Reid Amanda, Burnham Denis, Kasisopa Benjawan, Reilly Ronan, Attina Virginie, Rattanasone Nan Xu, Best Catherine T
MARCS Institute, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015 Feb;77(2):571-91. doi: 10.3758/s13414-014-0791-3.
Using Best's (1995) perceptual assimilation model (PAM), we investigated auditory-visual (AV), auditory-only (AO), and visual-only (VO) perception of Thai tones. Mandarin and Cantonese (tone-language) speakers were asked to categorize Thai tones according to their own native tone categories, and Australian English (non-tone-language) speakers to categorize Thai tones into their native intonation categories-for instance, question or statement. As comparisons, Thai participants completed a straightforward identification task, and another Australian English group identified the Thai tones using simple symbols. All of the groups also completed an AX discrimination task. Both the Mandarin and Cantonese groups categorized AO and AV Thai falling tones as their native level tones, and Thai rising tones as their native rising tones, although the Mandarin participants found it easier to categorize Thai level tones than did the Cantonese participants. VO information led to very poor categorization for all groups, and AO and AV information also led to very poor categorizations for the English intonation categorization group. PAM's predictions regarding tone discriminability based on these category assimilation patterns were borne out for the Mandarin group's AO and AV discriminations, providing support for the applicability of the PAM to lexical tones. For the Cantonese group, however, PAM was unable to account for one specific discrimination pattern-namely, their relatively good performance on the Thai high-rising contrast in the auditory conditions-and no predictions could be derived for the English groups. A full account of tone assimilation will likely need to incorporate considerations of phonetic, and even acoustic, similarity and overlap between nonnative and native tone categories.
我们运用贝斯特(1995)的知觉同化模型(PAM),研究了泰国语声调的视听(AV)、纯听觉(AO)和纯视觉(VO)感知。要求说普通话和粤语(声调语言)的人根据他们自己的母语声调类别对泰国语声调进行分类,要求说澳大利亚英语(非声调语言)的人将泰国语声调分类到他们的母语语调类别中,例如疑问句或陈述句。作为比较,泰国参与者完成了一项简单的识别任务,另一个澳大利亚英语组用简单符号识别泰国语声调。所有组还完成了AX辨别任务。普通话组和粤语组都将泰国语的AO和AV降调分类为他们母语中的平调,将泰国语升调分类为他们母语中的升调,尽管普通话参与者比粤语参与者更容易对泰国语平调进行分类。VO信息导致所有组的分类都很差,AO和AV信息也导致英语语调分类组的分类很差。PAM基于这些类别同化模式对声调可辨别性的预测在普通话组的AO和AV辨别中得到了证实,为PAM在词汇声调方面的适用性提供了支持。然而,对于粤语组,PAM无法解释一种特定的辨别模式,即他们在听觉条件下对泰国语高升调对比的相对较好表现,并且无法对英语组做出预测。对声调同化的全面解释可能需要考虑非母语和母语声调类别之间的语音甚至声学相似性和重叠。