Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Native speakers often have a difficult time understanding non-native speech, and this challenge is frequently attributed to a more variable signal. While theories and models of general speech perception are grounded in issues of variability, they rarely consider non-native speech. Here, we ask how a specific type of variability (speaking rate) impacts two measures of perception for both native and non-native speech. Methods: In the present study, one group of listeners transcribed speech, providing a measure of intelligibility. A second group of listeners rated how fluent the speaker was, providing a measure of fluency. Results: The results show that variability in speaking rate correlates with a non-native speaker’s intelligibility. However, perceived fluency measures are not predicted by this variability measure. Conclusions: These results, taken with studies of the range of variability in non-native speech, suggest that variability in non-native speech is not a monolithic construct. Current theories and models of perception can be enhanced by examining non-native speech and how variability in that speech impacts perception.
verified
References
1 Adank, P., Evans, B. G., Stuart-Smith, J., & Scott, S. K. (2009). Comprehension of familiar and unfamiliar native accents under adverse listening conditions.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 35(2), 520–529. 10.1037/a00135520096-1523Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2 Anderson‐Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure.Language Learning, 42(4), 529–555. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01043.x0023-8333Search in Google Scholar
3 Baese-Berk, M. M., & Morrill, T. H. (2015). Speaking rate consistency in native and non-native speakers of English.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138(3), EL223–EL228. 10.1121/1.49296220001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4 Baese-Berk, M. M., Bradlow, A. R., & Wright, B. A. (2013). Accent-independent adaptation to foreign accented speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), EL174–EL180. 10.1121/1.47898640001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5 Baker, R. E., Baese-Berk, M., Bonnasse-Gahot, L., Kim, M., Van Engen, K. J., & Bradlow, A. R. (2011). Word durations in non-native English.Journal of Phonetics, 39(1), 1–17. 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.10.0060095-4470Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6 Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1600–1610. 10.1121/1.16032340001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7 Bent, T., Baese-Berk, M., Borrie, S. A., & McKee, M. (2016). Individual differences in the perception of regional, nonnative, and disordered speech varieties.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(5), 3775–3786. 10.1121/1.49666770001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8 Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In W.Strange (Ed.),Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171–204). Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar
9 Blumstein, S. E., & Stevens, K. N. (1981). Phonetic features and acoustic invariance in speech.Cognition, 10(1-3), 25–32. 10.1016/0010-0277(81)90021-40010-0277Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10 BradlowAR, AckermanL, BurchfieldL, HesterbergL, LuqueJ, and MokK (2011): “Language- and talker-dependent variation in global features of native and non-native speech,” in Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 356–359.Search in Google Scholar
11 Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech.Cognition, 106(2), 707–729. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.0050010-0277Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12 Cooper, F. S., Delattre, P. C., Liberman, A. M., Borst, J. M., & Gerstman, L. J. (1952). Some experiments on the perception of synthetic speech sounds.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24(6), 597–606. 10.1121/1.19069400001-4966Search in Google Scholar
13 Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W.Strange (Ed.),Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, Md.: York Press.Search in Google Scholar
14 Flege, J. E., Bohn, O. S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25(4), 437–470. 10.1006/jpho.1997.00520095-4470Search in Google Scholar
15 Flipsen, P., Jr. (2002). Longitudinal changes in articulation rate and phonetic phrase length in children with speech delay.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 45(1), 100–110. 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/008)1092-4388Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16 Floccia, C., Goslin, J., Girard, F., & Konopczynski, G. (2006). Does a regional accent perturb speech processing?Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(5), 1276–1293. 10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.12760096-1523Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17 Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., Liu, S. H., & Yeni-Komshian, G. H. (2000). Age of learning effects on the duration of sentences produced in a second language.Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(02), 205–228. 10.1017/S01427164000020340142-7164Search in Google Scholar
18 Johnson, K. (2005). Speaker normalization in speech perception. In D. B.Pisoni & R. E.Remez (Eds.),Handbook of Speech Perception (pp. 363–389). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757024.ch15Search in Google Scholar
19 Klatt, D. H. (1980). Speech perception: A model of acoustic-phonetic analysis and lexical access. Perception and production of fluent speech, 243-288.Search in Google Scholar
20 Kraljic, T., Samuel, A. G., & Brennan, S. E. (2008). First impressions and last resorts: How listeners adjust to speaker variability.Psychological Science, 19(4), 332–338. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02090.x0956-7976Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21 Lane, H. (1963). Foreign accent and speech distortion.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(4), 451–453. 10.1121/1.19185010001-4966Search in Google Scholar
22 LaturnusR (2018): Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech: The effects of bias, exposure, and input variation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, NY.Search in Google Scholar
23 Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code.Psychological Review, 74(6), 431–461. 10.1037/h00202790033-295XSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
24 Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review.Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7-8), 953–978. 10.1080/01690965.2012.7050060169-0965Search in Google Scholar
25 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), 1–12. 10.3758/s13414-018-1537-41943-3921Search in Google Scholar PubMed
26 Mennen, I. (2015). Beyond segments: Towards a L2 intonation learning theory. In E.Delais-Roussarie, M.Avanzi, & S.Herment (Eds.),Prosody and Language in Contact (pp. 171–188). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-662-45168-7_9Search in Google Scholar
27 Miller, J. L., Grosjean, F., & Lomanto, C. (1984). Articulation rate and its variability in spontaneous speech: A reanalysis and some implications.Phonetica, 41(4), 215–225. 10.1159/0002617280031-8388Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28 MorrillT, Baese-BerkM, & BradlowA (2016): Speaking rate consistency and variability in spontaneous speech by native and non-native speakers of English. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 1119-1123.Search in Google Scholar
29 Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995a). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners.Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x0023-8333Search in Google Scholar
30 Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995b). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech.Language and Speech, 38(Pt 3), 289–306. 10.1177/0023830995038003050023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed
31 Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python.Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1-2), 8–13. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.0170165-0270Search in Google Scholar PubMed
32 Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast.Typological Studies in Language, 45, 137–158. 10.1075/tsl.45.08pieSearch in Google Scholar
33 R Core Team (2015): R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/Search in Google Scholar
34 Romero-Rivas, C., Martin, C. D., & Costa, A. (2015). Processing changes when listening to foreign-accented speech.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 167. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.001671662-5161Search in Google Scholar PubMed
35 Sidaras, S. K., Alexander, J. E., & Nygaard, L. C. (2009). Perceptual learning of systematic variation in Spanish-accented speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(5), 3306–3316. 10.1121/1.31014520001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed
36 StevensKN, & BlumsteinSE (1981): The search for invariant acoustic correlates of phonetic features. Perspectives on the Study of Speech, 1-38.Search in Google Scholar
37 Van Engen, K. J., Baese-Berk, M., Baker, R. E., Choi, A., Kim, M., & Bradlow, A. R. (2010). The Wildcat Corpus of native- and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles.Language and Speech, 53(Pt 4), 510–540. 10.1177/00238309103724950023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed
38 Van Wijngaarden, S. J. (2001). Intelligibility of native and non-native Dutch speech.Speech Communication, 35(1-2), 103–113. 10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00098-40167-6393Search in Google Scholar
39 Vaughn, C., Baese-Berk, M., & Idemaru, K. (2018). (in press). Re-examining phonetic variability in native and non-native speech.Phonetica. 10.1159/0004872690031-8388Search in Google Scholar PubMed
40 Wade, T., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. (2007). Effects of acoustic variability in the perceptual learning of non-native-accented speech sounds.Phonetica, 64(2-3), 122–144. 10.1159/0001079130031-8388Search in Google Scholar PubMed
41 Witteman, M. J., Weber, A., & McQueen, J. M. (2014). Tolerance for inconsistency in foreign-accented speech.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 512–519. 10.3758/s13423-013-0519-81069-9384Search in Google Scholar PubMed
42 Yaruss, J. S., & Conture, E. G. (1995). Mother and child speaking rates and utterance lengths in adjacent fluent utterances: Preliminary observations.Journal of Fluency Disorders, 20(3), 257–278. 10.1016/0094-730X(94)00013-J0094-730XSearch in Google Scholar
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
