One-to-multiple vowel mapping in the perceptual development of Dutch learners of Spanish

Paola EscuderoMcGill University and University of Utrecht

Paul BoersmaUniversity of Amsterdam

Boston University Conference on Language Development 26 November 3, 2001

Single-Category Assimilation (SCA)

Problem:– poor category differentiation– no lexical contrast no produced contrast

General solution: category split

L2

English

L1

Dutch

//

/æ///

L2

S.English

L1

Spanish

/i/

/I//i/

L2

English

L1

Japanese

/l/

/ /̈/R/

Two-Category Assimilation (TCA)

Very good category differentiation Problem:

boundary mismatch confusion General solution: boundary shift

L2

English

L1

Dutch

/ph/

/b8//p/

/b/

L2

Spanish

L1

Dutch

/u/

/o/

/u/

//

Multiple-Category Assimilation (MCA)

Category differentiation is “too good” Problems:

extra lexical contrasts, boundary mismatch, SCA Possible solutions?: category split/merger/loss,

boundary shift

L2

Spanish

L1

Dutch

/i/

/e/

/i/

/I///

L2

English

L1

Polish

/s/

/S/

/s/

/þ//§/

Preliminary hypothesis

1) MCA exists and it is problematic.

L2

Spanish

L1

Dutch

/i/

/e/

/i/

/I///

L2

Spanish

L1

Dutch

/u/

/o/

/u/

//

2) Therefore, Dutch learners will have poorer front than back vowel categorisation in Spanish.

Subjects

Dutch learners of Spanish 38 (11+18+9) Bilingual Dutch-Spanish 3

Dutch-only 11

Spanish-only 44

Click the Spanish vowel that you heard

I

E

A

O

U

Task: “vowels from a Spanish text”125 Spanish target stimuli, 55 Spanish fillers

Beginning Dutch learners of Spanish

0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

e i errors

1

1

1

11

1

11

1

11

Intermediate Dutch learners of Spanish

0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

e i errors

2

2

22

222

2

2

2

2

22

22

22

2

Advanced Dutch learners of Spanish

0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

e i errors

33

33

333

3

3

Dutch/Spanish bilinguals

0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

e i errors

4

4

4

Spanish-only listeners

0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

e i errors

5

5

5

5

55

5

5

5

55

55

5

5

5 5

5

5

55

55

5

55

555

5

5

5

5

5

5

55

5

5

5555

5

All subjects + Dutch-only

0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

e i errors

0

00

0

0

0

00

00

0

1

1

1

11

1

11

1

11

2

2

22

222

2

2

2

2

22

22

22

233

33

333

3

34

4

4

5

5

5

5

55

5

5

5

55

55

5

5

5 5

5

5

55

55

5

55

555

5

5

5

5

5

5

55

5

5

5555

5

Developmental sequencefor the front/back error ratio

BEG-INT-ADV error ratio: r = -0.32 (p < 0.03)

number of ei errors

number of ou errors2.0

01.0

0.5

DUT BEG

INTADV

BILSPA

We have observed:

Dutch learners of Spanish perform poorer on front than on back vowels. Our prediction is borne out.

Learners have better performance according to their experience.

This hints at the existence of MCA, its problematic nature, and its reduction during L2 development. But we haven’t yet directly shown the existence of MCA, let alone its problematic nature…

Basic hypothesis

Multiple Category Assimilation exists.

Click the Dutch vowel that you heard

h IE k h EE k h I k h E k

h UU k h EU k h U k h AA k

h OE k h OO k h O k h A k

Task 1: “vowels from a Dutch text”125 Spanish target stimuli, 55 Dutch decoys

Dutch labelling task (Dutch mode)

Therefore: MCA exists

stim :

/i/

/e/

DUTresp :

i

I

BEGresp :

i

I

INTresp :

i

I

ADVresp :

i

I

BILresp :

i

I

Main hypothesis

Problems with Spanish front vowel categorisation by Dutch learners are caused by MCA.

To address this hypothesis, we have to look into:1) the accuracy of L2 front vowel categorisation

2) the reduction of MCA when perceiving the L2

Hypothesis for MCA reduction(Assumption: people have language-dependent

perception modes)

Hypothesis: learners show less MCA in their L2 perception mode than in their L1 perception mode.

A measure of MCA:the amount of use of // in an L1 labelling

task. A measure of MCA reduction:

reduction of // use betweena Dutch and a Spanish perception mode.

Click the Dutch vowel that you heard

h IE k h EE k h I k h E k

h UU k h EU k h U k h AA k

h OE k h OO k h O k h A k

Task 2: “vowels from a Spanish text”125 Spanish target stimuli, 55 Spanish fillers

Dutch-only listeners

MCA-reductionis small ornon-existent

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Dutch" moderesp :

i

I

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Spanish" moderesp :

i

I

Beginning Dutch learners of Spanish

MCA-reductionis small ornon-existent

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Dutch" moderesp :

i

I

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Spanish" moderesp :

i

I

Intermediate Dutch learners of Spanish

MCA-reductionis intermediate

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Dutch" moderesp :

i

I

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Spanish" moderesp :

i

I

Advanced Dutch learners of Spanish

MCA-reductionis large

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Dutch" moderesp :

i

I

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Spanish" moderesp :

i

I

Dutch/Spanish bilinguals

MCA-reductionis large

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Dutch" moderesp :

i

I

stim :

/i/

/e/

"Spanish" moderesp :

i

I

Does MCA reduction exist?

Yes . It correlates with experience level (BEG/INT/ADV):

r = 0.39, (p < 0.01, 95% = 0.08...0.63)

Is it developmental?

Yes . Learners reduce the usage of // between perception modes.

Hypothesis for L2 categorisation accuracy

Learners have inaccurate front vowel

categorisation.

A measure of vowel categorisation accuracy:

boundary location in an L2 labelling task.

Click the Spanish vowel that you heard

I

E

A

O

U

Task 3: “vowels from a Spanish text”125 Spanish target stimuli, 55 Spanish fillers

Spanish labelling task

stim :

/i/

/e/

BEGresp :

i

e

INTresp :

i

e

ADVresp :

i

e

BILresp :

i

e

SPAresp :

i

e

Is L2 labelling inaccurate?

Yes . It correlates with experience level (BEG/INT/ADV):

r = 0.57, (p < 0.0002, 95% = 0.30...0.75)

Does this change developmentally?

Yes . Learners are inaccurate in L2 categorisation, i.e. the boundary between /e/ and // is inappropriate for Spanish.

Main hypothesis again

These problems with Spanish front vowel

categorisation by Dutch learners are caused by

MCA.

MCA reduction correlates strongly with categorisation accuracy

r = 0.62

p < 0.00002

95% = 0.37...0.78

-5 0 5 10

0

5

10

15

20

L1 /I/-reduction (Exp1 minus Exp2)

1

1 1

11

1

1

1

1

11

2

2

2

22

2

22

2

2

22

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Our interpretationof this high correlation:

It reflects a causal relationship:

low-level // losscauses

e-i accuracy in learners

Conclusion1) MCA exists: learners use 3 categories where the target

language has 2.

2) MCA is problematic: it leads to inaccurate L2 categorisation.

3) Language-dependent perception modes exist: people do different things depending on the language that they hear (or think they hear).

4) Learners develop: with experience, MCA decreases and categorisation accuracy increases.

5) Learners improve: we identified one strategy for solving MCA, namely loss of the extra category.

Dank u voor uw aandacht!Gracias por su atención!

Thank you for your attention!

Total errors are not a sign of MCA degree

//-reduction vs. /e/-// boundary: r = -0.60 (95% = -0.34 … -0.77)

//-reduction vs. total error count: r = +0.15 (95% = -0.17 ... +0.45)