Prosodic cues in second-language speech processing: A visual world eye-tracking study

Abstract

Listeners interpret cues in speech processing immediately rather than waiting until the end of a sentence. In particular, prosodic cues in auditory speech processing can aid listeners in building information structure and contrast sets. Native speakers even use this information in combination with syntactic and semantic information to build mental representations predictively. Research on second-language (L2) learners suggests that learners have difficulty integrating linguistic information across various domains, likely subject to L2 proficiency levels. The current study investigated eye-movement behavior of native speakers of English and Chinese learners of English in their use of contrastive intonational cues to restrict the set of upcoming referents in a visual world paradigm. Both native speakers and learners used contrastive pitch accent to restrict the set of referents. Whereas native speakers anticipated the upcoming set of referents, this was less clear in the L2 learners. This suggests that learners are able to integrate information across multiple domains to build information structure in the L2 but may not do so predictively. Prosodic processing was not affected by proficiency or working memory in the L2 speakers.

Using Prosody to Predict Upcoming Referents in the L1 and the L2

“…The L2 results from Experiment 1 are in line with the previous literature on predictive L2 processing, which suggests that prediction occurs in fewer processing situations in the L2 than in the L1 (Kaan, 2014). Similar to Perdomo and Kaan (2019), Experiment 1 found evidence for facilitation, but not for predictive processing in the L2. Notably, the results from Experiment 1 are not compatible with the idea that bilinguals can engage in predictive processing only if they can use their L1 knowledge in their L2.…”

“…In this respect, the current results are inconsistent with Klassen's (2015) result for Spanish-English bilinguals. The reason for this discrepancy is most likely timing (Perdomo & Kaan, 2019). In Klassen's (2015) study, the two phrases of an instruction were separated by 700 ms of silence, which served as the analysis window for statistical analysis.…”

Native and second-language processing of contrastive pitch accent: An ERP study

“…Suggestive evidence that complexity may have played a role comes from an eye-tracking study conducted in our lab (Perdomo & Kaan, submitted) using participants from the same L2 population. This study used a subset of the materials from the current study in a visual world paradigm, in which the participants looked at a display with pictures while listening.…”

Adaptation in Predictive Prosodic Processing in Bilinguals

“…In contrast, the available evidence suggests that L2 listeners do not always use contrastive pitch accents to predict upcoming referents (Klassen, 2015;Namjoshi, 2015;Takeda, 2018;Perdomo and Kaan, 2019;Foltz, 2020;Nakamura et al, 2020). Most relevantly for the current study, Foltz (2020) tested German-English bilingual listeners' processing of contrastive pitch accents in both of their languages.…”

“…Second, and more importantly, the current study expands the use of a Bayesian adaptation model that models prediction error to L2 predictive processing. L2 listeners engage in predictive processing in fewer processing situations than L1 listeners (Kaan, 2014;Grüter et al, 2017), and seem not to use the prosodic cues for prediction as effectively as native listeners (Klassen, 2015;Namjoshi, 2015;Takeda, 2018;Perdomo and Kaan, 2019;Foltz, 2020). The current study, therefore, explores if a Bayesian adaptation model can account for changes in eye movement behavior in L1 and L2 processing across two experiments which differ in the initial reliability of predictive cues.…”