Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T22:51:43.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECTS OF VARIABILITY IN FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY ON L2 VOCABULARY LEARNING

A Comparison between Learners Who Do and Do Not Speak a Tone Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2013

Joe Barcroft  and
Mitchell S. Sommers
Joe Barcroft*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
Mitchell S. Sommers
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joe Barcroft, Washington University in St. Louis, Department of Romance Languages and Literatures, Campus Box 1077, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899. E-mail: barcroft@artsci.wustl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies (Barcroft & Sommers, 2005; Sommers & Barcroft, 2007) have demonstrated that variability in talker, speaking style, and speaking rate positively affect second language vocabulary learning, whereas variability in overall amplitude and fundamental frequency (F0) do not, at least for native English speakers. Sommers and Barcroft (2007) hypothesized that English speakers do not benefit (with regard to second language vocabulary learning) from amplitude and F0 variability because these are not phonetically relevant to them. The present study further tested this hypothesis by examining effects of F0 variability among adults who speak a tone language (Zapotec-Spanish bilinguals) and those who do not speak a tone language (Spanish speakers with substantial knowledge of English). Participants attempted to learn 24 Russian words while hearing the words and viewing their corresponding pictures. Three levels of F0 variability were compared. Fundamental frequency variability significantly improved vocabulary learning for speakers of the tone language (Zapotec) but not for the Spanish speakers. This result provides strong evidence that effects of acoustic variability on learning new word forms depend on phonetic relevance.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 423 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Assmann, P. F., Nearey, T. M., & Hogan, J. T. (1982). Vowel identification: Orthographic, perceptual, and acoustic aspects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 975–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341–345.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 977–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 2074–2085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B., & Logan, J. S. (1991). On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 152–162.Google ScholarPubMed
Hardison, D. M. (2003). Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context and talker variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Martin, C. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1994). Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5, 42–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickett, V. B., Black, C., & Cerqueda, V. M. (2001). Gramática popular del zapoteco del istmo [Common Grammar of Isthmus Zapotec] (2nd ed.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.sil.org/mexico/zapoteca/istmo/G023b-GramaticaZapIstmo-zai.pdf.Google Scholar
Pickett, V. B., Villalobos Villalobos, M., & Marlett, S. A. (2010). Isthmus (Juchitán) Zapotec. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 40, 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Speech perception: Some new directions in research and theory. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Long-term memory in speech perception: Some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate and perceptual learning. Speech Communication, 13, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redish, L., & Lewis, O. (2009). Zapotec Pronunciation and Spelling Guide. Retrieved fromhttp://www.native-languages.org/zapotec_guide.htmGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M. S., & Barcroft, J. (2006). Stimulus variability and the phonetic relevance hypothesis: Effects of variability in speaking style, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate on spoken word identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2406–2416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommers, M. S., & Barcroft, J. (2007). An integrated account of the effects of acoustic variability in first language and second language: Evidence from amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M., Barcroft, J., & Mulqueeny, K. (2008, November). Further studies of acoustic variability and vocabulary. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M. S., Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1994). Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition. I. Effects of variability in speaking rate and overall amplitude. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 1314–1324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strange, W., & Dittmann, S. (1984). Effects of discrimination training on the perception of /r-l/ by Japanese adults learning English. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 131–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed