1 / 24

Language-specific Audience Design: Investigating Cognate Use

Analyzing the impact of "Foreigner Talk" and the use of cognates in communication between native and nonnative speakers. This study explores if speakers use more cognates when addressing nonnative speakers compared to fellow natives.

llapointe
Download Presentation

Language-specific Audience Design: Investigating Cognate Use

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. Talking to Nonnative Speakers:Investigating language-specific audience design and cognate use Jessi Jacobsen 04.29.17 Jessi Jacobsen 05.06.17

  2. “Foreigner Talk” and Audience Design: • “Foreigner Talk”: • Louder • Slower pace of speech • More repetition

  3. “Foreigner Talk” and Audience Design: • “Foreigner Talk”: • Louder • Slower pace of speech • More repetition • All language general—What about language-specific adaptations?

  4. Cognates: • Psycholinguistic perspective: translation equivalents that share significant phonological/orthographic overlap between languages • Insectos-insects • Sofá-sofa • Prisión-prison • Restaurante-restaurant • Some of the easiest words to learn and remember in a new language (Lotto & de Groot, 1998)

  5. Cognates as Audience Design? • Do native speakers (NS) use more cognates when talking to a nonnative speaker (NNS) than a fellow native speakers?

  6. Experiment 1: Method • Participants: 32 native Spanish speakers (English = nonnative language) • Playing game of telephone • 30 concepts that could be referred to by either a cognate (C; e.g., insectos) or a non-cognate (NC; e.g., bichos ) • Incorporated into 4-sentence story (2 Cs/2 NCs per story)

  7. Experiment 1: Method (Cont.) • Participant hears story • Does multiplication distractor task • Records story for future audience Hola….um soy Americana... Confederate Participant Confederate Participant

  8. Experiment 1: Results • Tally # Cs and NCs each participant uses over course of experiment • 2 (Cognate, Non-Cognate) X 2 (NNS, NS) No Main Effect: of Word Type No Interaction Main Effect: More Words Used Overall in NNS Condition, F(1, 15)=5.07, p=.03

  9. Experiment 1: Discussions/Limitations • Suggesting that NS do not use more cognates with NNS than fellow NS

  10. Experiment 1: Discussions/Limitations • Suggesting that NS do not use more cognates with NNS than fellow NS • But maybe this task is just weird?

  11. Experiment 1: Discussions/Limitations • Suggesting that NS do not use more cognates with NNS than fellow NS • But maybe this task is just weird? • Forgetting about partner

  12. Experiment 1: Discussions/Limitations • Suggesting that NS do not use more cognates with NNS than fellow NS • But maybe this task is just weird? • Forgetting about partner • Repetition does not require comprehension

  13. Experiment 1: Discussions/Limitations • Suggesting that NS do not use more cognates with NNS than fellow NS • But maybe this task is just weird? • Forgetting about partner • Repetition does not require comprehension • Do the participants know which words are cognates?

  14. Experiment 2: Method • 42 Native English Speakers (all fulfilled Carleton’s language requirement for Spanish) • Referential communication task with 26 items that could be referred to with either a C (e.g., insects) or an NC (e.g., bugs)

  15. Experiment 2: Method (Cont.) • Procedure: • Video Introductions • Record Instructions for ”Matching Game” • Demographic/ Proficiency Info ”Spaniard” NNS Condition NS Condition

  16. Experiment 2: Results • Tally number of cognates each participant uses across experiment t(40)=1.83, p = .075, d= 0.56

  17. Experiment 2: Results • Tally number of cognates each participant uses across experiment • Using individualized definition of cognate t(40)=1.83, p = .075, d= 0.56 t(40)=2.19, p = .035, d= 0.6

  18. Discussion/Takeaways • NS do seem to use more cognates with NNS than NS • Effect more reliable when using individualized cognate definition

  19. Discussion/Takeaways • NS do seem to use more cognates with NNS than NS • Effect more reliable when using individualized cognate definition • Many differences between Experiments 1 and 2 • Language difference • Priming difference • Individualized cognate definition etc.

  20. Discussion/Takeaways • Future directions • Strategic v. automatic? • Comprehension studies • People can account for language-specific information when engaging in foreigner talk!!

  21. THANK YOU! • My amazing mentors at Carleton, especially my advisor Mija Van Der Wege, my 2nd reader Cherlon Ussery, and CogSci Chair Extraordinaire Kathie Galotti. • The wonderfully helpful staff and researchers at the BCBL, especially Jon Andoni Duñabeitia • All my awesome participants • YOU for being a great audience!

  22. Questions?

More Related