@article {494,
	title = {Linguistic asymmetries in cross-cultural emotion recognition},
	year = {2021},
	publisher = {Nederlandse Vereniging voor Fonetische Wetenschappen},
	address = {online},
	abstract = {The aim of this study is to explore cross-linguistic/cross-cultural recognition of emotion in a relatively understudied language (Korean). Previous studies on cross-linguistic emotion recognition found that intercultural emotion recognition is the combination of universal, cultural and, to a lesser extent, linguistic factors (Mesquita \& Fridja, 1992; Scherer, 1997a, 1997b). However, these studies have mostly adopted unbalanced experimental designs that either used a {\textquotedblleft}one-to-many{\textquotedblright} approach (presenting the same stimuli to different listener groups), or a {\textquotedblleft}many-to-one{\textquotedblright} approach (presenting different stimuli to the same listeners). Moreover, these studies are often limited to basic emotions (Ekman, 1992). Consequently, current work on cross-linguistic emotion recognition may fail to take linguistic asymmetries into account. Thus, in the present study, we developed a full cross-language design ({\textquotedblleft}two-to-two{\textquotedblright}), with speakers and listeners from two typologically different languages and different cultures, Dutch and Korean. Participants heard carrier phrases that are linguistically appropriate in both languages ([nuto hɔm sɛpika{\ng}]) expressed with eight different emotions (balanced in terms of valence and arousal), and were then asked to choose one of the eight emotions that they thought the speaker was expressing. 

Consistent with previous studies, our data revealed that both groups can successfully decode the emotions above chance level, supporting the universal hypothesis (Scherer et al., 2001). Also consistent with previous work (Elfenbein \& Ambady, 2002), our data highlighted an in-group advantage for recognizing vocal emotions produced in listeners{\textquoteright} native language. The similarities and differences in confusion patterns across languages will be discussed in terms of the influence of linguistic asymmetries. 

References

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169{\textendash} 200. 
Elfenbein, H. A., \& Ambady, H. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 128, 203-235. 
Mesquita, B., \& Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 179 {\textendash}204. 
Scherer, K. R. (1997a). Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing theoretical predictions across cultures. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 113-150. 
Scherer, K. R. (1997b). The role of culture in emotion-antecedent appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 902-922. 
Scherer, K. R., Banse, R., \& Wallbott, H. G. (2001). Emotion inferences from vocal expression correlate across languages and cultures. Journal of Cross Culture Psychology, 32, 76-92.
},
	author = {Liang, Yachan and Mirjam Broersma and Martijn Goudbeek and Konopka, Agnieszka and Choi, Jiyoun}
}
@article {463,
	title = {Keynote: Phonetic input under experimental control in {\textquotedblleft}real{\textquotedblright} conversations: The ventriloquist paradigm},
	year = {2019},
	publisher = {Nederlandse Vereniging voor Fonetische Wetenschappen},
	address = {Amsterdam, The Netherlands},
	abstract = {During conversations, interlocutors adapt to each other in pronunciation and perception. A major challenge for the study of this phonetic accommodation and perceptual adaptation is the intrinsic impossibility to control the phonetic input that participants are exposed to in dialogue. The number of times participants hear certain speech sounds, the phonetic contexts in which these sounds occur, and their specific realizations, which affect the extent to which participants accommodate their pronunciation and adapt their perception to their interlocutor, thus vary across participants. The Ventriloquist paradigm (Felker, Troncoso-Ruiz, Ernestus, \& Broersma, 2018) has been developed to tackle this problem. It enables the study of sound learning in dialogue, while allowing full control over the phonetic detail of the input that participants are exposed to. The Ventriloquist paradigm has been developed to investigate phonetic accommodation and perceptual learning in an ecologically valid yet maximally controlled way. Participants take part in a dialogue which they believe to be genuine; in fact, however, their real-life interlocutor is a confederate whose speech is not just {\textquoteleft}scripted{\textquoteright} (as in the confederate scripting task for the study of syntactic accommodation), but fully prerecorded. This guarantees control over all characteristics of the speech input, including the number of times the participant hears certain speech sounds, their phonetic contexts, and their phonetic realization. The set-up is fully tuned to upholding the illusion that the confederate is actually speaking with the participant. The confederate sits opposite the participant, face briefly hidden when (s)he {\textquotedblleft}speaks{\textquotedblright}. Participants hear the prerecorded speech over closed headphones. In addition to the standard input, to facilitate a smooth flow of the conversation, the confederate can play prerecorded non-verbal interaction markers and stop-gap replies to any unanticipated remarks or questions from the participant. The new paradigm thus reconciles ecological validity with experimental control for the study of phonetic accommodation in dialogue.

References
Felker, E., Troncoso-Ruiz, A., Ernestus, M., \& Broersma, M. (2018) The ventriloquist paradigm: Studying speech processing in conversation with experimental control over phonetic input. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144, EL304-EL309. Doi: 10.1121/1.5063809.},
	author = {Mirjam Broersma}
}
@article {332,
	title = {Dutch listeners{\textquoteright} processing of word-final voicing in English},
	year = {2004},
	publisher = {Nederlandse Vereniging voor Fonetische Wetenschappen},
	address = {Nijmegen, The Netherlands},
	abstract = {<p>Whereas Dutch has voiced and voiceless obstruents, only voiceless obstruents occur in word-final position. In a series of experiments we investigated Dutch listeners{\textquoteright} processing of the voice distinction in word-final position, and its use for the recognition of words in English. In a categorization experiment Dutch and English participants categorized /b/-/p/, /d/-/t/, /z/-/s/, and /v/-/f/, in nonword-initial and -final position. Dutch listeners were found to categorize voiced and voiceless obstruents in word-final position as accurately as in word-initial position, and as accurately as English listeners. To investigate to which extent Dutch listeners use this ability for the recognition of words, English words with an obstruent in word-final position were recorded in two ways: unaltered, and with final voiced consonants replaced with voiceless ones and vice versa. Thus {\textquoteright}globe{\textquoteright} became {\textquoteright}glope{\textquoteright}, and {\textquoteright}cheap{\textquoteright} became {\textquoteright}cheab{\textquoteright}. The replacement of final consonants did not result in existing words, but in so-called {\textquoteright}near-words{\textquoteright}. Real words and near-words were presented to Dutch and English participants in a categorization experiment. Dutch listeners were found to rely more on lexical cues than English listeners: Dutch listeners gave more {\textquoteright}b{\textquoteright} responses to the final consonant in {\textquoteright}glope{\textquoteright} and more {\textquoteright}p{\textquoteright} responses to {\textquoteright}cheab{\textquoteright} than English listeners. When the same items were presented in an auditory lexical decision task, Dutch listeners misjudged the near-words as real words more often than English listeners, again relying on the lexicon. To investigate how strongly near-words activate the real word, the same items were used as auditory primes in a bimodal priming experiment, with the real words as visual targets. For English listeners, near-words did not prime real words. For Dutch listeners, {\textquoteright}glope{\textquoteright} primed {\textquoteright}globe{\textquoteright} as strongly as {\textquoteright}globe{\textquoteright} did. {\textquoteright}Cheab{\textquoteright}, however, did not prime {\textquoteright}cheap{\textquoteright}. Thus Dutch listeners were tolerant of incorrect devoicing, but intolerant of incorrect voicing of word-final obstruents.</p>
},
	author = {Mirjam Broersma}
}
