Catalan Native vs. Non-Native Peak & Total Percentages Comparison &

Summary

This section examines the gate showing greatest magnitude in recognition, or peak, for each group per item. Again, the peak is viewed as insightful because it indicates that there was a cue available in the signal at that particular point which contributed to a peak number of subjects’ first correct recognition. Tables XXXVIII and XXXIX offer summaries of the native and non-native, that is, Catalan and American, peak percentage and gate for each item. As with the English tables, in the first column of the tables, the lexical items are listed. In Table XXXVIII, the Catalan

Table XXXVIII. Summary of magnitude and gate of the Catalan peak, whether or not the beginning of the next word was available in the test sentence at the peak gate, and total percentages.

Item CAT peak Gate Beg.Nxt.Wrd Group Ttl

EM 58% 1 [m] no 100%

SAP 75% 5 [] yes 100%

GREU 42%-42% 5/6 [/eu] no 100%

QUE 50% 8 [k] no 100%

CAP 58% 11 [kab] no 100%

DELS 67% 14 [dlz] no 100%

DOS 75% 15 [os] no 100%

XICOTS 50% 18 [ik] no 100%

NO 58% 21 [nom] yes+ 100%

EM 50% 22 [mp] yes 92%

PUGUI 67% 23 [pui] no 83%

DONAR 83% 25 [una] no 100%

UN 92% 26 [u] no 100%

COP 42% 29 [kbd] yes 100%

DE 33% 28 [kb] no 100%

MÀ 67% 30 [m] no next word 100%

peak percentage is provided next for each item, as well as the gate at which the peak was seen to occur. Following this, it is noted whether or not the onset of the next word

CH. 4.2 CATALAN RESULTS SUMMARY 160 was available in the acoustic signal at the peak point of recognition (‘yes’ or ‘no’). A plus symbol (+) indicates that the beginning of the following word occurred within the same gate as the peak percentage. The group total is again provided for quick comparison with the peak.

Table XXXVIII gives the data for native speakers only. As column 2 shows, any given peak represents recognition by at least one third of the group, 33%. Catalan peaks were highest for UN, 92%, DONAR, 83%, SAP and DOS, 75%. Catalan recognition peaks were lowest for DE, 33%, GREU and COP, 42% each. Peaks were low for GREU only because this item showed two high points of recognition of 42%

each. In general, at the highest point of group recognition for each lexical item, natives did not need to hear the beginning of the following word in the signal in order to make an identification (column 4), indicating that native recognition in this case is not likely sequential. Items where this is not the case, such as SAP and COP, can be accounted for in terms of listeners needing to hear the triggering context, a following voiced consonant, in order to backtrack the regressive voicing assimilation and make an identification. However this was not the case for other assimilated forms, e.g., CAP and UN. The second case of EM could have been a similar case of regressive place assimilation, though it was not. Listeners likely needed more acoustic information to confirm this. The peak for NO occurred at the same gate as the onset of the next word.

This could again be due to the length of each gate (80ms) and not to the fact that natives needed to hear the onset of EM to make an identification. Lastly, final percentages for Catalans range from 83%-100%. Totals were 100% for all items except for EM2, 92%, and PUGUI, 83%.

Table XXXIX now presents the data for Americans. In this table, extra columns provide comparisons between the American and Catalan results. After the American

CH. 4.2 CATALAN RESULTS SUMMARY 161 peak percentage, listed in column 2, the next column shows whether the non-native peak was lower than the native peak (‘yes’ or ‘no’) or if it was the same percentage as the native peak (‘=’). An asterisk in this column denotes a significant difference.

Following the gate at which the American peak occurred, column 4, it is noted whether or not the American peak was later than the Catalan peak (‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘=’), that is, if non-natives took longer to achieve a peak percent of identification. In the last column, it is indicated whether or not the non-native total is lower than the native total percentage (‘yes’ or ‘no’).

Table XXXIX. Summary of American peak & total percentages, as well as comparison to native percentages.

Table XXXIX demonstrates that American peaks, in general, are not as high as native peaks, though they are not as low as the non-native peaks for the English data.

American peaks were highest for CAP and NO, 75% each. American peaks were lowest for PUGUI, 17%, SAP, QUE, which showed two peak points, EM2, and UN,

CH. 4.2 CATALAN RESULTS SUMMARY 162 which showed a 25% peak each. The non-native peak percentage was lower than the native peak percentage in 10 of 16 cases; five of these cases were significantly different (EM2, DONAR, UN, COP, and MÀ). For EM1, XICOTS, and DE, the peaks were equal for the two groups, 58%, 50%, and 33% respectively, and for CAP and NO the American peaks were actually higher, 75% versus 58% each.

Concerning the peak percentage, American peaks occurred at a later gate than the Catalan peak for 5 of 16 lexical items, a much smaller ratio than for the English data. For 10 items, the peaks for both groups occurred at the same gates, and, for GREU, the single American peak is coincident with the first of the two Catalan peaks for this item.

Regarding whether or not the onset of the next word had been introduced in the acoustic signal at the time of the Catalan peak, comparison of Tables XXXVIII (column 4) and XXXIX (column 6) shows that the onset for the following word was available in more cases for Americans than for Catalans. For natives, the peak falls after the beginning of the next item in only 3 of 16 cases; for non-natives, this is the case in 6 of 16 cases (not including cases where the peaks were found at the same gate as the introduction of the onset of the succeeding item). From this data, as with the English data, we can not conclude that non-native recognition was decisively sequential;

however, it was more sequential than native recognition.

Finally, in terms of the total percentages for each lexical item, Table XXXIX shows that the American totals show a wider range, 42%-100%, than do Catalan totals;

however, compared to the English data, non-natives in this case do show a considerable degree of recognition for every item presented. In all cases except one, total group recognition for non-natives was equal to or over 50%. American totals were highest for CAP and DOS, 100%, and XICOTS and NO, 92% each; totals were lowest for PUGUI,

CH. 4.2 CATALAN RESULTS SUMMARY 163 42%, which also showed the lowest total for Catalans (83%), and QUE and EM2, 50%

each, which showed the second lowest total for Catalans (92%). With respect to the native group, as stated, non-natives showed a lower total for 14 of 16 lexical items. For CAP and DOS, the final totals for the two groups were equal.

In summary, we have seen further support from the data in this section that non-native recognition requires more time than non-native recognition. The non-non-native peak occurred later than the native peak for one-third of the items, and, for nearly two-thirds of the items, the non-native peak was lower than the native peak. Coincident with needing more time, non-natives need to hear the onset of the following word in the signal to recognize an item in twice as many cases as natives. Non-native percent totals were lower than those of natives for almost all the test items.

CH. 4.3 CATALAN FINAL LEXICAL SELECTION 164