Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: Online-First Articles

Second language learners acquire reduced word forms just like they acquire full forms

From exposure

ORCID logo | Radboud University
| Radboud University
| Radboud University

We investigated the effect of auditory exposure on the recognition of full (i.e., canonical) and reduced (i.e., with weakened or deleted sounds) word forms by beginner second language (L2) learners. We taught three participant groups the same French schwa words. One group was trained only on the full (i.e., with schwa) forms, one group on the reduced forms (i.e., without schwa) only, and one group on both the full and reduced forms of each word. We then tested participants’ recognition of both forms in an auditory lexical decision task. We found that participants’ accuracy for a form was proportional to the exposure they received at training for that form. Both participants’ groups trained on one form recognized the untrained form in about a third of the trials. We conclude that exposure is a crucial factor in learning L2 reduced forms and that listeners use both retrieval from storage and goodness of fit (including reconstruction) mechanisms, in the same way for full as for reduced forms.

Keywords: exposure, reduction, L2 acquisition, speech recognition, pronunciation variation
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • The current study
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Materials
      • Training materials
      • Testing materials
      • Recordings and speakers
      • Test trials
    • Procedure
  • Results
    • Real and pseudo words accuracies
    • Statistical analysis of the Trained Schwas
    • First occurrences
    • Second occurrences
  • General discussion
  • Data availability
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 29 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22043.mor
References
Ahmadian, M., & Matour, R.
(2014) The Effect of Explicit Instruction of Connected Speech Features on Iranian EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension Skill. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3 ( 2 ), 227–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Askildson, V.
(2008) What do Teachers and Students Want from a Foreign Language Textbook?, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.
Blees, G. J., Mak, W. M., & ten Thije, J. D.
(2014) English as a lingua franca versus lingua receptiva in problem-solving conversations between Dutch and German students. Applied Linguistics Review, 5 ( 1 ), 173–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., Weenink, D.
(2001) Praat, a System for Doing Phonetics by Computer. Glot International, 5 1, 341–345.Google Scholar
Brand, S., & Ernestus, M.
(2018) Listeners’ processing of a given reduced word pronunciation variant directly reflects their exposure to this variant: evidence from native listeners and learners of French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71 ( 5 ), 1240–1259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D., & Hilferty, A.
(1986) The effectiveness of teaching reduced forms of listening comprehension. Relc Journal, 17 ( 2 ), 59–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M.
(2013) Lextale_fr a fast, free, and efficient test to measure language proficiency in french. Psychologica Belgica, 53 ( 1 ), 23–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bürki, A., Ernestus, M., Gendrot, C., Fougeron, C., Frauenfelder, U.
(2011) What affects the presence versus absence of schwa and its duration: A corpus analysis of connected speech? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130 ( 6 ), 3980–3991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bürki, A., & Frauenfelder, U. H.
(2012) Producing and recognizing words with two pronunciation variants: evidence from novel schwa words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65 ( 4 ), 796–824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bürki, A., Viebahn, M. C., Racine, I., Mabut, C., & Spinelli, E.
(2018) Intrinsic advantage for canonical forms in spoken word recognition: myth or reality? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33 ( 4 ), 494–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M.
(1995) Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics, 16 ( 2 ), 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chan, R. K. W. C., & Leung, J. H. C. L.
(2014) Implicit learning of L2 word stress regularities. Second Language Research, 30 ( 4 ), 463–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Côté, M.-H., & Morrisson, G. S.
(2007) The nature of the schwa/zero alternation in French clitics: experimental and non-experimental evidence. Journal of French Language Studies, 17 ( 2 ), 159–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Content, A., Mousty, P., & Radeau, M.
(1990) BRULEX. Une base de données lexicales informatisée pour le français écrit et parlé. L’Année Psychologique, 90 (4), 551–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dumay, N., Gaskell, M. G., & Feng, X.
(2004) A day in the life of a spoken word. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 339–344). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M. G., & Dumay, N.
(2003) Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89 1, 105–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, M.
(2009) The roles of reconstruction and lexical storage in the comprehension of regular pronunciation variants. Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of the international speech communication association (Interspeech 2009). (pp. 1875–1878). Brighton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, M., Baayen, H., & Schreuder, R.
(2002) The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language, 81 ( 1–3 ), 162–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, M., Dikmans, M. E., & Giezenaar, G.
(2017) Advanced second language learners experience difficulties processing reduced word pronunciation variants. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6 ( 1 ), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, M., & Warner, N.
(2011) An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 39 1, 253–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, B., & Waugh, L. R.
(2003) The Subject Clitics of Conversational European French: Morphologization, Grammatical Change, Semantic Change, and Change in Progress. In R. Núñez-Cedeño, L. López, & R. Cameron (Eds.), A romance perspective on language knowledge and use (pp. 99–117). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D.
(1996) Words and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22 ( 5 ), 1166–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grammont, M.
(1914) Traité Pratique de Prononciation Française, Paris, Delagrave.Google Scholar
Hansen, A. B.
(1994) Etude du E caduc – stabilisation en cours et variations lexicales. Journal of French Language Studies, 4 1, 25–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K.
2004 Massive reduction in conversational American English. Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on spontaneous speech: data and analysis (pp. 29–54). Tokyo.Google Scholar
Kennedy, S., & Blanchet, J.
(2014) Language awareness and perception of connected speech in a second language. Language Awareness, 23 ( 1–2 ), 92–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
(2017) Lmer test package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82 ( 13 ), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Léon, P.
(2005) Phonétisme et prononciations du français (4ème édition). Armand Colin, Paris.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P.
(1998) Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.15–42). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matter, J. F.
(1986) À la recherche des frontières perdues. Étude sur la perception de la parole en français. De Werelt.Google Scholar
Morano, L., Ernestus, M., & ten Bosch, L.
(2015) Schwa reduction in low-proficiency L2 speakers: Learning and generalization. In M. Wolters, J. Livingstone, B. Beattie, R. Smith, M. MacMahon, J. Stuart-Smith, & J. Scobbie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS 2015). University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Nouveau, D.
(2012) Limites perceptives de l’e caduc chez des apprenants néerlandophones. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15 ( 1 ), 60–78.Google Scholar
van Oostendorp, M.
(2012) Quantity and the three-syllable window in Dutch word stress. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6 ( 6 ), 343–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, J. W.
(2007) Psychopy – psychophysics software in python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162 ( 1–2 ), 8–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J.
(2002) Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitt, M. A.
(1998) Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception & Psychophysics, 60 1, 941–951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language, 61 ( 1 ), 19–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., & Tat, M.
(2011) Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 39 ( 3 ), 304–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Powell, M. J.
(2009) The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Report DAMTP 2009/NA06 (pp. 26–46). University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
2007 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. [URL]
Racine, I.
(2008) Les effets de l’effacement du Schwa sur la production et la perception de la parole en français. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Geneva. [URL]
Racine, I., Bürki, A., & Spinelli, E.
(2014) The implication of spelling and frequency in the recognition of phonological variants: evidence from pre-readers and readers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29 ( 7 ), 893–898. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Racine, I., & Grosjean, F.
(2000) Influence de l’effacement du schwa sur la reconnaissance des mots en parole continue. L’année psychologique, 100 ( 3 ), 393–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) La production du e caduc facultatif est-elle prévisible ? un début de réponse. Journal of French Language Studies, 12 ( 3 ), 307–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranbom, L. J., & Connine, C. M.
(2007) Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57 ( 2 ), 273–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., McCormick, S. F., Bayliss, L., & Davis, C. J.
(2011) Orthography influences the perception and production of speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37 ( 6 ), 1588–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, S.
(2014) Word informativity influences acoustic duration: effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition, 133 ( 1 ), 140–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shockey, L., & Bond, D.
(2015) Casual speech phonology and perception of further languages: The case of Latvian. In M. Wolters, J. Livingstone, B. Beattie, R. Smith, M. MacMahon, J. Stuart-Smith, & J. Scobbie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS 2015). University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Spinelli, E., & Gros-Balthazard, F.
(2007) Phonotactic constraints help to overcome effects of schwa deletion in French. Cognition, 104 ( 2 ), 397–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., & Ferrand, L.
(1998) Orthography shapes the perception of speech: the consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5 ( 4 ), 683–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar