Gruter, Theres

Rohde, Hannah

Schafer, Amy

Takeda, A

Edinburgh Research Explorer

     Edinburgh Research Explorer                                      Mapping prosody to reference in L2Citation for published version:Schafer, A, Takeda, A, Rohde, H & Gruter, T 2015, 'Mapping prosody to reference in L2' 40th AnnualBoston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), United States, 1/01/15, .Link:Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research ExplorerGeneral rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.Take down policyThe University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorercontent complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright pleasecontact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately andinvestigate your claim.Download date: 05. Apr. 2019Mapping	Prosody	to	Reference	in	L2		Amy	J.	Schafer1),	Aya	Takeda1),	Hannah	Rohde2)	and	Theres	Grüter1)																1)University	of	Hawai‘i	at	Mānoa,	2)University	of	Edinburgh		Presented	at	BUCLD	40,	Nov	13-15,	2015;	contact:	amy.schafer@hawaii.edu	or	theres@hawaii.edu	Experiment	1:		Contrast	on	antecedents	#)	Pearson	(2011;	www.versanDest.com)	Conclusions	Par=cipants			Akmajian,	A.,	&	Jackendoﬀ,	R.	(1970).	CoreferenLality	and	stress.	LinguisMc	Inquiry.	Balogh,	J.	E.	(2003).	Pronouns,	prosody,	and	the	discourse	anaphora	weighLng	approach.	(Unpublished	doctoral	dissertaLon).	UCSD.	Chen,	A.,	&	Lai,	V.	T.	(2011).	Comb	or	coat:	The	role	of	intonaLon	in	online	reference	resoluLon	in	a	second	language.	In	Sound	and	Sounds.	Studies	presented	to	M.E.H.	(Bert)	Schouten	on	the	occasion	of	his	65th	birthday.	UiL	OTS.	Grüter,	T.,	Rohde,	H.,	&	Schafer,	A.	J.	(in	press).	Coreference	and	discourse	coherence	in	L2:	The	roles	of	grammaLcal	aspect	and	referenLal	form.	LinguisMc	Approaches	to	Bilingualism.	Grüter,	T.,	Rohde,	H.,	&	Schafer,	A.	J.	(2014).	The	role	of	discourse-level	expectaLons	in	non-naLve	speakers’	referenLal	choices.	In	Proceedings	of	BUCLD	38.	Cascadilla	Press.	Huang,	B.	H.	&	Jun,	S.-A.	(2011).	The	eﬀect	of	age	on	the	acquisiLon	of	second	language	prosody.	Language	and	Speech.	Kehler,	A.,	Kertz,	L.,	Rohde,	H.,	&	Elman,	J.	L.	(2008).	Coherence	and	coreference	revisited.	Journal	of	SemanMcs.	Kim,	K.,	Grüter,	T.,	&	Schafer,	A.	J.	(2013)	Eﬀects	of	event-structure	and	topic/focus-marking	on	pronoun	reference	in	Korean.	CUNY	Poster.	Pennington,	M.C.	&	Ellis,	N.C.	(2000).	Cantonese	speakers’	memory	for	English	sentences	with	prosodic	cues.	The	Modern	Language	Journal.	Roberts,	L.,	Gullberg,	M.,	&	Indefrey,	P.	(2008).	Online	pronoun	resoluLon	in	L2	discourse:	L1	inﬂuence	and	general	learner	eﬀects.	Studies	in	Second	Language	AcquisiMon.	Sorace,	A.	(2011).	Pinning	down	the	concept	of	‘interface’	in	bilingualism.	LinguisMc	Approaches	to	Bilingualism.	Ueno,	M.,	&	Kehler,	A.	(2010).	The	interpretaLon	of	null	and	overt	pronouns	in	Japanese:	GrammaLcal	and	pragmaLc	factors.	Proceedings	of	the	32nd	Annual	MeeMng	of	the	CogniMve	Science	Society.		Zubizarreta,	M.	L.	&	Nava,	E.	(2011).	Encoding	discourse-based	meaning:	Prosody	vs.	syntax.	ImplicaLons	for	second	language	acquisiLon.	Lingua.	•  L2ers’	show	signiﬁcant	use	of	contrasLve	intonaLon	on	antecedents	(Exp1),	but	not	pronouns	(Exp2)	to	determine	pronoun	reference.	•  L2ers’	success	in	using	prosody	may	depend	on	the	number,	complexity	and	Lming	of	steps	required	to	make	the	relevant	mappings:	Exp1:	L+H*	on	referent	à	referent	is	salient	à	select	as	antecedent	Exp2:	L+H*	on	pronoun	à	establish	set	of	potenLal	antecedents	à	idenLfy	most	salient	member	of	set	à	select	other	member	of	set	as	antecedent	Age	(years)	Versant	English	Test#)	(overall	score,	range	20-80)	Self-rated	English	proﬁciency	(out	of	10)	L1	English		(n=48)	 23.4	(18-40)	 ---	 9.6	(8-10)	L2	English		(n=40)	 25.6	(19-65)	 51.2	(35-80)	 6.1	(3-9)	L1	Japanese	(n=23)	 25.2	(19-45)	 47.2	(35-62)	 5.9	(3-8)	L1	Korean	(n=17)	 26.2	(21-65)	 56.8	(37-80)	 6.5	(3-9)	Background	&	Mo=va=on	How	does	CONTRASTIVE	INTONATION/PROSODY	aﬀect	naMve	and	non-naMve	speakers’	interpretaMon	of	ambiguous	pronouns?	•  ContrasLve	intonaLon/prosody	aﬀects	naLve-speaker	processing,	although	its	precise	role	in	the	interpretaLon	of	pronouns	has	received	limited	aDenLon.		 	(1)			…noLced	a	paramedic/PARAMEDIC	calling	the	CAPTAIN/captain…													Later	Wendy	bumped	into	him.																																								(Balogh,	2003)		 	(2)			John	hit	Bill	and	then	George	hit	HIM.			(Akmajian	&	Jackendoﬀ,	1970)			•  Prosody	presents	challenges	in	L2	acquisiLon,	which	vary	with	factors	such	as	the	L1-to-L2	mapping	and	prosodic	funcLon.		(Huang	&	Jun,	2011;	Zubizarreta	&	Nava,	2011;	Takeda,	Schafer,	&	Schwartz,	BUCLD40;	Pennington	&	Ellis,	2000;	Chen	&	Lai,	2011)			•  Pronoun	interpretaLon	is	challenging	in	L2.			 	This	has	been	aDributed	to	the	need	to	integrate	informaLon	from	mulLple	domains.																															(e.g.,	Roberts	et	al.,	2008;	Sorace,	2011)		Previous	work	has	shown	a	reduced	eﬀect	of	event	structure,	marked	by	grammaLcal	aspect,	on	L2	speakers’	reference	choices.		(see	below)			The	role	of	prosody	in	L2	pronoun	resolu2on	has	not	been	inves2gated.		Our	goals:		•  Test	how	contrasLve	intonaLon	on	potenLal	antecedents	(Exp1)	and	pronouns	(Exp2)	aﬀects	L1	and	L2	speakers’	reference	choices.	•  Compare	eﬀects	of	contrasLve	intonaLon	and	grammaLcal	aspect.	Predic=ons:	à  IF	prosody	is	generally	challenging	in	L2,	we	expect	L1-L2	diﬀerences	in	both	Exp1	and	Exp2.			(NB:	same	L+H*	L-H%	contour	in	both	experiments)	à  IF	integraLng	informaLon	from	mulLple	domains	is	generally	challenging	in	L2,	we	expect	L1-L2	diﬀerences	in	both	Exp1	and	Exp2.	à  IF	L2	speakers’	ability	to	use	prosodic	informaLon	depends	on	the	complexity	of	the	mappings	(L1	->	L2;	prosody	->	reference),	we	expect	greater	L1-L2	diﬀerences	in	Exp2	compared	to	Exp1.	Experiment	2:		Contrast	on	pronoun	Method			•  Story	conLnuaLon:	aural	context	sentence	+	wriDen	prompt	(pronoun)																			+	wriDen	compleLon	•  2	(contrast	locaLon)	x	2	(aspect)	design			Hear:	DAVID	served/was	serving	Paul	a	pint	of	beer.			See:	He	_______________	Hear:	David	served/was	serving	PAUL	a	pint	of	beer.			See:	He	_______________	Results			Mixed-eﬀect	logis=c	regression	(LMER)	isSource ~ Aspect * ContrLoc * Group + (1 + Aspect + ContrLoc | Subject) + (1 + Aspect + ContrLoc | Item)•  Main	eﬀect	of	Contrast	LocaLon	(b	=	.89,	p	<	.001),	no		interacLon	with	Group	(b	=	.14,	p	=	.63)	•  Main	eﬀect	of	Aspect	(b	=	.42,	p	<	.005),	marginal	Aspect	x	Group	interacLon	(b	=	.40,	p	=	.09);	eﬀect	of	Aspect	in	L1	(b	=	.60,	p	<	.001),	but	not	in	L2	(b	=	.25,	p	=	.26).			à More	reference	to	accentuated	antecedents	in	both	groups:	ContrasLve	intonaLon	on	antecedents	aﬀects	reference	choices	in	L1	and	L2.	à Reduced	eﬀect	of	aspect	in	L2;	replicates	results	from	wriDen	task.			•  AnnotaLon	for	coreference	by	two	trained	coders.	He wanted Paul to get really drunk.  (SOURCE)	He thanked David.  (GOAL)	He insisted it was the best beer ever. 	(ambiguous:	6.8/8.8%	of	L1/L2	data)		(missing:	0.7/2.3%	of	L1/L2	data)	Par=cipants			Age	(years)	Versant	English	Test#)	(overall	score,	range	20-80)	Self-rated	English	proﬁciency	(out	of	10)	L1	English		(n=48)	 24.2	(18-49)	 ---	 9.6	(6-10)	L2	English		(n=42)	 31.1	(20-56)	 51.0	(37-72)	 5.9	(1-9)	L1	Japanese	(n=24)	 35.5	(20-56)	 50.0	(37-69)	 5.5	(1-8)	L1	Korean	(n=18)	 25.3	(20-48)	 52.6	(40-72)	 6.4	(3-9)	Method			•  Story	conLnuaLon:	aural	context	sentence	+	750ms	silence	+	aural	prompt	(pronoun	+	adverb,	to	provide	natural	truncaLon	point)	+	wriDen	compleLon	•  2	(pronoun	stress)	x	2	(aspect)	design			Hear:	David	served/was	serving	Paul	a	pint	of	beer.	He/HE	obviously		See:	________		•  AnnotaLon	for	coreference	by	two	trained	coders.	(ambiguous:	7.3/8.9%	of	L1/L2	data;	missing:	0.3/3.0%	of	L1/L2	data)	Mixed-eﬀect	logis=c	regression	(LMER)	isSource ~ Aspect * ProStress * Group + (1 + Aspect + ProStress | Subject) + (1 + Aspect + ProStress | Item)•  Main	eﬀect	of	Pronoun	Stress	(b	=	-.49,	p	<	.001),	Pronoun	Stress	x	Group	interacLon		(b	=	.72,						p	<	.01);	no	eﬀect	of	Pronoun	Stress	in	L2	group	alone	(b	=	.10,	p	=	.69)	•  Main	eﬀect	of	Aspect	(b	=	.60,	p	<	.001),	no	interacLon	with	Group	(b	=	.27,	p	=	.28);	eﬀect	of	Aspect	in	L2	group	alone	(b	=	.81,	p	<	.001);	Aspect	x	Pronoun	Stress	interacLon	in	L2	group										(b	=	.81,	p	<	.05)	•  Main	eﬀect	of	Group	(b	=	1.14,	p	<	.001)			à  More	reference	to	the	Goal	with	stressed	pronouns	in	L1	only.	à  Eﬀect	of	Aspect	emerges	in	L2	when	conLnuaLon	point	is	moved					axer	the	adverb.	Figure	2.	Exp1:	Mean	proporLon	of	SOURCE-reference	in	conLnuaLons;	95%	CIs	Acknowledgments:	Many	thanks	to	Amanda	Blake,	Amber	Camp,	Bonnie	Fox,	Victoria	Lee,	 Ivana	Matson,	Eric	Stepans,	 and	 Alexis	 Toliva	 for	 assistance	 with	 data	 collecLon,	 annotaLon,	 and	 preparaLon	 of	 this	 poster.									This	research	is	supported	by	the	NaLonal	Science	FoundaLon	(BCS-1251450	to	T.	Grüter	&	A.	Schafer).	Event	structure	and	pronoun	interpreta=on	in	L1	&	L2			(3)		EmilySource	brought/was	bringing	a	drink	to	MelissaGoal.		She	_____			L1	speakers	of	English	write	more	conLnuaLons	with	‘she’	=	SOURCE	following	imperfecLve	vs	perfecLve	aspect	(Kehler	et	al.,	2008).	This	is	not	the	case	for	L1-Japanese/Korean	learners	of	English	(Grüter	et	al.,	2014,	in	press),	even	though	(i)	they	reliably	associate	perfecLve/imperfecLve	with	completed/incomplete	events	in	an	independent	task,	(ii)	aspect	aﬀects	their	choice	of	coherence	relaLon	in	the	conLnuaLon,	and	(iii)	Japanese	and	Korean	speakers	show	the	same	eﬀect	of	aspect	in	their	L1s	(Ueno	&	Kehler,	2010;	Kim	et	al.,	2013).	Figure	1.	Context	sentence	with	contrast	on	Source	(A)	and	on	Goal	(B).	A	 B	A	 B1	 B2	Figure	3.	Broad-focus	context	(A)	and	conLnuaLon	with	unstressed	(B1)	and	stressed	(B2)	pronoun.	hDp://www2.hawaii.edu/~aschafer/snds.html#GRS	Figure	4.	Exp2:	Mean	proporLon	of	SOURCE-reference	in	conLnuaLons;	95%	CIs	

Mapping prosody to reference in L2

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/27599477/SchaferTakedaRohdeGruter.bucld.2015.pdf

Mapping prosody to reference in L2

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Explorer