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-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:01:44.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 18 - Auditory Priming Effects on the Pronunciation of Second Language Speech Sounds

from Part V - Cognitive and Psychological Variables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

By
Lindsay Leong ,
Trude Heift  and
Yue Wang
Edited by
Ratree Wayland
Ratree Wayland
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

This study examines the effects of auditory priming on second-language (L2) speech production. Mandarin learners of English were presented with an English vowel as an auditory prime followed by an English target word containing either a tenseness congruent (e.g., prime: /i/ – target: “peach”) or incongruent (e.g. prime: /i/ – target: “pitch”) vowel. Pronunciation of the target vowel was measured in terms of duration and formant frequency, as well as intelligibility by native English listeners. Results show a more English-like formant frequency distribution and an increase in intelligibility of the /i/ and /ɪ/ productions in the congruent relative to incongruent condition, suggesting that auditory speech information can positively affect the pronunciation of difficult L2 speech contrasts.

Keywords

AuditoryPrimingSecondLanguagePerceptionProductionMandarinEnglishIntelligibility
Type
Chapter
Information
Second Language Speech Learning
Theoretical and Empirical Progress
 , pp. 439 - 462
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues in cross-language speech research (pp. 167–200). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Munro, M. J. & Bohn, O. S. (Eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341–345.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 977–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A., Pisoni, D., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.Google Scholar
Callan, D. E., Tajima, K., Callan, A. M., Kubo, R., Masaki, S., & Akahane- Yamada, R. (2003). Learning-induced neural plasticity associated with improved identification performance after training of a difficult second-language phonetic contrast. NeuroImage, 19, 113–124.Google Scholar
Clopper, C. G., Pisoni, D. B., & de Jong, K. (2005). Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of six regional varieties of American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1661–1676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, W. E., Blumstein, S. E., & Nigro, G. (1975). Articulatory effects on speech perception: A preliminary report. Journal of Phonetics, 3, 87–98.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E., & Lauritsen, M. R. (1974). Feature processing in the perception and production of speech. Nature, 252, 121–123.Google Scholar
D’Ausilio, A., Pulvermuller, F., Salmas, P., Bufalari, I., Begliomini, C., & Fadiga, L. (2009). The motor somatotopy of speech perception. Current Biology, 19, 381–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1981). Effects of frequency-shifted feedback on the pitch of vocal productions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 45–50.Google Scholar
Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., Buccino, G., & Rizzollati, G. (2002). Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: A TMS study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 399–402.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1991). Age of learning affects the authenticity of voice-onset time (VOT) in stop consonants produced in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 395–411.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1993). Production and perception of a novel, second-language phonetic contrast. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 1589–1608.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1997). English vowel production by Dutch talkers: More evidence for the “new” vs “similar” distinction. In James, A & Leather, J (Eds.), Second-language speech: Structure and process (pp. 11–52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1999). The relation between L2 production and perception. In Ohala, J, Hasegawa, Y, Ohala, M, Granveille, D, & Bailey, A (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetics Sciences (pp. 1273–1276). Berkeley: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. In Schniller, N & Meyer, A (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 319–355). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2007). Language contact in bilingualism: Phonetic system interactions. In Cole, J & Hualde, J. I. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 9 (pp. 353–382). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987). Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 67–83.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillenbrand, J. M., & Clark, M. J. (2000). Some effects of duration on vowel recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 3013–3022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099–3111.Google Scholar
Hirata, Y., & Whiton, J. (2005). Effects of speaking rate on the single/geminate stop distinction in Japanese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1647–1660.Google Scholar
Houde, J. F., & Jordan, M. I. (1998). Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science, 279, 1213–1216.Google Scholar
Jackson, A., & Morton, J. (1984). Facilitation of auditory word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 12, 568–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, J. A., & Munhall, K. G. (2005). Remapping auditory-motor representations in voice production. Current Biology, 15, 1768–1772.Google Scholar
Kawahara, H. (1998). Hearing voice: Transformed auditory feedback effects on voice pitch control. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Workshop on computational auditory scene analysis (pp. 335–349). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kondaurova, M., & Francis, A. L. (2008). The relationship between native allophonic experience with vowel duration and perception of the English tense/lax vowel contrast by Spanish and Russian listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 3959–3971.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 979–1000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, X., & Xu, B. (2005). Formant comparison between whispered and voiced vowels in Mandarin. ACTA Acustica United with Acustica, 91, 1079–1085.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1–36.Google Scholar
Meister, I., Wilson, S. M., Deblieck, C., Wu, A. D., & Iacoboni, M. (2007). The essential role of premotor cortex in speech perception. Current Biology, 17, 1692–1696.Google Scholar
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81–108.Google Scholar
Nearey, T. M., & Assmann, P. (1986). Modeling the role of vowel inherent spectral change in vowel identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 1297–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, K. Y. (2007). The interaction between spontaneous imitation and linguistic knowledge. University of California Working Papers in Phonetics, 105, 125–137.Google Scholar
Ojanen, V., Möttönen, R., Pekkola, J., Jääskeläinen, I. P., Joensuu, R., Autti, T., & Sams, M. (2005). Processing of audiovisual speech in Broca’s area. Neuroimage, 25, 333–338.Google Scholar
Pilotti, M., Bergman, E. T., Gallo, D. A., Sommers, M., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2000). Direct comparison of auditory implicit memory tests. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 347–353.Google Scholar
Porter, R. J., & Castellanos, F. X. (1980). Speech-production measures of speech perception: Rapid shadowing of VCV syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 1349–1356.Google Scholar
Porter, R. J., & Lubker, J. F. (1980). Rapid reproduction of vowel-vowel sequences: Evidence for a fast and direct acoustic-motoric linkage in speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 593–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purcell, D. W., & Munhall, K. G. (2006a). Adaptive control of vowel formant frequency: Evidence from real-time formant manipulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 966–977.Google Scholar
Purcell, D. W., & Munhall, K. G. (2006b). Compensation following real-time manipulation of formants in isolated vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2288–2297.Google Scholar
Rochet, B. L. (1995). Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience (pp. 379–410). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Roy, A. C., Craighero, L., Fabbri-Destro, M., & Fadiga, L. (2008). Phonological and lexical motor facilitation during speech listening: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Physiology–Paris, 102, 101–105.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W. (2006). English in North America. In Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y, & Nelson, C. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of world Englishes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schneiderman, E., Bourdages, J., & Champagne, C. (1988). Second-language accent: The relationship between discrimination and perception in acquisition. Language Learning, 38, 1–19.Google Scholar
Shiller, D. M., Sato, M., Gracco, V. L., & Baum, S. R. (2009). Perceptual recalibration of speech sounds following speech motor learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skipper, J. I., van Wassenhove, V., Nusbaum, H. C., & Small, S. L. (2007). Hearing lips and seeing voices: How cortical areas supporting speech production mediate audiovisual speech perception. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 2387–2399.Google Scholar
Spencer, K. A., & Wiley, E. (2008). Response priming patterns differ with interstimulus interval duration. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 22, 475–490.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. I. (2008). L2 English vowel learning by Mandarin speakers: Does perception precede production? Canadian Acoustics, 36, 134–135.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. I., Nearey, T. M., & Derwing, T. M. (2009). A modified statistical pattern recognition approach to measuring the crosslinguistic similarity of Mandarin and English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 1447–1460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilsen, S. (2009). Subphonemic and cross-phonemic priming in vowel shadowing: Evidence for the involvement of exemplars in production. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 276–296.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, H. (1990). Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 97–100.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P. (2005). Spoken-word processing in native and second languages: An investigation of auditory word priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 479–504.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in processing L2 Spanish words: Implications for pronunciation instruction. Modern Language Journal, 90, 519–535.Google Scholar
Villacorta, V. M., Perkell, J. S., & Guenther, F. H. (2007). Sensorimotor adaptation to feedback perturbations of vowel acoustics and its relation to perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 2306.Google Scholar
Wang, X. (1997). The acquisition of English vowels by Mandarin ESL learners: A study of production and perception. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Wang, X., & Munro, M. (2004). Computer-based training for learning English vowel contrasts. System, 32, 539–552.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (2003). Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1033–1044.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Sereno, J. A., Jongman, A., & Hirsch, J. (2003). fMRI evidence for cortical modification during learning of mandarin lexical tone. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 1019–1027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkins, K., & Paus, T. (2004). Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception: The role of Broca’s area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 978–987.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. M., Saygin, A. P., Sereno, M. I., & Iacoboni, M. (2004). Listening to speech activates motor areas involved in speech production. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 701–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×