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-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:15:30.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - Phonetic and Phonological Influences on the Discrimination of Non-native Phones

from Part I - Theoretical Progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

By
Michael D. Tyler
Edited by
Ratree Wayland
Ratree Wayland
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

Two non-native phones can be discriminated well if each one is perceived as a different native phonological category. In that case, the perceiver’s prior attunement to a phonological distinction in the native language supports discrimination in the non-native language. Discrimination of non-native phones is more challenging when both are perceived as similar to the same native phonological category, but a perceived difference in phonetic goodness-of-fit to the native category can nevertheless support discrimination. There are four different sources of information that a perceiver might use to discriminate contrasting non-native phones: 1) sensitivity to a native phonological contrast; 2) sensitivity to the phonetic goodness-of-fit to a native phonological category; 3) language-independent phonetic distance, and; 4) perceptual salience of a non-linguistic auditory difference. Using the Perceptual Assimilation Model (Best, 1995) as an example, the aim of this paper is to outline how a theoretical model of cross-language speech perception might account for these sources of information. On the basis of that review an evaluation will be made of the methodological requirements for determining which sources of information listeners use for discrimination.

Keywords

PerceptualAssimilationnon-nativeDiscriminationCategoryGoodnessPhoneticPhonologicalPerceptualDistance
Type
Chapter
Information
Second Language Speech Learning
Theoretical and Empirical Progress
 , pp. 157 - 174
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

Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2013). Focusing the lens of language experience: Perception of Ma’di stops by Greek and English bilinguals and monolinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(4), 2397–2411.Google Scholar
Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Yamada, T. (2004). Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r. Journal of Phonetics, 32(2), 233–250.Google Scholar
Balas, A. (2018). English vowel perception by Polish advanced learners of English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 63(3), 309–338.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1994a). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In Goodman, J. C. & Nusbaum, H. C. (Eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words (pp. 167–244). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1994b). Learning to perceive the sound pattern of English. In Rovee-Collier, C & Lipsitt, L. P. (Eds.), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 9, pp. 217–304). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171–204). Baltimore: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (2015). Devil or angel in the details? Perceiving phonetic variation as information about phonological structure. In Romero, J & Riera, M (Eds.), Phonetics-phonology interface: Representations and methodologies (pp. 3–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (2019). The diversity of tone languages and the roles of pitch variation in non-tone languages: Considerations for tone perception research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 364.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., Goldstein, L. M., Nam, H., & Tyler, M. D. (2016). Articulating what infants attune to in native speech. Ecological Psychology, 28(4), 216–261.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & McRoberts, G. W. (2003). Infant perception of non-native consonant contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways. Language and Speech, 46(2–3), 183–216.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(2), 775–794.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 345–360.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Strange, W. (1992). Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20(3), 305–330.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., Traill, A., Carter, A., Harrison, K. D., & Faber, A. (2003). !Xóõ click perception by English, Isizulu, and Sesotho listeners. In Solé, M. J., Recasens, D, & Romero, J (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 853–856). Barcelona: Causal Productions.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.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., Gooding, T. N., Orlando, C. B., & Quann, C. A. (2009). Development of phonological constancy: Toddlers’ perception of native-and Jamaican-accented words. Psychological Science, 20(5), 539–542.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. (2017). Cross-language and second language speech perception. In Fernández, E. M. & Cairns, H. S. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 213–239). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.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.Google Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2011). Vocabulary size is associated with second-language vowel perception performance in adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 433–461.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (2012). Native listening. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., Hayes-Harb, R., & Mitterer, H. (2008). Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 345–360.Google Scholar
Faris, M. M., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2016). An examination of the different ways that non-native phones may be perceptually assimilated as uncategorized. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(1), EL1–EL5.Google Scholar
Faris, M. M., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2018). Discrimination of uncategorised non-native vowel contrasts is modulated by perceived overlap with native phonological categories. Journal of Phonetics, 70, 1–19.Google Scholar
Fenwick, S. E., Best, C. T., Davis, C., & Tyler, M. D. (2017). The influence of auditory-visual speech and clear speech on cross-language perceptual assimilation. Speech Communication, 92, 114–124.Google Scholar
Gerrits, E., & Schouten, M. (2004). Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(3), 363–376.Google Scholar
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds ‘l’ and ‘r’. Neuropsychologia, 9(3), 317–323.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Pruitt, J. C. (2000). An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2711–2724.Google Scholar
Harnsberger, J. D. (2001). On the relationship between identification and discrimination of non-native nasal consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(1), 489–503.Google Scholar
Hattori, K., & Iverson, P. (2009). English /r/-/l/ category assimilation by Japanese adults: Individual differences and the link to identification accuracy. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 469–479.Google Scholar
Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y., Kettermann, A., & Siebert, C. (2003). A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87, B47–B57.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. J., Strange, W., & Polka, L. (1995). Not everyone can tell a ‘rock’ from a ‘lock’: Assessing individual differences in speech perception. In Lubinski, D. J. & Dawis, R. V. (Eds.), Assessing individual differences in human behavior: New concepts, methods, and findings (pp. 297–325). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.Google Scholar
Levy, E. S. (2009). On the assimilation-discrimination relationship in American English adults’ French vowel learning. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(5), 2670–2682.Google Scholar
MacKain, K. S., Best, C. T., & Strange, W. (1981). Categorical perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 369–390.Google Scholar
Miyawaki, K., Jenkins, J. J., Strange, W., Liberman, A. M., Verbrugge, R., & Fujimura, O. (1975). An effect of linguistic experience: The discrimination of [r] and [l] by native speakers of Japanese and English. Perception & Psychophysics, 18(5), 331–340.Google Scholar
Polka, L. (1991). Cross-language speech perception in adults: Phonemic, phonetic, and acoustic contributions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 2961–2977.Google Scholar
Reid, A., Burnham, D., Kasisopa, B., Reilly, R., Attina, V., Rattanasone, N. X., & Best, C. T. (2015). Perceptual assimilation of lexical tone: The roles of language experience and visual information. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 77(2), 571–591.Google Scholar
So, C. K., & Best, C. T. (2010). Cross-language perception of non-native tonal contrasts: Effects of native phonological and phonetic influences. Language and Speech, 53(2), 273–293.Google Scholar
So, C. K., & Best, C. T. (2014). Phonetic influences on English and French listeners’ assimilation of Mandarin tones to native prosodic categories. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(2), 195–221.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (2011). Automatic selective perception (ASP) of first and second language speech: A working model. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 456–466.Google Scholar
Strange, W., & Shafer, V. L. (2008). Speech perception in second language learners: The re-education of selective perception. In Hansen Edwards, J. G. & Zampini, M. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 159–198). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tyler, M. D. (2019). PAM-L2 and phonological category acquisition in the foreign language classroom. In Nyvad, A. M., Hejná, M, Højen, A, Jespersen, A. B., & Sørensen, M. H. (Eds.), A sound approach to language matters – In honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn (pp. 607–630). Aarhus, Denmark: Department of English, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Tyler, M. D., Best, C. T., Faber, A., & Levitt, A. G. (2014). Perceptual assimilation and discrimination of non-native vowel contrasts. Phonetica, 71(1), 4–21.Google Scholar
Tyler, M. D., Best, C. T., Goldstein, L. M., & Antoniou, M. (2014). Investigating the role of articulatory organs and perceptual assimilation in infants’ discrimination of native and non-native fricative place contrasts. Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 210–227.Google Scholar
Wayland, R. P., & Guion, S. G. (2004). Training English and Chinese listeners to perceive Thai tones: A preliminary report. Language Learning, 54(4), 681–712.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Logan, J. S. (1985). Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 35–44.Google 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
×