Being clear about clear speech: Intelligibility of hard-of-hearing-directed, non-native-directed, and casual speech for L1- and L2-English listeners

IF 1.9 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Journal of Phonetics Pub Date : 2024-04-13 DOI:10.1016/j.wocn.2024.101328
Nicholas B. Aoki, Georgia Zellou
{"title":"Being clear about clear speech: Intelligibility of hard-of-hearing-directed, non-native-directed, and casual speech for L1- and L2-English listeners","authors":"Nicholas B. Aoki,&nbsp;Georgia Zellou","doi":"10.1016/j.wocn.2024.101328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Relative to one’s default (casual) speech, clear speech contains acoustic modifications that are often perceptually beneficial. Clear speech encompasses many different styles, yet most work only compares clear and casual speech as a binary. Furthermore, the term “clear speech” is often <em>unclear</em> − despite variation in elicitation instructions across studies (e.g., speak clearly, imagine an L2-listener or someone with hearing loss, etc.), the generic term “clear speech” is used when interpreting results, under the tacit assumption that clear speech is monolithic. The current study examined the acoustics and intelligibility of casual speech and two clear styles (hard-of-hearing-directed and non-native-directed speech). We find: (1) the clear styles are acoustically distinct (non-native-directed speech is slower with lower mean intensity and f0); (2) the clear styles are perceptually distinct (only hard-of-hearing-directed speech enhances intelligibility); (3) no differences in intelligibility benefits are observed between L1 and L2-listeners. These results underscore the importance of considering the intended interlocutor in speaking style elicitation, leading to a discussion about the issues that arise when reference to “clear speech” lacks clarity. It is suggested that to be more <em>clear</em> about clear speech, greater caution should be taken when interpreting results about speaking style variation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Phonetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095447024000342/pdfft?md5=bd035ba46dd9b5604519609b4fb5bf11&pid=1-s2.0-S0095447024000342-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Phonetics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095447024000342","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Relative to one’s default (casual) speech, clear speech contains acoustic modifications that are often perceptually beneficial. Clear speech encompasses many different styles, yet most work only compares clear and casual speech as a binary. Furthermore, the term “clear speech” is often unclear − despite variation in elicitation instructions across studies (e.g., speak clearly, imagine an L2-listener or someone with hearing loss, etc.), the generic term “clear speech” is used when interpreting results, under the tacit assumption that clear speech is monolithic. The current study examined the acoustics and intelligibility of casual speech and two clear styles (hard-of-hearing-directed and non-native-directed speech). We find: (1) the clear styles are acoustically distinct (non-native-directed speech is slower with lower mean intensity and f0); (2) the clear styles are perceptually distinct (only hard-of-hearing-directed speech enhances intelligibility); (3) no differences in intelligibility benefits are observed between L1 and L2-listeners. These results underscore the importance of considering the intended interlocutor in speaking style elicitation, leading to a discussion about the issues that arise when reference to “clear speech” lacks clarity. It is suggested that to be more clear about clear speech, greater caution should be taken when interpreting results about speaking style variation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
明确清晰的语音:听力困难的英语听力者、非母语听力者和英语第二语言听力者的随声附和演讲的可理解性
相对于一个人的默认(随意)语音,清晰语音包含的声学修饰往往对感知有益。清晰语音包含多种不同风格,但大多数研究仅将清晰语音和随意语音作为二元进行比较。此外,"清晰语音 "这一术语通常并不明确--尽管不同研究的诱导指令各不相同(例如,清晰地说话、想象一个听力为 L2 的人或有听力损失的人等),但在解释结果时都使用了 "清晰语音 "这一通用术语,默认清晰语音是单一的。本研究考察了随意讲话和两种清晰风格(重听定向讲话和非母语定向讲话)的声学和可懂度。我们发现(1) 清晰风格在声学上是不同的(非母语引导的语音速度较慢,平均强度和 f0 较低);(2) 清晰风格在知觉上是不同的(只有重听引导的语音能提高可懂度);(3) L1 和 L2 听者在可懂度方面没有差异。这些结果强调了在激发说话风格时考虑预期对话者的重要性,从而引发了对 "清晰说话 "的提法不清晰时所产生的问题的讨论。有人建议,为了更清楚地了解清晰的语音,在解释有关说话风格变化的结果时应更加谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
26.30%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The Journal of Phonetics publishes papers of an experimental or theoretical nature that deal with phonetic aspects of language and linguistic communication processes. Papers dealing with technological and/or pathological topics, or papers of an interdisciplinary nature are also suitable, provided that linguistic-phonetic principles underlie the work reported. Regular articles, review articles, and letters to the editor are published. Themed issues are also published, devoted entirely to a specific subject of interest within the field of phonetics.
期刊最新文献
Talker variability versus variability of vowel context in training naïve learners on an unfamiliar class of foreign language contrasts Effects of syllable position and place of articulation on secondary dorsal contrasts: An ultrasound study of Irish On the target of phonetic convergence: Acoustic and linguistic aspects of pitch accent imitation Effects of word-level structure on oral stop realization in Hawaiian Lexically-guided perceptual recalibration from acoustically unambiguous input in second language learners
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1