One-to-multiple vowel mapping in the perceptual development of Dutch learners of Spanish

1. One-to-multiple vowel mapping in the perceptual development of Dutch learners of Spanish Paola Escudero McGill University and University of Utrecht Paul Boersma University of Amsterdam Boston University Conference on Language Development 26 November 3, 2001

2. Single-Category Assimilation (SCA) • Problem: • poor category differentiation • no lexical contrast  no produced contrast • General solution: category split

3. Two-Category Assimilation (TCA) • Very good category differentiation • Problem: boundary mismatch  confusion • General solution: boundary shift

4. Multiple-Category Assimilation (MCA) • Category differentiation is “too good” • Problems: extra lexical contrasts, boundary mismatch, SCA • Possible solutions?: category split/merger/loss, boundary shift

5. Preliminary hypothesis • MCA exists and it is problematic. 2) Therefore, Dutch learners will have poorer front than back vowel categorisation in Spanish.

6. Subjects • Dutch learners of Spanish 38 (11+18+9) • Bilingual Dutch-Spanish 3 • Dutch-only 11 • Spanish-only 44

7. Task: “vowels from a Spanish text”125 Spanish target stimuli, 55 Spanish fillers

8. Beginning Dutch learners of Spanish

9. Intermediate Dutch learners of Spanish

10. Advanced Dutch learners of Spanish

11. Dutch/Spanish bilinguals

12. Spanish-only listeners

13. All subjects + Dutch-only

14. Developmental sequencefor the front/back error ratio BEG-INT-ADV  error ratio: r = -0.32 (p < 0.03)

15. We have observed: • Dutch learners of Spanish perform poorer on front than on back vowels. Our prediction is borne out. • Learners have better performance according to their experience. • This hints at the existence of MCA, its problematic nature, and its reduction during L2 development. But we haven’t yet directly shown the existence of MCA, let alone its problematic nature…

16. Basic hypothesis Multiple Category Assimilation exists.

17. Task 1: “vowels from a Dutch text”125 Spanish target stimuli, 55 Dutch decoys

18. Dutch labelling task (Dutch mode) Therefore: MCA exists

19. Main hypothesis Problems with Spanish front vowel categorisation by Dutch learners are caused by MCA. To address this hypothesis, we have to look into: 1) the accuracy of L2 front vowel categorisation 2) the reduction of MCA when perceiving the L2

20. Hypothesis for MCA reduction (Assumption: people have language-dependent perception modes) Hypothesis: learners show less MCA in their L2 perception mode than in their L1 perception mode. • A measure of MCA: the amount of use of /I/ in an L1 labelling task. • A measure of MCA reduction: reduction of /I/ use between a Dutch and a Spanish perception mode.

21. Task 2: “vowels from a Spanish text”125 Spanish target stimuli, 55 Spanish fillers

22. Dutch-only listeners MCA- reduction is small or non-existent

23. Beginning Dutch learners of Spanish MCA- reduction is small or non-existent

24. Intermediate Dutch learners of Spanish MCA- reduction is intermediate

25. Advanced Dutch learners of Spanish MCA- reduction is large

26. Dutch/Spanish bilinguals MCA- reduction is large

27. Does MCA reduction exist? • Yes . Learners reduce the usage of /I/ between perception modes. • Yes . It correlates with experience level (BEG/INT/ADV): r = 0.39, (p < 0.01, 95% = 0.08...0.63) Is it developmental?

28. Hypothesis for L2 categorisation accuracy Learners have inaccurate front vowel categorisation. • A measure of vowel categorisation accuracy: boundary location in an L2 labelling task.

29. Task 3: “vowels from a Spanish text”125 Spanish target stimuli, 55 Spanish fillers

30. Spanish labelling task

31. Is L2 labelling inaccurate? • Yes . Learners are inaccurate in L2 categorisation, i.e. the boundary between /e/ and /I/ is inappropriate for Spanish. • Yes . It correlates with experience level (BEG/INT/ADV): r = 0.57, (p < 0.0002, 95% = 0.30...0.75) Does this change developmentally?

32. Main hypothesis again These problems with Spanish front vowel categorisation by Dutch learners are caused by MCA.

33. MCA reduction correlates strongly with categorisation accuracy r = 0.62 p < 0.00002 95% = 0.37...0.78

34. Our interpretationof this high correlation: • It reflects a causal relationship: low-level /I/ loss causes e-i accuracy in learners

35. Conclusion • MCA exists: learners use 3 categories where the target language has 2. • MCA is problematic: it leads to inaccurate L2 categorisation. • Language-dependent perception modes exist: people do different things depending on the language that they hear (or think they hear). • Learners develop: with experience, MCA decreases and categorisation accuracy increases. • Learners improve: we identified one strategy for solving MCA, namely loss of the extra category.

36. Dank u voor uw aandacht!Gracias por su atención!Thank you for your attention!

37. Total errors are not a sign of MCA degree /I/-reduction vs. /e/-/I/ boundary: r = -0.60 (95% = -0.34 … -0.77) /I/-reduction vs. total error count: r = +0.15 (95% = -0.17 ... +0.45)