TY - GEN
T1 - L2 English learners' recogniton of words spoken in familar versus unfamiliar English accents
AU - Ying, Jia
AU - Shaw, Jason A.
AU - Best, Catherine T.
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - How do L2 learners cope with L2 accent variation? We developed predictions based upon the Perceptual Assimilation Model-L2 (PAM-L2) and tested them in an eye-tracking experiment using the visual world paradigm. L2-English learners in Australia with Chinese L1 were presented with words spoken in familiar Australian-accented English (AusE), and two unfamiliar accents: Jamaican Mesolect English (JaME) and Cockney-accented English (CknE). AusE and JaME differ primarily in vowel pronunciations, while CknE differs primarily in consonant pronunciations. Words were selected to elicit two types of perceptual assimilations of JaNIE and CknE phonemes to AusE: Category Goodness (CG) and Category Shifting (CS) assimilations. The Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM) predicts that, if the L2 learners have developed AusE categories, then CS differences should hinder spoken word recognition more than CG differences. Our results supported this prediction. For both unfamiliar accents, CS target words attracted more fixations to printed competitor words than did CG distracters.
AB - How do L2 learners cope with L2 accent variation? We developed predictions based upon the Perceptual Assimilation Model-L2 (PAM-L2) and tested them in an eye-tracking experiment using the visual world paradigm. L2-English learners in Australia with Chinese L1 were presented with words spoken in familiar Australian-accented English (AusE), and two unfamiliar accents: Jamaican Mesolect English (JaME) and Cockney-accented English (CknE). AusE and JaME differ primarily in vowel pronunciations, while CknE differs primarily in consonant pronunciations. Words were selected to elicit two types of perceptual assimilations of JaNIE and CknE phonemes to AusE: Category Goodness (CG) and Category Shifting (CS) assimilations. The Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM) predicts that, if the L2 learners have developed AusE categories, then CS differences should hinder spoken word recognition more than CG differences. Our results supported this prediction. For both unfamiliar accents, CS target words attracted more fixations to printed competitor words than did CG distracters.
UR - http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/533241
UR - http://www.interspeech2013.org/
M3 - Conference Paper
SP - 2108
EP - 2112
BT - Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2013), 25-29 August 2013, Lyon, France
PB - International Speech Communication Association
T2 - International Speech Communication Association. Conference
Y2 - 25 August 2013
ER -