. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6(3), 310–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowski, N. & Dogil, G. (2010). Identity negotiation in native–nonnative dialogs: Quantifying phonetic adaptation. In De Cillia, R., Gruber, H., Krzyzanowski, M., & Menz, F., eds., Diskurs – Politik – Identität (Discourse – Politics – Identity): Festschrift für Ruth Wodak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 389–399.Google Scholar
Mamun, N., Zilany, M. S. A., Hansen, J. H. L., & Davies-Venn, E. E. (2021). An intrusive method for estimating speech intelligibility from noisy and distorted signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 150, 1762–1778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattys, S., Davis, M., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7/8), 953–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattys, S. L. & Liss, J. M. (2008). On building models of spoken-word recognition: When there is as much to learn from natural “oddities” as from artificial normality. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1235–1242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, L. H., Florentine, M., & Buus, S. (1997). Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 40(3), 686–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGarrigle, R. A., Rakusen, L., & Mattys, S. (2020). Effortful listening under the microscope: Examining relations between pupillometric and subjective markers of effort and tiredness from listening. Psychophysiology, 58(1), e13703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, D. J., Baese-Berk, M. M., Bent, T., Borrie, S. A., & Van Engen, K. J. (2018). Coping with adversity: Individual differences in the perception of noisy and accented speech. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(6), 1559–1570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, M. J. (1998). The effects of noise on the intelligibility of foreign-accented speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M. (2020). Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility, redux. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6, 283–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müsch, H. & Buus, S. (2001). Sensitivity (SRS) model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 2896–2909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, R. (1969). Intonational interference in the speech of Puerto Rican bilinguals. Journal of English, 4, 1–42.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K. (2011). Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 39(2), 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olmstead, A. J., Lee, J., & Viswanathan, N. (2020). The role of the speaker, the listener, and their joint contributions during communicative interactions: A tripartite view of intelligibility in individuals with dysarthria. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63, 1106–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olmstead, A. J., Viswanathan, N., Aivar, M. P., & Manuel, S. (2013). Comparison of native and non-native phone imitation by English and Spanish speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olmstead, A. J., Viswanathan, N., Cowan, T., & Yang, K. (2021). Phonetic adaptation in interlocutors with mismatched language backgrounds: A case for a phonetic synergy account. Journal of Phonetics, 87, 101054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardo, J. S. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 2382–2393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pardo, J. S., Jay, I. C., & Krauss, R. M. (2010). Conversational role influences speech imitation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(8), 2254–2264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pardo, J. S., Pellegrino, E., Dellwo, V., & Möbius, B., eds. (2022). Special issue: Vocal accommodation in speech communication. Journal of Phonetics, 95, 101196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardo, J. S., Urmanche, A., Wilman, S., & Wiener, J. (2017). Phonetic convergence across multiple measures and model talkers. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 79, 637–659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinet, M., Iverson, P., & Huckvale, M. (2011). Second-language experience and speech-in-noise recognition: Effects of talker–listener accent similarity. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1653–1662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinisch, E., Weber, A., & Mitterer, H. (2013). Listeners retune phoneme categories across languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 75–86.Google ScholarPubMed
Rogers, C. L., Dalby, J., & Nishi, K. (2004). Effects of noise and proficiency on intelligibility of Chinese-accented English. Language and Speech, 47(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scharenborg, O. & van Os, M. (2019). Why listening in background noise is harder in a non-native language than in a native language: A review. Speech Communication, 108, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schertz, J., Cho, T., Lotto, A., & Warner, N. (2016). Individual differences in perceptual adaptability of foreign sound categories. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 78, 355–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shu, C., Wilson, I., & Perkins., J. (2016). Revisiting the interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. In Carignan, C. & Tyler, M. D., eds., Proceedings of the 16th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association, pp. 157–160.Google Scholar
Smiljanic, R. (2021). Clear speech perception: Linguistic and cognitive benefits. In Pardo, J. S., Nygaard, L. C., Remez, R. E., & Pisoni, D. B., eds., The Handbook of Speech Perception, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smiljanic, R. & Bradlow, A. R. (2009). Speaking and hearing clearly: Talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 236–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smiljanic, R. & Bradlow, A. R. (2011). Bidirectional clear speech perception benefit for native and high‐proficiency non‐native talker‐listeners: Intelligibility and accentedness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 4020–4031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steeneken, H. J. M. & Houtgast, T. (1982). Some applications of the speech transmission index (STI) in auditoria. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 51(4), 229–234.Google Scholar
Stibbard, R. M. & Lee, J.-I. (2006). Evidence against the mismatched interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit hypothesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(1), 433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stringer, L. & Iverson, P. (2019). Accent intelligibility differences in noise across native and nonnative accents: Effects of talker–listener pairing at acoustic–phonetic and lexical levels. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strori, D., Bradlow, A. R., & Souza, P. E. (2020). Recognition of foreign-accented speech in noise: The interplay between talker intelligibility and linguistic structure. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147(6), 3765–3782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tamati, T. N. & Pisoni, D. B. (2014). Non-native listeners’ recognition of high-variability speech using PRESTO. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 25(9), 869–892.Google ScholarPubMed
Tuomainen, O., Taschenberger, L., Rosen, S., & Hazan, V. (2021). Speech modifications in interactive speech: Effects of age, sex and noise type. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 377(1841), 20200398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uchanski, R. M. (2005). Clear speech. In Pisoni, D. B. & Remez, R., eds., The Handbook of Speech Perception. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uther, M., Knoll, M. A., & Burnham, D. (2007). Do you speak E-NG-LI-SH? A comparison of foreigner-and infant-directed speech. Speech Communication, 49(1), 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Engen, K. J., Baese-Berk, M., Baker, R. E., et al. (2010). The Wildcat Corpus of Native- and Foreign-Accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language & Speech, 53(4), 510–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Engen, K. J. & Bradlow, A. R. (2007). Sentence recognition in native-and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(1), 519–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Engen, K. J. & Peelle, J. E. (2014). Listening effort and accented speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Wijngaarden, S. J. (2001). Intelligibility of native and nonnative Dutch speech. Speech Communication, 35(1), 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wijngaarden, S. J., Bronkhorst, A. W., Houtgast, T., & Steeneken, H. J. M. (2004). Using the Speech Transmission Index for predicting non-native speech intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 1281–1291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Wijngaarden, S. J., Steeneken, H. J. M., & Houtgast, T. (2002). Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1906–1916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, H. & van Heuven, V. J. (2015). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit as bias toward native-language phonology. i-Perception, 6(6), 2041669515613661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, A., Broersma, M., & Aoyagi, M. (2011). Spoken-word recognition in foreign-accented speech by L2 listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 479–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Winn, M. B. & Teece, K. H. (2021). Listening effort is not the same as speech intelligibility score. Trends in Hearing, 25, 23312165211027688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, X. & Fowler, C. A. (2013). Listening with a foreign-accent: The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit in Mandarin speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 41(5), 369–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, X., Liu, L., & Jaeger, T. F. (2021). Cross-talker generalization in the perception of nonnative speech: A large-scale replication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(11), e22–e56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×