Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:47:50.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Phonological Processing and Lexical Encoding in Bilingual Speech

from Part IV - The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bilingual Adult

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2024

By
Isabelle Darcy  and
John R. Rothgerber
Edited by
Mark Amengual
Mark Amengual
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Get access

Summary

Spoken word recognition is an automatic and smooth everyday process for most of us in our first language (L1), but it can be challenging in a second language (L2). Bilinguals’ recognition of spoken L2 words is characterized by L1 interference in how words are phonologically encoded in the mental lexicon, and how they are activated during comprehension. This chapter provides an overview of phonological processing during spoken word recognition in bilinguals, describing how phonological knowledge in L1 impacts the processing of native and non-native speech for various phonological dimensions. The chapter then surveys major experimental findings in L2 phonological perception and lexical access processes, highlighting the connection between the two, and showing that the phonolexical representations created by L2 learners are L1 influenced. This survey is contextualized by an outline of the various “forces” that further shape processing (e.g. orthography, vocabulary size, or lexical factors). Finally, the chapter outlines how L2 phonological processing develops over time, and how learners succeed at optimizing their processing and creating more target-like phonolexical representations.

Keywords

spoken word recognitionphonological processingsecond language speech perceptionlexical accessbilingual mental lexiconphonolexical encodingsublexical phonological representationphonolexical representations
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology , pp. 426 - 447
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amengual, M. (2016). The perception of language-specific phonetic categories does not guarantee accurate phonological representations in the lexicon of early bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(5), 1221–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrios, S. & Hayes-Harb, R. (2021). L2 processing of words containing English /æ/-/ɛ/ and /l/-/ɹ/ contrasts, and the uses and limits of the auditory lexical decision task for understanding the locus of difficulty. Frontiers in Communication, 6(144), 689470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. (2009). Cue constraints and their interactions in phonological perception and production. In Paul, B. & Silke, H., eds., Phonology in Perception. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 55–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordag, D., Gor, K., & Opitz, A. (2021). Ontogenesis model of the L2 lexical representation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(2), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(5), 977–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersma, M. & Cutler, A. (2008). Phantom word activation in L2. System, 36, 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersma, M. & Cutler, A. (2011). Competition dynamics of second-language listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(1), 74–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bürki, A. & Gaskell, M. G. (2012). Lexical representation of schwa words: Two mackerels, but only one salami. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 617–631.Google ScholarPubMed
Charles, T. & Trenkic, D. (2015). Speech segmentation in a second language: The role of bi-modal input. In Gambier, Y., Caimi, A., & Mariotti, C., eds., Subtitles and Language Learning. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 173–197.Google Scholar
Cook, S. V. & Gor, K. (2015). Lexical access in L2: Representational deficit or processing constraint? Mental Lexicon, 10(2), 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, S. V., Pandža, N. B., Lancaster, A. K., & Gor, K. (2016). Fuzzy nonnative phonolexical representations lead to fuzzy form-to-meaning mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A. (2005). The lexical statistics of word recognition problems caused by L2 phonetic confusion. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2005, 413–416. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2005-275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. (2012). Native Listening: Language Experience and the Recognition of Spoken Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., & Otake, T. (2006). Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second-language listening. Journal of Phonetics, 34(2), 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., Smits, R., & Cooper, N. (2004). Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(6), 3668–3678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daidone, D. & Darcy, I. (2021). Vocabulary size is a key factor in predicting second language lexical encoding accuracy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 688356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darcy, I., Daidone, D., & Kojima, C. (2013). Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners. Mental Lexicon, 8(3), 372–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, I., Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., et al. (2012). Direct mapping of acoustics to phonology: On the lexical encoding of front rounded vowels in L1 English-L2 French acquisition. Second Language Research, 28, 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, I., Peperkamp, S., & Dupoux, E. (2007). Bilinguals play by the rules: Perceptual compensation for assimilation in late L2-learners. In Cole, J. & Hualde, J. I., eds., Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 411–442.Google Scholar
Darcy, I. & Thomas, T. (2019). When blue is a disyllabic word: Perceptual epenthesis in the mental lexicon of second language learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(5), 1141–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, I., Tremblay, A., & Simonet, M. (2017). Editorial: Phonology in the bilingual and bidialectal lexicon. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Díaz, B., Mitterer, H., Broersma, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2012). Individual differences in late bilinguals’ L2 phonological processes: From acoustic-phonetic analysis to lexical access. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 680–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T. (2007). The multilingual lexicon. In Gaskell, G. M., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 251–265.Google Scholar
Dufour, S., Nguyen, N., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2010). Does training on a phonemic contrast absent in the listener’s dialect influence word recognition? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(1), EL43–EL48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dufour, S., Nguyen, N., Pattamadilok, C., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2016). Does orthographic training on a phonemic contrast absent in the listener’s dialect influence word recognition? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(3), 1871–1877.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupoux, E., Kakehi, K., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C., & Mehler, J. (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1568–1578.Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Peperkamp, S., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). A robust method to study stress “deafness.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(3), 1606–1618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupoux, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Navarrete, E., & Peperkamp, S. (2008). Persistent stress “deafness”: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition, 106, 682–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escudero, P., Hayes-Harb, R., & Mitterer, H. (2008). Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36(2), 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Simon, E., & Mitterer, H. (2012). The perception of English front vowels by North Holland and Flemish listeners: Acoustic similarity predicts and explains cross-linguistic and L2 perception. Journal of Phonetics, 40(2), 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, M. R., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2016). Phonotactic constraints are activated across languages in bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskell, M. G. & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89(2), 105–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105(2), 251–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldinger, S. D. (2007). A complementary-systems approach to abstract and episodic speech perception. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2007), 49–54. www.icphs2007.de/conference/Papers/1781/1781.pdf.Google Scholar
Gor, K. & Cook, S. V. (2020). A mare in a pub? Nonnative facilitation in phonological priming. Second Language Research, 36(1), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gor, K., Cook, S., Bordag, D., Chrabaszcz, A., & Opitz, A. (2021). Fuzzy lexical representations in adult second language speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 732030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “l” and “r.” Neuropsychologia, 9(3), 317–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, S. (2003). Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding. Journal of Phonetics, 31(3–4), 373–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R. & Barrios, S. (2021). The influence of orthography in second language phonological acquisition. Language Teaching, 54(3), 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R. & Masuda, K. (2008). Development of the ability to lexically encode novel second language phonemic contrasts. Second Language Research, 24(1), 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R., Nicol, J., & Barker, J. (2010). Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. Language and Speech, 53(3), 367–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Højen, A. & Flege, J. E. (2006). Early learners’ discrimination of second-language vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5), 3072–3084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning. In Robinson, P., ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 258–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, E. S. & Strange, W. (2008). Perception of French vowels by American English adults with and without French language experience. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llompart, M. (2021). Phonetic categorization ability and vocabulary size contribute to the encoding of difficult second-language phonological contrasts into the lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(3), 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llompart, M. & Reinisch, E. (2017). Articulatory information helps encode lexical contrasts in a second language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(5), 1040–1056.Google Scholar
Llompart, M. & Reinisch, E. (2020). The phonological form of lexical items modulates the encoding of challenging second-language sound contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(8), 1590–1610.Google ScholarPubMed
Llompart, M. & Reinisch, E. (2021). Lexical representations can rapidly be updated in the early stages of second-language word learning. Journal of Phonetics, 88, 101080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V. & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10(1), 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMurray, B., Apfelbaum, K. S., & Tomblin, J. B. (2022). The slow development of real-time processing: Spoken-word recognition as a crucible for new thinking about language acquisition and language disorders. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(4), 305–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McQueen, J. M. (2007). Eight questions about spoken word recognition. In Gaskell, G. M., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 37–53.Google Scholar
McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (2006). Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science, 30, 1113–1126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melnik, G. A. & Peperkamp, S. (2021). High-variability phonetic training enhances second language lexical processing: Evidence from online training of French learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(3), 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mochizuki, M. (1981). The identification of /r/ and /l/ in natural and synthesized speech. Journal of Phonetics, 9(3), 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52(3), 189–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, D. & McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115(2), 357–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ota, M., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Haywood, S. L. (2009). The KEY to the ROCK: Near-homophony in nonnative visual word recognition. Cognition, 111(2), 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallier, C., Bosch, L., & Sebastian-Gallés, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception. Cognition, 64(3), B9–B17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pallier, C., Colomé, A., & Sebastian-Gallés, N. (2001). The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science, 12(6), 445–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelzl, E., Lau, E. F., Guo, T., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Advanced second language learners’ perception of lexical tone contrasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(1), 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelzl, E., Lau, E. F., Guo, T., & DeKeyser, R. (2021). Even in the best-case scenario L2 learners have persistent difficulty perceiving and utilizing tones in Mandarin: Findings from behavioral and event-related potentials experiments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(2), 268–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polivanov, E. (1931). La perception des sons d’une langue étrangère. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 4, 79–96.Google Scholar
Ramus, F., Peperkamp, S., Christophe, A., et al. (2010). A psycholinguistic perspective on the acquisition of phonology. In Fougeron, C., Kühnert, B., d’Imperio, M., & Vallée, N., eds., Laboratory Phonology 10: Variation, Phonetic Detail and Phonological Representation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranbom, L. J. & Connine, C. M. (2011). Silent letters are activated in spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(2), 236–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastian-Gallés, N. (2005). Cross-language speech perception. In Pisoni, D. B. & Remez, R. E., eds., The Handbook of Speech Perception. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 546–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N. & Baus, C. (2005). On the relationship between perception and production in L2 categories. In Cutler, A., ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 279–292.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. & Strange, W. (1982). The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shook, A. & Marian, V. (2013). The bilingual language interaction network for comprehension of speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 304–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Showalter, C. E. & Hayes-Harb, R. (2015). Native English speakers learning Arabic: The influence of novel orthographic information on second language phonological acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonchyk, A. & Darcy, I. (2018). The effect of orthography on the lexical encoding of palatalized consonants in L2 Russian. Language and Speech, 61(4), 522–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonchyk, A. I. & Darcy, I. (2017). Lexical encoding and perception of palatalized consonants in L2 Russian. In O’Brien, M. & Levis, J., eds., Proceedings of the 8th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference. Ames: Iowa State University Press, pp. 121–132.Google Scholar
Strauß, A., Wu, T., McQueen, J. M., Scharenborg, O., & Hintz, F. (2022). The differential roles of lexical and sublexical processing during spoken-word recognition in clear and in noise. Cortex, 151, 70–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takata, Y. & Nábělek, A. K. (1990). English consonant recognition in noise and in reverberation by Japanese and American listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(2), 663–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tremblay, A., Broersma, M., Coughlin, C. E., & Choi, J. (2016). Effects of the native language on the learning of fundamental frequency in second-language speech segmentation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veivo, O. & Järvikivi, J. (2013). Proficiency modulates early orthographic and phonological processing in L2 spoken word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 864–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wayland, R. & Guion, S. (2003). Perceptual discrimination of Thai tones by naive and experienced learners of Thai. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, A. & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werker, J. F. & Tees, R. C. (1999). Influences on infant speech processing: Toward a new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 509–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×