Abstract
Tones are the most challenging aspect of learning Chinese. We study tonal acquisition for American learners of Chinese in three learning contexts: study-abroad, at-home and immersion programs. This paper explores whether and how tone production is improved in these contexts. Fifteen learners of Chinese participated in this study. They took a pre-test and a post-test. The control group contained ten native speakers. The task was a read-aloud test in Chinese. Additionally, learners filled out a language contact form. To assess students’ tonal accuracy, we conducted two kinds of analysis: a perception assessment by native Mandarin speakers and an acoustic analysis of pitch track comparison. Contextual data were coded based on the length of language contact with native speakers of Chinese. The results indicate that difficult tone combinations are context sensitive. It also reveals what strategies learners of Chinese use to produce tones similar to native speakers’ production.
Funding statement: This research was funded by the project PRJ46AU of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and suggestions.
References
Broselow, E., R. Hurtig & C. Ringen. 1987. The perception of second language prosody. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system, 350–361. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. 1930. A system of ‘tone letters’. Le Maitre Phonetique 45. 24–27.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Q.-H. 1997. Toward a sequential approach for tonal error analysis. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 32(1). 21–39.10.1007/978-94-009-1608-1_2Search in Google Scholar
Chun, D. M., Y. Jiang, J. Meyr & R. Yang. 2015. Acquisition of L2 Mandarin Chinese tones with learner-created tone visualizations. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 1(1). 86–114.10.1075/jslp.1.1.04chuSearch in Google Scholar
Collentine, J. & B. F. Freed. 2004. Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(2). 153–171.10.1017/S0272263104262015Search in Google Scholar
Cook, H. M. 2008. Socializing identities through speech style: Learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Bristol, Buffalo: Multilingual Maters.10.21832/9781847691026Search in Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. 1991. Foreign language development during a semester abroad. In B. F. Freed (ed.), Foreign language acquisition: Research and the classroom, 104–119. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Search in Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. 2004. Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(2). 249–274.10.1017/S0272263104262052Search in Google Scholar
DuFon, M. A. 2006. The socialization of taste during study abroad in Indonesia. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts, 91–119. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853598531-008Search in Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. 1986. The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In H. Winitz(ed.), Human communication and Its disorders, vol. 2, 224–401. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Freed, B. F., D. P. Dewey, N. Segalowitz & R. Halter. 2004a. The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(2). 349–356.10.1017/S027226310426209XSearch in Google Scholar
Freed, B. F., N. Segalowitz & D. P. Dewey. 2004b. Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(2). 275–301.10.1017/S0272263104262064Search in Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Hao, Y. 2012. Second language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese tones by tonal and non-tonal language speakers. Journal of Phonetics 40(2). 269–279.10.1016/j.wocn.2011.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Hopp, H. & M. S. Schmid. 2013. Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition: The impact of age of acquisition and bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics 34. 361–394.10.1017/S0142716411000737Search in Google Scholar
Isabelli, C. 2000. Motivation and extended interaction in the study abroad context: Factors in the development of Spanish language accuracy and communication skills. Austin : University of Texas Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kinginger, C. 2008. Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. The Modern Language Journal 92(s1). 1–124.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00821.xSearch in Google Scholar
Kiriloff, C. 1969. On the auditory perception of tones in Mandarin. Phonetica 20. 63–64.10.1159/000259274Search in Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. 2006. A course in phonetics. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Long, M. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 39–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.2.07lonSearch in Google Scholar
Magnan, S. S. & M. Back. 2007. Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 40(1). 43–61.10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb02853.xSearch in Google Scholar
Regan, V. 1995. The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: Effects of a year abroad on second language learners of French. In B. F. Freed (ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context, 245–268. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.9.15regSearch in Google Scholar
Rivers, W. 1998. Is being there enough? The effects of homestay placements on language gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 31. 492–500.10.1111/j.1944-9720.1998.tb00594.xSearch in Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. & B. F. Freed. 2004. Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(2). 173–199.10.1017/S0272263104262027Search in Google Scholar
Shen, X.-N. S. 1989. Toward a register approach in teaching Mandarin tones. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 24(3). 27–47.Search in Google Scholar
Sun, S.H. 1997. The development of a lexical tone phonology in American adult learners of standard Mandarin Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, X. 2013. Perception of Mandarin tones: The effect of L1 background and training. The Modern Language Journal 97(1). 144–160.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01386.xSearch in Google Scholar
Wang, Y., A. Jongman & J. Sereno. 2003. Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(2). 1033–1043.10.1121/1.1531176Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Y., M. Spence, A. Jongman & J. Sereno. 1999. Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(6). 3649–3658.10.1121/1.428217Search in Google Scholar
White, C. 1981. Tonal pronunciation errors and interference from English intonation. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 16(2). 27–56.Search in Google Scholar
Wilkinson, S. 1998. On the nature of immersion during study abroad: Some participants’ perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 4. 121–138.10.36366/frontiers.v4i1.65Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Y. 1997. Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin. Journal of Phonetics 25. 61–83.10.1006/jpho.1996.0034Search in Google Scholar
Yang, B. 2003. Quzhou Fangyan Shengdiao Shiyan Yanjiu Jiqi Yu Chuantong Yanjiu de Bijiao. [Experimental Studies on Tones in Quzhou Dialect and the Comparison with Traditional Studies]. Studies in Languages and Linguistics 23(1). 70–77.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, B. 2015. Perception and production of Mandarin tones by native speakers and L2 learners. Berlin, Germany: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-44645-4Search in Google Scholar
Yule, G. & D. Macdonald. 1995. The different effects of pronunciation teaching. International Review of Applied Linguistics 33(4). 345–350.Search in Google Scholar
Zhu, X. 1995. Shanghai Tonetics. Australian National University Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Zhu, X. 2012. Jiangdiao de Zonglei. [A Classification of Falling Tones]. Studies in languages and linguistics 32(2). 1–16.Search in Google Scholar
Appendix A. Criterion of seven-scale global score system
| Speakers | Scale | Level | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native Speakers (NS) | 7 | Standard | The tone production of disyllabic words is standard or corresponds to norm of native speakers’ perception according to the value of each tone without any dialectal accent. |
| 6 | Accented | Fewer than six tones in disyllabic words do not sound standard or correspond to norm of native speakers’ perception according to the value of each tone. Chinese dialectal accent can be realized in these words (<6). | |
| Non-Native Speakers (NNS) | 5 | Advanced-high | Fewer than six tones in disyllabic words do not sound standard or correspond to norm of native speakers’ perception according to the value of each tone. Slight accent of foreign languages can be realized in these words. The tones that a subject produces are native-like (<6). |
| 4 | Advanced-low | Fewer than twelve tones in disyllabic words do not sound standard or correspond to norm of native speakers’ perception according to the value of each tone. The tones that a subject produces are near-native (<12). | |
| 3 | Intermediated-high | Fewer than eighteen tones in disyllabic words do not sound standard or correspond to norm of native speakers’ perception according to the value of each tone. The tones that a subject produces can distinguish meanings clearly (<18). | |
| 2 | Intermediated-low | Fewer than twenty-four tones in disyllabic words do not sound standard or correspond to norm of native speakers’ perception according to the value of each tone. The tones that a subject produces can distinguish meanings basically. However, sometimes, listeners are confused about the meaning because a tone is hard to distinguish (<24). | |
| 1 | Novice | More than twenty-four tones in disyllabic words do not sound standard or correspond to norm of native speakers’ perception according to the value of each tone. The rater immediately realizes the subject’s non-nativeness (>24). |
Appendix B. Criterion of five-scale local score system
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | The tones in a disyllabic word are perceived the same as those produced by native speakers. |
| Almost no foreign accents are perceived. | |
| 4 | One of the tones in a disyllabic word is perceived as being slightly different from native speaker pronunciation, while the other sounds native-like. |
| Slight foreign accents are perceived. | |
| E. g. T1 (55)+T2 (35) is produced as low-level tone (33/22)+T2 (35). | |
| 3 | Both tones in a disyllabic word are perceived as being slightly different from native |
| speaker pronunciation. | |
| Strong foreign accents are perceived. | |
| E. g. T1 (55)+T2 (35) is produced as low-level tone (33/22)+ (23). | |
| 2 | One of the tones in a disyllabic word is perceived as being completely different from native speaker pronunciation, while the other one is perceived as being native-like or near-native. |
| Strong foreign accents are perceived. | |
| E. g. T1 (55)+T2 (35) is produced as (51)+ (35). | |
| 1 | Both tones in a disyllabic word are perceived as being completely different from native speaker pronunciation. |
| Strong foreign accents are perceived. | |
| E. g. T1 (55)+T2 (35) is produced as (51)+ (214) or some other values instead. |
Note: If T0 is produced as a citation normal tone: it is considered as an incorrect tone.
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
