美国和泰国学习者汉语普通话阳平与上声习得的实验研究
|
摘要
阳平与上声是汉语作为第二语言语音习得与教学的难点，也是语音习得研究领域的焦点之一。本文通过感知实验、发音实验和感知训练实验考察了美国学习者和泰国学习者汉语普通话阳平与上声的习得过程，共有四个部分：（1）母语者与美国、泰国学习者阳平与上声的感知研究，包括降升调和自然调的感知研究；（2）美国与泰国学习者阳平与上声的感知训练研究；（3）母语者与美国、泰国学习者阳平与上声的产出研究；（4）阳平与上声感知与产出的关系。
实验主要结果如下：（1）在母语者感知模式中，拐点位置和终点音高两个声学线索对阳、上辨认都有显著作用，而且两者相互制约；拐点位置具有更为强大的制约作用，是阳、上感知的关键性声学线索，终点音高是非关键性线索，对阳、上辨认具有补偿性作用；美国和泰国学习者的阳、上感知模式中，终点音高的作用较大，拐点位置的作用较小；较之美国学习者，泰国学习者在两个线索的作用机制上都存在一定的优势；（2）训练实验的结果显示，短期训练在一定程度上提高了学习者阳、上两个声学线索的作用，但是因为训练的时间有限，所以阳、上两个线索的作用机制学习者最终未能获得；合成调的训练有助于自然调训练的提高；六次训练的显著提高集中在训练的后半段，这说明充分的输入是语音习得的关键；听感训练中的视觉刺激（反馈）可以帮助学习者提高对阳、上声学及音位特征的获得；（3）母语者产出实验的结果显示，单字阳平和上声的音高曲线走势存在显著差异；双字调的声学分析说明在语流中前字和后字阳、上受协同发音作用的影响，起点和终点都发生了高低变化，但是阳、上的拐点位置都未发生前后维度上太大的变化，这表明从声学角度看，拐点位置也是区分阳、上最为重要的声学特征；学习者产出实验的结果显示，单字阳平与上声的音高曲线走势有一定程度的相似性，与母语者的差异主要表现在拐点位置前后的不同上；双字阳、上的声学结果发现，在语流中受协同发音作用的影响，学习者阳、上的起点和终点也有高低变化，但是高低顺序与母语者仍然存在差异，这表明学习者尚未掌握语流中“相对音高”的声调模式；泰国学习者阳、上的产出也表现出一定的优势；（4）本实验阳、上的感知与产出存在较好的对应关系，但也有其复杂性。
本文的实验结果支持感知同化模型（PAM）理论，同时还验证和补充了线索权衡假说（CWM），以及丰富了阳、上感知和产出的研究成果，并根据实验的结果为阳、上教学与习得提供了更有针对性的建议。
Tone2and tone3present the most difficulty in learning and teaching speech ofChinese as a second language. These are the focus of our study of L2speechacquisition. This paper investigates the acquisition of tone2and tone3by Americanand Thai native speakers through perceptual experiments, production experiments andperception-training experiments. We present four aspects:1) research on theperception of falling-rising synthesized tones and natural tones, divided by nativespeakers, American and Thai speakers;2) perception training research on tone2andtone3by American and Thai speakers;3) production research on tone2and tone3bynative and second-language speakers;4) relationships between perception andproduction of tone2and tone3.
The results suggests that:1) in the perception pattern of native speakers, there aretwo acoustic cues which affect the identification of tone2and tone3significantly, andthe interaction of the two cues is significant; the results also show that the turningpoint is the key--it has a larger effect and is the critical cue in the perception space,unlike the final pitch, which is not the critical cue, but has a supplementary effect. Inthe perception patterns of American and Thai speakers, the final pitch has a largereffect on the identification of tone2and tone3, rather than the turning point.Compared with American speakers, Thai speakers have advantages in perceiving bothcues.2) The results of the perceptual training indicate that the effects of the two cuescan be improved by short-term training. Due to the time limitation, the mechanism ofthe interaction between the final pitch and turning point has not been acquired. Theresults also show that the improvement of synthetic tones helps the improvement ofnatural tones; the significant improvement appears in the latter part of the training,which indicates the sufficient input is the key of the tone acquisition. Finally, thevisual feedback also helps the acquisition of the acoustic and category information.3) The acoustic results show that the pitch contours of tone2and tone3are significantlydifferent; the result of di-syllable tones shows that the pitch height in the connectionof the two syllables will be changed significantly because of the co-articulation, whilethere is no significant change happens to the turning point. This phenomenonindicates, in the acoustic way, that the turning point is the key character. For theAmerican and Thai speakers, co-articulation also happens, but the order of the pitchheight is different from native speakers, which means the American and Thai speakershave not acquired the “relative height” of Mandarin tones. However, the Thaispeakers also have advantages in the production of tone2and tone3over the Americanspeakers.4) The results of the perceptual and acoustic experiments demonstrate therelativity between the perception and production of tone2and tone3, and also thecomplexity of the relativity.
The results of this paper support the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM), test andcomplement the Cue-Weighting Model (CWM), and enrich the results of the tone2and tone3research. Based on the results of each experiment, some coping advice oftone2and tone3acquisition and teaching are offered.
实验主要结果如下：（1）在母语者感知模式中，拐点位置和终点音高两个声学线索对阳、上辨认都有显著作用，而且两者相互制约；拐点位置具有更为强大的制约作用，是阳、上感知的关键性声学线索，终点音高是非关键性线索，对阳、上辨认具有补偿性作用；美国和泰国学习者的阳、上感知模式中，终点音高的作用较大，拐点位置的作用较小；较之美国学习者，泰国学习者在两个线索的作用机制上都存在一定的优势；（2）训练实验的结果显示，短期训练在一定程度上提高了学习者阳、上两个声学线索的作用，但是因为训练的时间有限，所以阳、上两个线索的作用机制学习者最终未能获得；合成调的训练有助于自然调训练的提高；六次训练的显著提高集中在训练的后半段，这说明充分的输入是语音习得的关键；听感训练中的视觉刺激（反馈）可以帮助学习者提高对阳、上声学及音位特征的获得；（3）母语者产出实验的结果显示，单字阳平和上声的音高曲线走势存在显著差异；双字调的声学分析说明在语流中前字和后字阳、上受协同发音作用的影响，起点和终点都发生了高低变化，但是阳、上的拐点位置都未发生前后维度上太大的变化，这表明从声学角度看，拐点位置也是区分阳、上最为重要的声学特征；学习者产出实验的结果显示，单字阳平与上声的音高曲线走势有一定程度的相似性，与母语者的差异主要表现在拐点位置前后的不同上；双字阳、上的声学结果发现，在语流中受协同发音作用的影响，学习者阳、上的起点和终点也有高低变化，但是高低顺序与母语者仍然存在差异，这表明学习者尚未掌握语流中“相对音高”的声调模式；泰国学习者阳、上的产出也表现出一定的优势；（4）本实验阳、上的感知与产出存在较好的对应关系，但也有其复杂性。
本文的实验结果支持感知同化模型（PAM）理论，同时还验证和补充了线索权衡假说（CWM），以及丰富了阳、上感知和产出的研究成果，并根据实验的结果为阳、上教学与习得提供了更有针对性的建议。
Tone2and tone3present the most difficulty in learning and teaching speech ofChinese as a second language. These are the focus of our study of L2speechacquisition. This paper investigates the acquisition of tone2and tone3by Americanand Thai native speakers through perceptual experiments, production experiments andperception-training experiments. We present four aspects:1) research on theperception of falling-rising synthesized tones and natural tones, divided by nativespeakers, American and Thai speakers;2) perception training research on tone2andtone3by American and Thai speakers;3) production research on tone2and tone3bynative and second-language speakers;4) relationships between perception andproduction of tone2and tone3.
The results suggests that:1) in the perception pattern of native speakers, there aretwo acoustic cues which affect the identification of tone2and tone3significantly, andthe interaction of the two cues is significant; the results also show that the turningpoint is the key--it has a larger effect and is the critical cue in the perception space,unlike the final pitch, which is not the critical cue, but has a supplementary effect. Inthe perception patterns of American and Thai speakers, the final pitch has a largereffect on the identification of tone2and tone3, rather than the turning point.Compared with American speakers, Thai speakers have advantages in perceiving bothcues.2) The results of the perceptual training indicate that the effects of the two cuescan be improved by short-term training. Due to the time limitation, the mechanism ofthe interaction between the final pitch and turning point has not been acquired. Theresults also show that the improvement of synthetic tones helps the improvement ofnatural tones; the significant improvement appears in the latter part of the training,which indicates the sufficient input is the key of the tone acquisition. Finally, thevisual feedback also helps the acquisition of the acoustic and category information.3) The acoustic results show that the pitch contours of tone2and tone3are significantlydifferent; the result of di-syllable tones shows that the pitch height in the connectionof the two syllables will be changed significantly because of the co-articulation, whilethere is no significant change happens to the turning point. This phenomenonindicates, in the acoustic way, that the turning point is the key character. For theAmerican and Thai speakers, co-articulation also happens, but the order of the pitchheight is different from native speakers, which means the American and Thai speakershave not acquired the “relative height” of Mandarin tones. However, the Thaispeakers also have advantages in the production of tone2and tone3over the Americanspeakers.4) The results of the perceptual and acoustic experiments demonstrate therelativity between the perception and production of tone2and tone3, and also thecomplexity of the relativity.
The results of this paper support the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM), test andcomplement the Cue-Weighting Model (CWM), and enrich the results of the tone2and tone3research. Based on the results of each experiment, some coping advice oftone2and tone3acquisition and teaching are offered.
引文
曹文2010声调感知对比研究：关于平调的报告，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
蔡整莹曹文2000泰国学生汉语语音偏误分析，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
陈明远1984第三声的性能及其教学，《对外汉语论文集》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
陈默2011汉语作为第二语言的声调认知发展模拟，《清华大学学报（自然科学版）》，第9期。
陈彧2006苏格兰留学生汉语普通话单字音声调音高的实验研究，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
冯丽萍胡秀梅2005零起点韩国学生阳平二字组声调格局研究，《韩语学习》，第4期。
高玉娟李宝贵2006韩国留学生汉语声调习得偏误的声学研究，《云南师范大学学报（对外汉语教学与研究）》，第4卷，第1期。
宫本幸子1996日本人学习汉语声调，《第五届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》，北京：北京大学出版社。
桂明超杨吉春2000对美国学生学习汉语普通话声调的干扰，《世界汉语教学》，第1期。
侯晓虹李彦春2006初级汉语水平韩国留学生汉语双音节词声调的发音规律研究，《语言文字应用》，第2期。
孔江平2001《论语言发声》，北京：中央民族大学出版社。
李红印1995泰国学生汉语学习的语音偏误，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
李倩曹文2007日本学生汉语单字调的阳平与上升，《第九届全国人机语言通讯学术会议论文集》。
李晟熏李爱军2008韩国学生普通话上声的实验语音学研究，北京：《第八届中国语音学学术会议暨庆贺吴宗济先生百岁华诞语音科学前沿问题国际研讨会论文集》。
林焘王理嘉1992《语音学教程》，北京：北京大学出版社。
林焘1996语音研究与对外汉语教学，《世界汉语教学》，第3期。
刘娟2004普通话阳平和上声调的感知界限，《乐在其中——王士元教授七十华诞庆祝文集》，天津：南开大学出版社。
刘艺1998日韩学生的汉语声调分析，《世界汉语教学》，第1期。
刘珣2000《对外汉语教育学引论》，北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
鲁健骥1984中介语理论与外国人学习汉语的语音偏误分析，《语言教学与研究》，第3期。
罗思娜2013汉语和泰语声调相似度研究，《云南师范大学学报（对外汉语教学与研究版）》，第1期。
马燕华1994初级水平留学生的普通话声调误区，《北京师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，第3期。
马燕华1999中级汉语水平日韩留学生汉语语音听辨范畴的异同，《北京师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，第6期。
马燕华2000初级汉语水平留学生的第三声听辨，《北京师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，第6期。
毛悦1996从听力测试谈留学生听力理解方面的障碍，《中国对外汉语教学学会第五次学术讨论会会议选》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
钱玉莲2002留学生汉语声调习得之实验研究，《第七届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》，北京：北京大学出版社。
覃凤余王丽娟余瑾2007在桂尼泊尔学生汉语声调错误分析，《广西大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》，第4期。
沈家煊1999《不对称和标记论》，南昌：江西教育出版社。
沈晓楠1989关于美国人学习汉语声调，《世界汉语教学》，第3期。
沈晓楠1992汉语普通话声调的协同发音，《国外语言学》，第2期。
石峰1994《北京话的声调格局》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
特拉斯克, R.L.编2000《语音学和音系学词典》，北京：语文出版社。
王功平2004印尼华裔留学生汉语普通话双音节上上连读调偏误实验研究，《暨南大学华文学院学报》，第4期。
王韫佳1995也谈美国人学习汉语声调，《语言教学与研究》，第3期。
王韫佳2002日本学习者感知和产生普通话鼻音韵母的实验研究，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
王韫佳2003第二语言语音习得研究的基本方法和思路，汉语学习，第4期。
王韫佳2008跨语言语音对比与L2语音习得——CAH、PAM和SLM述评，北京：《第八届中国语音学学术会议暨庆贺吴宗济先生百岁华诞语音科学前沿问题国际研讨会论文集》。
王韫佳邓丹2009日本学习者对汉语普通话“相似元音”和“陌生元音”的习得，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
王韫佳李美京2010调型和调阶对阳平和上声感知的作用，《心理学报》，第9期。
王韫佳李美京2011韩国母语者对普通话阳平和上声的感知，《语言教学与研究》，第1期。
王韫佳覃夕航2012再论普通话阳平和上声的感知，《第十届中国语音学学术会议论文》。
温宝莹2008日本学习者汉语元音习得的实验研究，《语言教学与研究》，第4期
吴寒张林军舒华2012音乐经验对言语加工能力的促进作用，《心理与行为研究》，第4期。
吴门吉胡明光2004越南学生汉语声调偏误溯因，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
徐谨2006俄罗斯留学生汉语声调偏误分析，《佳木斯大学社会科学学报》，第3期。
席洁姜薇张林军舒华2009汉语语音范畴性感知及其发展，《心理学报》，第7期。
易斌吴永明阿丽达2012泰国学习者汉语单字调习得过程及特点的实验研究，《语言教学与研究》，第6期。
余霭芹1988声调教法的商榷，《第一届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
张林军2009a感知训练和日本留学生汉语辅音送气/不送气特征的习得，《语言教学与研究》，第4期。
张林军2009b感知训练日本留学生汉语送气/不送气音的范畴化感知，《世界汉语教学》，第4期。
张林军2010a母语经验对留学生汉语声调范畴化感知的影响，《华文教学与研究》，第2期。
张林军2010b日本留学生汉语声调的范畴化感知，《语言教学与研究》，第3期。
张林军2011美国留学生汉语声调的音位和声学信息加工，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
张明岛陈兴时2009事件相关电位研究新进展，《神经病学与神经康复学杂志》，第4期。
赵金铭1987从一些声调语言的声调说到汉语声调，《第二届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
赵元任著，吕叔湘译1979《汉语口语语法》，北京：商务印书馆。
Arthur S. A.1962The Vowels and Tones of Standard Thai: Acoustical Measurements andExperiments. Literary Licensing, LLC.
Asher, J.&Garcia, R.1969―The optimal age to learn a foreign language‖. Modern LanguageJournal,53,334-341.
Ben-Artzi, E.&Marks, L.E.1999―Processing linguistic and perceptual dimensions of speech:Interactions in speeded classification‖. Journal of the Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance,25,579-595.
Best, C.T.1999―Development of language-specific influences on speech perception andproduction in pre-verbal infancy‖. Proceedings of International Congress of PhoneticScience,1261-1263.
Bohn, O. S.&Flege, J. E.1990―Interlingual identification and the role of foreign languageexperience in L2vowel perception‖. Applied Psycholinguistics,11,303-328.
Bohn, O. S.&Flege, J. E.1992―The production of new and similar vowels by adult Germanlearners of English‖. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,14,131–158.
Bradlow,A., Pisoni, D., Akahane-Yamada, R.&Tohkura, Y.,1997―Training Japanese listeners toidentify English//and//Ⅳ: some effects of perceptual learning on speech production‖.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,101,2299-2310.
Bruce D. M., Julie A., Fiez, J. A., Athanassios P., Mary C.&James L. M.2002―Success andfailure in teaching the [r]-[l] contrast to Japanese adults: Tests of a Hebbian model ofplasticity and stabilization in spoken language perception‖. Cognitive, Affective,&Behavioral Neuroscience,2,89-108.
Chandrasekaran B., Jackson T. G.&Ananthanarayan K.2007a―Neuroplasticity in the processingof pitch dimensions: A multidimensional scaling analysis of the mismatch negativity‖.Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience,25,195-210.
Chandrasekaran B., Ananthanarayan K.&Jackson T. G.2007b―Experience-dependent neuralplasticity is sensitive to shape of pitch contours‖. Cognitive Neuroscience andNeuropsychology,18,1963-1967.
Chandrasekaran B., Padma D.S.&Wong, P.2010―Idividual variability in cue-weighting andlexical tone learning‖, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,128,456-465.
Cochrane,R.M.1980―The acquisition of/r/and/l/by Japanese children learning English as asecond language‖, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,1,331-360.
Debra M. H.2010―Visual and auditory input in second-langguage speech processing‖. LanguageTeaching,43,84-95.
Eckman,F.R.1977―Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis‖. Language Learning,27，315-330.
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P.&Demonet, J. F.1971―Speech Perception in Infants‖,Science,171,303-306.
Ellis, R.1999Understanding Second Language Acquisition.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
Fathman, A.1975―The relationship of age and second language productive ability‖. LanguageLearning,25,245-253.
Flege, J. E.1987a―Cross-language switching in stop consonant perception and production byDutch speakers of English‖. Speech Communication,6,185-202.
Flege, J. E.1987b―The production of new‘and similar‘phones in a foreign language: evidencefor the effect of equivalence classification‖. Journal of Phonetics,15,47-65.
Flege, J. E.1993―Production and perception of a novel second-language phonetic contrast‖.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,3,1589-1608.
Flege, J. E.1997―Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l/: IV. Some effects ofperceptual learning on speech production‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,101,2299-2310.
Flege, J.E.1999―The relationship between L2production and perception‖. In proceeding ofICPHS,1273-1276.
Fry, D. B., Abramson, A. S., Eimas, P. D.&Liberman, A. M.1962―The Identification anddiscrimination of Synthetic vowels‖. Language Speech,5,171-189.
Golestani, N.&Zatorre, R.J.2009―Individual differences in the acquisition of second languagephonology‖. Brain Language,109,55-67.
Green, K. P., Tomial, G.R.&Kuhl, P.K.1997―The encoding of rate and talker information duringphonetic perception‖. Perception and Psychophysics,59,675-692.
Harnad, S.1987Psychophysical and Cognitive Aspects of Categorical Perception: A CriticalOverview. Cambidge: Cambridge University Press.
Hazan, V., Sennema, A.&Faulkner, A.2005―Effects of audiovisual perceptual training on theperception and production of consonants by Japanese learners of English‖. SpeechCommunications,47,1-19.
Holt, L L.&Lotto A J.2006―Cue weighting in auditory categorization: Implications for first andsecond language acquisition‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,119,3059-3071.
Iverson, P., Hazan, V.&Bannister, K.2005―Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: Acomparison of methods for teaching English/l/-/r/to Japanese adults‖. Journal of theAcoustical Society of America,116,1763-1773.
Leather, J.,&James, A.1991―The Acquisition of second language speech‖. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,13,305-341.
Lenneberg, E.1967Biological Foundations of Language, New York: Wiley.
Lively, S.E., Logan, J.D.&Pisoni, D.B.1993―Training Japanese listens to identify English/r/and/l/: Ⅱ‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,94,1242-1255.
Lively, S.E., Pisoni, D.B., Yamada, R.A., Tohkura, Y.&Yamada, T.1994―Training Japaneselistens to identify English/r/and/l/: Ⅲ‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,96,2076-2087.
Livelye, S.E., Logan, J.S.&Pisoni, D.B.1994―Training Japanese listeners to identify English//and//Ⅳ: long-term retention of new phonetic categories‖. Journal of the AcousticalSociety of America,96,2076-2087.
Logan, J.D., Lively, S.E.&Pisoni, D.B.1991―Training Japanese listens to identify English/r/and/l/: A first report‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,89,874-886.
Major, R.C.&Faudree, M.C.1996―Markedness universals and the acquisition of voicingcontrasts by Korean speakers of English‖. Studies of second language acquisition,18,69-90.
McClelland, J., Fiez, J.A.&McCandliss, B.D.2002―Teaching the/r/-/l/discrimination toJapanese adults: behavioral and neural aspects‖. Physiology and Behavior,77,657-662.
McMurk, H., MacDonald, J.1976―Hearing lips and seeing voices‖. Nature,264,746-748.
Oyama, S.1976―A sensitive period for the acquisition of a non-native phonological system‖.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,5,261-283.
Paul I., Valerie H.&Kerry B.2005―Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: Acomparison of methods for teaching English/r/-/l/to Japanese adults‖. Journal of theAcoustical Society of America,118,3267-3278.
Pilar A., Jason Z.&Artturo E. H.2012―Age of Acquisition and Proficiency in a second languageindependently influence the perception of non-native speech‖. Bilingualism: Languageand Cognition.15,190-201.
Ratree P. W., Susan G.2004―Training English and Chinese listeners to perceive Thai tones: Apreliminary report‖. Language Learning, Volume54, Issue4,681-712.
Robert M.N.1992―Similarity scaling and cognitive process models‖. Annual Review ofPsychology,43,25-53.
Rochet, B.L.1995―Speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning‖. Journalof Speech Hearing Research,37,347-357.
Seliger, H.W., Krashen, S.&Ladefoged, P.1975―Maturational constraints in the acquisition ofsecond language accent‖. Language Sciences,36,20-22.
Strange, W.1995―Phonetics of second language acquisition: Past, present and future‖. In K.Elenius and P. Branderud(Eds.), Proceedings of ICPhS95, Arne Stombergs: Stockholm.
Strange, W., Erika, S.L.&Franzo, F.L.1998―Cross-language categorization of French andGerman vowels by na ve American listeners‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica,126，1461-1476.
Tyler K. P., Jiyeon L., Louisa Y. Y. H.,&Wong, P.2011―Learning a novel phonological contrastdepends on interactions between individual difference and training paradigm design‖.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,130,461-472.
Wang, S.Y.1976―Language change‖. Annals of N. Y. Academy of Science,280,61-72.
Wang, Y., Michelle M S.1999―Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones‖, Journalof the Acoustical Society of America,106,3649-3658.
Wang, Y., Allard J.&Joan A. S.2003―Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin toneproductions before and after perceptual training‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica,113,1033-1043.
Wang, Y., Dawn M. B.&Jiang, H.2008―Linguistic experience and audio-visual perception ofnon-native fricatives‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,124,1716-1726.
Wong, P., Lawrence M. P., Michael M.&Randy L. D.2006―The Role of the Insular Cortex inPitch Pattern Perception: The Effect of Linguistic Contexts‖. The Journal ofNeuroscience,24,9153-9160.
Wong, P., Perrachione, T.K.&Parrish, T.B.2007―Neural characteristics of successful and lesssuccessful speech and word learning in adults‖. Human Brain Mapping,28,995-1006.
Wong, P.&Tyler K. P.2007―Learning pitch patterns in lexical identification by nativeEnglish-speaking adults‖. Applied Psycholinguistics,28,565-585.
Valerie H., Anke S., Andrew F.&Marta O.2006―The use of visual cues in the perception ofnon-native consonant contrasts‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,119,1740-1751.
Xu, Y.1997―Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin‖, Journal of Phonetics,25,61-83.
Xu, Y. S., Jackson T. G.&Alexander L. F.2006―Effects of language experience and stimuluscomplexity on the categorical perception of pitch direction‖, Journal of the AcousticalSociety of America,120,1063-1074.
蔡整莹曹文2000泰国学生汉语语音偏误分析，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
陈明远1984第三声的性能及其教学，《对外汉语论文集》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
陈默2011汉语作为第二语言的声调认知发展模拟，《清华大学学报（自然科学版）》，第9期。
陈彧2006苏格兰留学生汉语普通话单字音声调音高的实验研究，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
冯丽萍胡秀梅2005零起点韩国学生阳平二字组声调格局研究，《韩语学习》，第4期。
高玉娟李宝贵2006韩国留学生汉语声调习得偏误的声学研究，《云南师范大学学报（对外汉语教学与研究）》，第4卷，第1期。
宫本幸子1996日本人学习汉语声调，《第五届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》，北京：北京大学出版社。
桂明超杨吉春2000对美国学生学习汉语普通话声调的干扰，《世界汉语教学》，第1期。
侯晓虹李彦春2006初级汉语水平韩国留学生汉语双音节词声调的发音规律研究，《语言文字应用》，第2期。
孔江平2001《论语言发声》，北京：中央民族大学出版社。
李红印1995泰国学生汉语学习的语音偏误，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
李倩曹文2007日本学生汉语单字调的阳平与上升，《第九届全国人机语言通讯学术会议论文集》。
李晟熏李爱军2008韩国学生普通话上声的实验语音学研究，北京：《第八届中国语音学学术会议暨庆贺吴宗济先生百岁华诞语音科学前沿问题国际研讨会论文集》。
林焘王理嘉1992《语音学教程》，北京：北京大学出版社。
林焘1996语音研究与对外汉语教学，《世界汉语教学》，第3期。
刘娟2004普通话阳平和上声调的感知界限，《乐在其中——王士元教授七十华诞庆祝文集》，天津：南开大学出版社。
刘艺1998日韩学生的汉语声调分析，《世界汉语教学》，第1期。
刘珣2000《对外汉语教育学引论》，北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
鲁健骥1984中介语理论与外国人学习汉语的语音偏误分析，《语言教学与研究》，第3期。
罗思娜2013汉语和泰语声调相似度研究，《云南师范大学学报（对外汉语教学与研究版）》，第1期。
马燕华1994初级水平留学生的普通话声调误区，《北京师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，第3期。
马燕华1999中级汉语水平日韩留学生汉语语音听辨范畴的异同，《北京师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，第6期。
马燕华2000初级汉语水平留学生的第三声听辨，《北京师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，第6期。
毛悦1996从听力测试谈留学生听力理解方面的障碍，《中国对外汉语教学学会第五次学术讨论会会议选》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
钱玉莲2002留学生汉语声调习得之实验研究，《第七届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》，北京：北京大学出版社。
覃凤余王丽娟余瑾2007在桂尼泊尔学生汉语声调错误分析，《广西大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》，第4期。
沈家煊1999《不对称和标记论》，南昌：江西教育出版社。
沈晓楠1989关于美国人学习汉语声调，《世界汉语教学》，第3期。
沈晓楠1992汉语普通话声调的协同发音，《国外语言学》，第2期。
石峰1994《北京话的声调格局》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
特拉斯克, R.L.编2000《语音学和音系学词典》，北京：语文出版社。
王功平2004印尼华裔留学生汉语普通话双音节上上连读调偏误实验研究，《暨南大学华文学院学报》，第4期。
王韫佳1995也谈美国人学习汉语声调，《语言教学与研究》，第3期。
王韫佳2002日本学习者感知和产生普通话鼻音韵母的实验研究，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
王韫佳2003第二语言语音习得研究的基本方法和思路，汉语学习，第4期。
王韫佳2008跨语言语音对比与L2语音习得——CAH、PAM和SLM述评，北京：《第八届中国语音学学术会议暨庆贺吴宗济先生百岁华诞语音科学前沿问题国际研讨会论文集》。
王韫佳邓丹2009日本学习者对汉语普通话“相似元音”和“陌生元音”的习得，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
王韫佳李美京2010调型和调阶对阳平和上声感知的作用，《心理学报》，第9期。
王韫佳李美京2011韩国母语者对普通话阳平和上声的感知，《语言教学与研究》，第1期。
王韫佳覃夕航2012再论普通话阳平和上声的感知，《第十届中国语音学学术会议论文》。
温宝莹2008日本学习者汉语元音习得的实验研究，《语言教学与研究》，第4期
吴寒张林军舒华2012音乐经验对言语加工能力的促进作用，《心理与行为研究》，第4期。
吴门吉胡明光2004越南学生汉语声调偏误溯因，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
徐谨2006俄罗斯留学生汉语声调偏误分析，《佳木斯大学社会科学学报》，第3期。
席洁姜薇张林军舒华2009汉语语音范畴性感知及其发展，《心理学报》，第7期。
易斌吴永明阿丽达2012泰国学习者汉语单字调习得过程及特点的实验研究，《语言教学与研究》，第6期。
余霭芹1988声调教法的商榷，《第一届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
张林军2009a感知训练和日本留学生汉语辅音送气/不送气特征的习得，《语言教学与研究》，第4期。
张林军2009b感知训练日本留学生汉语送气/不送气音的范畴化感知，《世界汉语教学》，第4期。
张林军2010a母语经验对留学生汉语声调范畴化感知的影响，《华文教学与研究》，第2期。
张林军2010b日本留学生汉语声调的范畴化感知，《语言教学与研究》，第3期。
张林军2011美国留学生汉语声调的音位和声学信息加工，《世界汉语教学》，第2期。
张明岛陈兴时2009事件相关电位研究新进展，《神经病学与神经康复学杂志》，第4期。
赵金铭1987从一些声调语言的声调说到汉语声调，《第二届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》，北京：北京语言学院出版社。
赵元任著，吕叔湘译1979《汉语口语语法》，北京：商务印书馆。
Arthur S. A.1962The Vowels and Tones of Standard Thai: Acoustical Measurements andExperiments. Literary Licensing, LLC.
Asher, J.&Garcia, R.1969―The optimal age to learn a foreign language‖. Modern LanguageJournal,53,334-341.
Ben-Artzi, E.&Marks, L.E.1999―Processing linguistic and perceptual dimensions of speech:Interactions in speeded classification‖. Journal of the Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance,25,579-595.
Best, C.T.1999―Development of language-specific influences on speech perception andproduction in pre-verbal infancy‖. Proceedings of International Congress of PhoneticScience,1261-1263.
Bohn, O. S.&Flege, J. E.1990―Interlingual identification and the role of foreign languageexperience in L2vowel perception‖. Applied Psycholinguistics,11,303-328.
Bohn, O. S.&Flege, J. E.1992―The production of new and similar vowels by adult Germanlearners of English‖. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,14,131–158.
Bradlow,A., Pisoni, D., Akahane-Yamada, R.&Tohkura, Y.,1997―Training Japanese listeners toidentify English//and//Ⅳ: some effects of perceptual learning on speech production‖.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,101,2299-2310.
Bruce D. M., Julie A., Fiez, J. A., Athanassios P., Mary C.&James L. M.2002―Success andfailure in teaching the [r]-[l] contrast to Japanese adults: Tests of a Hebbian model ofplasticity and stabilization in spoken language perception‖. Cognitive, Affective,&Behavioral Neuroscience,2,89-108.
Chandrasekaran B., Jackson T. G.&Ananthanarayan K.2007a―Neuroplasticity in the processingof pitch dimensions: A multidimensional scaling analysis of the mismatch negativity‖.Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience,25,195-210.
Chandrasekaran B., Ananthanarayan K.&Jackson T. G.2007b―Experience-dependent neuralplasticity is sensitive to shape of pitch contours‖. Cognitive Neuroscience andNeuropsychology,18,1963-1967.
Chandrasekaran B., Padma D.S.&Wong, P.2010―Idividual variability in cue-weighting andlexical tone learning‖, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,128,456-465.
Cochrane,R.M.1980―The acquisition of/r/and/l/by Japanese children learning English as asecond language‖, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,1,331-360.
Debra M. H.2010―Visual and auditory input in second-langguage speech processing‖. LanguageTeaching,43,84-95.
Eckman,F.R.1977―Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis‖. Language Learning,27，315-330.
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P.&Demonet, J. F.1971―Speech Perception in Infants‖,Science,171,303-306.
Ellis, R.1999Understanding Second Language Acquisition.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
Fathman, A.1975―The relationship of age and second language productive ability‖. LanguageLearning,25,245-253.
Flege, J. E.1987a―Cross-language switching in stop consonant perception and production byDutch speakers of English‖. Speech Communication,6,185-202.
Flege, J. E.1987b―The production of new‘and similar‘phones in a foreign language: evidencefor the effect of equivalence classification‖. Journal of Phonetics,15,47-65.
Flege, J. E.1993―Production and perception of a novel second-language phonetic contrast‖.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,3,1589-1608.
Flege, J. E.1997―Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l/: IV. Some effects ofperceptual learning on speech production‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,101,2299-2310.
Flege, J.E.1999―The relationship between L2production and perception‖. In proceeding ofICPHS,1273-1276.
Fry, D. B., Abramson, A. S., Eimas, P. D.&Liberman, A. M.1962―The Identification anddiscrimination of Synthetic vowels‖. Language Speech,5,171-189.
Golestani, N.&Zatorre, R.J.2009―Individual differences in the acquisition of second languagephonology‖. Brain Language,109,55-67.
Green, K. P., Tomial, G.R.&Kuhl, P.K.1997―The encoding of rate and talker information duringphonetic perception‖. Perception and Psychophysics,59,675-692.
Harnad, S.1987Psychophysical and Cognitive Aspects of Categorical Perception: A CriticalOverview. Cambidge: Cambridge University Press.
Hazan, V., Sennema, A.&Faulkner, A.2005―Effects of audiovisual perceptual training on theperception and production of consonants by Japanese learners of English‖. SpeechCommunications,47,1-19.
Holt, L L.&Lotto A J.2006―Cue weighting in auditory categorization: Implications for first andsecond language acquisition‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,119,3059-3071.
Iverson, P., Hazan, V.&Bannister, K.2005―Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: Acomparison of methods for teaching English/l/-/r/to Japanese adults‖. Journal of theAcoustical Society of America,116,1763-1773.
Leather, J.,&James, A.1991―The Acquisition of second language speech‖. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,13,305-341.
Lenneberg, E.1967Biological Foundations of Language, New York: Wiley.
Lively, S.E., Logan, J.D.&Pisoni, D.B.1993―Training Japanese listens to identify English/r/and/l/: Ⅱ‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,94,1242-1255.
Lively, S.E., Pisoni, D.B., Yamada, R.A., Tohkura, Y.&Yamada, T.1994―Training Japaneselistens to identify English/r/and/l/: Ⅲ‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,96,2076-2087.
Livelye, S.E., Logan, J.S.&Pisoni, D.B.1994―Training Japanese listeners to identify English//and//Ⅳ: long-term retention of new phonetic categories‖. Journal of the AcousticalSociety of America,96,2076-2087.
Logan, J.D., Lively, S.E.&Pisoni, D.B.1991―Training Japanese listens to identify English/r/and/l/: A first report‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,89,874-886.
Major, R.C.&Faudree, M.C.1996―Markedness universals and the acquisition of voicingcontrasts by Korean speakers of English‖. Studies of second language acquisition,18,69-90.
McClelland, J., Fiez, J.A.&McCandliss, B.D.2002―Teaching the/r/-/l/discrimination toJapanese adults: behavioral and neural aspects‖. Physiology and Behavior,77,657-662.
McMurk, H., MacDonald, J.1976―Hearing lips and seeing voices‖. Nature,264,746-748.
Oyama, S.1976―A sensitive period for the acquisition of a non-native phonological system‖.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,5,261-283.
Paul I., Valerie H.&Kerry B.2005―Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: Acomparison of methods for teaching English/r/-/l/to Japanese adults‖. Journal of theAcoustical Society of America,118,3267-3278.
Pilar A., Jason Z.&Artturo E. H.2012―Age of Acquisition and Proficiency in a second languageindependently influence the perception of non-native speech‖. Bilingualism: Languageand Cognition.15,190-201.
Ratree P. W., Susan G.2004―Training English and Chinese listeners to perceive Thai tones: Apreliminary report‖. Language Learning, Volume54, Issue4,681-712.
Robert M.N.1992―Similarity scaling and cognitive process models‖. Annual Review ofPsychology,43,25-53.
Rochet, B.L.1995―Speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning‖. Journalof Speech Hearing Research,37,347-357.
Seliger, H.W., Krashen, S.&Ladefoged, P.1975―Maturational constraints in the acquisition ofsecond language accent‖. Language Sciences,36,20-22.
Strange, W.1995―Phonetics of second language acquisition: Past, present and future‖. In K.Elenius and P. Branderud(Eds.), Proceedings of ICPhS95, Arne Stombergs: Stockholm.
Strange, W., Erika, S.L.&Franzo, F.L.1998―Cross-language categorization of French andGerman vowels by na ve American listeners‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica,126，1461-1476.
Tyler K. P., Jiyeon L., Louisa Y. Y. H.,&Wong, P.2011―Learning a novel phonological contrastdepends on interactions between individual difference and training paradigm design‖.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,130,461-472.
Wang, S.Y.1976―Language change‖. Annals of N. Y. Academy of Science,280,61-72.
Wang, Y., Michelle M S.1999―Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones‖, Journalof the Acoustical Society of America,106,3649-3658.
Wang, Y., Allard J.&Joan A. S.2003―Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin toneproductions before and after perceptual training‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica,113,1033-1043.
Wang, Y., Dawn M. B.&Jiang, H.2008―Linguistic experience and audio-visual perception ofnon-native fricatives‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,124,1716-1726.
Wong, P., Lawrence M. P., Michael M.&Randy L. D.2006―The Role of the Insular Cortex inPitch Pattern Perception: The Effect of Linguistic Contexts‖. The Journal ofNeuroscience,24,9153-9160.
Wong, P., Perrachione, T.K.&Parrish, T.B.2007―Neural characteristics of successful and lesssuccessful speech and word learning in adults‖. Human Brain Mapping,28,995-1006.
Wong, P.&Tyler K. P.2007―Learning pitch patterns in lexical identification by nativeEnglish-speaking adults‖. Applied Psycholinguistics,28,565-585.
Valerie H., Anke S., Andrew F.&Marta O.2006―The use of visual cues in the perception ofnon-native consonant contrasts‖. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,119,1740-1751.
Xu, Y.1997―Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin‖, Journal of Phonetics,25,61-83.
Xu, Y. S., Jackson T. G.&Alexander L. F.2006―Effects of language experience and stimuluscomplexity on the categorical perception of pitch direction‖, Journal of the AcousticalSociety of America,120,1063-1074.