3.6 Data analysis
4.1.2 Subject groups
4.1.2.2 Tone labels between subject groups
The following section reviews results in the Labeling task, one Cantonese tone at a time, for a more detailed compare the two groups of subjects.
Tone 1 (HL). As shown in the figure below, subjects of both groups tend to label Tone
1 with Mandarin Tone 1. While Taiwan Mandarin subjects have a clear preference to label the tone with Mandarin Tone 1, Putonghua subjects also label the tone with Mandarin Tone 2 and Mandarin Tone 3 at times.
Figure 9. Labeling of Cantonese non-E Tone 1 by both subject groups
Figure 10. Labeling of Cantonese E Tone 1 by both subject groups
When presented with Entering Tone 1, a drift in choice towards Mandarin Tone 4 can be observed, particularly for Putonghua subjects.
Tone 2 (HR). Both groups of subjects apply Mandarin Tone 2 and Mandarin Tone 3
labels for the high rising Tone 2. However, the two groups have a different preference, where Putonghua subjects prefer Mandarin Tone 3 over Mandarin Tone 2 and Taiwan
10
Mandarin subjects prefer Mandarin Tone 2 most of the time. Neither Mandarin Tone 1 or Mandarin Tone 4 are chosen here.
Figure 11. Labeling of Cantonese Tone 2 by both subject groups
Tone 3 (ML). Similar to the case in Tone 1, both groups tend to label the mid-level
Tone 3 as Mandarin Tone 1. It should be noted that Putonghua subjects apply the label even more often for Tone 3 (and Entering Tone 3) than for Tone 1.
Figure 12. Labeling of Cantonese non-E Tone 3 by both subject groups
0
Figure 13. Labeling of Cantonese E Tone 3 by both subject groups
Unlike the other two entering tones, it is relatively rare for Entering Tone 3 to be labeled with Mandarin Tone 4.
Tone 4 (LF). While Taiwan Mandarin subjects show a strong preference for Mandarin
Tone 3 labels, Putonghua subjects use labels of four Mandarin Tones evenly. The low falling tonal feature assigned to Mandarin Tone 3 by Taiwan Mandarin subjects also prevent the use of high level Mandarin Tone 1, since a more apt label is available to this group of subjects now.
15
Figure 14. Labeling of Cantonese Tone 4 by both subject groups
Tone 5 (LR). The choice of labels is similar to that for Tone 2: Both Mandarin Tone 2
and Mandarin Tone 3 labels are applied, while Putonghua subjects prefer Mandarin Tone 3 and Taiwan Mandarin subjects prefer Mandarin Tone 2.
Figure 15. Labeling of Cantonese Tone 5 by both subject groups
Tone 6 (LL). For the low level Tone 6, Putonghua subjects mostly apply the Mandarin
Tone 1 label, reasonably owing to the level contour of the tone. Taiwan Mandarin subjects, on the other hand, equally apply Mandarin Tone 1 and Mandarin Tone 3 labels.
1
7
10
1 0
16
1 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
M Tone 1 M Tone 2 M Tone 3 M Tone 4
Putonghua T Mandarin
Figure 16. Labeling of Cantonese non-E Tone 6 by both subject groups
The drift towards Mandarin Tone 4 for entering tones can also be found here, which, combined with the preference for Mandarin Tone 1 and Mandarin Tone 3 labels, made the categorization of Tone 6 for Taiwan Mandarin subjects rather ambiguous.
Figure 17. Labeling of Cantonese E Tone 6 by both subject groups
In summary, this section looks into how Mandarin-speaking subjects in Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin groups perceive of the non-native tones of Cantonese. Based on these findings, the study in turn reveals how subjects think of their native tonal categories of by examining how non-native tones are grouped and related with their
13
native tones. Influences of segmental factors, such as vowels and syllabic structures, are also investigated.
4.2 Identification 4.2.1 Overview
The Identification task posed challenges to subjects in both groups. The overall performance is poor, which is foreseeable given that the task is conducted after a short priming on Cantonese tones, which all subjects are foreign to. Still, a few observations can be drawn from the results. The accuracy drops among tones with lower f0 heights (Tones 4-6) and in particular Tone 6. One possible account is memory limitation—subjects are confronted with a foreign tone system that is more complicated than their native one, and they can at best memorize first three tones, numbered one to three, and the rest is in turmoil. While this may hold true when describing how subjects attempt to remember the tones throughout the tasks in general, it should be pointed out that a tone graph is provided every time during this task before subjects made their decisions, and they do not have to solely rely on their remaining impression of Cantonese tones after the priming process. As a result, it could be inferred from the results that distinguishing tones with lower f0 is somehow challenging to subjects. The statement does not imply that the subjects have deficiencies in detecting low frequencies, rather, it proposes that subjects have trouble relating what they heard with new categories in relatively low f0 and thus identify most of their stimuli as higher tones.
Figure 18. Overall accuracy in Identification task
The separation of entering tones from non-entering ones does not show major differences in accuracy, though the accuracy for entering tones are slightly higher than their non-entering counterparts.
Figure 19. Overall accuracy in Identification task (non-E tones and E tones)
0.44 0.47 0.46
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
0.42 0.47
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tones E Tones
4.2.2 Subject groups 4.2.2.1 Accuracy
In general, Taiwan Mandarin subjects have better ID performance than Putonghua subjects for all Cantonese tones.
Figure 20. ID accuracy between subject groups
For non-entering tones, Putonghua subjects have the uppermost performance identifying Tone 2 and are most inept for the identification of Tone 6. Taiwan Mandarin subjects, however, show relatively equal performance for all Cantonese tones, except for Tone 6.
0.17
0.44
0.33
0.22 0.28
0.08 0.72
0.5
0.58
0.5 0.44
0.19
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Putonghua T Mandarin
Figure 21. ID accuracy of non-entering tones between subject groups
For entering tones, Putonghua subjects are particularly good at identifying Entering Tone 3, while for Taiwan Mandarin subjects, the identification of entering tones deteriorates with f0 heights.
Figure 22. ID accuracy of entering tones between subject groups
4.2.2.2 Confusions
This section provides detailed discussion concerning subjects' response to the stimuli of each Cantonese tone.
0.22
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Putonghua
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Putonghua T Mandarin
Tone 1 (HL). For non-entering Tone 1 and Entering Tone 1, answers from Putonghua
subjects are rather diverse and sporadic, with a preference to identify Tone 1 stimuli as Tone 3.
Figure 23. Answers for Tone 1 stimuli from Putonghua subjects
Taiwan Mandarin subjects, on the other hand, perform rather well when identifying Tone 1 and especially Entering Tone 1.
Figure 24. Answers for Tone 1 stimuli from T Mandarin subjects
4 3
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 1 E Tone 1
Tone 2 (HR). The identification of Tone 2 shows no major differences between
subjects of Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin groups. Tone 2 stimuli are identified as either Tone 2 or Tone 5, both rising tones, most of the time.
Figure 25. Answers for Tone 2 stimuli from Putonghua subjects
Figure 26. Answers for Tone 2 stimuli from T Mandarin subjects
Tone 3 (ML). While the distributions of answers from both groups are roughly the
same, Taiwan Mandarin subjects successfully identify non-entering and entering Tone 3s most of the time. For the same set of non-entering Tone 3 stimuli, Putonghua
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
0
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
subjects identify the stimuli equally as one of the three level tones whereas Taiwan Mandarin subjects generally avoid the level tone with the lowest f0.
Figure 27. Answers for Tone 3 stimuli from Putonghua subjects
Figure 28. Answers for Tone 3 stimuli from T Mandarin subjects
Tone 4 (LF). Putonghua subjects in general perform fairly poor in the identification of
Tone 4. The answers are given almost randomly. It seems that the subjects can only be certain that the Tone 4 stimuli is not a high level tone.6
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non E Tone 3
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 3 E Tone 3
Figure 29. Answers for Tone 4 stimuli from Putonghua subjects
In contrast, Taiwan Mandarin subjects have a much better performance than Putonghua subjects and tend to identify the stimuli as tones with lower f0.
Figure 30. Answers for Tone 4 stimuli from T Mandarin subjects
Tone 5 (LR). There are discrepancies again in the identification of Tone 5 between
subjects of both groups. The answers are quite similar for Tone 2 and Tone 5 from Putonghua subjects, with a slight increase in Tone 3 answers for the latter stimuli.0
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
1
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Figure 31. Answers for Tone 5 stimuli from Putonghua subjects
Taiwan Mandarin subjects, on the other hand, identify Tone 5 recurrently and do not show the tendency to choose Tone 2 for rising tones, as in Putonghua subjects
Figure 32. Answers for Tone 5 stimuli from T Mandarin subjects
Tone 6 (LL). Subjects from both groups seem confused by the identification of Tone
6. However, one thing remains clear: answers from Putonghua subjects distribute rather evenly across the spectrum of Cantonese tones while Taiwan Mandarin subjects tend to choose answers from tones with lower f0.1
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
0
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Figure 33. Answers for Tone 6 stimuli from Putonghua subjects
Figure 34. Answers for Tone 6 stimuli from T Mandarin subjects
4.3 Vocalization 4.3.1 Overview
Over all, subjects perform similarly well in all three rounds of imitation and then drop during the production session. The accuracy declines more obviously in the second
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 6
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 6 E Tone 6
round of production, where subjects are to read out tones in random order. Non-entering tones in general have a higher accuracy over Non-entering tones.
Figure 35. Overall performance as task proceeds
As shown in the figure below, Tone 1, Tone 2, and Tone 4 are the three tones that subjects produce correctly most of the time, followed by Tone 3, Tone 5, and Tone 6.
Figure 36. Overall performance in Vocalization task
0.75 0.79 0.79
Imitation 1 Imitation 2 Imitation 3 Production 1 Production 2
non‐E Tones
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
More details are revealed when separating entering tones from non-entering tones.
Subjects perform the best for non-entering Tone 1, followed by Tone 2 and Tone 4.
Among entering tones, Entering Tone 3 is the hardest to produce for subjects on the whole.
Figure 37. Overall performance in Vocalization task (non-E tones and E tones) In should be noted that, in comparison with non-entering tones, each set of entering tones contains only three stimuli and one might therefore expect that subjects will find entering tones much more easy to produce than non-entering tones. However, the accuracy of imitation and production for entering tones do not surpass that for non-entering tones and remain slightly lower in general.
4.3.2 Subject groups 4.3.2.1 Accuracy
Subjects of both groups show close resemblance of accuracy during imitation and production processes. Non-entering tones have higher accuracy over entering tones in
0.76
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tones E Tones
both groups, except for the random round of production by Taiwan Mandarin subjects.
Figure 38. Vocalization performance by Putonghua subjects as task proceeds
Figure 39. Vocalization performance by T Mandarin subjects as task proceeds Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin subjects have very similar performance in the Vocalization task. Subjects of both groups perform inferiorly for Tone 3. Also, Putonghua subjects are relatively poor at the production of Tone 5.
0.73 0.78
Imitation 1 Imitation 2 Imitation 3 Production 1 Production 2
non‐E Tones
Imitation 1 Imitation 2 Imitation 3 Production 1 Production 2
non‐E Tones E Tones
Figure 40. Vocalization performance between subject groups
The separation of entering tones from non-entering tones does not make much difference to the overall tendency, only to slightly increase accuracy of Tone 3 in both groups.
Figure 41. Vocalization performance of non-E tones between subject groups
Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin subjects perform equally well (or poor) for entering tones, among which Entering Tone 3 seems to be the most difficult one to correctly produce.
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Putonghua
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Putonghua T Mandarin
Figure 42. Vocalization performance of E tones between subject groups 4.3.2.2 Confusions
In this section, subjects' confusions during the Production stage, namely how subjects pronounce each of the Cantonese tones that they are instructed to produce without prior demonstration, are reported and discussed. It should be noted that, despite great support and encouragement from the researcher, some stimuli are still skipped over by subjects at times because of uncertainties about what to pronounce. These examples are not counted and presented here.
Tone 1 (HL). Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin subjects produce non-entering and
entering Tone 1s with relative ease. Nevertheless, Entering Tone 1 remains relatively difficult for both groups.
0.56
0.41
0.53 0.56
0.41
0.54
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Putonghua T Mandarin
Figure 43. Production performance for Tone 1 stimuli of Putonghua subjects
Figure 44. Production performance for Tone 1 stimuli of T Mandarin subjects
Tone 2 (HR). Tone 2 is also comparatively easy for both groups. However, Taiwan
Mandarin subjects may occasionally pronounce the tone with a lower f0, resulting in instances of Tone 5.3
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 1
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 1 E Tone 1
Figure 45. Production performance for Tone 2 stimuli of Putonghua subjects
Figure 46. Production performance for Tone 2 stimuli of T Mandarin subjects
Tone 3 (ML). Tone 3 seems to be of particular difficulties for subjects of both
Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin groups. Utterances for Entering Tone 3 are mostly indistinguishable, though there is a higher accuracy in Taiwan Mandarin subjects.Putonghua subjects tend to pronounce non-entering Tone 3 lower as Tone 4 while Taiwan Mandarin subjects tend to pronounce the tone higher as Tone 1.
2
4
15
2
7
0 1
0 5 10 15 20 25
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Tone 2
7
4
15
1
4 3
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Tone 2
Figure 47. Production performance for Tone 3 stimuli of Putonghua subjects
Figure 48. Production performance for Tone 3 stimuli of T Mandarin subjects
Tone 4 (LF). Production of Tone 4 in both groups show almost identical tendency in
performance. Both Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin subjects perform fairly well in their production of Tone 4, with some indistinguishable instances.3
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 3
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 3 E Tone 3
Figure 49. Production performance for Tone 4 stimuli of Putonghua subjects
Figure 50. Production performance for Tone 4 stimuli of T Mandarin subjects
Tone 5 (LR). The production of Tone 5 is also relatively clear, with subjects of both
groups producing the tone either correctly as Tone 5 or with a falling contour as Tone 4. Putonghua subjects may pronounce the tone even higher as Tone 1 while Taiwan Mandarin subjects produce utterances indistinguishable at times.6
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Tone 4
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Tone 4
Figure 51. Production performance for Tone 5 stimuli of Putonghua subjects
Figure 52. Production performance for Tone 5 stimuli of T Mandarin subjects
Tone 6 (LL). Both Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin subjects perform similarly for the
production of Entering Tone 6: either accurately as Tone 6, or as something indistinguishable, or higher as Tone 3 at times. As for non-entering Tone 6, both groups of subjects pronounce the tone as either Tone 6 or Tone 4, while Taiwan Mandarin subjects may also pronounce it as Tone 5.3
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Tone 5
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
Tone 5
Figure 53. Production performance for Tone 6 stimuli of Putonghua subjects
Figure 54. Production performance for Tone 6 stimuli of T Mandarin subjects
4.4 Questionnaire 4.4.1 Tasks
When inquired about their impressions to the tasks, Putonghua subjects consider Imitation the easies, followed by Labeling, and Production is the hardest. Taiwan Mandarin subjects also regard Imitation as the easies, followed by Production, which
6
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 6
?? Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4 Tone 5 Tone 6
non‐E Tone 6 E Tone 6
is slightly easier than Labeling and Identification. Putonghua subjects hold stronger confidence than Taiwan Mandarin subjects in Labeling and Imitation tasks, while Production seems easier for Taiwan Mandarin subjects than Putonghua subjects. The Identification task is equally difficult (or easy) for subjects of both groups.
Figure 55. Impression and accuracy among tasks
When these results are compared with task accuracies, it turns out that subjects' impression can hardly be a good indicator of their performance. While both subjects of both groups have the highest accuracy and confidence for Imitation, there is a discrepancy between Putonghua subjects' confidence and performance for the Identification task.
4.4.2 Tones
In general, subjects' confidence in their perception and production of tones reaches the lowest point at Tone 5. Putonghua subjects show a drastic change in confidence from Tone 1 "easy-very easy" to Tone 5 "difficult-very difficult."
0.58
impression accuracy impression accuracy impression accuracy impression
Labeling Identification Imitation Production
Putonghua T Mandarin
Figure 56. Impressions on perception and production performance of Cantonese tones When the results are compared with actual performance in Identification and Vocalization, it turns out that except for Tone 6, Taiwan Mandarin subjects have similar accuracy for perception and production, while Putonghua subjects have huge discrepancies in their performance of perception and production. Also, apart from Tone 5, subjects also show great difficulty in their actual performance for Tone 3 and Tone 6.
0.63 0.58 0.54 0.58 0.58 0.63
0.50 0.54 0.50 0.58
perception production perception production perception production perception production perception production perception production
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
perception production perception production perception production perception production perception production perception production
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Putonghua T Mandarin
Figure 57. Perception and production performance of Cantonese tones.
To conclude, subjects' impression of difficulties and ease may predict their performance to some certain extent, although more than often they are unable to perceive the distance between what they see and hear and their own performance.
5 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
5.1 Subjects of Putonghua versus subjects of Taiwan Mandarin
With regard to linguistic backgrounds, subjects of the Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin groups differ in two respects: the varieties of Mandarin they use and their dialectal backgrounds. These differences are manifested in their tonal assimilation of Cantonese tones.
5.1.1 Difference between varieties: Mandarin Tone 3 in Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin
Results of the Labeling task show that Putonghua subjects and Taiwan Mandarin subjects may have slightly different balance with regard to the interpretation of the dipping Mandarin Tone 3. For Putonghua subjects, the rising contour of the tone is salient whereas for Taiwan Mandarin subjects, the rising part is omissible. This difference in preference shows in their labeling of non-native tones. Subjects of the two groups have difference tendencies in the choice of Mandarin tone three labels in the Labeling task, c2 (5, N = 63) = 22.231, p = .000. Putonghua subjects seems to consider Mandarin Tone 3 mainly a rising tone with a dipping beginning and tend to also use Mandarin Tone 3 to label the two Cantonese rising tones. On the other hand, Taiwan Mandarin subjects consider Mandarin Tone 3 mainly a low falling tone and the label is used almost exclusively for Cantonese Tone 4. The finding conforms to Tseng (2008). Although dipping [214] and low falling [21] tones coexist as allotones and the low falling [21] tone originally being an abridged version of Mandarin Tone 3, the standard speech in Taiwan comes to accept the first half of the tone contour as a representative of the tone general, as shown in the pronunciation of news reporters.
Therefore, when asked to label foreign, non-native tones with their native tone
categories, subjects of the Taiwan Mandarin group tend to choose Mandarin Tone 3 for Cantonese Tone 4 (LF) and other tones with low f0 frequencies, having a low falling version of the tone as "standard" in mind.
5.1.2 Differences between dialectal backgrounds: Taiwanese and northern vernaculars
5.1.2.1 The presence and absence of entering tones
One of the contrasts between Cantonese and Taiwanese versus Mandarin and other northern dialects is the presence of entering tones. This shared presence of entering tones implies benefits in multiple aspects. Lexically, speakers of one of these languages can conveniently pass on the knowledge of words that are endowed with entering tones in Middle Chinese from their native language to the new language, which means less trouble remembering which of the words are entering tones in comparison with Mandarin monolinguals. Phonologically, speakers with entering-tone vocabulary may be more familiar with the syllabic characteristics of entering tones, that is, the syllable structure with an unreleased plosive ending, the relative short time span of the syllable, the checked quality of voicing, etc., and consequently be advantageous in the perception and production of entering tones in another language. In general, Putonghua subjects show lower accuracy in the perception and production of entering tones. Taiwan Mandarin subjects show higher accuracy in the Identification task than Putonghua subjects, both for non-entering tones (t (.46)=-3.34, p=.001) and entering tones (t =-4.005, p=.000), which shows that the shared existence of entering tones can be beneficial in the phonological level and may be of greater advantageous in the lexical level.
It should be noted that, in the phonetic aspect, it is doubtful whether entering tones in
one language can be simply transferred into another language. For example, there are two entering tones in Taiwanese, labeled as either high or low, whereas there are three entering tones in Cantonese, contrast as either high, mid, or low. Even though
one language can be simply transferred into another language. For example, there are two entering tones in Taiwanese, labeled as either high or low, whereas there are three entering tones in Cantonese, contrast as either high, mid, or low. Even though