↓ Skip to main content

Effects of the Native Language on the Learning of Fundamental Frequency in Second-Language Speech Segmentation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of the Native Language on the Learning of Fundamental Frequency in Second-Language Speech Segmentation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00985
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annie Tremblay, Mirjam Broersma, Caitlin E. Coughlin, Jiyoun Choi

Abstract

This study investigates whether the learning of prosodic cues to word boundaries in speech segmentation is more difficult if the native and second/foreign languages (L1 and L2) have similar (though non-identical) prosodies than if they have markedly different prosodies (Prosodic-Learning Interference Hypothesis). It does so by comparing French, Korean, and English listeners' use of fundamental-frequency (F0) rise as a cue to word-final boundaries in French. F0 rise signals phrase-final boundaries in French and Korean but word-initial boundaries in English. Korean-speaking and English-speaking L2 learners of French, who were matched in their French proficiency and French experience, and native French listeners completed a visual-world eye-tracking experiment in which they recognized words whose final boundary was or was not cued by an increase in F0. The results showed that Korean listeners had greater difficulty using F0 rise as a cue to word-final boundaries in French than French and English listeners. This suggests that L1-L2 prosodic similarity can make the learning of an L2 segmentation cue difficult, in line with the proposed Prosodic-Learning Interference Hypothesis. We consider mechanisms that may underlie this difficulty and discuss the implications of our findings for understanding listeners' phonological encoding of L2 words.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Student > Master 17 22%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Professor 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 30 39%
Arts and Humanities 8 11%
Psychology 8 11%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2020.
All research outputs
#14,081,723
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,310
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,754
of 353,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#235
of 392 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 392 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.