Search for: All records

Purpose:We examined which measures of complexity are most informative when studying language produced in interaction. Specifically, using these measures, we explored whether native and nonnative speakers modified the higher level properties of their production beyond the acoustic–phonetic level based on the language background of their conversation partner. Method:Using a subset of production data from the Wildcat Corpus that used Diapix, an interactive picture matching task, to elicit production, we compared English language production at the dyad and individual level across three different pair types: eight native pairs (English–English), eight mixed pairs (four English–Chinese and four English–Korean), and eight nonnative pairs (four Chinese–Chinese and four Korean–Korean). Results:At both the dyad and individual levels, native speakers produced longer and more clausally dense speech. They also produced fewer silent pauses and fewer linguistic mazes relative to nonnative speakers. Speakers did not modify their production based on the language background of their interlocutor. Conclusions:The current study examines higher level properties of language production in true interaction. Our results suggest that speakers' productions were determined by their own language background and were independent of that of their interlocutor. Furthermore, these demonstrated promise for capturing syntactic characteristics of language produced in true dialogue. Supplemental Material:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24712956 

Accounts of speech perception disagree on how listeners demonstrate perceptual constancy despite considerable variation in the speech signal due to speakers’ coarticulation. According to the spectral contrast account, listeners’ compensation for coarticulation (CfC) results from listeners perceiving the target-segment frequencies differently depending on the contrastive effects exerted by the preceding sound’s frequencies. In this study, we reexamine a notable finding that listeners apparently demonstrate perceptual adjustments to coarticulation even when the identity of the speaker (i.e., the “source”) changes midway between speech segments. We evaluated these apparent across-talker CfC effects on the rationale that such adjustments to coarticulation would likely be maladaptive for perceiving speech in multi-talker settings. In addition, we evaluated whether such cross-talker adaptations, if detected, were modulated by prior experience. We did so by manipulating the exposure phase of three groups of listeners by (a) merely exposing them to our stimuli (b) explicitly alerting them to talker change or (c) implicitly alerting them to this change. All groups then completed identical test blocks in which we assessed their CfC patterns in within- and across-talker conditions. Our results uniformly demonstrated that, while all three groups showed robust CfC shifts in the within-talker conditions, no such shifts were detected in the across-talker condition. Our results call into question a speaker-neutral explanation for CfC. Broadly, this demonstrates the need to carefully examine the perceptual demands placed on listeners in constrained experimental tasks and to evaluate whether the accounts that derive from such settings scale up to the demands of real-world listening. 

The effect of training on linguistic release from masking (LRM) was examined. In a pre-test and post-test, English monolingual listeners transcribed sentences presented with English and Dutch maskers. During training, participants transcribed sentences with either Dutch, English, or white noise maskers and received feedback. LRM was evident in the pre-test (performance was better with Dutch maskers) but was eliminated after training (masker conditions did not differ). Thus, the informational masking driving LRM can be ameliorated through training. This study is a basis for future research examining the specific aspects of informational masking that change as a function of experience.