MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3199091150

L1 Vietnamese L2 English Speakers’ Cues to the Perception of Stress

2021· article· en· W3199091150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giang Nguyen Hoang Le

Bibliographic record

VenueIDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseStress (linguistics)PerceptionPsychologyLinguisticsCognitive psychologySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L1 transfer affects the process of L2 acquisition in a significant way, both in perception and production, as learners have a tendency to apply phonological patterns of their native language to the target language. This study investigates the extent to which Vietnamese native speakers rely on F0 as a primary cue to perceive stress in English nonce words by manipulating the pitch contour around the stressed syllable by creating different environments where such pitch contours are realized, and subsequently measuring the differences in performance of stress location matching as a result. While the acoustic correlates of stress in English are F0, duration, intensity, and vowel quality (Fry, 1955; Libermann, 1960), the acoustic correlates of tone in Vietnamese are F0, duration, and voice quality (Pham, 2000; Nguyen & Edmonton, 1997). Despite some overlapping of acoustic correlates, English lexical stress prediction cannot be predicated on pitch alone. For example, in a rising tonal contour context such as that of a yes/no question (L*H-H%), English stressed syllable actually receives a low pitch accent (Pierrehumbert, 1980). The independent variables of this study are stress location in a nonce word, the number of syllables in the stimuli, and the type of intonation context where a statement context corresponds to a falling intonation pattern and a yes/no question context corresponds to a rising intonation pattern. The dependent variable of this study is the number or percentage of correct responses the participants give to a perceptual matching task. To avoid lexical retrieval and memorization effect, the nonce words were selected based on a search in a pronunciation corpus of American English. The nonce words have the same syllable shape as a real English word, follow English phonotactics, and are controlled for factors such as tendency of vowel reduction. Besides the nonce word items, a set of filler items was included in the test instrument, ranging from tokens that are minimal segmental contrast pairs to tokens that differ by syllable length. The experiment was repeated for a control group of L1 American English speakers. The token set was recorded by a native American English speaker, randomized during the actual experiment in blocks, and distributed to the participants in different test lists following the Latin square design. The participants listened to the stimuli with varying stress locations three times and then listened to the stimuli with either a statement or yes/no question intonation. They were asked to identify the sound that they heard previously which matches the sound they have just heard. Similar to Ou’s (2010) findings, the prediction for this study was that L1 Vietnamese L2 English speakers would show a significant difference in perceiving stress compared to the control group when the word has a yes/no intonation contour, because of Vietnamese speakers’ tendency to rely on F0 as an acoustic cue for tone perception. A mixed repeated measures ANOVA with a between subject factor was conducted. A statistically significant difference in stress matching accuracy between the control and the experimental group was found in the disyllabic-word category. Both sentence types and stress location have main effects on the stress matching accuracy, and there is an interaction between the L1 factor and sentence type, as well as between L1 and stress location. Followed-up independent samples t-tests with Bonferroni correction show that the source of the interaction is in the question condition and the word-initial stress condition across the two groups. This is fully in agreement with the prediction that we would see a difference in the stress matching accuracy between the L1 English speakers and L1 Vietnamese speakers in word-initial stress condition with a question intonation. No significant difference was found in the stress matching accuracy of trisyllabic words. The age of arrival factor was also analyzed and although there was a negative correlation between age of arrival and better performance at the stress matching task, this relationship was not statistically significant.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→