MappingProsodytoReferenceinL2
AmyJ.Schafer1),AyaTakeda1),HannahRohde2)andTheresGrüter1)1)UniversityofHawai‘iatMānoa,2)UniversityofEdinburgh
PresentedatBUCLD40,Nov13-15,2015;contact:[email protected]@hawaii.edu
Experiment1:Contrastonantecedents
#)Pearson(2011;www.versanDest.com)
Conclusions
Par=cipants
Akmajian,A.,&Jackendoff,R.(1970).CoreferenLalityandstress.LinguisMcInquiry.Balogh,J.E.(2003).Pronouns,prosody,andthediscourseanaphoraweighLngapproach.(UnpublisheddoctoraldissertaLon).UCSD.Chen,A.,&Lai,V.T.(2011).Comborcoat:TheroleofintonaLoninonlinereferenceresoluLoninasecondlanguage.InSoundandSounds.StudiespresentedtoM.E.H.(Bert)Schoutenontheoccasionofhis65thbirthday.UiLOTS.
Grüter,T.,Rohde,H.,&Schafer,A.J.(inpress).CoreferenceanddiscoursecoherenceinL2:TherolesofgrammaLcalaspectandreferenLalform.LinguisMcApproachestoBilingualism.
Grüter,T.,Rohde,H.,&Schafer,A.J.(2014).Theroleofdiscourse-levelexpectaLonsinnon-naLvespeakers’referenLalchoices.InProceedingsofBUCLD38.CascadillaPress.
Huang,B.H.&Jun,S.-A.(2011).TheeffectofageontheacquisiLonofsecondlanguageprosody.LanguageandSpeech.Kehler,A.,Kertz,L.,Rohde,H.,&Elman,J.L.(2008).Coherenceandcoreferencerevisited.JournalofSemanMcs.Kim,K.,Grüter,T.,&Schafer,A.J.(2013)Effectsofevent-structureandtopic/focus-markingonpronounreferenceinKorean.CUNYPoster.Pennington,M.C.&Ellis,N.C.(2000).Cantonesespeakers’memoryforEnglishsentenceswithprosodiccues.TheModernLanguageJournal.Roberts,L.,Gullberg,M.,&Indefrey,P.(2008).OnlinepronounresoluLoninL2discourse:L1influenceandgenerallearnereffects.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisiMon.
Sorace,A.(2011).Pinningdowntheconceptof‘interface’inbilingualism.LinguisMcApproachestoBilingualism.Ueno,M.,&Kehler,A.(2010).TheinterpretaLonofnullandovertpronounsinJapanese:GrammaLcalandpragmaLcfactors.Proceedingsofthe32ndAnnualMeeMngoftheCogniMveScienceSociety.
Zubizarreta,M.L.&Nava,E.(2011).Encodingdiscourse-basedmeaning:Prosodyvs.syntax.ImplicaLonsforsecondlanguageacquisiLon.Lingua.
• L2ers’showsignificantuseofcontrasLveintonaLononantecedents(Exp1),butnotpronouns(Exp2)todeterminepronounreference.
• L2ers’successinusingprosodymaydependonthenumber,complexityandLmingofstepsrequiredtomaketherelevantmappings:Exp1:L+H*onreferentàreferentissalientàselectasantecedent
Exp2:L+H*onpronounàestablishsetofpotenLalantecedentsàidenLfymostsalientmemberofsetàselectothermemberofsetasantecedent
Age(years)
VersantEnglishTest#)(overallscore,range20-80)
Self-ratedEnglishproficiency(outof10)
L1English(n=48) 23.4(18-40) --- 9.6(8-10)L2English(n=40) 25.6(19-65) 51.2(35-80) 6.1(3-9)L1Japanese(n=23) 25.2(19-45) 47.2(35-62) 5.9(3-8)L1Korean(n=17) 26.2(21-65) 56.8(37-80) 6.5(3-9)
Background&Mo=va=on
HowdoesCONTRASTIVEINTONATION/PROSODYaffectnaMveandnon-naMvespeakers’interpretaMonofambiguouspronouns?
• ContrasLveintonaLon/prosodyaffectsnaLve-speakerprocessing,althoughitspreciseroleintheinterpretaLonofpronounshasreceivedlimitedaDenLon.
(1)…noLcedaparamedic/PARAMEDICcallingtheCAPTAIN/captain…LaterWendybumpedintohim.(Balogh,2003) (2)JohnhitBillandthenGeorgehitHIM.(Akmajian&Jackendoff,1970)
• ProsodypresentschallengesinL2acquisiLon,whichvarywithfactorssuchastheL1-to-L2mappingandprosodicfuncLon.
(Huang&Jun,2011;Zubizarreta&Nava,2011;Takeda,Schafer,&Schwartz,BUCLD40;Pennington&Ellis,2000;Chen&Lai,2011)
• PronouninterpretaLonischallenginginL2. ThishasbeenaDributedtotheneedtointegrateinformaLonfrommulLpledomains.(e.g.,Robertsetal.,2008;Sorace,2011)Previousworkhasshownareducedeffectofeventstructure,markedbygrammaLcalaspect,onL2speakers’referencechoices.(seebelow)
TheroleofprosodyinL2pronounresolu2onhasnotbeeninves2gated.
Ourgoals:
• TesthowcontrasLveintonaLononpotenLalantecedents(Exp1)andpronouns(Exp2)affectsL1andL2speakers’referencechoices.
• CompareeffectsofcontrasLveintonaLonandgrammaLcalaspect.
Predic=ons:
à IFprosodyisgenerallychallenginginL2,weexpectL1-L2differencesinbothExp1andExp2.(NB:sameL+H*L-H%contourinbothexperiments)
à IFintegraLnginformaLonfrommulLpledomainsisgenerallychallenginginL2,weexpectL1-L2differencesinbothExp1andExp2.
à IFL2speakers’abilitytouseprosodicinformaLondependsonthecomplexityofthemappings(L1->L2;prosody->reference),weexpectgreaterL1-L2differencesinExp2comparedtoExp1.
Experiment2:Contrastonpronoun
Method• StoryconLnuaLon:auralcontextsentence+wriDenprompt(pronoun)
+wriDencompleLon• 2(contrastlocaLon)x2(aspect)design
Hear:DAVIDserved/wasservingPaulapintofbeer.See:He_______________Hear:Davidserved/wasservingPAULapintofbeer.See:He_______________
Results
Mixed-effectlogis=cregression(LMER)isSource ~ Aspect * ContrLoc * Group + (1 + Aspect + ContrLoc | Subject) + (1 + Aspect + ContrLoc | Item)
• MaineffectofContrastLocaLon(b=.89,p<.001),nointeracLonwithGroup(b=.14,p=.63)• MaineffectofAspect(b=.42,p<.005),marginalAspectxGroupinteracLon(b=.40,p=.09);
effectofAspectinL1(b=.60,p<.001),butnotinL2(b=.25,p=.26).
à Morereferencetoaccentuatedantecedentsinbothgroups:ContrasLveintonaLononantecedentsaffectsreferencechoicesinL1andL2.
à ReducedeffectofaspectinL2;replicatesresultsfromwriDentask.
• AnnotaLonforcoreferencebytwotrainedcoders.He wanted Paul to get really drunk. (SOURCE)He thanked David. (GOAL)He insisted it was the best beer ever. (ambiguous:6.8/8.8%ofL1/L2data)
(missing:0.7/2.3%ofL1/L2data)
Par=cipantsAge
(years)VersantEnglishTest#)
(overallscore,range20-80)Self-ratedEnglish
proficiency(outof10)L1English(n=48) 24.2(18-49) --- 9.6(6-10)L2English(n=42) 31.1(20-56) 51.0(37-72) 5.9(1-9)L1Japanese(n=24) 35.5(20-56) 50.0(37-69) 5.5(1-8)L1Korean(n=18) 25.3(20-48) 52.6(40-72) 6.4(3-9)
Method• StoryconLnuaLon:auralcontextsentence+750mssilence+auralprompt
(pronoun+adverb,toprovidenaturaltruncaLonpoint)+wriDencompleLon• 2(pronounstress)x2(aspect)design
Hear:Davidserved/wasservingPaulapintofbeer.He/HEobviouslySee:________
• AnnotaLonforcoreferencebytwotrainedcoders.(ambiguous:7.3/8.9%ofL1/L2data;missing:0.3/3.0%ofL1/L2data)
Mixed-effectlogis=cregression(LMER)isSource ~ Aspect * ProStress * Group + (1 + Aspect + ProStress | Subject) + (1 + Aspect + ProStress | Item)
• MaineffectofPronounStress(b=-.49,p<.001),PronounStressxGroupinteracLon(b=.72,p<.01);noeffectofPronounStressinL2groupalone(b=.10,p=.69)
• MaineffectofAspect(b=.60,p<.001),nointeracLonwithGroup(b=.27,p=.28);effectofAspectinL2groupalone(b=.81,p<.001);AspectxPronounStressinteracLoninL2group(b=.81,p<.05)
• MaineffectofGroup(b=1.14,p<.001)
à MorereferencetotheGoalwithstressedpronounsinL1only.à EffectofAspectemergesinL2whenconLnuaLonpointismoved
axertheadverb.
Figure2.Exp1:MeanproporLonofSOURCE-referenceinconLnuaLons;95%CIs
Acknowledgments:ManythankstoAmandaBlake,AmberCamp,BonnieFox,VictoriaLee, IvanaMatson,EricStepans, and Alexis Toliva for assistance with data collecLon, annotaLon, and preparaLon of this poster.ThisresearchissupportedbytheNaLonalScienceFoundaLon(BCS-1251450toT.Grüter&A.Schafer).
Eventstructureandpronouninterpreta=oninL1&L2
(3)EmilySourcebrought/wasbringingadrinktoMelissaGoal.She_____
L1speakersofEnglishwritemoreconLnuaLonswith‘she’=SOURCEfollowingimperfecLvevsperfecLveaspect(Kehleretal.,2008).ThisisnotthecaseforL1-Japanese/KoreanlearnersofEnglish(Grüteretal.,2014,inpress),eventhough(i)theyreliablyassociateperfecLve/imperfecLvewithcompleted/incompleteeventsinanindependenttask,(ii)aspectaffectstheirchoiceofcoherencerelaLonintheconLnuaLon,and(iii)JapaneseandKoreanspeakersshowthesameeffectofaspectintheirL1s(Ueno&Kehler,2010;Kimetal.,2013).
Figure1.ContextsentencewithcontrastonSource(A)andonGoal(B).
A BA B1 B2
Figure3.Broad-focuscontext(A)andconLnuaLonwithunstressed(B1)andstressed(B2)pronoun.hDp://www2.hawaii.edu/~aschafer/snds.html#GRS
Figure4.Exp2:MeanproporLonofSOURCE-referenceinconLnuaLons;95%CIs
