Recent empirical studies have highlighted the large degree of analytic flexibility in data analysis that can lead to substantially different conclusions based on the same data set. Thus, researchers have expressed their concerns that these researcher degrees of freedom might facilitate bias and can lead to claims that do not stand the test of time. Even greater flexibility is to be expected in fields in which the primary data lend themselves to a variety of possible operationalizations. The multidimensional, temporally extended nature of speech constitutes an ideal testing ground for assessing the variability in analytic approaches, which derives not only from aspects of statistical modeling but also from decisions regarding the quantification of the measured behavior. In this study, we gave the same speech-production data set to 46 teams of researchers and asked them to answer the same research question, resulting in substantial variability in reported effect sizes and their interpretation. Using Bayesian meta-analytic tools, we further found little to no evidence that the observed variability can be explained by analysts’ prior beliefs, expertise, or the perceived quality of their analyses. In light of this idiosyncratic variability, we recommend that researchers more transparently share details of their analysis, strengthen the link between theoretical construct and quantitative system, and calibrate their (un)certainty in their conclusions.

There is a consensus in psycholinguistic research that listening to unfamiliar speech constitutes a challenging listening situation. In this commentary, we explore the problems with the construct ofnon-nativeand ask whether using this construct in research is useful, specifically to shift the communicative burden from the language learner to the perceiver, who often occupies a position of power. We examine what factors affect perception of non-native talkers. We frame this question by addressing the observation that not all “difficult” listening conditions provide equal challenges. Given this, we ask how cognitive and social factors impact perception of unfamiliar accents and ask what our psycholinguistic measurements are capturing. We close by making recommendations for future work. We propose that the issue is less with the terminology ofnativeversusnon-native, but rather how our unexamined biases affect the methodological assumptions that we make. We propose that we can use the existing dichotomy to create research programs that focus on teaching perceivers to better understand talkers more generally. Finally, we call on perceivers and researchers alike to question the idea of speech being “native,” “non-native,” “unfamiliar,” and “accented” to better align with reality as opposed to our inherently biased views.

Language learners often transfer the sounds and prosody of their native language into their second language, but this influence can also flow in the opposite direction, with the second language influencing the first. Among other variables, language proficiency is known to affect the degree and directionality of cross-linguistic influence. However, little is known about how second language learning affects listeners’ perception of their native language. To begin addressing this gap, we examined the relationship between learners’ second language proficiency and their category goodness ratings in their native language. Thirty-nine English-speaking learners of Spanish listened to English words that began with voiced and voiceless stop consonants and were asked to rate how well the word represented the intended word on a 5-point scale. To create a voicing continuum, we manipulated the voice onset time of the word-initial stop in each target item from 125 ms of prevoicing to 100 ms of aspiration, in 25 ms steps. Proficiency did not affect the perception of voiced targets, but both proficiency and L2 stop production affected the perception of voiceless targets.

This study investigates the feasibility of using non-native listeners to assess non-native pronunciation of different target languages. Native English-speaking students studying university-level German and French reproduced German, French, and Indonesian sentences based on native-speaker models. Students not pursuing university-level language study did the same. Other native English-speaking students served as non-native listeners, rating the similarity of elicited sentences to native-speaker models. Similarity ratings were higher for language learners compared to non-learners across languages. Articulation rate and interval-based rhythm measures were strong predictors of similarity ratings. Results parallel findings from second-language acquisition studies, wherein native listeners typically evaluate L2 pronunciation.

Languages differ in how they construct motion events. These crosslinguistic differences, referred to as framing typology, affect how speakers of different languages conceptualize motion events. Differences in event conceptualization may also transfer to the L2 (conceptual transfer), as shown from learners’ grammatical choices and their gestures. However, it is unclear whether L1-based conceptualization patterns can also extend to the acoustic domain of L2 speech production. Therefore, this study examined read speech from two spoken corpora of L2 English speakers whose L1s were of different framing typologies. English production from Korean and Turkish L1 speakers (V-framed) was compared to that of L1 German and L1 English speakers (S-framed). Various acoustic measurements of duration, pitch and intensity were extracted and analyzed. Results show no reliable acoustic differences between the two framing typologies, but rather show differences between native and non-native English speakers. Post hoc acoustic analyses further show how native and non-native English speakers differ. Our results suggest that speech production may be one modality where conceptual transfer of framing typology is not easily observable and that differences in L2 speech production can be best explained as resulting from articulatory differences between native and non-native speakers of the target language.

Speech production in a non-native language is often influenced by their first language’s (L1) phonology. One factor that might affect their production prosodically is typological differences in event construal, specifically motion events. Building on this concept, prior studies on gestures and spontaneous speech show that how speakers frame motion events in their L1 can transfer to their second language (L2) through grammatical patterns. However, no study has looked at how L1-L2 differences in framing motion events may affect speakers’ L2 production prosodically. To explore whether those differences affect how L2 speakers prosodically produce motion events, this study collected read speech from two spoken corpora of L2 English learners. We chose L2 learners from different L1 backgrounds that differ in the way they grammatically construct motion events. English production from Korean and Turkish L1 speakers (which are typologically similar) were compared to that of L1 German speakers (which is typologically similar to English), along with productions by L1 English speakers. Duration and various acoustic measurements of pitch and intensity were extracted and analyzed. Results indicated some similarities among learners of the same typology along with differences between the L1 and L2 English speakers. Implications on conceptual transfer will be discussed.