Objectve. ⢠âWhy?âs. ⢠Literature review. ⢠Production of âcanâ and âcan'tâ. ⢠Perception of âcanâ and âcan'tâ ..... South West (Maitland, New South Wales, Australia).
Perceptual Learning of Syllable-final Contrast: Perception and Training of Various “can” and “can’t” by Japanese, Chinese and French Listeners 大井川朋彦 Tomohiko Ooigawa 2017年9月4日 September 4th, 2017 上智大学 言語科学研究科 言語学専攻 公聴会(口述試験) 博士(言語学)
Thesis defense (viva), Ph.D. in Linguistics, Graduate School of Languages and Linguistics, Sophia University 1
My fundamental research interests • Phonological contrasts of non-native languages – Why difficult/easy ? – How to improve – Perception & Production
2
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 3
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 4
Table of contents 1. Introduction • • •
Objectve “Why?”s Literature review • •
Production of “can” and “can’t” Perception of “can” and “can’t”
5
Introduction
6
Objective • Final goal: to produce a listening training program to be able to identify “can” & “can’t” for all learners of English.
7
Objective • If can’t, – “can’t” should be avoided as English as Lingua Franca. – Or, we should say always “canNOT.”
8
Why “can” & “can’t” ?
9
Why “can” & “can’t” ? • “can” and “can’t”: ✓ Basic ✓ Used very often ✓ Should not be confused ✓ Comments from learners and workers (Takahashi & Ooigawa, 2012, 2016)
✓ Various pronunciation ✓ Vowels, consonants, cluster, stress, rhythm 10
Why “can” & “can’t” ? • However, few studies done: ✓ Nakano (1972) ✓ Sasaki (1993, 1995a, 1995b) ✓ Matsui (1998) ✓ Nakayama (2000) ✓ Takahashi and Ooigawa (2012, 2016) ✓ Ooigawa (2013, 2014) ✓ Ernestus, Kouwenhoven, and van Mulken (2017) ✓ But, so many studies on /l/ and /r/ 11
Why these listeners ? • Japanese
• Chinese • French
12
Why these listeners ? • [n] is very important to identify “can” & “can’t.”
13
Why these listeners ? • Different coda nasal phonological system – Japanese – Chinese – French
14
Why these listeners ? • Different coda nasal phonological system ✓ Japanese: キャン /kjaN/ can be … [m], [n], [ŋ], [ɴ], [Ṽ]…
No contrast
(e.g., Okada, 2009; Vance, 2008) 15
Why these listeners ? ✓ Chinese: /n/ vs /ŋ/: • 门 mén /mən/35 • 蒙 méng /məŋ/35
‘door’ ‘to cover’
✓ French: /Ṽ/, /n/, /m/ • son /sɔ/̃ • sonne /sɔn/ • somme /sɔm/
‘sound’ ‘(it) rings’ ‘sum’
(e.g., Fougeron & Smith, 1993, Léon, 2005, Lin, 2007, Vaissière, 2006, Wioland, 2005)
16
Literature review
17
Production of “can” and “can’t”
18
Production of “can” and “can’t” • can /kæn/ Weak form
Strong form
19
Production of “can” and “can’t” • can /kæn/ Weak
Strong
[kh(ə)̃ n]…
[ˈkhæ̃n]…
20
Production of “can” and “can’t” • can /kæn/ Weak
Strong
American
[kh(ə)̃ n]…
[ˈkhæ̃n]…
British
[kh(ə)̃ n]…
[ˈkhæ̃n]…
American: GA: General American → North American-type British: RP: Received pronunciation → British-type
21
Production of “can” and “can’t” • can’t
22
Production of “can” and “can’t” • can’t Weak
Strong
N/A
23
Production of “can” and “can’t” • can’t American (GA)
British (RP)
24
Production of “can” and “can’t” • can’t American
British
/kænt/ /kɑnt/ [ˈkhæ̃(n)t(˺)] [ˈkhɑ̃(n)t(˺)]
American: GA: General American → North American-type British: RP: Received pronunciation → British-type
25
Summary
(Jones et al., 2011, Wells, 2008, Collins & Mees, 2008, Cruttenden, 2008, Ladefoged, 2006, Cox, 2012, Malécot, 1960, Shockey, 2003, Stevens & Keyser, 2010, Wells, 1982, Ooigawa, 2014, Takahashi and Ooigawa, 2012, 2016, Sasaki, 1993)
26
Amer.
Brit.
I can do it. I CAN do it. I can’t do it. Next week I can. Next week I can’t. 27
Acoustic data
28
I can take it. (American)
29
I can take it. (American)
[n]
30
I CAN take it. (American)
31
I CAN take it. (American)
[n]
32
I can’t take it. (American)
33
I can’t take it. (American)
[ʔ]?
34
Next week I can. (American)
35
Next week I can. (American)
[n]
36
Next week I can’(t). (American)
37
Next week I can’(t). (American)
[ʔ]?
38
Next week I can’T. (American)
39
Next week I can’T. (American)
[n]?
40
British
41
I can take it. (British)
42
I CAN take it. (British)
43
I can’t take it. (British)
44
Next week I can. (British)
45
Next week I can’T. (British)
46
Why is [n] short or nothing ?
47
can
canned can’t American
48
Perception of “can” and “can’t”
49
Perception by native speakers
50
Perception by native speakers • Continuum/synthesized sound studies
can → can’t
51
Perception by native speakers • Continuum/synthesized sound studies
I can teach. I can get it. I can go. I can.
→ → → →
I can’t teach. I can’t get it. I can’t go. I can’t. 52
Duration modification
h k æn
̃
C
Vowel + Nasal
Closure
Sasaki (1995a, 1995b)
Sasaki (1995a, 1995b) Matsui (1998) 53
h k æn ̃
Shorter
Longer
C
More frequently identified as “can’t”
54
Perception by non-native speakers
55
Perception of “can” and “can’t” by non-natives Listeners
Japanese Mandarin Spanish Dutch
Stimuli American English
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Australian English
✔
(Matsui, 1998, Nakayama, 2000, Takahashi & Ooigawa, 2012, 2016, Ooigawa, 2013, 2014) (Ernestus et al., 2017) 56
Perception performance Listeners
Japanese Mandarin Spanish Dutch
Stimuli American English “can” and “can’t”
Poor Poor Poor Good
57
Why? Listeners
Mandarin Spanish Dutch
Stimuli American English “can” and “can’t”
Poor Poor Good
No coda /nt/ No coda /nt/ Coda /nt/ ok!
(Ernestus et al., 2017)
58
Perception performance Listeners
Japanese
Stimuli American English
Australian English
Poor
Better
(Takahashi & Ooigawa, 2012, 2016)
59
Therefore,
60
These are the “Real cues” nobody had pointed out! • Weak vs. Strong contrast: No use! • Vowel quality differences: No use! to discriminate/identify “can” and “can’t”
61
These are the “Real cues” nobody had pointed out! • can: long and clear [n] • can’t: audible or non-audible [t]-release [t] reduces [n] [t] makes the preceding vowel shorter [t] makes the following closure longer
62
Universal “Real cues” like F3 for /l/-/r/ • can: long and clear [n] • can’t: audible or non-audible [t]-release [t] reduces [n] ([t] makes the preceding vowel shorter) [t] makes the following closure longer
63
These are the “Real cues” nobody had pointed out!
I can do it. I c an
do it. 64
These are the “Real cues” nobody had pointed out!
I can do it.
Positive
I c an
Negative
do it.
65
These are the “Real cues” nobody had pointed out!
I can I c an 66
These are the “Real cues” nobody had pointed out!
I can
h [ˈk æn]
I c an
h [ˈk æ]
̃
̃ /
h [ˈk ɑ]
̃
67
Oh, it’s like French !
I can
h [ˈk æn]
I c an
h [ˈk æ]
̃
̃ /
h [ˈk ɑ]
̃
68
And,
69
No studies on ... 1. Comparisons among Japanese and the other language listeners 2. Training study
3. Comparisons between weak and strong “can” 4. Comparisons “can(’t)” + voiceless and “can(’t)” + voiced 5. Comparisons between sentence-medial and sentence-final 6. The other accents than American and Australian Englishes
70
Hypothesis and Prediction
71
Hypothesis and Prediction
72
Speech Learning Model (SLM) • SLM (e.g., Flege, 1995) is a well-known theoretical model to account for learning of L2, including perception of non-native speech sounds.
73
Speech Learning Model (SLM) SLM: • We can learn L2 anytime (P1). • Phonetic categories in our brain (P2). • Phonetic categories are changeable (P3). • A new phonetic category can be established for an L2 sound, if we can discern the differences (H2). • We can discern them more with greater input (H3). 74
Speech Learning Model (SLM) SLM: • We can learn L2 anytime (P1). • Phonetic categories in our brain (P2). • Phonetic categories are changeable (P3). • A new phonetic category can be established for an L2 sound, if we can discern the differences (H2). • We can discern them more with greater input (H3). We can change by 75 trainings !?
However, SLM: • “The phonetic category established for L2 sounds by a bilingual may differ from a monolingual’s if: 1) the bilingual’s category is “deflected” away from an L1 category to maintain phonetic contrast between categories in a common L1-L2 phonological space;
• or 2) the bilingual’s representation is based on different features, or feature weights, than a monolingual’s” (H6).
*bilingual = L2 learner
76
However, SLM: • “The phonetic category established for L2 sounds by a bilingual may differ from a monolingual’s if: 1) the bilingual’s category is “deflected” away from an L1 category to maintain phonetic contrast between categories in a common L1-L2 phonological space;
• or 2) the bilingual’s representation is based on different features, or feature weights, than a monolingual’s” (H6). We can focus on different acoustic cues !?
77
Example
beat /bit/ • Natives: • Spanish: • Mandarin:
vs.
bit /bɪt/
Quality Quality < Duration Duration (Bohn, 1995) 78
Therefore,
79
Therefore, • Japanese listeners have learned different cue(s) from native speakers.
80
Myth?
Weak
→
Strong →
“can” “can’t”
81
Real cues
“can”
→
“can’t” →
caN ca ! n
82
Hypothesis
83
Hypothesis 1. Chinese and French listeners identify “can” and “can’t” better than Japanese listeners, because Chinese and French listeners must be sensitive to coda [n] (important cue) than Japanese listeners.
84
Hypothesis 2. Japanese learners of English will be better at identification of “can” and “can’t,” if we teach them the “Real cues,” and they train the perception.
85
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 86
Table of contents 1. Introduction
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 87
Stimuli
88
Speakers North American-type (/kæn/ vs. /kænt/) • Speaker 1: American English speaker, female, 20 years old, from West Coast (Vacaville, California, US). • Speaker 2: Canadian English speaker, male, 44 years old, from South West (Calgary, Alberta, Canada). • Speaker 3: American English speaker, female, 26 years old, from East Coast (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US). • Speaker 4: American English speaker, male, 32 years old, from East Coast (Springfield, Pennsylvania, US). British-type (/kæn/ vs. /kɑnt/) • Speaker 5: Australian English speaker female, 27 years old, from South West (Maitland, New South Wales, Australia). • Speaker 6: South African English speaker female, 30 years old, from North East (Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa). • Speaker 7: British English speaker, male, 26 years old, from South East England (Maidstone, Kent, UK). 89
Speakers North American-type (/kæn/ vs. /kænt/) Speaker 1: US West female Speaker 2: Canada West male Speaker 3: US East female Speaker 4: US East male
20 yrs 44 yrs 26 yrs 32 yrs
British-type (/kæn/ vs. /kɑnt/) Speaker 5: Australia East female 27 yrs Speaker 6: South Africa North East female 30 yrs Speaker 7: England South East male 26 yrs
90
Recording • In a soundproof room • Digitized at 48 kHz with 16-bit accuracy • Reading out – Do not read carefully but casually – Imagine as if you were speaking to your friend(s)
91
Stimuli I can do it. I CAN do it. I can’t do it.
I can take it. I CAN take it. I can’t take it.
Next week I can. Next week I can’t. 92
Listeners (learners of English)
*Accent varieties, esp, Chinese listeners
93
Task
94
Demo
95
Task • In front of the display of a computer • With headphones • In a quiet room
96
Result
97
Overall
98
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 99
Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 100
Experiment II
101
Listeners (learners of English)
102
Stimuli
103
Additional stimuli
104
Task
105
Task
106
Demo
107
108
Task • In front of the display of a computer • With headphones • In a quiet room
109
Result
110
Result
111
Overall
112
Overall
113
What !?
114
Once again !
115
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 116
Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners 3. Experiment II: Japanese only
4. 5. 6. 7.
Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 117
Listeners (learners of English)
118
Stimuli
119
Task
120
121
Result
122
Result
123
Overall
124
Overall
125
126
127
U-shaped development McLaughlin (1990) • U-shaped (developmental) curve → Restructuring “Performance may follow a U-shaped curve, declining as more complex internal representations replace less complex ones, and increasing again as skill becomes expertise.”
128
Interpretation
129
Interpretation • Control group: just use to the sounds. • Experimental group: restructuring: changing strategy: “Real cues” were acquiring.
130
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 131
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only
5. Discussion 6. Conclusion 7. Implication 132
Hypothesis 1. Chinese and French listeners identify “can” and “can’t” better than Japanese listeners, because Chinese and French listeners must be sensitive to coda [n] (important cue) than Japanese listeners.
133
Hypothesis 1. Chinese and French listeners identify “can” and “can’t” better than Japanese listeners, because Chinese and French listeners must be sensitive to coda [n] (important cue) than Japanese listeners. Confirmed ! 134
Overall
135
Hypothesis 2. Japanese learners of English will be better at identification of “can” and “can’t,” if we teach them the “Real cues,” and they train the perception.
136
Hypothesis 2. Japanese learners of English will be better at identification of “can” and “can’t,” if we teach them the “Real cues,” and they train the perception.
Confirmed ! 137
Hypothesis 3. Japanese learners of English will be better at identification of “can” and “can’t,” if we teach them the “Real cues,” and they train the perception.
Better performance U-shaped curve More liner development 138
Overall
139
140
141
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 142
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion
6. Conclusion 7. Implication 143
Conclusion
144
Conclusion & future studies • “can”-“can’t” perception performance: Jpn. < Chn. = Fre. – The others should be examined.
• Even Chn. & Fre. are not perfect – Training studies with “Real cues” for them.
• Training with “Real cues” emphasis is effective – Examined with other (supra-/segmental) conditions, – Training with feedback, – “Real cues” should be re-examined by natives. 145
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion Implication 146
Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Introduction Experiment I: Japanese, Chinese, French listeners Experiment II: Japanese only Experiment III: Japanese only Discussion Conclusion
7. Implication 147
Implication
148
Implication
149
Pedagogical implication • Chinese and French learners of English also should be trained. • North American-type “can’t” should be prohibited as English as Lingua Franca: – British-type “can’t” is recommended.
• Or, we should say always “canNOT.”
150
No development for American “can’t”
151
No development for American “can’t”
152
No development for American “can’t”
153
No development for American “can’t”
154
British-type “can’t” is recommended
155
British-type “can’t” is recommended
156
British-type “can’t” is recommended
157
British-type “can’t” is recommended
158
Theoritical implication • Another example of SLM: – Wrong cues used by the non-natives – But, changeable
159
Myths should be (re-)examined
Weak
→
Strong →
“can” “can’t”
160
Myths should be (re-)examined
Weak
→
Strong →
“can” “can’t”
NO ! 161
Myths should be (re-)examined
“can”
→
“can’t” →
caN ca ! n
162
Myths should be (re-)examined
“can”
→
“can’t” →
caN ca ! n
Great ! 163
Implication • Another example of …
They look complex rules, but actually a simple law is hidden behind.
164
Thank you
165
Acknowledgement
166
Acknowledgement • • • •
All the participants My family members The committee members LPP members (Université Paris 3), esp: ✓Dr. Shigeko Shinohara ✓Dr. Pierre Hallé
• Mr. Jeffrey Moore (Sophia University) • Mr. Romain Isely (University of Geneva) 167