Assessing the effects of "native speaker" status on classic findings in speech research.

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Julia F Strand, Violet A Brown, Katrina Sewell, Yuxin Lin, Emmett Lefkowitz, Caroline G Saksena
{"title":"Assessing the effects of \"native speaker\" status on classic findings in speech research.","authors":"Julia F Strand, Violet A Brown, Katrina Sewell, Yuxin Lin, Emmett Lefkowitz, Caroline G Saksena","doi":"10.1037/xge0001640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is common practice in speech research to only sample participants who self-report being \"native English speakers.\" Although there is research on differences in language processing between native and nonnative listeners (see Lecumberri et al., 2010, for a review), the majority of speech research that aims to establish general findings (e.g., testing models of spoken word recognition) only includes native speakers in their sample. Not only is the \"native English speaker\" criterion poorly defined, but it also excludes historically underrepresented groups from speech perception research, often without attention to whether this exclusion is likely to affect study outcomes. The purpose of this study is to empirically test whether and how using different inclusion criteria (\"native English speakers\" vs. \"nonnative English speakers\") affects several well-known phenomena in speech perception research. Five hundred participants completed word (<i>N</i> = 200) and sentence (N = 300) identification tasks in quiet and in moderate levels of background noise. Results indicate that multiple classic findings in speech perception research-including the effects of noise level, lexical density, and semantic context on speech intelligibility-persist regardless of \"native English\" speaking status. However, the magnitude of some of these effects differed across participant groups. Taken together, these results suggest that researchers should carefully consider whether native speaker status is likely to affect outcomes and make decisions about inclusion criteria on a study-by-study basis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001640","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is common practice in speech research to only sample participants who self-report being "native English speakers." Although there is research on differences in language processing between native and nonnative listeners (see Lecumberri et al., 2010, for a review), the majority of speech research that aims to establish general findings (e.g., testing models of spoken word recognition) only includes native speakers in their sample. Not only is the "native English speaker" criterion poorly defined, but it also excludes historically underrepresented groups from speech perception research, often without attention to whether this exclusion is likely to affect study outcomes. The purpose of this study is to empirically test whether and how using different inclusion criteria ("native English speakers" vs. "nonnative English speakers") affects several well-known phenomena in speech perception research. Five hundred participants completed word (N = 200) and sentence (N = 300) identification tasks in quiet and in moderate levels of background noise. Results indicate that multiple classic findings in speech perception research-including the effects of noise level, lexical density, and semantic context on speech intelligibility-persist regardless of "native English" speaking status. However, the magnitude of some of these effects differed across participant groups. Taken together, these results suggest that researchers should carefully consider whether native speaker status is likely to affect outcomes and make decisions about inclusion criteria on a study-by-study basis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

评估 "母语使用者 "身份对语音研究经典结论的影响。
在语音研究中,通常只对自称 "英语为母语 "的参与者进行抽样调查。尽管对母语听者和非母语听者在语言处理过程中的差异有研究(见 Lecumberri 等人,2010 年,综述),但大多数旨在得出一般性结论的语音研究(如测试口语单词识别模型)都只将母语听者作为样本。英语为母语者 "的标准不仅定义不清,而且还将历史上代表性不足的群体排除在言语感知研究之外,而且往往不关注这种排除是否会影响研究结果。本研究的目的是通过实证检验使用不同的纳入标准("英语为母语者 "与 "非英语为母语者")是否以及如何影响语音感知研究中几个众所周知的现象。五百名参与者在安静和中等程度的背景噪声中完成了单词(200 人)和句子(300 人)识别任务。结果表明,语音感知研究中的多个经典发现--包括噪音水平、词汇密度和语义语境对语音可懂度的影响--与 "英语为母语 "者的身份无关。不过,其中一些影响的程度在不同的参与者群体中有所不同。综上所述,这些结果表明,研究人员应仔细考虑母语为英语的人的身份是否可能影响研究结果,并在逐项研究的基础上决定纳入标准。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信