1 / 30

Catia Cucchiarini

Catia Cucchiarini. Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency in read and spontaneous speech Radboud University Nijmegen. Context. Research on automatic assessment of oral proficiency in Dutch as a second language. Fluency.

jersey
Download Presentation

Catia Cucchiarini

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Catia Cucchiarini Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency in read and spontaneous speech Radboud University Nijmegen

  2. Context Research on automatic assessment of oral proficiency in Dutch as a second language

  3. Fluency • Important construct in evaluation of second language proficiency • Also relevant for pathological speech

  4. Fluency • Frequently applied notion, but not clearly defined • Various interpretations • Overall language proficiency • Oral command of a language • Temporal aspect of oral proficiency

  5. Two experiments • Exp1: read speech • Exp2: spontaneous speech • Human fluency judgements related to • Objective temporal measures (CSR)

  6. Aim of these experiments To explore the relationship between objective properties of speech and perceived fluency in read and spontaneous speech, with a view to determining whether such quantitative measures can be used to develop objective fluency tests.

  7. Method: speakers Exp1: 60 non-native speakers • 3 proficiency levels • beginner (PL1) • intermediate (PL2) • advanced (PL3) • different mother tongues • different gender

  8. Method: speakers Exp2: 60 non-native speakers • 2 proficiency levels • beginner level (BL) • intermediate level (IL) • different mother tongues • different gender

  9. Method: speech material Exp1: • 2 sets of 5 phonetically rich sentences • read over the telephone

  10. Method: speech material Exp2: existing test of Dutch as a second language (DSL) è Profieltoets • 8 items from BL version • short tasks, 15 s to answer • candidates can answer immediately • 8 items from IL version • long tasks, 30 s to answer • candidates have to reflect to provide motivations

  11. Method: raters Exp1: • 3 phoneticians (PH) • 3 speech therapists (ST1) • 3 speech therapists (ST2) Exp2: • 5 DSL teachers for BL (RBL) • 5 DSL teachers for IL (RIL)

  12. Method: automatic scoring • Speech orthographically transcribed • CSR: 38 monophones + lexicon • Viterbi alignment of speech signals and orthographic transcriptions • Segmentation at phone level

  13. Method: some definitions • silent pause: a stretch of silence of no less than 200 ms • dur1 = duration speech without pauses (s) • dur2 = duration speech with pauses (s)

  14. Method: objective measures Primary variables • art = # phones / dur1 • ros = # phones / dur2 • ptr = 100% * dur1 / dur2 • mlr = mean # phones between 2 pauses • mlp = mean length silent pauses • dsp = tot. dur. sil. pauses / (dur2 / 60) • # sp = # sil. pauses / (dur2 / 60)

  15. Method: objective measures Secondary variables • # fp = # filled pauses / (dur2 / 60) • # disf = # disfluencies / (dur2 / 60)

  16. Method: fluency ratings • Sentences scored on fluency on the basis of a ten-point scale • Raters received no special training

  17. Method: rating procedure • Exp1: each group of raters judged speakers of different proficiency levels • Exp2: each group of raters judged speakers of the same proficiency level

  18. Results: reliability

  19. Results: raw fluency ratings

  20. Results: objective measures

  21. Results: disfluencies • Repetitions: exact repetitions of words • Repairs: corrections • Restarts: repetitions initial parts of words

  22. Results: disfluencies

  23. Results: correlations

  24. Results: correlations

  25. Discussion • Reliable fluency scoring is possible • Fluency scores related to task performed • Role objective variables in rs and ss • similarities: weak relation sec. var. / fluency • differences: varying roles prim. var.

  26. Discussion Read speech: • strong relation: art, ros, ptr, #sp, dsp, mlr • weaker relation: mlp  for perceived fluency pause freq. more important than pause length  two factors important fluency rs: • articulation rate • pause frequency

  27. Discussion Spontaneous speech: • strong relation: ros, ptr, #sp, dsp, mlr • weaker relation: art, mlp  possibly higher freq. pauses effaces importance art  fluency in ss particularly related to var. that contain info on pause freq.

  28. Conclusions • Reliable fluency scoring by human raters is possible • Objective fluency scoring is possible • Fluency scores vary with speech type • Fluency scores vary with task performed

  29. Conclusions • Read speech: fluency scores strongly related to art and pause frequency • Spontaneous speech: fluency scores strongly related to pause frequency and distribution • Expert fluency ratings can be predicted more accurately on the basis of objective measures in rs than in ss

  30. Conclusions • Temporal measures of fluency may be used to develop objective fluency tests • Selection of variables to be employed should be dependent on material investigated and task performed

More Related