Paper deep dive
Quantity Convergence, Quality Divergence: Disentangling Fluency and Accuracy in L2 Mandarin Prosody
Yuqi Shi, Hao Yang, Xiyao Lu, Jinsong Zhang
Intelligence
Status: succeeded | Model: Gemma-4-26B-A4B | Prompt: intel-v1 | Confidence: 93%
Last extracted: 7/20/2026, 9:24:58 AM
Summary
This study investigates the L2 Mandarin prosody acquisition of Vietnamese learners, revealing a 'Quantity Convergence, Quality Divergence' phenomenon. High-proficiency learners (VNH) achieve native-like boundary quantity at the Major Phrase level (B3) but exhibit fossilized structural errors, specifically demoting boundaries at the Subject-Verb (SBV) interface and promoting them at the Verb-Object (VOB) interface. This 'Prosodic Demotion' strategy prioritizes fluency over structural accuracy, resulting in a distorted prosodic hierarchy.
Entities (10)
Relation Signals (6)
Vietnamese High-Proficiency Learners → exhibits → Prosodic Demotion
confidence 95% · VNH demote the prosodic boundary at the Subject-Verb (SBV) interface... This strategy allows learners to maintain high long phrasal output
BLCU-SAIT Corpus → usedby → Vietnamese High-Proficiency Learners
confidence 95% · using the BLCU-SAIT corpus... focuses exclusively on a subset of Vietnamese learners
Vietnamese High-Proficiency Learners → divergesat → Verb-Object Interface
confidence 94% · erroneously promoting the boundary at the Verb-Object (VOB) interface
Vietnamese High-Proficiency Learners → convergestobaselinein → Major Phrase
confidence 92% · high-proficiency learners (VNH) converge to the native baseline in boundary quantity at the Major Phrase level (B3)
Native Mandarin Speakers → establishes → Subject-Verb Interface
confidence 90% · Native speakers established a clear (Subject)-(Verb-object) structure (SBV: +4.68)
Interface Hypothesis → predicts → Fossilization
confidence 88% · The Interface Hypothesis posits that linguistic properties involving the interface... are particularly vulnerable to instability and fossilization
Cypher Suggestions (0)
No Cypher suggestions yet.
Abstract
Abstract:While second language (L2) learners may acquire target syntactic word order, mapping this syntax onto appropriate prosodic structures remains a persistent challenge. This study investigates the fossilization and stability of the L2 syntax-prosody interface by comparing 67 native Mandarin speakers with 67 Vietnamese learners using the BLCU-SAIT corpus. By integrating C-ToBI boundary annotation with Dependency Grammar analysis, we examined both the quantity of prosodic boundaries and their mapping to syntactic relations. Results reveal a non-linear acquisition: although high-proficiency learners (VNH) converge to the native baseline in boundary quantity at the Major Phrase level (B3), their structural mapping significantly diverges. Specifically, VNH demote the prosodic boundary at the Subject-Verb (SBV) interface (Major Phrase B3 -> Prosodic Word B1), while erroneously promoting the boundary at the Verb-Object (VOB) interface (Prosodic Word B1 -> Major Phrase B3). This strategy allows learners to maintain high long phrasal output at the expense of structural accuracy. This results in a distorted prosodic hierarchy where the native pattern is inverted.
Tags
Links
- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23071v1
- Canonical: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23071v1
Trouble viewing inline? Open PDF directly →
Full Text
28,194 characters extracted from source content.
Expand or collapse full text
Quantity Convergence, Quality Divergence: Disentangling Fluency and Accuracy in L2 Mandarin Prosody Yuqi Shi 1 , Hao Yang 2 , Xiyao Lu 1 , Jinsong Zhang 1 1 School of Information Science, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China 2 School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, China shiyuqi5577@outlook.com, howyoung80@163.com, luxiyao1999@163.com, jinsong.zhang@blcu.edu.cn Abstract While second language (L2) learners may acquire target syntac- tic word order, mapping this syntax onto appropriate prosodic structures remains a persistent challenge. This study investi- gates the fossilization and stability of the L2 syntax-prosody interface by comparing 67 native Mandarin speakers with 67 Vietnamese learners using the BLCU-SAIT corpus. By inte- grating C-ToBI boundary annotation with Dependency Gram- mar analysis, we examined both the quantity of prosodic bound- aries and their mapping to syntactic relations.Results re- veal a non-linear acquisition: although high-proficiency learn- ers (VNH) converge to the native baseline in boundary quantity at the Major Phrase level(B3), their structural mapping signifi- cantly diverges. Specifically, VNH demote the prosodic bound- ary at the Subject-Verb (SBV) interface (Major Phrase B3→ Prosodic Word B1), while erroneously promoting the boundary at the Verb-Object (VOB) interface (Prosodic Word B1→ Ma- jor Phrase B3). This strategy allows learners to maintain high long phrasal output at the expense of structural accuracy. This results in a distorted prosodic hierarchy where the native pattern is inverted. Index Terms: Prosody boundary, Second Language Acquisi- tion, Prosody-Syntax interface, Dependency grammar 1. Introduction Prosodic structure acts as a critical interface between the con- tinuous acoustic stream of speech and the discrete hierarchi- cal structure of syntax, aiding listeners in parsing syntactic constituents and resolving structural ambiguities [1, 2, 3, 4]. In Mandarin Chinese, the alignment between prosodic bound- aries and syntactic structure is governed by a complex interac- tion of constraints, often analyzed under the framework of the syntax-prosody interface [5, 6, 7, 8]. Generally, native speak- ers exhibit a sensitivity to syntactic cohesion: they tend to pro- duce stronger prosodic boundaries at loose syntactic junctures while maintaining tighter prosodic connectivity within cohesive structures[9, 10, 5, 11]. Meanwhile, this mapping is far from a rigid linear template; it is dynamically modulated by multiple factors, including rhythmic constraints, information focus, and constituent length. However, for Second Language (L2) learners, acquiring these mapping rules presents a persistent challenge. The Inter- face Hypothesis posits that linguistic properties involving the interface between syntax and other cognitive systems—such as prosody—are particularly vulnerable to instability and fos- silization, even at high proficiency levels [8, 12, 13]. A critical unresolved issue in L2 prosody is the relationship between flu- ency and structural accuracy. While studies indicate that high- proficiency learners demonstrate superior segmentation abili- ties compared to beginners [14, 15], it remains controversial whether this improvement reflects a true acquisition of native- like phrasing. As learners advance, they typically increase their speech rate and reduce prosodic boundary frequency. How- ever, prior comparisons suggest that learner boundary hierar- chies (e.g., placing breaks at VOB vs. SBV; see Table 1 for abbreviations) often deviate from the native norm even at ad- vanced stages [16, 17]. Do advanced learners acquire the cor- rect syntax-prosody mapping, or do they simply learn to speak longer by ignoring structural breaks? Existing research often relies on surface-level metrics, such as pause duration or broad boundary frequency counts, which show that L2 learners generally produce more pauses than na- tives [18, 19]. However, these metrics fail to capture the align- ment between specific syntactic relations and prosodic events. Dependency Grammar explicitly links head words to their de- pendents (e.g., a verb governing its object) describing the se- mantic dependencies between words [20, 21, 22, 23]. This study addresses these gaps by conducting a comparative analy- sis of native Mandarin speakers and Vietnamese learners using the BLCU-SAIT speech corpus [24] annotated with dependency guidelines [25]. In this study, we compare native Mandarin speakers with Vietnamese learners stratified by proficiency. We test the hypothesis that advanced learners may achieve an ”Il- lusion of Fluency”: converging to native standards in bound- ary quantity, while diverging significantly in structural quality. Specifically, we investigate whether learners restructure their interlanguage prosody to match the native Subject-Predicate di- vide, or if they fossilize on a non-native linear grouping strategy. 2. Methods 2.1. The Corpus and Participants This study uses data from the BLCU-SAIT corpus, a multi- modal interlanguage speech dataset designed for non-native Chinese phonetics research and teaching [24, 26]. While the full corpus comprises approximately 21 hours of speech from 19 L1 backgrounds, the present analysis focuses exclusively on a subset of Vietnamese learners. The participant pool consists of 67 native Mandarin speak- ers (CN; 27 males, 40 females; mean age = 22.5, SD = 2.1) from mainland China, serving as the baseline control group. The experimental group comprises 67 Vietnamese learners, strati- fied by proficiency based on the Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK: Chinese Proficiency Test): High-proficiency (VNH): 38 partic- ipants (14 males, 24 females; mean age = 23.1, SD = 2.3). Cri- teria: HSK 5–6 (advanced/near-native) with high fluency (<10 hesitations per session). Low-proficiency (VNL): 29 partici- pants (15 males, 14 females; mean age = 22.8, SD = 2.0). Cri- arXiv:2602.23071v1 [cs.CL] 26 Feb 2026 teria: HSK 2–4 with noticeable disfluencies. All Vietnamese participants were recruited from Chinese language programs, balanced for gender and proficiency. The final dataset com- prises 13,802 utterances (103 sentences× 134 speakers). The Vietnamese cohort was selected due to its large sample size and proficiency stratification within the BLCU-SAIT corpus, pro- viding robust data for tracking acquisition trajectories. 2.2. Annotation of Prosodic Boundaries and Syntax Prosodic boundaries used C-ToBI system(Chinese-Tones and Break Indices) [27, 28], categorizing breaks B0-B4 by junc- ture size and acoustics (duration, pitch reset). Annotated by trained undergraduate linguistics majors (Cohen’s kappa=0.82); graduate supervisor resolved disagreements. This study fo- cuses on following hierarchies:B1 (Prosodic Words), B2 (Minor Prosodic Phrases), B3 (Major Prosodic Phrases). B4 marks the Intonational Phrase (IP) boundary, which is typically sentence- final.Given the corpus’s single-sentence structure, the B4 boundary was not sufficiently distinguished and is thus omitted. This study focuses on B1–B3 prosodic boundaries. This study focuses on the following hierarchies: B1: Prosodic Word (PW) B2: Minor Prosodic Phrase (mPP) B3: Major Prosodic Phrase (MPH) B4 (Intonational Phrase) boundaries, typically marking sentence-final positions, were excluded as the corpus consists of single isolated sentences. Syntactic annotation followed the dependency grammar guidelines of the CIR-CTB (Research Center for Information Retrieval Chinese Treebank) [29, 25]. Continuous sentences are divided into discrete words, which are linked by dependency relations. Among these, the verb is the core of the sentence, not dominated by any other elements, with all dominated ele- ments being subordinate to their dominators through a depen- dency relationship. This dominance relationship reflects the se- mantic relations between units. Sentences were tokenized and linked via 15 dependency relations (e.g., SBV: Subject-Verb; VOB: Verb-Object; see Table 1). The process employed a semi- automatic approach: initial parsing via the HIT-LTP(Harbin In- stitute of Technology’s Language Technology Platform) plat- form [25] was followed by manual correction by three linguis- tics graduates to ensure semantic accuracy. Table 1: Harbin Institute of Technology Dependency Parsing Guidelines Tag DescriptionExample SBV subject-verbI give her a bunch of flowers (I← give) VOB verb-objectI give her a bunch of flowers (give→ flowers) IOB indirect objectI give her a bunch of flowers (give→ her) FOB fronting object He reads any book (book← read) ATT attributeRed apple (red← apple) ADV adverbialVery beautiful (very← beautiful) CMP complementFinished the homework (do→ finished) HED headRefers to the core of the entire sentence Complete guidelines available at http://ltp.ai/ 3. Result 3.1. The Production Quantity of Prosodic Boundaries We first examined the density of prosodic boundaries at three hierarchical levels: Prosodic Words (B1), Minor Phrases (B2), and Major Phrases (B3). Descriptive statistics (Table 2) indicate substantial group differences. Given the count nature of the data and observed overdis- persion, we fitted a Negative Binomial Regression model to an- alyze the main and interaction effects of Speaker Group and Boundary Type. The model summary is presented in Table 3. Table 2: Number of prosodic boundaries Boundary TypeSpeaker TypeNo.of Boundary Level:B1 CN group225 VNH group190 VNL group341 Level:B2 CN group155 VNH group104 VNL group173 Level:B3 CN group70 VNH group80 VNL group124 Table 3: Negative binomial regression model results. Signifi- cance levels: *** for p-value <0.001, ** for p-value <0.01, * for p-value <0.05, . for p-value <0.1, and ns for p-value≥ 0.1. ContrastEstimateStd. Error z valuep-value (Intercept)5.504720.0652884.325*** VNH-0.123330.10862-1.136* VNL0.326770.112902.894* B2-0.416710.09251-4.505*** B3-1.256230.09324-13.473*** VNH:B2-0.324820.15420-2.106** VNL:B2-0.263410.16007-1.646. VNH:B30.228150.154941.472. VNL:B30.241790.160731.504*** The regression revealed significant interaction effects be- tween Group and Boundary Type (p < 0.01). To interpret these interactions, we conducted post-hoc pairwise comparisons us- ing estimated marginal means with Bonferroni correction. The analysis yielded two distinct patterns: Global Over-Segmentation in VNL: The Low-Proficiency group (VNL) consistently produced a significantly higher num- ber of boundaries than the native baseline (CN) across all tiers. This difference was most pronounced at the Major Phrase level (p < 0.001). Beginners appear to insert frequent breaks to manage high cognitive load during L2 processing [30]. Tier-Specific Strategy in VNH: The High-Proficiency group (VNH) displayed a non-linear trajectory. At lower tiers, they produced significantly fewer boundaries than native speakers (B1: p = 0.05; B2: p < 0.001), reducing segmentation by up to 33% at B2. However, at the highest tier (B3), while the regression model suggested a trend (p < 0.1), strict post-hoc analysis confirmed no significant difference (p = 1.00). This finding is critical: while VNH learners seem to have achieved ”quantitative fluency” (native-like pause density) at the major phrase level, their reduction of lower-level boundaries suggests a trade-off strategy aimed at producing longer contin- uous runs of speech. Whether this quantitative convergence re- flects accurate structural phrasing will be examined in the next section. 3.2. Analysis of Syntax-Prosody Mapping Divergence To investigate whether L2 proficiency modulates the map- ping mechanism between syntactic dependencies and prosodic Figure 1: Deviation in Dependency Relation Frequency.( The zero line represents the CN as baseline. The bar length denotes the degree of deviation. Positive = Over-segmentation, Negative = Under-segmentation.) boundaries, we performed Chi-squared (χ 2 ) tests of indepen- dence at three prosodic levels. The results revealed a significant dependence between speaker group and syntactic distribution across all levels (all p < 0.001). To quantify the specific direction and magnitude of this di- vergence, we calculated Standardized Residuals (StdRes) and visualized the results in Figure 1, with numerical summaries provided in Table 4. In the figure, the Zero Line represents the baseline(CN) of statistical independence, the Bar Length (Mag- nitude) denotes the degree of deviation, and Asterisks (*) mark statistical significance (|StdRes| > 1.96). Overall, Figure 1 reveals a critical characteristic of paral- lelism: for the majority of syntactic relations, the direction of residuals for the Low-Proficiency (VNL, blue line) and High- Proficiency (VNH, red line) groups remains consistent. This directional consistency suggests that learners across proficiency levels share a similar Interlanguage Prosodic Grammar, rather than producing random errors. However, the differences in magnitude between groups reveal specific strategic adjustments at different hierarchical levels. 3.2.1. B1 Level: Prosodic Demotion Strategy At the Prosodic Word level, native speakers exhibited a canon- ical (Subject)—(Verb-Object) pattern, significantly inhibiting boundaries at the Subject-Verb (SBV) interface (StdRes = −3.60) while facilitating them at the Verb-Object (VOB) in- terface (StdRes = +2.11), reflecting lexical-level cohesion within the predicate. However, the VNH group displayed an extreme anomalous pattern at this level. Significance: VNH speakers showed a highly significant positive residual at SBV (StdRes = +6.02, represented by the longest positive red bar in the B1 panel of Figure 1), whereas the VNL group showed a non-significant deviation (+0.18). Interpretation: This reveals a strategy of ”Prosodic Demotion”: advanced learners perceive the syntac- tic boundary after the subject, but relegate the structural break to a weak, word-level juncture (B1) rather than the appropri- ate higher-level phrase break. While this strategy may improve perceived fluency by by skipping pauses, it compromises the Table 4: Standardized Residuals of Syntactic Relations across Prosodic Boundaries. Values with absolute magnitude > 1.96 (bold) indicate significant deviation from independence. RelationLevelCN (Res)VNL (Res)VNH (Res) ADVB1-0.45-0.551.27 ATTB10.130.25-0.45 CMPB11.781.49-4.40 POBB12.420.05-4.20 SBVB1-3.600.186.02 VOBB12.11-0.37-3.30 ADVB2-2.292.022.75 ATTB2-0.871.92-0.08 CMPB2-0.192.14-1.68 POBB20.26-0.26-0.28 SBVB22.47-3.33-1.83 VOBB20.55-0.77-0.38 ADVB31.95-2.23-0.06 ATTB3-4.383.292.28 CMPB3-1.982.230.09 POBB3-3.953.611.25 SBVB34.68-2.85-3.28 VOBB3-3.272.231.99 clarity of the syntactic hierarchy. 3.2.2. B2 Level: The Transitional ZoneThe Minor Phrase level functions as a transition from lexical to phrasal prosody. Native speakers began to show a facilitation preference at the SBV position (StdRes = +2.47). Magnitude Comparison: Both learner groups exhibited under-segmentation (inhibition) at this position. While the VNL group showed severe inhibi- tion (StdRes = −3.33), the VNH group showed a reduced magnitude of deviation (StdRes = −1.83), indicating a trend towards the native baseline. However, this did not translate into accurate segmentation, but rather foreshadowed the displace- ment of non-canonical patterns to other levels. 3.2.3. B3 Level: Fossilization of Non-Native Phrasing At the critical Major Phrase level, the data provides the strongest evidence for the Interface Fossilization Hypothesis. Native speakers established a clear (Subject)-(Verb- object) structure (SBV: +4.68; VOB: −3.27). In contrast, learner groups exhibited an inverse (Subject-Verb)-(Object) mapping pattern.Figure 1 (B3 Panel) clearly demonstrates that this devi- ation does not attenuate with proficiency, but rather entrenches at key nodes: SBV Demotion: The Low-Proficiency group (VNL) al- ready reduced the native SBV boundary (−2.85). However, the High-Proficiency group (VNH) showed an even stronger de- viation (−3.28). This indicates that as proficiency improves, learners do not correct this pattern; instead, the strategy of skip- ping the post-subject pause becomes more systematic and en- trenched.. VOB Promotion: Both learner groups significantly in- serted unnatural major phrase (B3) between the verb and ob- ject (VNL: +2.23; VNH: +1.99), with both deviations being statistically significant. At the verb-object spot, native speak- ers mainly use B1 to keep words together (StdRes = +2.11). In contrast, the VNH group shows a big shortage at this B1 level (StdRes = -3.30) and too much at the major phrase level (B3, StdRes = +1.99). This means the VNH learn have trouble mak- ing the small breaks needed to link verb and object. Instead, when they do break, they wrongly pick a strong phrase break, which splits the meaning of the verb part. The non-convergence in magnitude at B3—where the VNH group deviates largely from the native norm—suggests that the increased fluency of VNH learners stems not from accu- rate syntactic parsing, but from the fossilization of an incor- rect (Subject-verb)-(Object) prosodic template. This finding challenges the assumption that proficiency guarantees accuracy, confirming the resistance of the syntax-prosody interface to re- structuring in L2 acquisition. 4. Discussion This study integrates quantitative boundary analysis with de- pendency mapping analysis to investigate the acquisition tra- jectory of the syntax-prosody interface in L2 Mandarin. The combined results reveal a complex non-linear trajectory: while high-proficiency learners (VNH) achieve native-like boundary quantity at the B3, their structural mapping remains fundamen- tally non-native and fossilized. 4.1. The Illusion of Fluency: Quantity Convergence vs. Quality Divergence Experiment 1 demonstrated that VNH learners have success- fully converged to the native baseline in terms of boundary density at the Major Phrase (B3) level (p = 1.00). This con- trasts sharply with the significant over-segmentation observed in low-proficiency (VNL) learners (p < 0.001). This reduc- tion in pause frequency suggests that advanced learners have achieved a high level of ”quantitative fluency”—the ability to produce longer continuous runs of speech—thereby overcom- ing the fragmentation characterizing lower-proficiency speech. However, the standardized residual analysis in Experiment 2 reveals that this quantitative convergence masks a qualitative divergence. While VNH speakers produce the correct number of pauses, they place them in the wrong syntactic locations. Specifically, VNH speakers significantly under-segment at the native-canonical Subject-Verb (SBV) interface (StdRes = −3.28) while over-segmenting at the non-native Verb-Object (VOB) interface (StdRes = +1.99). This indicates that VNH learners have acquired the surface rhythm of Mandarin (when to stop) without acquiring the underlying syntax-prosody gram- mar (where to stop). This ”pseudo-fluency” highlights the lim- itations of evaluating L2 prosody based solely on boundary count metrics. 4.2. The Prosodic Demotion Strategy Synthesizing findings from both experiments, we propose the ”Prosodic Demotion” hypothesis to explain how advanced learners maintain long phrase while sacrificing structural clarity. The evidence for this strategy is twofold:At the Major Phrase level (B3), VNH learners significantly reduces the SBV bound- ary (StdRes = −3.28), failing to mark the subject with a ma- jor phrase boundary. Conversely, at the Prosodic Word level (B1), VNH learners exhibit an extreme spike in segmentation at the same SBV position (StdRes = +6.02).This stark contrast suggests that advanced learners do not suffer from ”boundary blindness”; rather, they employ a strategy of demotion. To ac- commodate the pressure for continuous speech flow, they rele- gate the structural break—which requires a B3 boundary—to a weak, B1, such as mere syllable lengthening or a micro-pause. This strategy satisfies the constraint for boundary reduction, it makes the speech continuous. 4.3. Fossilization and the Linear Adjacency Effect Our findings provide robust support for the Interface Hypothe- sis [8], confirming that the syntax-prosody interface is resistant to restructuring even at advanced levels. Crucially, the data ex- hibits an ”Inverse Magnitude” at the B3 level: the negative de- viation at the SBV interface is stronger in the advanced VNH group (StdRes = −3.28) than in the lower-proficiency VNL group (StdRes = −2.85). The pattern that points toward fos- silization rather than gradual acquisition. If the non-native phrasing were merely a performance error, we would expect the deviation to decrease as proficiency in- creases. Contrary to this prediction, the inhibition of the canon- ical SBV boundary is stronger in the advanced VNH group than in the lower-proficiency VNL group. And this pattern cannot be attributed to mere performance errors driven by maintain long phrasal output. If articulation speed were the sole driver, we would expect a uniform reduction in boundary strength across all syntactic heads. Instead, the specific reduction of SBV com- bined with the facilitation of VOB confirms that this is a fos- silized structure into a (Subject-Verb)-(object) template. This suggests that as learners gain fluency, the non-native strategy of grouping the Subject and Verb via Linear Adjacency be- comes more, not less, entrenched. The ”Subject-Verb” cohe- sion—likely a processing strategy to secure the semantic core of the sentence rapidly—stabilizes into a fossilized prosodic template, a pattern potentially reinforced by L1 Vietnamese prosodic structures which warrants further cross-linguistic in- vestigation. 5. Conclusion This study challenges the assumption that syntactic profi- ciency guarantees prosodic competence by triangulating bound- ary quantity with syntactic distribution. We draw three ma- jor conclusions: Non-Linear Acquisition: L2 prosodic devel- opment does not follow a linear trajectory toward the native norm. While boundary quantity may converge to native lev- els, the underlying mapping rules (quality) can diverge. We observe a complex trade-off between metric fluency and struc- tural accuracy. Mechanism of Demotion: Advanced learn- ers resolve the conflict between continuity and structural mark- ing via ”Prosodic Demotion.” By demoting essential structural boundaries (e.g., Post-Subject breaks) to weak lexical junctures, they prioritize linear flow over hierarchical clarity. Evidence of Fossilization: The non-native (Subject-Verb)-(Object) phras- ing pattern becomes fossilized at advanced levels. The finding that high-proficiency learners deviate further from the native structural baseline than beginners highlights the resistance of the syntax-prosody interface to standard acquisition. This study demonstrates that L2 prosodic acquisition is non-linear and distinct from syntactic development. While Viet- namese learners successfully acquire Mandarin SVO syntax, they map it onto a fossilized prosodic template that groups Sub- ject and Verb. This divergence is most pronounced in advanced learners, highlighting the resistance of the syntax-prosody in- terface to restructuring. 6. References [1] E. Selkirk, “Syntax and phonology: The relation between sound and structure,” 1984. [2] D. Watson and E. Gibson, “The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production,” Lan- guage and Cognitive Processes, vol. 19, no. 6, p. 713–755, 2004. [3] C. M. Beach, “The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 30, no. 6, p. 644–663, Dec. 1991. [4] W. E. Cooper and J. Paccia-Cooper, Syntax and Speech. Harvard University Press, 1980. [5] S. Feng, Prosodic Syntax in Chinese, ser. Chinese linguistics. Routledge, 2019, no. v. 2. [Online]. Available: https://books. google.co.jp/books?id=Sji5vQEACAAJ [6] E. Selkirk, “On derived domains in sentence phonology,” Phonol- ogy, vol. 3, p. 371–405, 1986. [7] M. Nespor and I. Vogel, Prosodic Phonology: With a New Fore- word. De Gruyter Mouton, 2012. [8] A. Sorace, “Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilin- guals,” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, vol. 1, p. 1–33, 03 2011. [9] Gao Sichang and Wang Jianqin, “Characteristics of rhythmic phrases in korean chinese learners’ oral speech,” Journal of Yun- nan Normal University (Teaching and Research in Teaching Chi- nese as a Foreign Language Edition), no. 1, 2018, (in Chinese). [10] —, “The influence of syntactic structure and sentence length on rhythmic phrases in chinese learners’ oral speech,” World Chinese Teaching, vol. 34, no. 01, p. 115–128, 2020, (in Chinese). [11] Y.-H. Lin, “San duanmu (2000). the phonology of standard chi- nese. oxford: Oxford university press. p. xv+300.” Phonology, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 458–463, 2001. [12] H. Goad and L. White, “Ultimate attainment of l2 inflection: Ef- fects of l1 prosodic structure,” EUROSLA Yearbook, vol. 4, p. 119–145, 09 2004. [13] M. Chen, “The development of natural spoken prosody in chinese as a second language,” Journal of Tsinghua University (Natural Science Edition), vol. 53, no. 6, p. 783–791, 2013, (Corrected volume and page range; In Chinese). [14] C. Mengtian and W. Jianqin, “A cognitive processing study of rhythmic phrases in chinese as a second language,” Chinese Lan- guage Teaching and Research, vol. 4, p. 17–26, 2022, (in Chi- nese). [15] B. Wang, “An experimental study on pauses in mandarin chinese produced by korean students,” Ph.D. dissertation, Jinan Univer- sity, 2015, (In Chinese). [16] S. Gao and J. Wang, “A study on the placement of prosodic bound- aries in spoken chinese by l2 learners,” Chinese Language Learn- ing, no. 3, p. 85–94, 2019, (Estimated page range; In Chinese). [17] D. Yu, “A study on prosodic phrases in chinese sentences pro- duced by korean learners,” Ph.D. dissertation, East China Normal University, 2011, (Estimated year; In Chinese). [18] M. Chen, “Effects of l1 and prosodic hierarchy on prosodic boundary production by advanced csl learners,” Chinese Teach- ing in the World, vol. 31, no. 2, p. 191–207, 2017, (In Chinese). [19] S. Song, “A study on the prosody of simple introductory sen- tences in chinese produced by korean students,” Ph.D. disserta- tion, Peking University, Beijing, China, 2010, (In Chinese). [20] L. Haitao, Theory and Practice of Dependency Grammar.Sci- ence Press, 2009, (in Chinese). [21] L. Tesni ` ere, “ ́ El ́ ements de syntaxe structurale,” Paris, Klincksieck, vol. 5, 1959. [22] I. Mel’Cuk, “Dependency syntax: Theory and practice,” 1987. [23] R. Hudson, Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Lan- guage Networks: The New Word Grammar, 2007. [24] W. Wei and Z. Jinsong, “Text design of non-native chinese speech corpora,” Chinese Teaching in the World, vol. 33, no. 1, p. 104– 116, 2019. [25] W. Che, Y. Feng, L. Qin, and T. Liu, “N-ltp: An open-source neu- ral language technology platform for chinese,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations.Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021, p. 42–49. [26] W. Wei, “A study on text design and annotation for large non- native chinese speech corpus,” Ph.D. dissertation, Beijing Lan- guage and Culture University, Beijing, 2020. [27] L. Aijun, “Acoustic representation of prosodic features in man- darin dialogue,” Chinese Language, no. 6, p. 11, 2002, (in Chi- nese). [28] —, Chinese Oral Discourse Corpus: Construction and Anno- tation. China Social Sciences Press, 2021, (in Chinese). [29] T. Liu, J. Ma, and S. Li, “Building a dependency treebank for im- proving chinese parser,” Journal of Chinese Language and Com- puting, p. 207–224, 2006. [30] S.-A. Jun and J. Bishop, “Priming implicit prosody: Prosodic boundaries and individual differences,” Language and Speech, vol. 58, no. 4, p. 459–473, 2015, pMID: 27483740. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830914563368