THE PERCEPTION OF

MANDARIN TONES BY

AMERICAN LEARNERS OF

CHINESE

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Department of East Asian Language and Cultures

Meng Liu

Advisors: Dr. Shih Chilin (UIUC), Dr. Lin Chien-Jer(IUB)

How Should we improve Chinese

teaching and learning efficiency?

The purpose of the study was to test whether L1

English learners of Chinese’ perception of

monosyllable and disyllable tones would improve

with classroom language learning experience and

how tonal context and syllable position would

affect their perceptional accuracy.

Overview

1.Background

- Mandarin speaker tone production in context

-Non-native tone perception and acquisition

2.Research questions

3.Method

4.Results

5.Application and Conclusions

Study 1

Study 2

• In isolation: the four underlying tones H, LH, L, and

HL. (Shih, 1987, Shih & Sproat, 1992; Duanmu, 2000),

• In context:

• Phonological variants: (half) third tone Sandhi

• Phonetic variants:Carry over effect()

>>Anticipatory effect () (Xu, 1994,1997)

Native tone production

Non-native tone perception and

acquisition

• Non-native tone perception

short perceptual tone training

nonnative speakers of Mandarin

Mandarin tones in isolation (Leather, 1990; Wang, Spence, Jongman and Sereno, 1999; Wang, Jongman, and Sereno, 2003, Wang, et al. ,2006, ).

• Acquisition

Tone 1 ( H) vs. Tone 2 (LH)

Tone 2 (LH) vs. Tone 4 (HL)

Tone 1 ( H) vs. Tone 4 (HL)

Tone 2 (LH) vs. Tone 3 ( L)

(Wang, et al, 1999, 2003; White,1981; Kiriliff, 1969; McGinnis, 1996 ; Gandour, 1978. )

STUDY 1

Mandarin speaker Tone production in Context

Research questions

• How will the placement of a tone in either the

initial or final syllable position affect the f0

contour in disyllables (nonsense sequences)?

• How will the contour of disyllabic tones deviate

from the canonical form (monosyllabic tone in

isolation) due to varying disyllabic

combinations?

• How will the carrier phrases influence the tonal

contour? (in progress)

Method

• Informants :

• - 2 native Mandarin speakers (2 female)

• Stimuli:

• Monosyllables:8 tokens(4 tones × 2 syllables) /ma/ /ya/

• Disyllables:32 tokens (4 initial tones×4 final tones × 2

syllables) /ma ya/, /ya ma/

— Non- words unfamiliar word for L2 learners

Data analysis

• F0 values at 17 points in each segment

• were taken from the obtained F0 curves by using

Praat script.

• The F0 contours of the dissyllable sequences

were compared with the monosyllables.

Monosyllables

• Anticipatory effect: Influences from the onset of

disyllabic second syllables to the offset of the first

syllables

Dissyllables

• Carry over effect: Influences from the offset of first

syllables to onset of the second syllables

Wilcoxon signed-rank test (17 points)

• Disyllabic first syllable tone: more different from the related monosyllabic tone

• Disyllabic second syllable tone: less different from the related monosyllabic tone

The conflicting and compatible contexts.

offset

Onset

High Low

High Tone 1 Tone 4

Low Tone 2 Tone 3

Onset and offset values of Mandarin lexical tones (Chao, 1968; Shih,

1986; Xu, 1993, 1997; Duanmu, 2000)

Tone1 Tone1 Tone1 Tone2 Tone1 Tone3 Tone1 Tone4

Tone2 Tone1 Tone2 Tone2 Tone2 Tone3 Tone2 Tone4

Tone3 Tone1 Tone3 Tone2 Tone3 Tone3 Tone3 Tone4

Tone4 Tone1 Tone4 Tone2 Tone3 Tone3 Tone4 Tone4

Conflicting context

Compatible context

Summary of Study 1

• F0 contour

• at the onset of disyllabic second syllables deviates more from

the canonical form than at the offset of the disyllabic first syllable

in the nonsense sequences. Supports (Xu, 1994, 1997)

• Nonnative perception: Disyllabic first syllable tone easier

• F0 value:

• disyllabic first syllable tones are most subject to the influence of

the following tones value

• disyllabic second syllable tones are more resistant to the

influence of the preceding tones for the whole tone value.

• Nonnative perception: Disyllabic first syllable tone harder

STUDY 2

Non native tone perception and acquisition

Research questions

Accuracy mean

Error pattern

Reaction time (in progress)

Learning experience

Syllable position

Tone

Tonal context

Methods

• Participants

3 experimental groups--L1 English speakers (34) 11 1st year students who completed the first year Chinese at IU.(6 male)

11 2nd year students ………………… second…………………..(5 male)

12 3rd year students ……………….. third……………………..(7male)

1 Control group—12 Native Chinese speakers (5 Male)

• Tasks

• -Categorical perception-tone identification

• One target tone in monosyllables

• One target tone in disyllabic first syllable tones

• One target tone in disyllabic second syllable tones

•

• Stimuli

• Native production from Study 1

-Monosyllables:32 tokens ( 4 tones × 2 syllables× 2informants × 2times)

-Disyllables:128 tokens (4 initial tones×4 final tones × 2 syllables × 2

informants ×2 times)

• Procedure (DMDX)

• Visual input “ ¯ / v \ ”

• Listen the target tones (3 blocks)

monosyllable, disyllabic first syllable tone, disyllabic second syllable tone

• Answer the tone of the target syllable they just heard

¯ / v \

¯ / v \

Statistical Analysis

Dependent Variable Accuracy 0 , 1

(Aggregated proportion)

Independent

Variable

Group N,NN1,NN2,NN3

Target Tone T1,T2,T3,T4

Syllable Position Monosyllabic tone

Disyllabic first tone

Disyllabic second tone

Compatible and

Conflicting

Compatible

Conflicting

Random effect subjects s1~s46

• Generalized linear mixed effects model

Monosyllabic & Disyllabic Testing

target tone: F(3,167)= 35.65 p<0.0001

group : F(3, 167)= 27.189 , p<0.0001

group: F(3, 1415)= 24.97, p<0.001

target tone:(3,1415)=200.475 p<0.0001

target tone* target syll :F(3,1415)=47.5, p<0.001

Compatible and Conflicting Context

Compatible/conflicting:F(1,685)=11

.25, p<.001

Group: F (3,685)=32.56, p<0.0001

Compatible/conflicting:F(1,731)=3.

66, p<.056

Error Pattern: Disyllabic First syll

Error Pattern: Disyllabic Second syll

Summary for Study 2

• Learning Experience:

Less experience<More learning experience

• Syllable Position:

Disyllabic first syll. tone < second syll. tone<monosyll.

Contour influence < Pitch difference

• Tone and tonal context:

Tone 2 and Tone 3 <Tone 1 and Tone 4

Conflicting context < Compatible context

APPLICATION AND

CONCLUSIONS

Applications

• Tone 3 vs. Tone 2 and Tone 3 vs. Tone 4

• Teachers should still emphasize the mastering of isolated tones, as well as tone pairs, to instruct through contrast and pay more attention to half third tone Sandhi

• Disyllabic first syll. tone

• Teachers should aim to improve students’ perception, especially regarding the disyllabic first syllable tone.

• Conflicting context

• Teachers should concentrate on improving students perception in conflicting contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

• The present study illustrated the substantial difficulty for

L1 learners of English in perceiving tones, across the

three tone testing conditions, which is caused by the

deviation of tone contour and F0 value.

• It also opens the door to further study of the correlation

between perception and production involved in tonal

language acquisition

Significance

• The results of this study is primarily beneficial to Chinese language learning and classroom teaching by identifying tonal combinations and contexts that pose problem for production and/or perception.

• The results contribute in establishing the framework of assessing students’ oral production and listening comprehension concerning tones.

• The results can be used in developing textbooks and training materials for all level learners and Chinese programs, thus allowing training programs to be developed in the aforementioned areas.

Acknowledgements

• Dr. Shih Chilin

• Dr. Lin Chien-Jer

• Dr.Jerome Packard

• Dr. Natsuko Tsujimura

• Dr. Isabelle Darcy.

• Dr. Jennifer Li-Chia Liu

• Dr. Kenneth J. de Jong

• Dr. Yasuko Watt

• Dr. Wen Cao

• Aaron Lee Albin

• Stephanie Dickinson

• Jonathan Cox

THANK YOU!

Q & A