Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T02:32:43.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How bidialectalism affects non-native speech acquisition: Evidence from Shanghai and Mandarin Chinese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2023

Xiaoluan Liu Open the ORCID record for Xiaoluan Liu [Opens in a new window]  and
Paola Escudero Open the ORCID record for Paola Escudero [Opens in a new window]
Xiaoluan Liu*
Affiliation:
Department of English, School of Foreign languages, East China Normal University, Zhongshan, China
Paola Escudero
Affiliation:
The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour, and Development, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Xiaoluan Liu; Email: LXL0803@outlook.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current study examines how bidialectalism influences non-native speech production. We compared monodialectal Mandarin Chinese with bidialectal Shanghai-Mandarin Chinese speakers in terms of their ability to produce easy and difficult American English vowels. The results showed a general advantage for the bidialectal group compared with the monodialectal group in the production of the vowel formants and duration of the easy English vowels [i] and [u]. However, for the English vowels [ɪ] and [ʊ] known to be difficult for Chinese learners of English, both groups experienced the same challenges in terms of accurately producing the formants of the target vowels. Nevertheless, the bidialectal Shanghai-Mandarin speakers were still better than the monodialectal Mandarin speakers in the durational aspect of the two difficult English vowels. The results are explained by the Second Language Linguistic Perception (L2LP) model and suggest that the bidialectal advantage in non-native speech acquisition is subject to the modulation of cross-linguistic difficulty of the target speech sounds.

Keywords

Bidialectalismthe L2LP modelnon-native speech learningvowel productionShanghai ChineseMandarin Chinese
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 6 , November 2023 , pp. 969 - 990
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Abu-Rabia, S., & Sanitsky, E. (2010). Advantages of bilinguals over monolinguals in learning a third language. Bilingual Research Journal, 33, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, K., Grohmann, K. K., Kambanaros, M., & Katsos, N. (2016). The effect of childhood bilectalism and multilingualism on executive control. Cognition, 149, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antoniou, M., Liang, E., Ettlinger, M., & Wong, P. (2015). The bilingual advantage in phonetic learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 683–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W., & Trofimovich, P. (2006). Perceptual paths to accurate production of L2 vowels: The role of individual differences. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–7. 2014.Google Scholar
Blom, E., Boerma, T., Bosma, E., Cornips, L., & Everaert, E. (2017). Cognitive advantages of bilingual children in different sociolinguistic contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2020). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Retrieved from: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/download_win.html.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. (1995). Cross-language speech perception in adults: First language transfer doesn’t tell it all. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 279–304). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., & Flege, J. E. (1990). Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2011). Vocabulary size matters: The assimilation of second-language Australian English vowels to first-language Japanese vowel categories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Y. H. S. (2023). Effects of production training with ultrasound biofeedback on production and perception of second-language English tense–lax vowel contrasts. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66(5), 1479–1495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chao, Y.-R. (1967). Contrastive aspects of the Wu dialects. Language, 43, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. (2008). The acoustic realization of vowels of Shanghai Chinese. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., & Gussenhoven, C. (2015). Shanghai Chinese. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 45(03), 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Robb, M., Gilbert, H., & Lerman, J. (2001). Vowel production by Mandarin speakers of English. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 15, 247–440.Google Scholar
Clopper, C. G. (2009). Computational methods for normalizing acoustic vowel data for talker differences. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(6), 1430–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. P., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1967). The comparative skills of monolinguals and bilinguals in perceiving phoneme sequences. Language and Speech, 10, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colantoni, L., Steele, J., & Escudero, P. (2015). Second language speech: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drager, K. (2010). Sociophonetic variation in speech perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elvin, J., & Escudero, P. (2019). Cross-linguistic influence in second language speech: Implications for learning and teaching. In Gutierrez-Mangado, J., Martínez-Adrián, M. & Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom practice (pp. 1–20). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Elvin, J., Escudero, P., Williams, D., & Best, C. T. (2016). The relationship between Australian English speakers’ non-native perception and production of Brazilian Portuguese vowels. In Proceedings of The Sixteenth Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 6-9 December 2016, Parramatta, Australia (pp. 293–296).Google Scholar
Elvin, J., Tuninetti, A., & Escudero, P. (2018). Non-native dialect matters: The perception of European and Brazilian Portuguese vowels by Californian English monolinguals and Spanish–English bilinguals. Languages, 3, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elvin, J., Williams, D., & Escudero, P. (2016). Dynamic acoustic properties of monophthongs and diphthongs in Western Sydney Australian English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(1), 576–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elvin, J., Williams, D., & Escudero, P. (2020). Learning to perceive, produce and recognise words in a non-native language. Linguistic Approaches to Portuguese as an Additional Language, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enomoto, K. (1994). L2 perceptual acquisition: The effect of multilingual linguistic experience on the perception of a “less novel” contrast. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 5, 15–29.Google Scholar
Escudero, P. (2005). Linguistic perception and second-language acquisition: Explaining the attainment of optimal phonological categorization. LOT Dissertation Series 113, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Escudero, P. (2009). Linguistic perception of “similar” L2 sounds. In Boersma, P. & Hamann, S. (eds.), Phonology in perception (pp. 151–190). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Benders, T., & Lipski, S. C. (2009). Native, non-native and L2 perceptual cue weighting for Dutch vowels: The case of Dutch, German, and Spanish listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 37(4), 452–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., & Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(4), 551–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Broersma, M., & Simon, E. (2013). Learning words in a third language: Effects of vowel inventory and language proficiency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(6), 746–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., & Chladkova, K. (2010). Spanish listeners’ perception of American and Southern British English vowels: Different initial stages for L2 development. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, EL254–EL260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Mulak, K. E., Fu, C. S., & Singh, L. (2016). More limitations to monolingualism: Bilinguals outperform monolinguals in implicit word learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escudero, P., Simon, E., & Mitterer, H. (2012). The perception of English front vowels by North Holland and Flemish listeners: Acoustic similarity predicts and explains cross-linguistic and L2 perception. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Simon, E., & Mulak, K. E. (2014). Learning words in a new language: Orthography doesn’t always help. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Smit, E. A., & Mulak, K. E. (2022). Explaining L2 lexical learning in multiple scenarios: Cross-situational word learning in L1 Mandarin L2 English Speakers. Brain Sciences, 12(12), 1618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escudero, P., & Williams, D. (2012). Native dialect influences second-language vowel perception: Peruvian versus Iberian Spanish learners of Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, EL406–EL412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escudero, P. & Yazawa, K. (in press). The second language linguistic perception model (L2LP). In Amengual, M. (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of bilingual phonetics and phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2021). Life as a bilingual: Knowing and using two or more languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L., Clark, M. & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099–3111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirosh, Z. & Degani, T. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of multilingualism on novel language learning: An integrative review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 892–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iverson, P., & Evans, B. G. (2007). Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems: Perception of formant targets, formant movement, and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(5), 2842–2854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jia, G., Strange, W., Wu, Y., & Collado, J. (2006). Perception and production of English vowels by Mandarin speakers: Age-related differences vary with amount of L2 exposure. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(2), 1118–1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirk, N. W., Fiala, L., Scott-Brown, K. C., & Kempe, V. (2014). No evidence for reduced Simon cost in elderly bilinguals and bidialectals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 640–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. C. (1995). Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a difference? Language Learning, 45, 419–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopečková, R. (2016). The bilingual advantage in L3 learning: A developmental study of rhotic sounds. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13, 410–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, W., & Zee, E. (2003). Standard Chinese (Beijing). Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33, 109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leivada, E., Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I., Couto, M. C. P., & Perpiñán, S. (2023). Bilingualism with minority languages: Why searching for unicorn language users does not move us forward. Applied Psycholinguistics, 44(3), 384–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 605–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mora, J. C., & Nadeu, M. (2012). L2 effects on the perception and production of a native vowel contrast in early bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(4), 484–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58(3), 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oschwald, J., Schättin, A., von Bastian, C. C., & Souza, A. S. (2018). Bidialectalism and bilingualism: Exploring the role of language similarity as a link between linguistic ability and executive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patihis, L., Oh, J. S., & Mogilner, T. (2015). Phoneme discrimination of an unrelated language: Evidence for a narrow transfer but not a broad-based bilingual advantage. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poarch, G. J., Vanhove, J., & Berthele, R. (2019). The effect of bidialectalism on executive function. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(2), 612–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recasens, D., & Espinosa, A. (2006). Dispersion and variability of Catalan vowels. Speech Communication, 48(6), 645–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J., & Melinger, A. (2017). Bilingual advantage, bidialectal advantage or neither? Comparing performance across three tests of executive function in middle childhood. Developmental Science, 20(4), e12405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scaltritti, M., Peressotti, F., & Miozzo, M. (2017). Bilingual advantage and language switch: What’s the linkage? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, L., Poh, F. L. S., & Fu, C. S. L. (2016). Limits on monolingualism? A comparison of monolingual and bilingual infants’ abilities to integrate lexical tone in novel word learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 667.Google ScholarPubMed
Stuart-Smith, J. (2007). The influence of the media. In Llamas, C., Mullany, L. & Stockwell, P. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to sociolinguistics (pp. 140–148). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N., & Hart, D. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 3(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leussen, J. W., & Escudero, P. (2015). Learning to perceive and recognize a second language: The L2LP model revised. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werker, J. F. (1986). The effect of multilingualism on phonetic perceptual flexibility. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D., & Escudero, P. (2014a). Influences of listeners’ native and other dialects on cross-language vowel perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, D., & Escudero, P. (2014b). A cross-dialectal acoustic comparison of vowels in Northern and Southern British English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(5), 2751–2761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yazawa, K., Konishi, T., Whang, J., Escudero, P., & Kondo, M. (2023). Spectral and temporal implementation of Japanese speakers’ English vowel categories: A corpus-based study. Laboratory Phonology, 14(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Yazawa, K., Whang, J., Kondo, M., & Escudero, P. (2020). Language-dependent cue weighting: An investigation of perception modes in L2 learning. Second Language Research, 36(4), 557–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, J., Li, A., & Wang, X. (2004). A contrastive investigation of diphthongs between Standard Mandarin and Shanghai accented Mandarin. In International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages with Emphasis on Tone Languages (pp. 229–234). Beijing, China.Google Scholar