1

Prof. Der-lin Chao & Zhuting Chang CHIN 701 Shouqian Shi

Perception and Production Study of Mandarin Chinese Tone 2 and Tone 3 in Disyllabic Setting

1. Introduction

A strong consensus has been in place in academia and among learners of Mandarin Chinese (Chinese hereafter) that Chinese tones is one of the most challenging linguistic suprasegments to acquire, especially for those learners of non-tonal language background (Shen, 1989). As for hierarchy of difficulty in acquisition of 4 tones, majority of studies have found that Tone 2 and Tone 3 are the most problematic and most confusing ones for American learners (Kiriloff 1969, Chuang 1972, Chen 1997, Wang 1995, Wang et al. 1999 and Shi 2013).

The present study is a continuation and partial duplication of Shi (2013) conducted by the author for Hunter College independent study course CHIN 709. Shi (2013) is a tonal perception study in disyllabic setting that found learners to have more problems in perceiving Tone 2 and Tone 3 than Tone 1 and Tone 4. In light of previous findings, the present study investigated the perception as well as production patterns of Tone 2 and Tone 3 in disyllabic setting. Two participants were American novice learners (different from the two participants in Shi (2013)) of Chinese enrolled in separate Chinese 101 language courses in City University of New York-Hunter College. The stimuli and methodology used in this study were identical to that of Shi (2013) to ensure the validity of and the compatibility of the results. This study also examines the production patterns of these two tones using the same stimuli. Production was not previously investigated in Shi (2013). Two participants went through perceptual and production training on all four tones over the course of 3 weeks before a post-test was administered to gauge the efficacy.

1.1 . Chinese Tones

The availability of Mandarin tones enables the inventory of distinguishable Chinese sounds to quadruple. For example, by adding tones to the syllable ba, four distinct sounds: bā, bá, bǎ, bà can be

produced and uttered. The total number of syllables used in Chinese speech is 410 (Gu & Shiu, 1998). By adding tones, 1640 syllables with tones are derived. However, because some syllables with tones are not used in speech, thus, the total distinct sounds in modern Chinese come to 1277 (DeFrancis, 1984).

In term of pitch, Tone 1 has high-level pitch with pitch contour of 5-5, Tone 2 has high-rising pitch with pitch contours of 3-5, Tone 3 has low-dipping pitch with pitch contour of 2-1-4 when it is uttered in its fullest term and Tone 4 has high-falling pitch with contour of 5-1 (Xu & Wang, 2001). The frequency contours of 4 tones are graphically represented by graphically comparable diacritics of a macron (-) for

2

Tone 1, an acute accent (ˊ) for Tone 2, a caron ( ˇ ) for Tone 3 and a grave accent (ˋ) for Tone 4.

Since the home language (meaning language spoken with parents at home) of one of the participants is Fuzhounese in the present study. It is worthy to explore into the nature of Fuzhounese tones in relation to Mandarin ones. Fuzhounese is a tonal language spoken in northern part of Fujian

Province in southern China. According to Fuzhounese phonology classic Qi Lin Bayin (戚林八音, Book of Eight Tones ), there are, in total, 8 tones in Fuzhounese that are compatible to the 8 tones of Middle

Chinese. Because two Fuzhounese tones, Yingshang(陰上) and Yangshang (陽上) are identical in tone contour in modern Fuzhou dialect, only seven tones exist today. Three of these tones have the exact

same names as Mandarin tones. They are the high level tone called Yingping (陰平，which is Tone 1 in

mandarin)，middle level tone called Shangsheng (上聲，Tone 2 in Mandarin) and high falling tone called

Yangping （陽平，Tone 4 in Mandarin）. Yingping(陰平) and Yangping(陽平) tones in Fuzhounese are

pronounced in exact pitch contour as Mandarin Tone 1 and Tone 4 respectively. For example, the

Fuzhounese Yingping Tone word 君（jūn in Mandarin）is pronounced as gong1 like 工（gōng）in Mandarin，

and Fuzhounese Yangping tone word 群（qún in Mandarin）is pronounced as like 共（gòng）in

Mandarin. The Fuzhounese Shangsheng (上聲) tone, although sharing the same Chinese terminology with Mandarin Tone 2, is not pronounced in pitch contour of Mandarin Tone 2. A Fuzhounese

Shangsheng tone word 滾(gǔn in Mandarin) is not pronounced as any of Mandarin tones: gōng, góng, gǒng or gòng. It is a flat middle tone with pitch contour close to 3-3.

1.2. Previous Findings on Tone 2 and Tone 3

Although it is generally agreed upon that Tone 2 and Tone 3 are more challenging for American learners than Tone 1 and Tone 4, various studies disagree greatly upon the linguistic nature of Tone 2 and Tones 3 and patter of errors made by American learners on these two tones.

Howie (1976) points out that the pitch pattern of Tone 3 varies greatly depending on the vowel of the syllable. In other words, Tone 3 might ends up having different starting and ending pitch depending on the different vowels in the syllable. And the fluctuation in pitch is more apparent in Tone 3 than in Tone 2. As for the duration of the tone, Lin (1965) asserts that Tone 3 is the longest which differs from Wang (1999) in which no significant difference in duration between two tones are found. Shen (1990) reports that Tone 3 being longer than Tone 2, the timing of the turning points in the F0 contours of these two tones differ to a large degree: the turning point in Tone 2 is close to the beginning whereas the turning point in Tone 3 is in the middle of the tone duration. This could possibly be attributed to the fact that most 3rd tones are not pronounced in fullest contour but rather as “half third tone” (which means the second half, the rising contour is not pronounced) unless it serves as a sentence final or uttered in isolation (Halle et al., 2004).

Previous empirical studies found very different directions of errors made on these two tones. All examining the perception of Chinese tones, Chuang (1972) claims that identifying Tone 2 as Tone 3 is twice as common as the other way around, Shen (1991) claims identifying Tone 3 as Tone 2 as more prevalent while Shi (2013) in which the methodology of the present study was duplicated from finds that while Tone 2 and Tone 3 are the most confusing pairs (meaning that total sum of incidents in which Tone 2 was misidentified as Tone 3 and Tone 3 misidentified as Tone 2 are the highest among other pairs of 12, 13, 14, 24 and 34), Tone 2s were misidentified much more as Tone 3 than the other way around. Tone 3 in the Shi (2013) was more commonly identified as Tone 4 than as Tone 2.

3

2. Research Questions

1. Is the auditory perception training method effective in improving learners’ perception of tones? 2. Does the position in disyllabic string affect the performance? 3. Do the tones of the adjacent syllable (preceding or following) affect the performance? 4. What is the pattern of performance and errors on Tone 2 and Tones 3? 5. How does the production pattern relate to the perception pattern? 6. Does learner’s Chinese language heritage play a role in the tonal perception and production?

3. The Present Study 3.1. Participants

Two participants were born in the United State and did not attend school in countries outside of the U.S. Both were enrolled in first semester of Chinese 101 language course in Hunter College and had taken the class for one month at the time of pre-test.

The heritage learner (H hereafter) was 21 year-old male psychology major who is of Fuzhou dialect (also a tonal language) background. This learners had taken Chinese for 3 years of Mandarin Chinese during early Childhood, but did not retain much of mastery of the language and was near “0” background student as well. The reason for his taking the class is to fulfill the college General Education requirement to graduate.

The non-heritage learner (NH hereafter) was a 19 year-old female student with undecided major who is of Spanish speaking background. The NH is fluent in Arabic as well. The reason for the NH to take the Chinese Class was to apply to Hunter College’s Flagship program (An intensive Chinese language and culture program which aids students to achieve highest level of Chinese proficiency by ACTFL standard by the end of college study and places students in study abroad and internship programs in Taiwan and Mainland China). 3.2. Pretest and Post-test Stimuli

The stimuli used in the pre-test and the post-test see (See Appendix) consisted of 148 syllables or 74 disyllabic words that are mostly Chinese place names that subjects mostly likely have not heard of (all taken from stimuli used in Shi(2013)). The disyllabic words for tone combination of 11, 44, 14 and 41 were fillers. The remaining 66 targeted pairs were of 11 categories of tonal combinations all containing either Tone 2 or Tone 3 or both. The targeted 11 tonal combinations are as follows: 12, 22, 32, 42, 21, 23, 24, 13, 43, 31, and 34. Each category contains 6 sets of disyllabic words. There is no 33 combination because when consecutive third tones occur, the first syllable is changed into Tone 2. 3.3. Procedure

The pre-tests and post-tests were identical in content, order and in administering procedure. During the test sessions, subjects got to hear the tester reading out each of the 74 randomized disyllabic words

4

3 times, with 3-second pauses between each. Subjects were allowed to ask for more repetitions for purpose of clarification. No feedbacks were given to subjects during the tests. Subjects are asked to write down tone pairs in number format. Afterward, subjects were asked to read out those 74 words and the tester recorded down the closest tones deemed by judgment.

4. Pre-test Results 4.1. Perception 4.1.1. Overall

Overall, the H got 21 correct out of 84 targeted syllables, and 27% which is close to 25% which is a score one would have gotten by guessing all the answers. This means that this learner had about zero knowledge of perception of tones before the training. The NH performed 10% higher than the H, which translates into 8 syllables more.

To break the results down to the 2 tones that are focus of the present study, the H performed 10% higher than the NH on Tone 2. However, because of immensely superior performance of the NH on Tone 3 by 36%, the NH performed superior than the H overall. Among individual participants, the H’s Tone 2 performance was twice that of Tone 3 and the NH’s Tone 3 performance was twice that of Tone 2.

4.1.2. By Syllable Position

As seen in Table 1, syllable position of the tones does seem to be associated with perceptual performance disparity, especially for Tone 2 in which both learners performed over 20% better in 1st syllable position than in the 2nd. For Tone 3, the H’s performance is extremely low that no statistically significant difference can be inferred. For the NH, the superior performance in 1st syllable is significant similarly at about 20% higher. The H performed higher for Tone 2 than Tone 3 in both syllable positions, but the NH performed better on Tone 3 than Tone 2 regardless of syllable positions.

35%

17%

27% 25%

53%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Tone 2 Tone 3 Overall

Fig. 1 Perceptual Performance by Tones and Overall

H

NH

5

Table 1. Perceptual Performance Comparison by Syllable Position

Tone Tone 2 Tone 3

Syllable Position 1st Syllable 2nd Syllable 1st Syllable 2nd Syllable

Learners H NH H NH H NH H NH

Correct 11 9 6 3 2 11 4 8

Total 24 24 24 24 18 18 18 18

% Correct 46% 38% 25% 13% 11% 61% 22% 44%

4.1.3. By Adjacent Tone

Fig. 1 shows percentage of correctly perceived second tones and third tones combined in terms of their adjacent tones. For example, Tone 1 category in this case means Performance on syllables that are Tone 2 or Tone 3 when their adjacent tone is Tone 1, which means tonal combinations of 12, 21, 31, and 31 totaling in 24 syllables in this category. The rate of performance by the H is consistent low at 20s across the board. Thus there is no significant effect by the specific adjacent tones. As for the NH, performance on Tone 4-ajacent syllables is slightly higher (50%) than the rest and performance on Tone 3-ajacent syllables is a lot lower than the rest but the sample in this case is only 12 as supposed to 24 for other tones due to tone sandhi of consecutive Tone 3s. Should the NH performed at average level which is about 1/3, the NH would have gotten 4 correct which is not numerically significant of a difference from the actual performance of one. Overall, no strong statistically significant evidence could be found to support the proposition of adjacent tones having effect on learners’ perception on Tone 2 and Tone 3.

4.1.4. Error Patterns

For those wrongly perceived tones, the error patterns are most apparent and significant for Tone 2 than Tone 3 for both learners. As highlighted in Table 2., 2nd tones were mostly wrongly identified as Tone 4 by the H and as Tone 1 by the NH. No apparent pattern of error could be inferred for Tone 3. Neither the misidentification of Tone 2 as Tone 3 nor the misidentification of Tone 3 as Tone 2 is significant for both participants.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Heritage Non-Heritage

Fig. 2. Perceptual Performance by Adjecent Tone (Pre-test)

Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4

6

Table 2. Perception Errors of Two Learners

Tone 2 Tone 3

Misperceived as H NH H NH

Tone 1 7 20 11 8

Tone 2 n/a n/a 10 5

Tone 3 6 8 n/a n/a

Tone 4 18 8 9 4

Total Errors (%) 65% 75% 83% 47%

4.2. Production

As for production errors, both learners had exactly high error rate of 83.5% on Tone 3 and error rate of 1/3 on Tone 2 showing that Tone 3 is much harder for learners to produce than Tone 2.

One pattern consistent between learners and syllable positions was that Tone 3 tends to be mispronounced as Tone 2 across the board. Interestingly, the error pattern in syllabic positions is in direct correlation with perception accuracy (Meaning that higher perception in one syllable position corresponds to higher error rate of same syllable position in production, this is contrary to the belief that when one listens well, one speaks well too or vice versa). As seen in Table 3., Tone 2 mispronunciation rate is higher for 1st syllable than the 2nd for both learners whereas in perception patterns 1st syllable position is found to have higher perception rate. For Tone 3, both the H and the NH pronounced better in 2nd syllable position than the first. To sum up, both learners pronounce two tones better in 2nd syllable position than in the 1st.

Table 3. Production Errors by Two Learners

Tone 2 Tone 3

1st Syllable 2nd Syllable 1st Syllable 2nd Syllable

Mispronounced as H NH H NH H NH H NH

Tone 1 2 6 1 3 0 0 1 3

Tone 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8 15 8 9

Tone 3 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Tone 4 11 3 1 4 10 1 3 2

Error Rate 54% 38% 8% 29% 100% 89% 67% 78%

5. Training Methods 5.1 Training material

The training materials used was the same as in Shi (2013), again, to ensure validity and

compatibility (See Appendix). This material is the section of Chinese textbook 普通话教程

(Putonghua Lessons) by Ma Xianbin and Zhao Yue (马显彬, 赵越) published in 2004. The section about

Chinese tones specifically is named 普通话声调练习 （Putonghua Tone Exercise）. The characters used are simplified characters since this textbook was published in Mainland China.

The material is divided into 5 sections. The first section is of training words of varying number of syllables but only contains one tone in a word. The second section consists of disyllabic words in

7

different tonal combination much like stimuli in the present study. The third section is of Chengyus (成

語，4- syllable words) of different tonal combinations and fourth section is of disyllabic words contrasts. The material has two tongue twisters at the end. 5.2. Learning Process The main process of learning trainees engaged in was mimicking and interpreting. Occasionally, explicit explanations were provided when questions were asked. This is to stimulate the classroom instruction regarding tones which is usually merely asking students to repeat what the instructor pronounces. The other learning process used is identification, the tutor dedicated the last 10 minutes of each session to read monosyllabic or disyllabic words for learners to identify the tone, as the focus of the study is on the perception.

By receiving identical training on the identical material, the assumption is that the gap among two with different background and needs will be minimized to bring students to be uniform in performance. 5.3. Procedure

Before using the training material, learners were trained to produce the 4 tones of Chinese vowels a, o, e, i, u, Ü because tone difference is manifested on the finals. For training using the material each subject was asked to produce the syllables or syllable strings and they were corrected if mispronunciations of tones were spotted. In latter half of each session involves tester reading syllables from the material and learners had to identify the tones. In some sessions learners were asked to read for the material for the tutor to identify. Each training session lasting about 50 minutes was carried out in one-on-one tutoring format. Total of 6 sessions were carried out on each learner over the course of 3 weeks. Thus each learner received two sessions of training each week. The ratio of production and perception training was 4 to 1 resulting in 40 minutes of reading material and 10 minutes of perception training.

The training material uses pyramid method. For each tone, it starts from the easiest monosyllabic words such as Fāng, mài, Rě, Rán . Then, disyllabic words of same tones were trained, Ex. Zhào xiàng, Píng shí , Fēn gōng. Last, tri-syllabic words of same tones were trained, ex. Tuō lā jī ,Cù jìn yuán, Yí chuán xué. Then syllables of different tones are combined to make 8 disyllabic tonal combinations of 21,

12, 31, 32, 34, 41,42 and43. The third section consists of Chengyus (成語，4-syllable words). Chengyu first appear in same tones such as Chūn tiān huā kāi, Rén mín tuán jié ,Chǎng zhǎng ling dǎo, Rì yè fèn zhàn, then comes those of ascending tonal orders of 1234 such as Zuān yán mǎ liè, Yīng xióng hǎo hàn, Bīng qiáng mǎ zhuàng, then of descending tonal order of 4321 such as Pò fǔ chén zhōu. Lastly chengyus come in mix-and-match tonal combination such as Zhōng yán nì ěr, shuǐ luò shí chū, shēn tǐ lì xíng, dé xīn yìng shǒu. The section is of dissyllabic words contrasts such as Xīnyì——xīnyí, xiān yú——xián yǔ, jiājié——jiǎjiè. The purpose of these pairs is for learners to tell apart tones in disyllabic setting. Exercises like tongue twister are included in the fifth section. The first tongue twister is of various syllables and various tones. The syllable in the second tongue twister consists of only one syllable shi in 4 tones. Thus the whole paragraph requires the learners to keep the tongue position stable while changing the tones.

Since the material was developed for native speakers, Pinyin was added underneath the Chinese characters for learners to pronounce.

8

6. Post-test Results and Inter-test Comparison 6.1 Perception 6.1.1. Overall Table 4. shows the H and the NH’s inter-test comparison of perceptual performance on Tone 2, Tone 3 and overall. Between the two learners, reversed the trend to performed superior than the NH on Tone 2 and closed the gap with the NH on Tone 3. This resulted in erasing of the disparity between the two that they essentially performed on equal level overall (65% vs 64%). Among individual learners, both the H and the NH had much superior showing in Tone 3 than Tone 2 (27% for the H and 55% for the NH).

Table 4. Overall Perception Performance

Tone 2 Tone 3 Overall

Test Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

H 35% 54% 17% 81% 27% 65%

NH 25% 42% 53% 97% 37% 64%

There is no doubt that both learners made significant improvements across the board. However,

degree of improvement varies among learners and tones. Fig. 3 shows the degrees of improvement in percentage on Tone 2, Tone 3 and overall. Two learners improved at about same percentage for Tone 2 at about 18%. This degree of improvement is dwarfed by improvement made in Tone 3, especially for the H, the 64% improvement in identification was 20% higher than the NH’s improvement on Tone 3. This was essentially the reason that the H improved 11% more than the NH to perform at almost the exact level as the NH at the post-test.

19%

64%

38%

17%

44%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Tone 2 Tone 3 Overall

Fig. 3. Percentage Improvement Between Tests

H

NH

9

6.1.2. By Syllable Position The superior performance on the 1st syllable than the 2nd was much more consistent and apparent

in the post-test. Both learners performed higher in 1st syllables than the 2nd on both Tone 2 and Tone 3. This syllabic position performance disparity was greater for the H who had about 25% higher score on 1st syllable than the 2nd for both tones. For the NH, 1ST syllable superiority is not too significant as difference were only two in numbers for both tones. Table 5. Perceptual Performance Comparison by Syllable Position

Tone 2 Tone 3

1st Syllable 2nd Syllable 1st Syllable 2nd Syllable

Learners H NH H NH H NH H NH

Total 17 11 9 9 17 18 12 16

% Correct 71% 46% 38% 38% 94% 100% 67% 89%

6.1.3. By Adjacent Tone

The difference among those Tone 2 or Tone 3 syllables adjacent to 4 different tones is even less significant that it is more apparent of showing of unaffectedness of perception of Tone 2 and Tone 3 by kind of tones adjacent to them.

6.1.4 Error Patterns

Most of the error patterns persisted, although to a lesser degree. Tone 3 continued to show no significant pattern of errors. The problem of misperceiving Tone 2 as Tone 1 persisted for the NH. The only apparent change occurred for perception of Tone 2 for the H who misperceived Tone 2 as Tone 4 mostly in the pre-test(refer to Table 2.) now misperceived it as Tone 1 just as the NH did (Highlighted in Table 6 are the significant error patterns). On this regard, the identical training method also made the error patterns of two learners close to identical as well.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Heritger Non-hertitage

Fig 4. Perceptual Performance by Adjacent Tone (Post-test)

Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4

10

Table 6. Perception Errors by Two Learners

Tone 2 Tone 3

Misperceived as H NH H NH

Tone 1 15 22 4 0

Tone 2 n/a n/a 3 1

Tone 3 6 2 n/a n/a

Tone 4 1 4 0 1

Total Errors (%) 46% 58% 19% 6%

6.2. Production

As Table 7. Show, most of the statistically significant production errors were not in place in the post-test. The only persisting and very much conspicuous error pattern was that of mispronouncing Tone 3 as Tone 2 when Tone 3 is in 1st syllable position of the disyllabic words. For the H, Tone 3s were almost mispronounced entirely as Tone 2. For the NH, although 5 Tone 3s in 1st syllable position were correctly pronounced, the 13 errors made were all mispronouncing them as Tone 2.

Table 7. Production Errors by Two Learners

Tone 2 Tone 3

1st Syllable 2nd Syllable 1st Syllable 2nd Syllable

Mispronounced as H NH H NH H NH H NH

Tone 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tone 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 17 13 2 0

Tone 3 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Tone 4 5 3 1 0 1 0 0 0

Error Rate 25% 21% 4% 0% 100% 72% 11% 0%

7. Discussion This will section will discuss 6 research questions asked:

1. Is the auditory perception training method effective in improving learners’ perception of tones? 2. Does the position in disyllabic string affect the performance? 3. Do the tones of the adjacent syllable (preceding or following) affect the performance? 4. What is the pattern of performance and errors on Tone 2 and Tones 3? 5. How does the production pattern relate to the perception pattern? 6. Does learner’ Chinese language heritage play a role in the tonal perception and production?

Results will be discussed in accordance to previous findings, observation made during the training

session as well as linguistic background of the learners

11

7.1 Pre-test Overall the H performed 10% lower than the NH (although, the NH’s performance was considerably low as well) which is contradicted Shi (2013) and many other studies discussed. By examining the result of perception and production performance on Tone 1 and 4 by the H, conclusion can be made that the H is much better on Tone 1 and 4 in which equivalence can be found in his native Fuzhounese language. The two targeted tones in this study are the ones that do not correspond to any of his home language tones.

In term of performance on the perception of Tone 2 and Tone 3 in syllable positions, the results of the present study are very consistent with the author’s previous study (Shi, 2013) in which higher accuracy in perception of Tone 2 and Tone 3 was found in 1st syllable position than the in the 2nd for both learners. This consistency in better performance in the 1st syllable position could be attributed to the disparity in altering of register and contour to adjacent tones (Hao, 2012). Xu (1997) found that, when in context of disyllabic words, the first syllable usually maintains its pitch contour whereas the second syllable is significantly affected by the syllable preceding it.

As for to what extent did each of the four adjacent syllable tones has effect on perception performance of Tone 2 and Tone 3, no statistically significant evidence was found to support the proposition that any specific tone stands out as having more effect than others on the perception of syllable next to it.

As compared to Shi (2013), one inconsistency that stands out is that the H in previous study reported a much higher accuracy in perception of Tone 3 at about 85% whereas the counterpart in this study only performed 16%. This could be due to the difference of Chinese language heritage two Hs have as the H in Shi (2013) was of Cantonese background and H in this study is of Fuzhounese background. This study finds the H doing relatively better on Tone 2 than Tone 3 and the NH much better on Tone 3 than Tone 2. The exact reverse direction of categorical performance superiority was found in Shi (2013). This just goes to show that individual difference rather than language heritage factor is to be accounted for performance gaps. This finding is also consistent with Hao (2012) which found that Cantonese speakers performed no better than non-heritage American learners on task of perception.

Cases of misidentifying Tone 2 as Tone 3 and Tone 3 as Tone 2 were about the same. Neither of the patterns was found to be at significantly higher rate than others. The pre-test results do not conform to either Chung (1972) which claims that identifying Tone 2 as 3 is twice as common as Tone 3 as Tone 2. or Shen (1991) which points out that identifying Tone 3 as Tone 2 is more prevalent.

For Tone 2 in which a much more significant patterns of error were found, the much higher number of Tone 2s misperceived as Tones 4 (18 out 31 errors) by the H corresponds to high numbers of Tone 2 mispronounced as Tone 4 (12 out of 24 errors), and the much higher numbers of Tone 2 misperceived as Tones 1 (20 out 36 errors) by the NH corresponds to high numbers of Tone 2 mispronounced as Tone 4 (9 out of 16 errors). The production patterns in Tone 3 did not seem to correspond to pattern in perception. In other words, production is a much of a better predictor of perception pattern in Tone 2 than in Tone 3. This could be that because of the uniqueness of Tone 3 in its extremely low dip and vibrating quality, it is easier to identify than to produce.

As for the language heritage factor, the pre-test results show inferior overall performance of the H on perception and same rate of performance as the NH on the task of production. This is contrary to the popular belief that language heritage gives one advantage in language acquisition.

12

7.2 Post-test and inter-test comparison

In term of efficacy of the tone training in the present study, the post-test results show improvement of 32.5% from the pre-test to the post-test on average. This degree of improvement was higher than the 22.5% (for all 4 tones) improvement found in Shi (2013) and even higher than Wang et al.(1999)’s 21%. This could be that the targeted tones of this study, Tone 2 and Tone 3 are relatively challenging for learners to start with. Both learners’ starting perceptual performance was extremely low: 27% for the H, 37% for the NH whereas in Shi (2013), the H had 84% and the NH had 66% to start with (even to zoom in on Tone 2&3, learner in Shi (2013) had much higher performance around 60% for these two tones). This goes to show that individual variation played a huge role as the sample size is only two. The fact that 6 training sessions rather than 4 in Shi (2013) were conducted could be another factor. Various other variables could be attributable for this inconsistency that is worthy of further investigation.

One characterization that can be made by comparing post-test results of the H with the NH is that in all questions investigated in this study, the performance of two learners came to be more uniform both in term of performance and error pattern. This shows that disparity in language experience or even in skills can be quickly erased by consciously applying identical intensive training on learners.

There are many patterns that persisted from the pre-test to the post-test that are very worthy of exploration. The most noticeable error pattern in perception is that both learners tended to misperceive Tone 2 as Tone 1 at the end. It is a phenomenon not seen in Shi (2013) or any other studies discussed in this paper. Beside the fact that both tones have the same ending pitch value of 5, the cause is very much worthy of further investigation.

Another pattern regarding production is that what is challenging for learners to produce is not necessarily challenging for them to identify as the post-test results show that learners had many problem producing Tone 3 especially in the first syllable position, but had almost no problem identifying them. The production error of Tone 3 in first syllable position could be attributed to the fact that Tone 3 syllable in first syllable position of disyllabic string many tone sandhis such as changing to Tone 2 when follow by Tone 3, and to half third tone when followed by others. The Tone 3s produced by two learners were more like prolongation of Tone 2 as supposed to half third tones.

As for why Tone 3 was easier for learners to perceive, the rate of utterance by the tutor was probably a contributing factor as third tone would get be uttered more in fullest term when the rate of speech is slow which was the case for this study.

8. Pedagogical Implications

Since the results find that performance on the 1st syllable position of the disyllabic words is superior to that of the 2nd and also that the front- anchoring effect (Anderson & Bower, 1974) suggesting that human brain tends to remember better the combination with the same heading rather than those with the same ending. Chinese instructors, when contrasting different tones with the individual targeted tone, should place the targeted tone should in 1ST syllable position, and vary the second syllable. For example, to practice Tone 2, it is better to have words of tonal combination of 21, 22, 23, 24, rather than 12, 22, 32 and 42. There should not be restrain as for which tone to choose to form pairs with as the results in the present study show no effect from adjacent tones.

13

Since after 3 weeks and 6 sessions of mimicking the tutor’s production, the two learners still came out not pronouncing third tones correctly, especially when it is in the first syllable of the disyllabic string. This shows that the mere repetition of utterance and correction by the instructor are not sufficient, especially for acquiring challenging linguistic forms and functions such as Tone 3 of Mandarin. For Tone 3, instructor might as well just tell students the very explicit rule explanation and ask students to pronounce Tone 3 as half third tone when it is not serving as sentence final or uttered in isolation.

The fact that the training sessions brought two students of different linguistic backgrounds to uniform overall performance and similar error patterns shows that there is no need to give differentiated instruction for heritage and non-heritage students in a classroom regarding tones. As the study shows, prior exposure to tones in dialect language could be advantage as well as obstructions as the heritage learner will try to associate mandarin tones with tones of their home language. Fossilization of wrong tone production is possible should the wrong or inaccurate association be made.

14

References Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1974). A propositional theory of recognition memory. Memory &

Cognition, 2(3), 406-412. Chen, Qinghai. (1997). Toward a sequential approach for tonal error analysis. Journal of the Chinese

Language Teachers Association, 32(1), 21-39. Chuang, C. K., Hiki, S., Sone, T., and Nimura, T. (1972). ‘‘The acoustical features and perceptual cues

of the four tones of standard colloquial Chinese,’’ Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress on Acoustics, Budapest, 297–300.

DeFrancis, J. (1984). “The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy” University of Hawaii Press, p56. Gu, H. Y., & Shiu, W. L. (1998). A mandarin-syllable signal synthesis method with increased flexibility in

duration, tone and timbre control. Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc. ROC (A), 22(3), 385-395. Hallé, P. A., Chang, Y. C., & Best, C. T. (2004). Identification and discrimination of Mandarin Chinese

tones by Mandarin Chinese vs. French listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 32(3), 395-421. Hao, Y. C. (2012). Second language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese tones by tonal and non-tonal

language speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 40(2), 269-279. Kiriloff, C. (1969). ‘‘On the auditory discrimination of tones in Mandarin,’’ Phonetica 20, 63–67. Li,Z (2002) Fuzhou Phonology and Grammar, Dunwoody Press.

Ma, X.B., & Zhao Y., (2004). 普通话教程, Jinan University Press, ISBN 9787810790307. Shen, X. S. (1989). Toward a register approach in teaching Mandarin tones.Journal of the Chinese

Language Teachers Association, 24(3), 27-47. Shen, X. S., and Lin, M. C. (1991). ‘‘A perceptual study of Mandarin tones 2 and 3,’’

Language and Speech 34, 145–156. Shi, S. (2013). Analysis of Mandarin Chinese learners’ tonal perception of disyllabic Chinese words,

Independent Study Research Paper for CHIN 709, Hunter College. Wang, Y., Spence, M. M., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (1999). Training American

listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3649.

Wang, Y., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (2001). Dichotic perception of Mandarin tones by Chinese and American listeners. Brain and Language, 78(3), 332-348.

Wang, Y., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (2003). Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1033.

Xu, Y. (1997). Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin. Journal of Phonetics,25(1), 61-83. Xu, Y., & Emily Wang, Q. (2001). Pitch targets and their realization: Evidence from Mandarin

Chinese. Speech communication, 33(4), 319-337.

15

Appendix

1. Stimuli for Pre-test and Post-test in order of words read to students and their corresponding

tones.

1 金華 1 2

2 投幣 2 4

3 許昌 3 1

4 日本 4 3

5 藥品 4 3

6 長治 2 4

7 九江 3 1

8 保定 3 4

9 惠民 4 2

10 濟南 3 2

11 永福 3 2

12 普田 3 2

13 迷路 2 4

14 淮北 2 3

15 長島 2 3

16 成都 2 1

17 鹽城 2 2

18 邯鄲 2 1

19 太原 4 2

20 重慶 2 4

21 周口 1 3

22 伊朗 1 3

23 邢臺 2 2

24 珠海 1 3

25 大連 4 2

26 合肥 2 2

27 南京 2 1

28 昆明 1 2

29 武漢 3 4

30 植物 2 4

31 麗水 4 3

32 儀隴 2 3

33 衡陽 2 2

34 本溪 3 1

35 長春 2 1

36 煙台 1 2

37 汕頭 4 2

38 紐約 3 1

39 武鳴 3 2

40 佛山 2 1

41 焦作 1 4

42 青島 1 3

43 東莞 1 3

44 洛陽 4 2

45 吉林 2 2

46 秘魯 4 3

47 衡水 2 3

48 特許 4 3

49 紹興 4 1

50 黑河 1 2

51 淮安 2 1

52 新北 1 3

53 马山 3 1

54 江陰 1 1

55 運城 4 2

56 撫順 3 4

57 孟買 4 3

58 五蓮 3 2

59 瀋陽 3 2

60 抵制 3 4

61 盤錦 2 3

62 泰安 4 1

63 緬甸 3 4

64 老撾 3 1

65 包頭 1 2

66 蕪湖 2 2

67 禮數 3 4

68 襄陽 1 2

69 瑞士 4 4

70 西安 1 1

71 提示 2 4

72 印度 4 4

73 營口 2 3

74 深圳 1 4

16

2. Sheets given to students for production

Pre-Test on Phonology Name: Date:

1 Jīn huá

2 Tóu bì

3 Xǔ chāng

4 Rì běn

5 Yào pǐn

6 Cháng zhì

7 Jiǔ jiāng

8 Bǎo dìng

9 Huì mín

10 Jǐ nán

11 Yǒng fú

12 Pǔ tián

13 Mí lù

14 Huái běi

15 Cháng dǎo

16 Chéng dū

17 Yán chéng

18 Hán dān

19 Tài yuán

20 Chóng qìng

21 Zhōu kǒu

22 Yī lǎng

23 Xíng tái

24 Zhū hǎi

25 Dà lián

26 Hé féi

27 Nán jīng

28 Kūn míng

29 Wǔ hàn

30 Zhí wù

31 Lì shuǐ

32 Yí lǒng

33 Héng yáng

34 Běn xī

35 Cháng chūn

36 Yān tái

37 Shàn tóu

38 Niǔ yuē

39 Wǔ míng

40 Fú shān

41 Jiāo zuò

42 Qīng dǎo

43 Dōng guǎn

44 Luò yáng

45 Jí lín

46 Bì lǔ

47 Héng shuǐ

48 Tè xǔ

49 Shào xīng

50 Hēi hé

51 Huái ān

52 Xīn běi

53 Mǎ shān

54 Jiāng yīn

55 Yùn chéng

56 Fǔ shùn

57 Mèng mǎi

58 Wǔ lián

59 Shěn yáng

60 Dǐ zhì

61 Pán jǐn

62 Tài ān

63 Miǎn diàn

64 Lǎo wō

65 Bāo tóu

66 Wú hú

67 Lǐ shù

68 Xiāng yáng

69 Ruì shì

70 Xī ān

71 Tí shì

72 Yìn dù

73 Yíng kǒu

74 Shēn zhèn

17

3. Training Sessions Material

普通话声调练习 （一）四声练习阴平：

方 编 端 亏 宣 装 酸 挑

Fāng biān duān kuī xuān zhuāng suān tiāo

分 工 机关 招 生 村 庄 飞机 车 间 纱 窗 冲 锋

Fēn gōng jī guān zhāo shēng cūn zhuāng fēi jī chē jiān shā chuāng chōng fēng

拖 拉机 金 沙 江 星 期天 珍惜 光 阴 交 通 公 司

Tuō lā jī jīn shā jiāng xīng qí tiān zhēn xī guāng yīn jiāo tōng gong sī

阳平：

然 人 棉 连 年 全 怀 情 麻 鹅 鱼 佛 学

Rán rén mián lián nián quán huái qíng má é yú fó xué

平 时 轮 流 言 行 黄 河 岩 石 原 则 红 旗 黎 明

Píng shí lún liú yán xíng huáng hé yán shí yuán zé hóng qí lí míng

遗传 学 颐和园 联 合 国 洪 泽湖 儿童 节 陈 皮 梅

Yí chuán xué yí hé yuán lián hé guó hóng zé hú ér tong jié chén pí méi

上声：

惹 秒 碾 脸 广 九 闯 扁 法 椅 女 雪 好

Rě miǎo niǎn liǎn guǎng jiǔ chuǎng biǎn fǎ yǐ nǚ xuě hǎo

去声：

辣 热 卖 浪 面 片 掉 换

Là rè mài làng miàn piàn diào huàn

照 相 办 事 降 落 路费 大概 注 意 见 面 外 贸

Zhào xiàng bàn shì jiàng luò lù fèi dà gài zhù yì jiàn miàn wài mào

促 进 员 备 忘 录 烈士 墓 运 动 会 对 立面 售 票 处

Cù jìn yuán bèi wàng lù liè shì mù yùn dòng huì duì lì miàn shòu piào chù

（二）双音节词语练习

阳+阴：白搭 鼻息 得失 伏击 节约 合拍 实说 评估 活捉

Bái dā bí xī dé shī fú jí jié yuē hé pāi shí shuō píng gū huó zhuō

阴+阳：宣传 优良 欢迎 中华 科学 分头 钻研 单元 新闻

Xuān chuán yōu liáng huān yíng zhōng huá kē xué fēn tóu zuān yán dān yuán xīn wén

上+阴：洒出 嘱托 抹杀 党 章 小区 准星 水兵 舍身 野心

Sǎ chū zhǔ tuō mǒshā dǎng zhāng xiǎo qū zhǔn xīng shuǐ bīng shě shēn yěxīn

上+阳：果园 改革 坦白 远洋 口才 普及 敏捷 反常 表决

Guǒ yuán gǎi gé tǎn bái yuǎn yáng kǒu cái pǔ jí mǐn jié fǎn cháng biǎo jué

上+去：百叶 笔迹 角 落 法律 铁血 瞩目 谷物 曲剧 辱没

Bǎi yè bǐ jī jiǎo luò fǎ lǜ tiě xuè zhǔ mù gǔ wù qǔ jù rǔ mò

去+阴：特征 列车 录音 唱歌 律师 认 真 办 公 派出 自发

Tè zhēng liè chē lù yīn chàng gē lǜ shī rèn zhēn bàn gōng pài chū zìfā

18

去+阳：问题 地图 配合 调查 面前 自然 化 学 特别 报名

Wèn tí dì tú pèi hé diào chá miàn qián zì rán huà xué tè bié bào míng

去+上：赤脚 刻骨 蜡笔 并且 勒索 立法 烈属 鹿角 设法

Chì jiǎo kè gǔ là bǐ bìng qiě lè suǒ lì fǎ liè shǔ lù jiǎo shè fǎ

（三）四音节词语练习

1、四声同调练习

春天花开 江山多娇 珍惜光阴 天天开心

Chūn tiān huā kāi jiāng shān duō jiāo zhēn xī guāng yīn tiān tiān kāixīn

人民团结 豪情昂扬 回国华侨 儿童文学

Rén mín tuán jié háo qíng áng yáng huí guó huá qiáo ér tóng wén xué

厂长领导 理想美好 打井饮水 稳妥处理

Chǎng zhǎng ling dǎo lǐ xiǎng měi hǎo dǎ jǐng yǐn shuǐ wěn tuǒ chǔ lǐ

日夜奋战 创造世界 胜利闭幕 变幻莫测

Rì yè fèn zhàn chuàng zào shìjiè sheng lì bìmù biànhuàn mò cè

2、四声顺序词语练习

钻研马列 心明眼亮 胸怀广阔 坚持努力 山河锦绣

Zuān yán mǎ liè xīn míng yǎn liàng xiōn huái guǎng kuò jiān chí nǔ lì shān hé jǐn xiù

英雄好汉 山明水秀 风调雨顺 高朋满座 深谋远虑

Yīng xióng hǎohàn shān míng shuǐ xiù fēng tiáo yǔ shùn gāo péngmǎn zuò shēn móu yuǎn lǜ

兵强马壮 精神百倍 修桥补路 花红柳绿 光明磊落

Bīng qiáng mǎ zhuàng jīng shén bǎi bèi xiū qiáo bǔ lù huā hóng liǔ lǜ guāng míng lěi luò

天然宝藏 资源满地 身强体壮 千锤百炼 中流砥柱

Tiān rán bǎo zàng zī yuán mǎn dì shēn qiáng tǐ zhuàng qiān chuí bǎi liàn zhōng liú dǐ zhù

3、四声逆序词语

破釜沉舟 万马腾空 智勇无双 探讨原因 刻苦读书

Pò fǔ chén zhōu wàn mǎ téng kōng zhì yǒng wú shuāng tàn tǎo yuán yīn kèkǔ dúshū

暮鼓晨钟 寿比南山 字里行间 大有文章 万古流芳

Mù gǔ chén zhōng shòu bǐ nán shān zì lǐ hang jiān dà yǒu wén zhāng wàngǔ liúfāng

痛改前非 妙手回春 背井离乡 四海为家 大显神通

Tòng gǎi qián fēi miào shǒu huí chūn bèi jǐng lí xiāng sì hǎi wéi jiā dà xiǎn shéntōng

逆水行舟 驷马难追 兔死狐悲 异口同声 墨守成规

Nì shuǐ xíng zhōu sì mǎ nán zhuī tù sǐ hú bēi yì kǒu tong sheng mò shǒu chéng guī

4、四声交错词语练习

忠言逆耳 水落石出 身体力行 得心应手 无可非议

Zhōng yán nì'ěr shuǐ luò shí chū shēn tǐ lì xíng dé xīn yìng shǒu wú kě fēi yì

集思广益 绝对真理 百炼成钢 卓有成效 轻描淡写

Jí sī guǎng yì jué duì zhēn lǐ bǎi liàn chéng gāng zhuó yǒu chéng xiào qīng miáo dàn xiě

班门弄斧 五光十色 明目张胆 信口开河 营私舞弊

19

Bān mén nòng fǔ wǔ guāng shí sè míng mù zhāng dǎn xìn kǒu kāi hé yíng sī wǔ bì

（四）综合练习：词语的对比

新意——心仪 鲜鱼——闲语 佳节——假借

Xīnyì——xīnyí xiān yú——xián yǔ jiājié——jiǎjiè

整洁——政界 鸳鸯——远洋 指导——知道

Zhěngjié——zhèngjiè yuānyāng——yuǎnyáng zhǐdǎo——zhīdào

展览——湛蓝 冲锋——重逢 贺信——核心

Zhǎn lǎn——zhàn lán chōng fēng——chóng féng hè xìn——hé xīn

中华——种花 面前——棉签 灰白——回拜

Zhōng huá——zhòng huā miàn qián——mián qiān huī bái——huí bài

题材——体裁 乘法——惩罚 天才——甜菜

Tí cái——tǐ cái chéng fǎ——chéng fá tiān cái——tián cài

无疑——武艺 司机——四季 医务——遗物

Wú yí——wǔ yì sī jī——sì jì yī wù——yí wù

艰巨——检举 滑雪——化学 时节——使节

Jiān jù——jiǎn jǔ huá xuě——huà xué shí jié——shǐ jié

实施——事实 主体——主题 大 雪——大学

Shí shī——shì shí zhǔ tǐ——zhǔ tí dà xuě——dà xué

绕口令：

珍 珍 绣 锦 枕，绣 枕 用 金 针。 双 蝶 枕 上 争， 珍 珍 的 锦 枕 赠 亲 人。

Zhēn zhēn xiù jǐn zhěn, xiù zhěn yòng jīn zhēn. Shuāng dié zhěn shàng zhēng, zhēn zhēn de jǐn zhěn zèng qīn

rén.

石室诗士施史，嗜狮，誓食十狮，氏时时适市，氏视十狮，恃矢势，使是十

Shí shì shī shì shī shǐ, shì shī, shì shíshí shī, shì shí shíshìshì, shì shì shí shī, shì shǐ shì,

shǐ shì shí

狮逝世，氏拾是十狮尸，适石室，石室湿，氏使侍拭石室，石室拭，氏始试

shī shì shì, shì shi shì shí shī shī, shì shí shì, shí shì shī, shì shǐ shì Shì shí shì, shí shì shì,

shì shǐ shì

食十狮尸，食时，始识十狮尸 实是十石狮尸，试释是事实。

shí shí shī shī, shí shí, shǐ shi shí shī shī shí shì shí shí shī shī, shì shì shì shì shí.

20

4 .Sorted Pre-test Raw Data by Heritage Learner (KEY: H= Heritage Learner, NH=None-Heritage Learner, Green

for Tone 2, Yellow for Tone 3)

Sorted Answer H-Perception H-Production

1 2 1 2 1 4

1 2 4 2 1 2

1 2 1 2 1 2

1 2 2 3 2 2

1 2 4 1 1 2

1 2 4 1 1 2

1 3 1 3 3 3

1 3 2 4 4 3

1 3 4 2 1 2

1 3 2 1 1 2

1 3 2 1 1 2

1 3 2 1 1 2

2 1 4 1 4 1

2 1 1 4 4 1

2 1 4 1 2 1

2 1 4 3 4 1

2 1 4 1 2 1

2 1 2 1 4 1

2 2 3 4 2 2

2 2 2 3 4 2

2 2 4 1 2 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

2 2 2 4 4 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

2 3 2 1 4 4

2 3 4 1 2 3

2 3 2 4 4 2

2 3 2 3 2 2

2 3 4 1 4 4

2 3 4 3 2 4

2 4 3 2 2 4

2 4 4 1 1 4

2 4 2 1 1 3

2 4 4 2 2 4

2 4 2 1 4 2

2 4 2 1 4 4

3 1 4 2 2 1

3 1 4 3 2 3

3 1 4 2 4 1

3 1 2 3 4 1

3 1 2 4 4 1

21

3 1 2 1 2 2

3 2 2 3 2 2

3 2 4 2 4 2

3 2 1 4 2 1

3 2 1 2 4 2

3 2 3 4 4 2

3 2 1 4 2 2

3 4 1 2 4 4

3 4 3 2 4 2

3 4 2 4 2 2

3 4 2 1 4 4

3 4 4 4 2 3

3 4 2 1 4 4

4 2 2 3 2 2

4 2 1 2 4 2

4 2 2 4 4 2

4 2 4 1 2 2

4 2 2 4 2 2

4 2 1 4 4 2

4 3 3 1 4 3

4 3 2 4 4 3

4 3 2 3 4 3

4 3 2 4 4 2

4 3 1 2 2 1

4 3 4 2 2 2

5. Sorted Pre-test Raw Data by Non-Heritage Learner (KEY: H= Heritage Learner, NH=None-Heritage Learner,

Green for Tone 2, Yellow for Tone 3).

Sorted Answer NH-Perception NH-Production

1 2 4 2 1 4

1 2 1 1 1 2

1 2 2 1 1 4

1 2 1 4 1 2

1 2 3 1 1 1

1 2 3 1 1 2

1 3 2 3 1 2

1 3 1 3 4 4

1 3 4 2 1 4

1 3 2 4 1 3

1 3 2 1 1 3

1 3 1 1 1 3

2 1 1 2 1 1

2 1 1 4 1 1

2 1 2 4 2 1

22

2 1 2 4 2 1

2 1 3 4 4 1

2 1 4 1 4 1

2 2 1 1 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 4 2 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

2 2 3 1 2 2

2 2 3 3 2 1

2 3 2 2 4 2

2 3 4 1 1 2

2 3 1 3 2 1

2 3 2 1 2 2

2 3 1 4 2 1

2 3 3 3 2 2

2 4 2 4 1 4

2 4 3 4 1 2

2 4 2 4 2 4

2 4 3 4 1 4

2 4 1 4 2 4

2 4 1 4 2 4

3 1 3 4 2 4

3 1 3 4 2 1

3 1 1 3 2 1

3 1 3 1 3 1

3 1 1 4 2 1

3 1 3 3 2 1

3 2 1 1 2 2

3 2 1 4 2 2

3 2 2 1 4 4

3 2 3 4 3 2

3 2 3 1 2 2

3 2 2 1 2 1

3 4 2 4 2 4

3 4 3 4 2 1

3 4 3 4 2 4

3 4 3 4 2 4

3 4 3 4 2 4

3 4 3 4 2 4

4 2 2 1 4 2

4 2 2 3 4 2

4 2 2 1 4 4

4 2 1 2 4 2

4 2 1 4 4 2

23

4 2 3 4 4 2

4 3 4 4 4 2

4 3 2 4 4 2

4 3 3 3 4 2

4 3 4 3 4 3

4 3 4 3 4 1

4 3 4 3 4 2

6. Sorted Post-test Raw Data by Heritage Learner (KEY: H= Heritage Learner, NH=None-Heritage Learner, Green

for Tone 2, Yellow for Tone 3).

Sorted Answer

H-Perception

H-Production

1 2 2 3 1 4

1 2 1 2 1 2

1 2 2 1 1 2

1 2 1 2 1 2

1 2 4 1 1 2

1 2 2 1 1 2

1 3 2 3 1 3

1 3 2 1 1 3

1 3 3 1 1 3

1 3 2 3 1 3

1 3 2 1 1 3

1 3 1 3 1 3

2 1 2 1 2 1

2 1 2 4 2 1

2 1 1 4 2 1

2 1 1 2 2 1

2 1 3 1 4 1

2 1 2 1 4 1

2 2 2 1 2 2

2 2 2 1 1 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

2 2 3 2 2 2

2 3 2 3 2 3

2 3 1 3 2 3

2 3 2 3 4 3

2 3 2 3 2 3

2 3 2 3 2 2

2 3 2 3 2 3

2 4 3 4 2 3

24

2 4 2 1 2 2

2 4 2 4 4 4

2 4 3 2 2 4

2 4 2 4 2 3

2 4 2 1 4 1

3 1 3 4 2 2

3 1 3 2 2 1

3 1 3 2 2 1

3 1 2 3 2 1

3 1 3 1 4 1

3 1 3 1 2 1

3 2 3 1 2 2

3 2 3 2 2 2

3 2 3 2 2 2

3 2 3 2 2 2

3 2 3 1 2 2

3 2 3 2 2 2

3 4 3 4 2 3

3 4 3 4 2 2

3 4 3 2 2 4

3 4 3 4 2 2

3 4 3 1 2 4

3 4 3 1 2 4

4 2 2 1 4 2

4 2 1 3 2 2

4 2 4 2 4 2

4 2 2 1 4 2

4 2 1 4 4 2

4 2 2 2 4 2

4 3 3 1 4 3

4 3 1 2 4 2

4 3 2 3 4 3

4 3 2 3 4 3

4 3 2 3 4 3

4 3 4 2 4 3

7. Sorted Post-test Raw Data by Non-Heritage Learner (KEY: H= Heritage Learner, NH=None-Heritage Learner,

Green for Tone 2, Yellow for Tone 3).

Sorted Answer

NH-Perception

NH-Production

1 2 1 2 1 2

1 2 1 2 1 2

1 2 2 1 2 2

1 2 1 1 1 2

25

1 2 2 4 1 2

1 2 1 1 1 2

1 3 2 3 1 3

1 3 1 3 1 3

1 3 2 3 1 3

1 3 2 3 1 3

1 3 2 2 1 3

1 3 2 3 1 3

2 1 1 1 2 1

2 1 1 4 2 1

2 1 2 4 4 1

2 1 3 1 2 1

2 1 2 1 2 1

2 1 2 1 2 1

2 2 2 1 2 2

2 2 1 2 2 2

2 2 1 1 1 2

2 2 1 2 2 2

2 2 1 4 2 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

2 3 2 3 4 3

2 3 2 3 1 3

2 3 1 3 2 3

2 3 1 3 2 3

2 3 1 3 2 3

2 3 2 3 2 3

2 4 3 4 2 4

2 4 1 4 2 4

2 4 1 4 4 4

2 4 2 4 2 4

2 4 2 4 2 4

2 4 2 4 2 4

3 1 3 1 2 1

3 1 3 1 3 1

3 1 3 2 2 1

3 1 3 1 3 1

3 1 3 4 2 1

3 1 3 2 2 1

3 2 3 1 2 2

3 2 3 2 3 2

3 2 3 1 3 2

3 2 3 2 2 2

3 2 3 2 2 2

3 2 3 1 2 2

26

3 4 3 4 3 4

3 4 3 4 2 4

3 4 3 4 2 4

3 4 3 1 2 4

3 4 3 4 2 4

3 4 3 4 2 4

4 2 4 1 4 2

4 2 2 2 4 2

4 2 4 1 4 2

4 2 1 2 4 2

4 2 2 4 4 2

4 2 2 4 4 2

4 3 4 4 4 3

4 3 2 3 4 3

4 3 4 3 4 3

4 3 2 3 4 3

4 3 4 3 4 3

4 3 4 3 4 3

8. Detailed Summary of Perceptual Performance

Table 8. Correctly Perceived Tones 2 and Tone 3 (Pre-test)

Tone 2 Tone 3

1st Syllable 2nd Syllable 1st Syllable 2nd Syllable

Adjacent Tone H NH H NH H NH H NH

Tone 1 1 2 3 1 0 4 1 2

Tone 2 4 3 0 1 1 2 2 2

Tone 3 3 2 2 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Tone 4 3 2 1 1 1 5 1 4

% Correct 46% 38% 25% 13% 11% 61% 22% 44%

Table 9. Correctly Perceived Tones 2 and Tone 3 (Post-test)

Tone 2 Tone 3

1st Syllable 2nd Syllable 1st Syllable 2nd Syllable

Adjacent Tone H NH H NH H NH H NH

Tone 1 3 3 2 2 5 6 3 5

Tone 2 5 2 1 2 6 6 6 6

Tone 3 5 3 4 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Tone 4 4 3 2 2 6 6 3 5

Total 17 11 9 9 17 18 12 16

% Correct 71% 46% 38% 38% 94% 100% 67% 89%

27

9. The Pre-test Perceptual Performance by Adjacent Tones breaking down by two targeted tones (Tone 2 and

Tone 3)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 3 Tone 4

Fig. 5. Tone 2 Performance by Adjacent Tones

H

NH

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Tone 1 Tone 2 Tone 4

Fig.6. Tone 3 Performance by Adjacent Tones

H

NH