This work presents the results of an auditory language of origin identification experiment. Disyllabic and trisyllabic logatomes were recorded by speakers of Bulgarian, Czech, Polish, and Russian, and presented to L1 speakers of the abovementioned Slavic languages. The goals of the test were to verify the ability of lay listeners to recognize the linguistic origin of speakers, based on spoken samples with limited segmental and suprasegmental information, and to correlate the signal features with the subjects’ performance. It was found that position of word stress is not an important predictor in language recognition. However, inherent vowel characteristics such as duration and vowel space computed by the means of Pillai scores correlate with subjects’ performance. Both the linguistic profile and the familiarity with closely related languages also appear to be relevant predictors of listeners’ performance. Finally, the information-theoretic notion of surprisal applied on regular cross-linguistic sound correspondences was correlated with recognition scores; though, the correlations did not reach the threshold of statistical significance. We conclude that auditory identification of linguistic origin by lay persons, native speakers of closely related languages, is possible even when exposed to limited segmental information, which can serve as a cue in the identification of linguistic origin.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2020). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.1.16). Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam. https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
3.
BonattiL. L.PenaM.NesporM.MehlerJ. (2005). Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: The role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychological Science, 16(6), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01556.x
4.
BrayJ. H.MaxwellS. E. (1985). Multivariate analysis of variance. Quantitative applications in the social sciences (Vol. 54). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985222
5.
Cambier-LangeveldT. (2016). Language analysis in the asylum procedure: A specification of the task in practice. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 23(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v23i1.17539
6.
CutlerA. (2012). Native listening: Language experience and the recognition of spoken words. MIT.
7.
EadesD. (2005). Applied linguistics and language analysis in asylum seeker cases. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 503–526. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami021
FraserH. (2009). The role of “educated native speakers” in providing language analysis for the determination of the origin of asylum seekers. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 16(1), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.113
10.
FraserH. (2011). The role of linguistics and native speakers in language analysis for the determination of origin: A response to Tina Cambier-Langeveld. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.121
11.
GooskensC.van HeuvenV. J. (2020). How well can intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe be predicted by linguistic and non-linguistic variables?. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 10(3), 351–379. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17084.goo
12.
HarperM.MaxwellM. (2007). Spoken language characterization. In BenestyJ.SondhiM.HuangY. (Eds.), Springer handbook of speech processing (pp. 797–809). Springer.
13.
HayJ.WarrenP.DragerK. (2006). Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 458–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001
14.
HoskinJ. (2018). Native speaker non-linguists in LADO: An insider perspective. In NickI. (Ed.), Forensic linguistics: Asylum-seekers, refugees and immigrants (pp. 23–40). Vernon.
15.
HouseA.NeuburgE. (1977). Toward automatic identification of the language of an utterance: Preliminary methodological considerations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62(3), 708–713. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381582
16.
JohnsonE. K. (2003). Acoustic and auditory phonetics (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
17.
KelleyM. C.TuckerB. V. (2020). A comparison of four vowel overlap measures. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147(1), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000494
KislerT.ReichelU. D.SchielF. (2017). Multilingual processing of speech via web services. Computer Speech & Language, 45, 326–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2017.01.005
20.
KuderaJ. (2018). Synchronised and non-synchronised articulation of Polish nasals ą and ę in child and adult speech. Govor, 35(2), 161–188. https://hrcak.srce.hr/214239
21.
LadefogedP.MaddiesonI. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Blackwell.
22.
Language and National Origin Group. (2004). Guidelines for the use of language analysis in relation to questions of national origin in refugee cases. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 11(2), 261–266. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v11i2.261
23.
McQueenJ.DahanD.CutlerA. (2003). Continuity and gradedness in speech processing. In MeyerA.SchillerN. (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 39–78). Mouton de Gruyter.
24.
MeissnerF. J. (2018). Modelling plurilingual processing in intercomprehension. In GarbarinoS.DegacheCh. (Eds.), Intercompréhension en réseau. Scénarios, médiations, évaluations (pp. 279–283). CRTT.
25.
MosbachM.StengerI.AvgustinovaT.KlakowD. (2019, September2–4). incom.py—A toolbox for calculating linguistic distances and asymmetries between related languages [Conference paper]. International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, Varna, Bulgaria. https://doi.org/10.26615/978-954-452-056-4_094
26.
MuthusamyY. K.JainN.ColeR. A. (1994, April19–22). Perceptual benchmarks for automatic language identification [Conference paper]. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Adelaide, SA, Australia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.1994.389288
27.
NavrátilJ. (2001). Spoken language recognition—A step toward multilinguality in speech processing. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 9(6), 678–685. https://doi.org/10.1109/89.943345
28.
NolanF. (2012). Degrees of freedom in speech production: An argument for native speakers in LADO. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 19(2), 263–289. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v19i2.263
29.
NyczJ.Hall-LewL. (2013). Best practices in measuring vowel merger. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 20, 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4894063
30.
OhalaJ.GilbertJ. (1981). Listeners’ ability to identify languages by their prosody. In LéonP.RossiM. (Eds.), Problèmes de prosodie: Vol. 2, expérimentations, modèles et fonctions (pp. 123–131). Didier.
PatrickP. (2010). Language variation and LADO. In ZwaanK.VerripsM.MuyskenP. (Eds.), The role of language in European asylum procedure: A linguistic and legal survey (pp. 73–87). Wolf Legal.
33.
PatrickP.SchmidM.ZwaanK. (2012). Language analysis for the determination of origin: Current perspectives and new directions. Springer.
34.
PellegrinoF.André-ObrechtR. (2000). Automatic language identification: An alternative approach to phonetic modelling. Signal Processing, 80(7), 1231–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1684(00)00032-3
35.
PeperkampS.DupouxE. (1992). A typological study of stress “deafness.” In GussenhovenC.WarnerN. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology (Vol. 7, pp. 203–240). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197105.1.203
36.
PeperkampS.VendelinI.DupouxE. (2010). Perception of predictable stress: A cross-linguistic investigation. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.001
RouasJ. L.FarinasJ.PellegrinoF.André-ObrechtR. (2005). Rhythmic unit extraction and modelling for automatic language identification. Speech Communication, 47(4), 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2005.04.012
SkirgårdH.RobertsS. G.YenckenL. (2017). Why are some languages confused for others? Investigating data from the Great Language Game. PLOS ONE, 12(4), Article e0165934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165934
42.
StevensK. N.HouseA. S. (1963). Perturbation of vowel articulations by consonantal context: An acoustical study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 6(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.0602.111
43.
ThomasE. R. (2011). Sociophonetics: An introduction. Palgrave MacMillan.
44.
WilsonK.FoulkesP. (2014). Borders, variation, and identity: Language analysis for the determination of origin (LADO). In WattD.LlamasC. (Eds.), Language, borders and identity (pp. 218–229). Edinburgh University Press.
