Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica

Research Article

English Nasalance Values of Chinese Learners of English

Liu Y.a,b · Lee S.A.S.a,b

Author affiliations

aDepartment of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA
bPhD Program in Rehabilitation Science, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, Lubbock, TX, USA

Keywords: NasalanceResonanceMandarin ChineseSecond language learners

Related Articles for ""
Folia Phoniatr Logop 2021;73:422–431
https://doi.org/10.1159/000510940

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.




Forgot your password
Sign up to MyKarger

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more
CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!


If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates

Select
* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Research Article

Received: March 20, 2020
Accepted: August 17, 2020
Published online: October 23, 2020
Issue release date: September 2021

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 1

ISSN: 1021-7762 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9972 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/FPL

Abstract

Introduction: Although a number of studies have been conducted to investigate nasalance scores of speakers of different languages, little research has examined the nasalance characteristics of second language learners. Objective: The goal of the current study was to examine whether English nasalance values of Mandarin Chinese speakers are similar to those of native English speakers, examining the potential effect of the first language on the nasalance scores of the second language production. Methods: Thirty-two adults (16 Mandarin Chinese speakers and 16 native English speakers) with a normal velopharyngeal anatomy participated. Nasalance scores of various speech stimuli were obtained using a nasometer and compared between the 2 groups. Results and Conclusions: Chinese learners of English produced higher nasalance scores than native English speakers on prolonged vowel /i/ and /a/, the syllable “nin,” and non-nasal sentences and passages. The first language effect on nasalance of the second language found in the current study suggests the importance of linguistic consideration in the clinical evaluation of resonance.

© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel



Related Articles:

References

  1. Mossey PA, Shaw WC, Munger RG, Murray JC, Murthy J, Little J. Global oral health inequalities: challenges in the prevention and management of orofacial clefts and potential solutions. Adv Dent Res. 2011 May;23(2):247–58.
    External Resources
  2. Kling RR, Taub PJ, Ye X, Jabs EW. Oral clefting in China over the last decade: 205,679 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2014 Nov;2(10):e236.
    External Resources
  3. Pua E, Holt Y, Kollara L, Rangarathnam B, Fang X, Perry JL. Evaluating nasalance values among bilingual Mandarin-English speakers. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019 Apr;56(4):462–70.
    External Resources
  4. Kaye A, Che C, Chew WL, Stueve EA, Jiang S. Cleft care of internationally adopted children from China. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2019 Jan;56(1):46–55.
    External Resources
  5. Watterson T, McFarlane SC, Wright DS. The relationship between nasalance and nasality in children with cleft palate. J Commun Disord. 1993 Apr;26(1):13–28.
    External Resources
  6. Kummer A. Cleft palate and craniofacial anomalies: effects on speech and resonance. Florence: Thomson Delmar Learning; 2013.
  7. Seaver EJ, Dalston RM, Leeper HA, Adams LE. A study of nasometric values for normal nasal resonance. J Speech Hear Res. 1991 Aug;34(4):715–21.
    External Resources
  8. Awan SN, Bressmann T, Poburka B, Roy N, Sharp H, Watts C. Dialectical effects on nasalance: a multicenter, cross-continental study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015 Feb;58(1):69–77.
    External Resources
  9. Leeper HA, Rochet AP, MacKay IR. Characteristics of nasalance in Canadian speakers of English and French. Second International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Banff, 1992.
  10. Rochet AP, Sovis EA, Mielke DL. Characteristics of nasalance in speakers of western Canadian English and French. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 1998;22:94–103.
  11. Van Lierde KM, Wuyts FL, De Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P. Nasometric values for normal nasal resonance in the speech of young Flemish adults. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001 Mar;38(2):112–8.
    External Resources
  12. D’haeseleer E, Bettens K, De Mets S, De Moor V, Van Lierde K. Normative Data and Dialectical Effects on Nasalance in Flemish Adults. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2015;67(1):42–8.
    External Resources
  13. Okalidou A, Karathanasi A, Grigoraki E. Nasalance norms in Greek adults. Clin Linguist Phon. 2011 Aug;25(8):671–88.
    External Resources
  14. Brunnegård K, van Doorn J. Normative data on nasalance scores for Swedish as measured on the Nasometer: influence of dialect, gender, and age. Clin Linguist Phon. 2009 Jan;23(1):58–69.
    External Resources
  15. El-Kassabi RM, Hassan S, Mesallam TA, Malki KH, Farahat M, Alfaris A. Standardization of nasalance scores in normal Saudi speakers. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2015 Jul;40(2):77–85.
    External Resources
  16. Hwang YJ. Normative nasalance scores and differences as a function of gender and residential area. Commun Sci Disord. 2007;12(3):508–20.
  17. Park M, Baek WS, Lee E, Koh KS, Kim BK, Baek R. Nasalance scores for normal Korean-speaking adults and children. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014 Feb;67(2):173–7.
    External Resources
  18. Whitehill TL. Nasalance measures in Cantonese-speaking women. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001 Mar;38(2):119–25.
    External Resources
  19. Kim HK, Yu XM, Cao YJ, Liu XM, Huang ZM. Dialectal and gender differences in nasalance for a Mandarin population. Clin Linguist Phon. 2016;30(2):119–30.
    External Resources
  20. Mayo C, Mayo R. Normative nasalance values across languages. Echo. 2011 Mar;6:22–32.
  21. Lee A, Browne U. Nasalance scores for typical Irish English-speaking adults. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2013 Dec;38(4):167–72.
    External Resources
  22. Bae Y, Lee SA, Velik K, Liu Y, Beck C, Fox RA. Differences in nasalance and nasality perception between Texas South and Midland dialects. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020 Jan;147(1):568–78.
    External Resources
  23. Huang BR, Liao XD. The modern Chinese. Lanzhou: Gansu People’s Publishing House; 1983.
  24. Flege JE. Second language speech learning: theory, findings, and problems. In: Strange W, editor. Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language research. Baltimore: York Press; 1995. p. 233–77.
  25. Flege JE, Schirru C, MacKay IR. Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Commun. 2003;40(4):467–91.
    External Resources
  26. Doetzer R V. Nasometric assessment of Spanish/English bilingual speakers [dissertation]. College Park: University of Maryland; 2008.
  27. Perry JL, Kotlarek K, Mendez L, Holt Y, Fafulas S, Broadwell K. Nasometric comparison between Spanish-English bilingual and English monolingual children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019 Mar;56(3):331–9.
    External Resources
  28. Kalyani M, Sinha AK, Kumar H, Hota BP, Das L. Influence of Mizo language on nasal and oral passage in English: a nasometric study. Asia Pacific J Res. 2016;1:33–43.
  29. Awan SN, Virani A. Nasometer 6200 versus Nasometer II 6400: effect on measures of nasalance. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013 May;50(3):268–74.
    External Resources
  30. Watterson T, Lewis K, Brancamp T. Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer 6200 and the Nasometer II 6400. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005 Sep;42(5):574–9.
    External Resources
  31. Shi X, Ran Q, Shi F. An analysis of sonorant nasality in Beijing Mandarin. ICPhS. 2011;17:1814–7.
  32. Carignan C, Shosted R, Shih C, Rong P. Compensatory articulation in American English nasalized vowels. J Phon. 2011;39(4):668–82.
  33. Yuan J, Liberman M. Automatic measurement and comparison of vowel nasalization across languages. ICPhS. 2011;17:2244–7.
  34. Wu M, Sloos M, van de Weijer J. The perception of the English alveolar-velar nasal coda contrast by monolingual versus bilingual Chinese speakers. 2016 10th International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing (ISCSLP). Tianjin: IEEE; 2016.
  35. United States Census Bureau. Detailed languages spoken at home and ability to speak English for the population 5 Years and over: 2009-2013 [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2013/demo/2009-2013-lang-tables.html.
  36. Goldman R, Fristoe M. Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, 3rd ed. London: Pearson; 2015.
    External Resources
  37. Bowen C. Table 1 - Intelligibility [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://www.speech-language-therapy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29:admin&catid=11:admin&Itemid=117.
  38. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Abingdon: Routledge; 2013.
    External Resources
  39. Trost-Cardamone JE. American English Sentence Sample: a controlled sample for assessing cleft palate speech outcome. Meeting of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, San Jose, 2012.
  40. Sweeney T, Sell D, O’Regan M. Nasalance scores for normal-speaking Irish children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004 Mar;41(2):168–74.
    External Resources
  41. Montrul S, Slabakova R. Acquiring morphosyntactic and semantic properties of preterit and imperfect tenses in L2 spanish. 2002.
  42. Klein EC, Martohardjono G. Investigating second language grammars: some conceptual and methodological issues in generative SLA research. In: Klein EC, Martohardjono G, editors. The development of second language grammars. Philadelphia: John Benjamins; 1999; p. 3–36.
  43. Flege JE, Eefting W. Cross-language switching in stop consonant perception and production by Dutch speakers of English. Speech Commun. 1987;6(3):185–202.
  44. MacKay IR, Meador D, Flege JE. The identification of English consonants by native speakers of Italian. Phonetica. 2001 Jan-Jun;58(1-2):103–25.
    External Resources
  45. Sancier ML, Fowler CA. Gestural drift in a bilingual speaker of Brazilian Portuguese and English. J Phon. 1997;25:421–36.
  46. Sheldon A, Strange W. The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Appl Psycholinguist. 1982;3(3):243–61.
    External Resources
  47. Flege JE, Takagi N, Mann V. Japanese adults can learn to produce English /r/ and /l/ accurately. Lang Speech. 1995 Jan-Mar;38(pt 1):25–55.
    External Resources
  48. Moore J, Shaw J, Kawahara S, Arai T. Articulation strategies for English liquids used by Japanese speakers. Acoust Sci Technol. 2018;39(2):75–83.
    External Resources
  49. Mennen I. Phonological and phonetic influences in non-native intonation. In: Trouvain J, Gut U, editors. Non-native prosody: phonetic description and teaching practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2007. p. 53–76.
  50. Jun SA, Oh M. Acquisition of second language intonation. Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Beijing, 2000.
  51. Ueyama M. The phonology and phonetics of second language intonation: The case of "Japanese English". Fifth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. Rhodes, 1997.
  52. Lewis KE, Watterson T, Quint T. The effect of vowels on nasalance scores. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000 Nov;37(6):584-9.
  53. Carden KA. Vowel-consonant interaction in two dialects of Mandarin [dissertation]. University of Iowa, 2016.
  54. Rochet AP, Rochet BL. Patterns of assimilation nasality in English as a function of vowel height. Proceedings of 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. San Francisco, 1999. p. 699–702.
  55. Kuehn DP, Moller KT. The state of the art: Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2000;37(4):1–35.
  56. Peterson-Falzone SJ, Trost-Cardamone J, Karnell MP, Hardin-Jones MA. The clinician’s guide to treating cleft palate speech. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016.
  57. Timothy BH. The acoustic phonetics of nasality: a practical guide to acoustic analysis. Perspect Speech Sci Orofac Disord. 2005 Oct;15(2):3–10.
    External Resources
  58. Villanueva NL, Afrooz PN, Carboy JA, Rohrich RJ. Nasal analysis: considerations for ethnic variation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(6):1179e–88e.
    External Resources
  59. Kollara L, Perry JL, Hudson S. Racial variations in velopharyngeal and craniometric morphology in children: An imaging study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2016;59(1):27–38.
  60. Perry JL, Kuehn DP, Sutton BP, Gamage JK, Fang X. Anthropometric analysis of the velopharynx and related craniometric dimensions in three adult populations using MRI. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(1):e1–13.
  61. Brunnegård K, Lohmander A, van Doorn J. Comparison between perceptual assessments of nasality and nasalance scores. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012 Sep-Oct;47(5):556–66.
    External Resources
  62. Chun J, Whitehill TL. The relationship between nasalance and nasality in Cantonese children with cleft palate. Asia Pac J Speech Lang Hear. 2001 Dec;6(3):135–47.
    External Resources

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Research Article

Received: March 20, 2020
Accepted: August 17, 2020
Published online: October 23, 2020
Issue release date: September 2021

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 1

ISSN: 1021-7762 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9972 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/FPL

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

Article Tools
Article Details

2021, Vol.73, No. 5

September 2021

Article

Recommend This
TOP