Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 20:4 (2019) ► pp.535–568

The effect of dialectal variation on word recognition

A case from Taiwan Southern Min

| National Chiao Tung University,
Previous studies on Chinese dialect variation have mostly focused on the description of dialects, the regions where these dialects are spoken, attitudes towards dialects, and acoustic differences across dialects. The present study draws on experimental evidence concerning a vowel difference in two Taiwan Southern Min (TSM) dialects to provide more understanding on how non-contrastive, dialectal variations may affect speakers’ processing of speech. The variation of interest is a phonemic difference, [ə] and [ɔ], in the vowel inventory in two TSM dialects, in which the difference signals a lexical contrast in one dialect (e.g. [ə-a] ‘oyster’ vs. [ɔ-a] ‘taro’) but not in the other ([ɔ-a] ‘oyster, taro’). A long-term repetition-priming experiment investigating the word recognition involving the two vowels revealed a dialect effect on TSM speakers’ word recognition in accordance with prior exposure, native-ness and variant frequency. Implications of the findings are provided.
Keywords: word recognition, Taiwanese Southern Min, dialectal variation, repetition priming
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.The target dialects in Taiwanese Southern Min
  • 4.Experiment
    • 4.1Methodology
      • 4.1.1Participants
      • 4.1.2Design and materials
      • 4.1.3Procedure
    • 4.2Results
      • 4.2.1Acoustic analyses
      • 4.2.2Lexical decision results
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • 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: 24 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00048.lu
References (44)
References
Ang, Ui-jin. 2003. Yinbian de dongji yu fangxiang: Zhang-Quan jingzheng yu Taiwan putungqiang de xingcheng [The motivation and direction of sound change: On the competition of Minnan dialects Chang-chou and Chuan-chou, and the emergence of general Taiwanese]. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
. 2013. Taiwan de yuzhong fenbu yu fenqu. [The distribution and regionalization of varieties in Taiwan]. Language and Linguistics 14(2). 315–369.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. & Davidson, D. & Bates, D. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 591. 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Babel, Molly & Johnson, Keith. 2010. Accessing psycho-acoustic perception and language-specific perception with speech sounds. Laboratory Phonology 11. 179–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Babel, Molly & Russell, Jamie. 2015. Expectations and speech intelligibility. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 1371. 2823–2833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Benjamin & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 51. 341–345.Google Scholar
Boomershine, Amanda & Hall, Kathleen Currie & Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith. 2008. The impact of allophony versus contrast on speech perception. In Avery, Peter & Dresher, Elan & Rice, Keren (eds.), Contrast in Phonology, 145–171. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chen, Shu-chuan. 2009. Taiwan Minnanyu yuanyin xitong ji yin-yang rushengdiao de bianyi yu bianhua-Taiwan Minnanyu de zibiao diaocha fenxi [The vowel system change and the Yin-/Yang-entering tonal variations in Taiwanese Hokkien]. Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature 31. 157–178.Google Scholar
. 2010. Taiwan Minnanyu xinxing de yuyin bianyi-Taibeishi, Zhanghuashi ji Tainanshi yuanyin xitong yu yangru yuandiao de diaocha fenxi [New sound variation in Taiwan Southern Min: Vowel systems and the lower register entering tone in Taipei, Changhua, and Tainan]. Language and Linguistics 11(2). 425–468.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Cambridge: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chuang, Yu-Ying. 2017. The effect of phonetic variation on word recognition in Taiwan Mandarin. Taipei: National Taiwan University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Chung, Karen Steffen. 2006. Hypercorrection in Taiwan Mandarin. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 161. 197–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, Raung-fu. 1996. The segmental phonology of Southern Min in Taiwan. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd..Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 2003. Feature economy in sound systems. Phonology 201. 287–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connine, Cynthia M. & Blasko, Dawn G. & Titione, Debra. 1993. Do the beginnings of spoken words have a special status in auditory word recognition? Journal of Memory and Language 321. 193–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connine, Cynthia M. & Pinnow, Eleni. 2006. Phonological variation in spoken word recognition: Episodes and abstractions. The Linguistic Review 231. 235–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connine, Cynthia M. & Titone, Debra & Deelman, Thomas & Blasko, Dawn. 1997. Similarity mapping in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 371. 463–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fon, Janice & Hung, Jui-mei & Huang, Yi-Hsuan & Hsu, Hui-ju. 2011. Dialectal variations on syllable-final nasal mergers in Taiwan Mandarin. Language and Linguistics 12(2). 273–311.Google Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Christina & Campos-Astorkiza, Rebeka. 2015. Allophonic perception in Spanish: The case of intervocalic /s/ voicing. (Paper presented at the Phonetics and Phonology in Europe 2015, Cambridge, 29–30 June 2015.)
Hsieh, Feng-fan. 2006. High infidelity: The non-mapping of Japanese accent onto Taiwanese tone. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 521. 1–27.Google Scholar
Hsu, Hui-ju. 2016. Biandong zhong de Taiyu: Taiyu /o/ yinsu sanzhong zhuyao duyin de xianzhuang fenxi. [The dynamics of Taiwanese – the analysis of the Taiwanese phoneme /o/]. Dongwu Zhongwen Xuebao [Soochow Journal of Chinese Studies] 311. 303–328.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri J. 1980. Testing the psychological reality of phonemes. Language and Speech 231. 233–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986. Concept formation as a tool for linguistic research. In Ohala, John J. & Jaeger, Jeri J. (eds.), Experimental Phonology, 211–237. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith & Babel, Molly. 2010. On the perceptual basis of distinctive features: Evidence from the perception of fricatives by Dutch and English speakers. Journal of Phonetics 381. 127–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles. 1979. Generative phonology: Description and theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel & Diependaele, Kevin & Brysbaert, Marc. 2010. Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: A lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch mono-and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontier in Psychology 1. No. 174. 1–15.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra & Brockhoff, Per Bruun & Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen. 2016. lmerTest: Test in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). 1–26.Google Scholar
Lee, Chao-Yang. 2007. Does horse activate mother? Processing lexical tone in form priming. Language and Speech 501. 101–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenth, Russell V. 2016. Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans, Journal of Statistical Software 69(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, Yu-An. 2014. Mandarin fricatives redux: The psychological reality of phonological representations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 231. 43–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, Sara & Olson, Erin & Clayards, Meghan & Wagner, Michael. 2014. Allophonic variation in English /l/: Production, perception, and segmentation. (Paper presented at the 2014 Canadian Linguistic Association conference, St. Catharines, 24–26 May 2014.)
Pallier, Christophe & Colomé, Angels & Sebastián-Gallés, Núria. 2001. The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Examplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science 121. 445–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. & Connine, Cynthia M. 2001. Variant frequency in flap production: A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica 581. 254–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radeau, Monique & Morais, Jose & Segui, Juan. 1995. Phonological priming between monosyllabic spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21(6). 1297–1311.Google Scholar
Ranbom, Larissa J. & Cynthia M. Connine. 2007. Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 571. 273–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Walter. & Eschman, Amy. & Zuccolotto, Anthony. 2002. E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Sumner, Meghan & Samuel, Arthur G. 2005. Perception and representation of regular variation: The case of final /t/. Journal of Memory and Language 521. 322–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Lexical inhibition and sublexical facilitation are surprisingly long lasting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33(4). 769–790.Google Scholar
2009. The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variants. Journal of Memory and Language 601. 487–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsay, Jane & Myers, James. 2013. CCU Taiwanese Spoken Corpus. ([URL]) (Accessed 2019-05-03)
Whalen, D. H. & Best, Catherin T. & Irwin, Julia R. 1997. Lexical effects in the perception and production of American English /p/ allophones. Journal of Phonetics 251. 501–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2009. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar