Non-native discrimination across speaking style, modality, and phonetic feature

Discriminating between certain non-native contrasts can be difficult. The Perceptual Assimilation Model [1] predicts that when two non-native phones are assimilated to the same native language category, as equally good or poor versions, discrimination should be poor (a single-category assimilation). However, it is not known to what extent visual and/or clearly articulated speech might assist cross-language speech perception. Monolingual Australian English listeners discriminated two single-category Sindhi consonant contrasts (/ʈ/-/t̪/, /b/-/ɓ/), across auditoryonly (AO) and auditory-visual (AV) conditions, in clear and citation speech. For /b/-/ɓ/ (a laryngeal feature difference), AV contrasts were discriminated more accurately than AO contrasts in citation speech, but not in clear speech, while for /ʈ/-/t̪/ (a place-of-articulation difference) there was AV benefit for clear, but not for citation speech. These results highlight that while perceivers attempt to utilize even subtle gestural differences, speaking style and modality differentially contribute to the success of discriminating across non-native contrasts.

[1]  C. Best A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception , 1995 .

[2]  Jean-Pierre Gagné,et al.  Auditory, visual and audiovisual clear speech , 2002, Speech Commun..

[3]  Andrew Faulkner,et al.  The use of visual cues in the perception of non-native consonant contrasts. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  L. Rosenblum,et al.  An audiovisual test of kinematic primitives for visual speech perception. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[6]  Tsuhan Chen,et al.  Audiovisual speech processing , 2001, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[7]  Tessa Bent,et al.  The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  J. Flege,et al.  An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: the case of Japanese adults' perception of English consonants. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  D. Hardison Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context, and talker variability , 2003, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[10]  Michael D. Tyler,et al.  Perceptual Assimilation of Arabic Voiceless Fricatives by English Monolinguals , 2012, INTERSPEECH.

[11]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels , 1951 .

[12]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .

[13]  T. L. Face Intonation in Spanish declaratives : differences between lab speech and spontaneous speech , 2003 .

[14]  Ann R. Bradlow,et al.  Speaking and Hearing Clearly: Talker and Listener Factors in Speaking Style Changes , 2009, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[15]  H. McGurk,et al.  Hearing lips and seeing voices , 1976, Nature.

[16]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review , 2010, Speech Commun..

[17]  K. Grant,et al.  Measures of auditory-visual integration in nonsense syllables and sentences. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.