Back

Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Speech Markers: Insights from English, Chinese, and Italian Speakers

Santi, G. C.; Catricala, E.; Kwan, S.; Wong, A.; Ezzes, Z.; Wauters, L.; Esposito, V.; Conca, F.; Gibbons, D.; Fernandez, E.; Santos-Santos, M. A.; Chen, T.-F.; Kwan-Chen, L. L.-Y.; Lo, R. R.; Tsoh, J.; Lung-Tat Chen, A.; Garcia, A. M.; de Leon, J.; Miller, Z.; Vonk, J. M. J.; Bruffaerts, R.; Grasso, S. M.; Allen, I. E.; Cappa, S. F.; Gorno-Tempini, M.-L.; Tee, B. L.

2024-10-16 neurology
10.1101/2024.10.15.24314191 medRxiv
Show abstract

Cross-linguistic studies with healthy individuals are vital, as they can reveal typologically common and different patterns while providing tailored benchmarks for patient studies. Nevertheless, cross-linguistic differences in narrative speech production, particularly among speakers of languages belonging to distinct language families, have been inadequately investigated. Using a picture description task, we analyze cross-linguistic variations in connected speech production across three linguistically diverse groups of cognitively normal participants--English, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), and Italian speakers. We extracted 28 linguistic features, encompassing phonological, lexico-semantic, morpho-syntactic, and discourse/pragmatic domains. We utilized a semi-automated approach with Computerized Language ANalysis (CLAN) to compare the frequency of production of various linguistic features across the three language groups. Our findings revealed distinct proportional differences in linguistic feature usage among English, Chinese, and Italian speakers. Specifically, we found a reduced production of prepositions, conjunctions, and pronouns, and increased adverb use in the Chinese-speakers compared to the other two languages. Furthermore, English participants produced a higher proportion of prepositions, while Italian speakers produced significantly more conjunctions and empty pauses than the other groups. These findings demonstrate that the frequency of specific linguistic phenomena varies across languages, even when using the same harmonized task. This underscores the critical need to develop linguistically tailored language assessment tools and to identify speech markers that are appropriate for aphasia patients across different languages.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.0%
2
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.1%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 24%
6.8%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 15%
5.6%
5
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.4%
6
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
7
Brain Communications
166 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
8
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
9
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
10
Neuropsychologia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.5%
11
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.5%
12
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
13
Pediatric Neurology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
14
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
15
European Journal of Neurology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
16
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
17
Neurology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
18
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
20
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
21
Neurobiology of Language
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
22
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
23
Children
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
24
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
25
Ear & Hearing
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
26
Developmental Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
27
Wellcome Open Research
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
28
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
29
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%