The pragmatics of foreign accents: The social costs and benefits of being a non-native speaker.

Speaking with a foreign accent has often been thought to carry several disadvantages. Here, we probe a potential social advantage of non-native compared to native speakers using spoken utterances that either obey or violate the pragmatic principle of Informativeness. In Experiment 1, we show that listeners form different impressions of native and non-native speakers with identical pragmatic behavior: in a context in which omitting information could be deceptive, people rated underinformative speakers more negatively on trustworthiness and interpersonal appeal compared to informative speakers, but this tendency was mitigated for speakers with foreign accents. Furthermore, this mitigating effect was strongest for less proficient non-native speakers who were presumably not fully responsible for their linguistic choices. In Experiment 2, social lenience for non-native speakers emerged even in a non-deceptive context. Contrary to previous studies, there was no consistent global bias against non-native speakers in either experiment, despite their lower intelligibility. Thus the fact that non-native speakers have imperfect control of the linguistic signal affects pragmatic inferences and social evaluation in ways that can lead to surprising social benefits. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

In Search of Salience: Focus Detection in the Speech of Different Talkers.

Many different prosodic cues can help listeners predict upcoming speech. However, no research to date has assessed listeners' processing of preceding prosody from different speakers. The present experiments examine (1) whether individual speakers (of the same language variety) are likely to vary in their production of preceding prosody; (2) to the extent that there is talker variability, whether listeners are flexible enough to use any prosodic cues signaled by the individual speaker; and (3) whether types of prosodic cues (e.g., F0 versus duration) vary in informativeness. Using a phoneme-detection task, we examined whether listeners can entrain to different combinations of preceding prosodic cues to predict where focus will fall in an utterance. We used unsynthesized sentences recorded by four female native speakers of Australian English who happened to have used different preceding cues to produce sentences with prosodic focus: a combination of pre-focus overall duration cues, F0 and intensity (mean, maximum, range), and longer pre-target interval before the focused word onset (Speaker 1), only mean F0 cues, mean and maximum intensity, and longer pre-target interval (Speaker 2), only pre-target interval duration (Speaker 3), and only pre-focus overall duration and maximum intensity (Speaker 4). Listeners could entrain to almost every speaker's cues (the exception being Speaker 4's use of only pre-focus overall duration and maximum intensity), and could use whatever cues were available even when one of the cue sources was rendered uninformative. Our findings demonstrate both speaker variability and listener flexibility in the processing of prosodic focus.

Universals of listening: Equivalent prosodic entrainment in tone and non-tone languages.

In English and Dutch, listeners entrain to prosodic contours to predict where focus will fall in an utterance. Here, we ask whether this strategy is universally available, even in languages with very different phonological systems (e.g., tone versus non-tone languages). In a phoneme detection experiment, we examined whether prosodic entrainment also occurs in Mandarin Chinese, a tone language, where the use of various suprasegmental cues to lexical identity may take precedence over their use in salience. Consistent with the results from Germanic languages, response times were facilitated when preceding intonation predicted high stress on the target-bearing word, and the lexical tone of the target word (i.e., rising versus falling) did not affect the Mandarin listeners' response. Further, the extent to which prosodic entrainment was used to detect the target phoneme was the same in both English and Mandarin listeners. Nevertheless, native Mandarin speakers did not adopt an entrainment strategy when the sentences were presented in English, consistent with the suggestion that L2 listening may be strained by additional functional load from prosodic processing. These findings have implications for how universal and language-specific mechanisms interact in the perception of focus structure in everyday discourse.

Which button will I press? Preference for correctly ordered counting sequences in 18-month-olds.

Correct counting respects the stable order principle whereby the count terms are recited in a fixed order every time. The 4 experiments reported here tested whether precounting infants recognize and prefer correct stable-ordered counting. The authors introduced a novel preference paradigm in which infants could freely press two buttons to activate videos of counting events. In the "correct" counting video, number words were always recited in the canonical order ("1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6"). The "incorrect" counting video was identical except that the number words were recited in a random order (e.g., "5, 3, 1, 6, 4, 2"). In Experiment 1, 18-month-olds (n = 21), but not 15-month-olds (n = 24), significantly preferred to press the button that activated correct counting events. Experiment 2 revealed that English-learning 18-month-olds' (n = 21) preference for stable-ordered counting disappeared when the counting was done in Japanese. By contrast, Experiment 3 showed that multilingual 18-month-olds (n = 24) preferred correct stable-ordered counting in an unfamiliar foreign language. In Experiment 4, multilingual 18-month-olds (N = 21) showed no preference for stable-ordered alphabet sequences, ruling out some alternative explanations for the Experiment 3 results. Overall these findings are consistent with the idea that implicit recognition of the stable order principle of counting is acquired by 18 months of age, and that learning more than one language may accelerate infants' understanding of abstract counting principles. (PsycINFO Database Record