The Wildcat Corpus of Native-and Foreign-accented English: Communicative Efficiency across Conversational Dyads with Varying Language Alignment Profiles
Restricted accessOtherFirst published online December, 2010
The Wildcat Corpus of Native-and Foreign-accented English: Communicative Efficiency across Conversational Dyads with Varying Language Alignment Profiles
This paper describes the development of the Wildcat Corpus of native- and foreign-accented English, a corpus containing scripted and spontaneous speech recordings from 24 native speakers of American English and 52 non-native speakers of English. The core element of this corpus is a set of spontaneous speech recordings, for which a new method of eliciting dialogue-based, laboratory-quality speech recordings was developed (the Diapix task). Dialogues between two native speakers of English, between two non-native speakers of English (with either shared or different L1s), and between one native and one non-native speaker of English are included and analyzed in terms of general measures of communicative efficiency. The overall finding was that pairs of native talkers were most efficient, followed by mixed native/non-native pairs and non-native pairs with shared L1. Non-native pairs with different L1s were least efficient. These results support the hypothesis that successful speech communication depends both on the alignment of talkers to the target language and on the alignment of talkers to one another in terms of native language background.
Anderson, A.H., Bader, M., Bard, E.G., Boyle, E.H., Doherty, G.M., Garrod, S.C., et al. (1991). The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech, 34(4), 351-366.
2.
Baker, R.E., & Bradlow, A.R. ( 2009). Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language and Speech , 52(4), 391-413.
3.
Bent, T., & Bradlow, A.R. ( 2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1600-1610.
4.
Bent, T., Bradlow, A.R., & Smith, B.L. ( 2008). Production and perception of temporal contrasts in native and non-native speech. Phonetica, 65, 131-147.
5.
Bradlow, A.R., & Alexander, J.A. (2007). Semantic-contextual and acoustic-phonetic enhancements for English sentence-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), 2339-2349.
6.
Bradlow, A.R., & Bent, T. ( 2002). The clear speech effect for non-native listeners . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(1), 272-284.
7.
Bradlow, A.R., & Bent, T. ( 2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106, 707-729.
8.
Bradlow, A., Clopper, C., & Smiljanic, R. ( 2007). A perceptual similarity space for languages. Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences , Saarbrucken, Germany.
9.
Ciefl (1972). The Sound System of Indian English. Monograph7. Hyderabad: CIEFL .
10.
Clarke, C.M., & Garrett, M.F. ( 2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(6), 3647-3658.
11.
Costa, A., Pickering, M.J., & Sorace, A. ( 2008). Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 528-556.
12.
Davis, M.H., Johnsrude, I.S., Hervais-Adelman, A., Taylor, K., & McGettigan, C. (2005). Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: Evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(2), 222-241.
13.
Dupoux, E., & Green, K. ( 1997). Perceptual adjustment to highly compressed speech: Effects of talker and rate changes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 914-927.
14.
Eisner, F., & McQueen, J.M. ( 2005). The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing . Perception and Psychophysics, 67(2), 224-238.
15.
Eisner, F., & McQueen, J.M. ( 2006). Perceptual learning in speech: Stability over time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 1950-1953.
16.
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, 1166-1183.
17.
Graddol, D. ( 1997). The future of English?London : The British Council.
18.
Graddol, D. ( 2006). English next. London: The British Council.
19.
Greenspan, S.L., Nusbaum, H.C., & Pisoni, D.B. ( 1988). Perceptual learning of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 421-433.
20.
Hayes-Harb, R., Smith, B.L., Bent, T., & Bradlow, A.R. ( 2008). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for native speakers of Mandarin: Production and perception of English word-final voicing contrasts. Journal of Phonetics, 36(4), 664-679.
21.
Hitchings, H. ( 2008). One language fits all. Financial Times (London), May 3.
22.
Imai, S., Walley, A.C., & Flege, J.E. ( 2005). Lexical frequency and neighborhood density effects on the recognition of native and Spanish-accented words by native English and Spanish listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 117, 896-907.
23.
International Phonetic Association (Ipa) ( 1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
24.
Jenkins, J. ( 2000). The phonology of English as an international language . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
25.
Jilka, M., Anufryk, V., Baumotte, H., Lewandowska, N., Rota, G., & Reiterer, S. ( 2008). Assessing individual talent in second language production and perception. In A. S. Rauber , M. A. Watkins, & B. O. Baptista (Eds.), New Sounds 2007: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech (pp.243-258). Florianópolis, Brazil: Federal University of Santa Catarina.
26.
Johnson, K. ( 1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In K. Johnson & J. Mullenix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp.145-166). San Diego: Academic Press.
27.
Johnson, K. ( 2005). Speaker normalization in speech perception. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp.363-389). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
28.
Jongman, A., & Wade, T. ( 2007). Acoustic variability and perceptual learning. In O. S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp.135-150). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
29.
Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A.G. ( 2005). Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? Cognitive Psychology, 51, 141-178.
Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A.G. ( 2007). Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 1-15.
32.
Krauss, R.M. & Pardo, J.S. ( 2004). Comment on Pickering & Garrod. Brain and Behavior Science, 27(2), 203-204.
33.
Major, R., Fitzmaurice, C.S.M., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 173-190.
34.
Marshall, R.C., Freed, D.B., & Phillips, D.S. (1997). Communicative efficiency in severe aphasia. Aphasiology, 11(4), 373-384.
35.
Mauranen, A. ( 2003). The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings . TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 513-527.
36.
Maye, J., Aslin, R., & Tanenhaus, M. ( 2008). The weckud wetch of the Wast: Rapid adaptation to a novel accent. Cognitive Science, 32(3), 543-562.
37.
McGARR, N.S. ( 1983). The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research , 26, 451-458.
38.
Munro, M.J., Derwing, T.M., & Morton, S.L. ( 2006). The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 111-131.
39.
Norris, D., McQueen, J.M., & Cutler, A. ( 2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 204-238.
40.
Pallier, C., Sebastian-Gallés, N., Dupoux, E., Christophe, A., & Mehler, J. ( 1998). Perceptual adjustment to time-compressed speech: A cross-linguistic study. Memory & Cognition, 26(4), 844-851.
41.
Pardo, J.S. ( 2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 119(4), 2382-2393.
42.
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. ( 2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169-226.
43.
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. ( 2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication . Research on Language and Computation, 4, 203-228.
44.
Pierrehumbert, J. ( 2002). Word-specific phonetics. In Laboratory Phonology VII (pp.101-139). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
45.
Ryan, C. ( 2007). A comparison of the acoustic-phonetic features of clear speech in natural communication and reading. Master’s Thesis, University College London.
46.
Schwab, E.C., Nusbaum, H.C., & Pisoni, D.B. ( 1985). Some effects of training on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27(4), 395-408.
47.
Smiljanic, R., & Bradlow, A.R. ( 2007). Clear speech intelligibility: Listener and talker effects . Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrucken, Germany.
48.
Smiljanic, R., & Bradlow, A.R. ( 2009). Speaking and hearing clearly: Talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Language and Linguistics Compass , 3(1), 236-264.
49.
Smith, L.E., & Rafiqzad, K. ( 1979). English for cross-cultural communication: The question of intelligibility. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 371-380.
50.
Stibbard, R.M., & Lee, J.-I. ( 2006). Evidence against the mismatched interlanguage intelligibility benefit hypothesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 120, 433-442.
51.
Uchanski, R.M. ( 2005). Clear speech. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp.207-235). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
52.
Van Wijngaarden, S.J. ( 2001). Intelligibility of native and non-native Dutch speech . Speech Communication, 35, 103-113.
53.
VAN Wijngaarden, S.J., Steeneken, H.J.M., & Houtgast, T. ( 2002). Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1906-1916.
54.
Wade, T., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. ( 2007). Effects of acoustic variability in the perceptual learning of non-native-accented speech sounds. Phonetica, 64(2-3), 122-144.
55.
Weil, S.A. ( 2001). Foreign-accented speech: Encoding and generalization . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 2473 (A).
56.
Weinberger, S.H. (n.d.). The Speech Accent Archive. George Mason University . http://accent.gmu.edu/
57.
Wiltshire, C.R., & Harnsberger, J. (2006). The influence of Gujarati and Tamil L1s on Indian English: A preliminary study. World Englishes, 25(1), 91-104.
