the perception and production of lexical stress by l2 learners...

The Perception and Production of Lexical Stress by L2 Learners of Arabic:a Usage-Based Account

Cheng-Wei Lin (cwlin@umich)

Motivation

• Observation from language classroom

• Limited discussion in the literature

• Emerging discussion of frequency effect on language processing

2

From the Arabic classroom

• Foreign Accent derided from misplacement of stress

• Variability in L2 stress production

3

Lexical Stress in Arabic

• Not the classic “record”: REcord the thing v.s. reCORD the verb

• Disparity between dialects:

e.g., [ˈmil.ʕa.qa] (MSA) v.s. [mil.ˈʕa.qa] (Egyptian) “a spoon”

• Variable but predictable system (c.f. stress in French)

• Different algorithms

4

In the literature – on the algorithms

Levantine/MSA (Angoujard 1990)

• A. Stress the final syllable if it is superheavy (CVVC, CVCC, or CVVCC):

• B. Otherwise, stress the penultimate syllable if it is heavy (CVV or CVC)

• C. Otherwise, stress the antepenultimate syllable

Cairene (Watson 2002)

• A. Stress the final syllable if it is superheavy (CVVC or CVCC, CVVCC) or CVV;

• B. Otherwise, stress the penultimate syllable if it is heavy (CVV or CVC)

• C. Otherwise, stress the antepenultimate or penultimate syllable, whichever is separated by an even number of syllable from the closest preceding heavy syllable, or –if there is no such syllable – from the beginning of the word.

An interplay between weight and position

5

In the literature – on typology

• Rule-based:

• Constraint-based: e.g., analyses for Palestinian Arabic (Kager 2004)

Predominately rule/constraint-based

6

Emerging discussion on frequency effect

Frequency effect on facets of language processing and learning: (summarized from Ellis (2002))• bigram frequencies in word identification

• phonotactics knowledge in speech segmentation

• spelling-to-sound correspondences in reading

• cohort effects in spoken word recognition

• friends/enemies effects in morphology, spelling, reading

• competition model

• syntactic productivity depends on type frequency

• constraint satisfaction in sentence processing

• essential to statistically augment NLP grammars

How about lexical stress in Arabic?

7

Evidence from computer modelling

8

Evidence from computer modelling

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Log(

fq)

Sample size

types of unpredictedstress pattern

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ave

rage

log(

fq)

Sample size

avg. log(fq)

This study…

Stress Perception & production

Social Factors- Teacher and Textbook

- Social Engagement

- Explicit Knowledge

Linguistic Factors

- Word Length

- Stress Position

- FrequencyBiographical Factors

- Native Language

- Proficiency

10

Method

• Two experiments, containing three tasks

1. Perception Experiment:

a. Stress Identification

b. Lexical Decision

2. Production Experiment:

c. Stress Production (w/ 2 repetitions for each token)

• Stimuli are words with frequency contrast

• Reaction time and Correctness of response as measures of performance

• Implemented with PsychoPy

• A follow-up questionnaire to address both social and biographical factors

11

Perception Experiment

12

1 sec

Is this a real Arabic Word?[No] [Yes]

Stress Identification

Lexical Decision

Recording read by a Saudi Male

1

2

24 3 2 1

No Yes

5 sec

5 sec

Production Experiment

13

Beep—

Beep—

3 secs

1 sec

3 secs

1

3

2

Organization of an Experiment Session

- Warm Up

- Production Experiment

c. Stress Production (w/ 2 repetitions for each token)

- Short Introduction to Lexical Stress

- Perception Experiment

a. Stress Identification

b. Lexical Decision

- Questionnaire

14

The Stimuli

15

Method

1. Estimate relative frequency for relevant frequency cues for stress a) the stress pattern, e.g. ˈCVC.CV.CV

b) the position of the stressed syllable

c) the syllabic structure of the stressed syllable

d) the conditional probability of the stressed syllable

16

The source

• Frequency dictionary (Buckwalter & Parkinson 2011)

• Compiled from a 13-million-word corpus

• 4283 multisyllabic (up to 4 syllables) words from 5000 most frequent words

• Frequency count included

• Frequency Distribution of Lemma

17

Data processing

AR IPA Stress Pattern FQ count

معلقة [ˈmiʕ.la.qa] ˈCVC.CV.CV 873

4283 words

=> Amounts to a total of 104 types of stress patterns with various token frequency

……

……

……

…

18

0%

72%

28%

49%

32%

19%

58%

27%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Ante Penu Final

Ch

ance

of

Occ

ure

nce

Stress Position

Bi- Tri- Quad-

21

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

CVC CVVC CV CVV CVCC CVVCC

Ch

ance

ofO

ccu

ren

ce

Syllabic Structure

Bi- Tri- Quad-

22

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ante Penu Final

Ch

ance

of

Occ

ure

nce

Stress Position

CVC CVVC CV CVV CVCC CVVCC

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ante Penu Final

Per

cen

tage

of

Occ

urr

ence

Stress Position

Light Heavy Superheavy

23

Variables considered for Stimuli

• Real v.s Non-sense Arabic words

• Number of syllable (trisyllabic v.s. quadrisyllabic)

• Frequency of stress pattern (Frequency v.s Infrequent )

• Frequency of Stress position (Frequency v.s Infrequent )

• Control for conditional probability, syllabic structure for the stressed syllable

• A total of 8 blocks where:

# syllable (2) * fq of stress pattern (2) * fq of stress position (2)

= 8 stress patterns * naturalness (2) = 16 tokens in each block

25

0%

72%

28%

49%

32%

19%

58%

27%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Ante Penu Final

Ch

ance

of

Occ

ure

nce

Stress Position

Bi- Tri- Quad-

26

28

Infrequent Stress Position

FrequentStress Position

InfrequentStress Pattern

Ptn– Pos- Ptn– Pos+

FrequentStress Pattern

Ptn+ Pos- Ptn+ Pos+

The Original Plan

29

# syllable stress pattern Fq stress pattern Fq stress position Fq syllabic type Fq conditional

3 ˈCV.CV.CV + + + +

3 ˈCV.CV.CVC - + + +

3 CV.ˈCVV.CV + - + +

3 CVC.ˈCVC.CVC - - + +

4 CVC.ˈCV.CV.CV + + + +

4 CVC.ˈCV.CV.CVC - + + +

4 CVC.CV.ˈCVV.CV + - + +

4 CV.CV. ˈCVV.CVC - - + +

The Adjusted Plan

30

# syllable stress pattern Fq stress pattern

Fq stress position Adjusted Fq Vowel Length Group

3 ˈCV.CV.CV + + + Short 1

3 CVC.ˈCVC.CVC - - - Short 1

4 CVC.ˈCV.CV.CV + + + Short 2

4 CVC.ˈCV.CV.CVC - + - Short 2

4 CVC.CV.ˈCVV.CV + - + Long 3

4 CV.CV.ˈCVV.CVC - - - Long 3

Stimuli cont’d

• Swap root consonants to ones that do not co-occur frequently

معلقة [ˈmiʕ.la.qa] ˈCVC.CV.CV

+ +

[ʕ.l.x] [q. sˤ.x]

معلخة [ˈmiʕ.la.qa] ˈCVC.CV.CV مقصخة [ˈmiq.sˤa.xa] ˈCVC.CV.CV

31

Real Words, 64

Nonsense Word - Group 1, 16



Not-Used, 16

32

The Participants

33

Participants

• The English-speaking group:- University Students studying Modern Standard Arabic

- Private research university on the East Coast in the U.S.

• The Chinese-speaking group:- University Students majoring in Arabic language Modern Standard Arabic

- Public research university in Taiwan

• The control group:- Students from U of M and the Michigan Language Center

34

Participants

35

TW EN AR

Native 0 0 9

3rd 2 11 0

2nd 13 15 0

1st 21 21 0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Axi

s Ti

tle

Language Background

36

Predictions of Frequency Effect

Better performance overall|| ||

Fluency Accuracy

Production Perception

VV

37

RT % correct

Results: Perception Experiment

38

Stress Identification

39

General Performance – Reaction Time

• ENG group outperforms both TW and AR groups

• AR group has significantly higher RT than the non-native groups

• A trend of negative correlation between proficiency and RT

40

Frequency Effect on Reaction Time

41※Δ= frequent stress pattern - infrequent stress pattern ※※ Significance level: n.s.= Not significant| * = p <0.05 | ** = p < 0.01 | *** = p < 0.001

One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA table – Stress Identification RT

Trisyllablic Stress on Short

Quadrisyllabic Stress on Short

Quadrisyllabic Stress on Long

ΔRT (sec.) F statistics P value ΔRT (sec.) F statistics P value ΔRT (sec.) F statistics P value

AR -0.62 F(1,8) = 2.18 p = 0.177 0.11 F(1,8) = 0.14 p = 0.715 -0.23 F(1,8) = 0.07 p = 0.796

EN 1st -0.27 F(1,20) = 2.72 p = 0.114 0.08 F(1,20) = 3.14 p = 0.091 0.41 F(1,20) = 0.34 p = 0.563

EN 2nd -0.52 F(1,14) = 11.0 p = 0.01 -0.14 F(1,14) = 11.2 p = 0.01 0.52 F(1,14) = 1.30 p = 0.273

EN 3rd -0.56 F(1,10) = 4.44 p = 0.061 -0.03 F(1,10) = 7.96 p = 0.01 0.48 F(1,10) = 0.03 p = 0.861

TW 1st 0.61 F(1,20) = 0.52 p = 0.478 -0.31 F(1,20) = 34.1 p = 0.001 0.99 F(1,20) = 1.81 p = 0.193

TW 2nd -1.46 F(1,12) = 10.5 p = 0.01 -1.07 F(1,12) = 18.9 p = 0.001 1.29 F(1,12) = 2.48 p = 0.141

TW 3rd -1.19 F(1,1) = 36.5 p = 0.104 1.1 F(1,1) = 2.87 p = 0.339 0.64 F(1,1) = 2.94 p = 0.336

※Δ= frequent stress pattern - infrequent stress pattern

General Performance – Correction Rate

• ENG group outperforms both TW and AR groups

• A trend of negative correlation between proficiency and Correction Rate

• Surprisingly, the AR group is significantly less accurate than the othergroups

42

Frequency Effect on Correction Rate

43

Repeated Measures Logistic Regression table – Stress Identification CR

Trisyllablic

Stress on Short Quadrisyllabic Stress on Short


ΔCR (%) Odds Ratio P value ΔCR Odds Ratio P value ΔCR Odds Ratio P value

AR -19% 0.39 p = 0.01 -2% 0.72 p = 0.469 -4% 0.75 p = 0.592

EN 1st -2% 0.84 p = 0.55 -2% 0.3 p = 0.01 -9% 0.86 p = 0.572

EN 2nd -7% 0.54 p = 0.094 0% 0.43 p = 0.098 -5% 1 p = 1

EN 3rd -2% 0.74 p = 0.583 4% 0.36 p = 0.074 -7% 1.45 p = 0.371

TW 1st -1% 0.9 p = 0.684 2% 0.15 p = 0.001 -11% 1.24 p = 0.491

TW 2nd 11% 2.52 p = 0.05 10% 0.32 p = 0.167 -3% 2.38 p = 0.05

TW 3rd -18% 0.03 p = 0.222 6% 0.03 p = 0.222 0% 2.18 p = 0.543


Lexical Decision

44


• No main effect is detected

45

Frequency Effect on Reaction Time

46

One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA table – Lexical Decision RT





AR -0.12 F(1,8) = 0.54 p = 0.483 0.16 F(1,8) = 1.53 p = 0.251 -0.36 F(1,8) = 11.3 p = 0.01

EN 1st -0.08 F(1,20) = 0.86 p = 0.364 -0.02 F(1,20) = 0.12 p = 0.726 -0.03 F(1,20) = 0.04 p = 0.831

EN 2nd -0.15 F(1,14) = 4.99 p = 0.05 0.03 F(1,14) = 5.09 p = 0.05 0.31 F(1,14) = 0.09 p = 0.762

EN 3rd -0.06 F(1,10) = 0.25 p = 0.623 0.72 F(1,10) = 3.11 p = 0.108 0.17 F(1,10) = 1.00 p = 0.341

TW 1st 0.07 F(1,20) = 0.87 p = 0.362 -0.17 F(1,20) = 0.82 p = 0.375 -0.1 F(1,20) = 5.81 p = 0.05

TW 2nd -0.09 F(1,12) = 0.60 p = 0.45 -0.38 F(1,12) = 0.00 p = 0.931 -0.01 F(1,12) = 5.30 p = 0.05

TW 3rd -0.41 F(1,1) = 3346 p = 0.01 0.11 F(1,1) = 0.24 p = 0.706 -0.1 F(1,1) = 4.47 p = 0.281



• The native group is significantly more accurate than the non-native groups

47

Frequency Effect on Correction Rate

48

Repeated Measures Logistic Regression table – Lexical Decision CR

Trisyllablic




AR -13% 0.26 p = 0.01 -4% 0.77 p = 0.61 -2% 0.54 p = 0.346

EN 1st -17% 0.34 p = 0.001 1% 0.81 p = 0.417 -3% 1.1 p = 0.696

EN 2nd -15% 0.44 p = 0.01 2% 1.29 p = 0.416 4% 1.17 p = 0.626

EN 3rd -18% 0.4 p = 0.01 -3% 0.94 p = 0.863 -1% 0.81 p = 0.571

TW 1st -4% 0.79 p = 0.363 -14% 0.96 p = 0.001 0% 0.38 p = 0.001

TW 2nd -32% 0.18 p = 0.001 -3% 0.73 p = 0.295 -6% 0.8 p = 0.506

TW 3rd -31% 0.09 p = 0.05 12% 3.67 p = 0.082 31% 2.74 p = 0.328


Results: Production Experiment

49

Production Exp.: Determining Stress

50

Δ= Stressed - Unstressed

Trisyllabic Quadrisyllabic

Δ F0 Δ Duration Δ Intensity Δ F0 Δ Duration Δ Intensity

AR 0.80 0.28 0.87 0.77 1.03 1.35

EN 1yr -0.10 0.27 0.54 -0.34 0.71 0.47

EN 2yr -0.18 0.32 0.64 -0.35 0.76 0.72

EN 3yr -0.58 0.24 0.44 -0.50 0.62 0.54

TW 1yr 0.67 0.55 0.68 0.67 0.95 0.71

TW 2yr 1.03 0.64 0.89 1.07 0.88 0.96

TW 3yr 1.28 0.30 0.91 1.69 0.64 1.28


Production Exp.: Determining Stress (ctn’d)

51

- CVC.CV.CV [ˈmiʕ.la.qa] “spoon”1st syllable: [CVC] => F0:x1 Duration :y1 Intensity: z1

2nd syllable: [CV] => F0:x2 Duration :y2 Intensity: z2

3rd syllable: [CVVC] => F0:x3 Duration :y3 Intensity: z3

- Naïve scoring: For TW=> F0 *3+ Duration*3 + Intensity*3

For EN => F0 + Duration*3 + Intensity*3

- F0 as tie breaker


• Trial 1:

- AR group outperforms non-native groups

- Negative correlation between RT and proficiency

52

Frequency Effect on Reaction Time (Trial 1)

53

One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA table – Stress Production RT Trial 1





AR -0.19 F(1,8) = 12.6 p = 0.01 -0.14 F(1,8) = 4.13 p = 0.07 0.05 F(1,8) = 0.45 p = 0.51

EN 1st 0.03 F(1,19) = 0.55 p = 0.466 -0.04 F(1,19) = 2.77 p = 0.112 0.02 F(1,19) = 0.36 p = 0.551

EN 2nd -0.14 F(1,14) = 4.89 p = 0.05 -0.05 F(1,14) = 2.78 p = 0.118 0.02 F(1,14) = 0.02 p = 0.87

EN 3rd -0.12 F(1,10) = 4.30 p = 0.065 -0.06 F(1,10) = 1.57 p = 0.238 -0.01 F(1,10) = 0.07 p = 0.79

TW 1st -0.01 F(1,20) = 0.05 p = 0.822 -0.07 F(1,20) = 6.48 p = 0.01 0 F(1,20) = 0.00 p = 0.51

TW 2nd -0.02 F(1,12) = 0.41 p = 0.534 0 F(1,12) = 0.00 p = 0.989 -0.02 F(1,12) = 0.72 p = 0.551

TW 3rd 0.07 F(1,1) = 1356 p = 0.01 -0.16 F(1,1) = 4258 p = 0.01 0 F(1,1) = 0.00 p = 0.87


Frequency Effect on Reaction Time (Trial 2)

54

One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA table – Stress Production RT Trial 2





AR -0.06 F(1,8) = 2.52 p = 0.15 -0.06 F(1,8) = 3.11 p = 0.11 0 F(1,8) = 0 p = 0.94

EN 1st -0.13 F(1,19) = 21.3 p = 0.001 -0.05 F(1,19) = 4.31 p = 0.05 0.08 F(1,19) = 5.66 p = 0.05

EN 2nd -0.11 F(1,14) = 5.09 p = 0.05 -0.03 F(1,14) = 0.97 p = 0.341 0.05 F(1,14) = 1.93 p = 0.186

EN 3rd -0.04 F(1,10) = 0.84 p = 0.378 -0.05 F(1,10) = 1.53 p = 0.244 0 F(1,10) = 0.02 p = 0.877

TW 1st -0.14 F(1,20) = 13.2 p = 0.001 -0.02 F(1,20) = 0.29 p = 0.592 0.04 F(1,20) = 3.77 p = 0.066

TW 2nd -0.01 F(1,12) = 0.11 p = 0.745 0.01 F(1,12) = 0.05 p = 0.813 -0.01 F(1,12) = 0.40 p = 0.537

TW 3rd -0.01 F(1,1) = 0.02 p = 0.908 -0.06 F(1,1) = 1.06 p = 0.49 0.08 F(1,1) = 0.70 p = 0.555



• The TW group is significantly more accurate than the ENG groups

• A positive correlation is found between proficiency and accuracy rate

• True for both trial

55

Frequency Effect on Correction Rate (Trial 1)

56

Repeated Measures Logistic Regression table – Stress Production CR Trial 1

Trisyllablic




EN 1st 25% 4.1 p = 0.001 -7% 0.56 p = 0.158 -6% 0.67 p = 0.172

EN 2nd 31% 5.23 p = 0.001 -3% 0.79 p = 0.609 4% 1.4 p = 0.315

EN 3rd 19% 5.84 p = 0.001 -3% 0.54 p = 0.41 -3% 0.87 p = 0.722

TW 1st 18% 2.34 p = 0.01 5% 1.25 p = 0.509 -16% 0.38 p = 0.01

TW 2nd 23% 4.2 p = 0.001 5% 1.36 p = 0.466 -17% 0.19 p = 0.01

TW 3rd 42% 7.88 p = 0.05 11% 1.67 p = 0.519 -13% 0 p = 0.994


Frequency Effect on Correction Rate (Trial 2)

57

Repeated Measures Logistic Regression table – Stress Production CR Trial 2

Trisyllablic




EN 1st 27% 3.75 p = 0.001 1% 1.16 p = 0.71 4% 1.26 p = 0.395

EN 2nd 12% 1.78 p = 0.05 -4% 0.97 p = 0.001 8% 1.75 p = 0.107

EN 3rd 23% 4.62 p = 0.001 0% 0.78 p = 0.703 -2% 0.93 p = 0.851

TW 1st 13% 2.07 p = 0.05 5% 1.25 p = 0.505 -17% 0.24 p = 0.001

TW 2nd 21% 3.15 p = 0.01 7% 1.37 p = 0.465 -17% 0.23 p = 0.01

TW 3rd 31% 4.33 p = 0.071 26% 3.2 p = 0.142 -12% 0.29 p = 0.307

※Δ= frequent stress pattern - infrequent stress pattern | n.s.= Not significant

Summary – General Performance

• Some significant differences are characterized by the participants’ native languages and proficiency.

• Although the native group outperforms the non-native groups in some of the tasks (production RT, lexical decision), the AR group surprisingly performs worse than the non-native groups in stress identification task

• A positive correlation between performance and proficiency is found.

58

Summary – Frequency Effect

• Frequency effect at play given a specific syllabic contexts (at its prominence when the stressed syllable has a short vowel).

• Frequency is found to generally improve accuracy and reaction time, except for lexical decision.

• Frequency effect seems to have the effect of making a nonsense word sound real.

59

Limitations

• Lack of inflectional morphology in the data source

• Frugal binary categorization of frequency levels

• Less than ideal number of participants in 3rd year group

• Lack of involvement from other frequency cues, e.g., segmental cues

60

Thank you for your attention

Questions?

61

the perception and production of lexical stress by l2 learners...

Documents