Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:39:47.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of contrastive accents in memory for L2 discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2016

EUN-KYUNG LEE  and
SCOTT FRAUNDORF
EUN-KYUNG LEE*
Affiliation:
Yonsei University
SCOTT FRAUNDORF
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
*
Address for correspondence: Eun-Kyung Lee, Department of English Language and Literature, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contrastive pitch accents benefit native English speakers’ memory for discourse by enhancing a representation of a specific relevant contrast item (Fraundorf et al., 2010). This study examines whether and how second language (L2) listeners differ in how contrastive accents affect their encoding and representation of a discourse, as compared to native speakers. Using the same materials as Fraundorf et al. (2010), we found that low and mid proficiency L2 learners showed no memory benefit from contrastive accents. High proficiency L2 learners revealed some sensitivity to contrastive accents, but failed to fully integrate information conveyed by contrastive accents into their discourse representation. The results suggest that L2 listeners’ non-native performance in processing contrastive accents, observed in this and other prior studies, may be attributed at least in part to a difference in the depth of processing of the information conveyed by contrastive accents.

Keywords

L2 processingcontrastive accentsdiscoursememory
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , November 2017 , pp. 1063 - 1079
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Akker, E., & Cutler, A. (2003). Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E. (2008). THE BACON not the bacon: How children and adults understand accented and unaccented noun phrase. Cognition, 108, 69–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, R. E. (2010). Non-native perception of native English prominence. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp.157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E., & Ayers, G. M. (1997). Guildlines for ToBI labelling, vers 3.0 [manuscript]. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Birch, S. L., & Garnsey, S. M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 232–267.Google Scholar
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.Google Scholar
Braun, B. (2006). Phonetics and phonology of thematic contrast in German. Language and Speech, 49, 451–493.Google Scholar
Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1024–1043.Google Scholar
Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2011). On-line interpretation of intonational meaning in L2. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 224–235.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., & ‘t Hart, J. (1967). On the anatomy of intonation. Lingua, 19, 177–192.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249–253.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1976). Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 55–60.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49–59.Google Scholar
Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292–314.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Donaldson, B., Edmonds, A. C., Fultz, A. L., & Petrusch, R. A. (2008). Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 453–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Edmonds, A. C., Fultz, A. L., & Renaud, C. (2010). Modularity of L2 sentence processing: Prosody, context, and morphology in relative clause ambiguity in English-French interlanguage. Proceedings of the 2009 Mind/Context Divide Workshop. 13–27.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Roberts, L., & Marinis, T. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., Watson, D. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 367–386.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., Watson, D. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). The effects of age on the strategic use of pitch accents in memory for discourse: A processing-resource account. Psychology and Aging, 27, 88–98.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., Benjamin, A. S., & Watson, D. G. (2013). What happened (and what did not): Discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 196–227.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., Diaz, M. I., Finley, J. R., Lewis, M. L., Tooley, K. M., Isaacs, A. M., Lam, T. Q., Trude, A. M., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Brehm, L. (2014). CogToolbox for MATLAB [computer software]. Available from http://www.scottfraundorf.com/cogtoolbox.html Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–236). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gotzner, N., Spalek, K., & Wartenburger, I. (2013). How pitch accents and focus particles affect the recognition of contextual alternatives. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 2434–2439.Google Scholar
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J. (1990). Accent and discourse context: Assigning pitch accent in synthetic speech. Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 952–957). Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.Google Scholar
Ito, K., Bibyk, S. A., Wagner, L., & Speer, S. R. (2014). Interpretation of contrastive pitch accent in six- to eleven-year-old English-speaking children (and adults). Journal of Child Language, 41, 84–110.Google Scholar
Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2006). Using interactive tasks to elicit natural dialogue. In Augurzky, P. & Lenertova, D. (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 229–257). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 541–573.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Bobb, S. C. (2009). The processing and comprehension of wh- questions among second language speakers of German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 603–636.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Dussias, P. E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 69–82.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformations or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jun, S.-A. (1993). The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody (Doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (2005). Prosodic typology. In Jun, S.-A. (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What's new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception 36 ECVP Abstract Supplement.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.Google Scholar
Murayama, K., Sakaki, M., Yan, V.X., & Smith, G. M. (2014). Type I error inflation in the traditional by-participant analysis to metamemory accuracy: A generalized mixed-effects model perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1287–1306.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21, 98–120.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 501–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H., & Reder, L. M. (2004). Moses illusion: Implication for human cognition. In Pohl, R. F. (Ed.), Cognitive illusions. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.Google Scholar
Pennington, M. C., & Ellis, N. C. (2000). Cantonese speakers’ memory for English sentence with prosodic cues. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 372–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Coehn, P. et al. (Eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V., & Birdsong, D. (2014). Processing focus structure in L1 and L2 French: L2 proficiency effects on ERPs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 535–564.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. S., Sanford, A. J., Molle, J., & Emmott, C. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42, 109–130.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. S., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 382–286.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (1999). Givenness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141–177.Google Scholar
Speer, S. R., Crowder, R. G., & Thomas, L. M. (1993). Prosodic structure and sentence recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 336–358.Google Scholar
Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Steward, A. J., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882–888.Google Scholar
‘t Hart, J., Collier, R., & Cohen, A. (1990). A perceptual study of intonation: An experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trouvain, J., Gut, U., & Barry, W. J. (2007). Bridging research on phonetic descriptions with knowledge from teaching practice: The case of prosody in non-native speech. In Trouvain, J. & Gut, U. (Eds.), Non-native prosody: Phonetic description and teaching experience (pp. 3–21). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Watson, D. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Gunlogson, C. A. (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science, 32, 1232–1244.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B., Horry, R., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2008). Functions for traditional and multilevel approaches to signal detection theory. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 257–267.Google Scholar