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: 2024-12-26T22:30:01.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - The Revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r)

from Part I - Theoretical Progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

By
James Emil Flege  and
Ocke-Schwen Bohn
Edited by
Ratree Wayland
Ratree Wayland
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

Here we present the revised Speech learning model (SLM-r), an individual differences model which aims to account for how phonetic systems reorganize over the life span in response to the phonetic input received during naturalistic second language (L2) learning. We first review research leading to the formulation of Speech Learning Model, or SLM (Flege, 1995), before presenting a synthesis of that model and then its revision. The SLM-r proposes that the mechanisms and processes needed for native language (L1) acquisition remain accessible for use in L2 learning, without change or exception, across the life span. By hypothesis, the formation or non-formation of new phonetic categories for L2 sounds will depend on the precision of L1 categories at the time L2 learning begins, the perceived phonetic dissimilarity of an L2 sound from the closest L1 sound, and the quantity and quality of L2 input that has been received. According to the SLM-r, the phonetic categories making up the L1 and L2 phonetic subsystems interact with one another dynamically and are updated whenever the statistical properties of the input distributions defining L1, L2, and composite L1-L2 categories (diaphones) change.

Keywords

SpeechLearningModelRevisionSecondLanguage
Type
Chapter
Information
Second Language Speech Learning
Theoretical and Empirical Progress
 , pp. 3 - 83
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

Allen, J. S., Joanne, L., Miller, J. L., & DeSteno, D. (2003). Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 544–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, J. S., & Miller, J. L. (2004). Listener sensitivity to individual differences in voice-onset-time: Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(6), 3171–3183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J., Morgan, J., & White, K. (2003). A statistical basis for speech sound discrimination. Language and Speech, 46, 155–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antetomaso, S., Miyazawa, K., Feldman, N., Elsner, M., Hitczenko, K., & Mazuka, R. (2017). Modeling phonetic category learning from natural acoustic data. In Lamendola, M & Scott, J (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 32–45). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Aslin, R. (2014). Phonetic category learning and its influence on speech production. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 4–15.Google Scholar
Baker, W., & Trofimovich, P. (2006). Perceptual paths to accurate production of L2 vowels: The role of individual differences. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W., Trofimovich, P., Flege, J. E., Mack, M., & Halter, R. (2008). Child-adult differences in second-language phonological learning: The role of cross-language similarity. Language and Speech, 51(4), 317–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benders, T., Escudero, P., & Sjerps, M. J. (2012). The interrelation between acoustic context effects and available response categories in speech sound categorization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(4), 3079–3097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bent, T. (2014). Children’s perception of foreign-accented words. Journal of Child Language, 41(6), 1334–1355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bent, T. (2018). Development of unfamiliar accent comprehension continues through adolescence. Journal of Child Language, 45, 1400–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bent, T., & Holt, R. F. (2018). Shhh … I need quiet! Children’s understanding of American, British, and Japanese-accented English speakers. Language and Speech, 61(4), 657–673.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. 107–126). Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception. In Bohn, O. S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., & Flege, J E. (1993). Perceptual switching in Spanish/English bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 267–290.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S.(2002). On phonetic similarity. In Burmeister, P, Piske, T, & Rohde, A (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 191–216). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. (2020). Cross-language phonetic relationships account for most, but not all L2 speech learning problems: The role of universal phonetic biases and generalized sensitivities. In Wrembel, M, Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak, A, & Gąsiorowski, P (Eds.), Approaches to the study of sound structure and speech: Interdisciplinary work in honour of Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (pp. 171–184). Abingdon, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., & Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L. (2009). Second language speech learning with diverse inputs. In: Piske, T & Young-Scholten, M (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 207–218). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., & Ellegaard, A. A. (2019). Perceptual assimilation and graded discrimination as predictors of identification accuracy for learners differing in L2 experience: The case of Danish learners’ perception of English initial fricatives. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 2070–2074).Google Scholar
Bohn, O. S., & Steinlen, A. K. (2003). Consonantal context affects cross-language perception of vowels. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 2289–2292).Google Scholar
Bosch, L., & Ramon-Casas, M. (2011). Variability in vowel production by bilingual speakers: Can input properties hinder the early stabilization of contrastive categories? Journal of Phonetics, 39, 514–526.Google 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 and Psychophysics, 61(5), 977–985.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106(2), 707–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brière, E. J. (1966). An investigation of phonological interferences. Language, 42(4), 768–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersma, M. (2005). Perception of familiar contrasts in unfamiliar positions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(6), 3890–3901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckler, H., Oczak-Arsic, S., Siddiqui, N., & Johnson, E. K. (2017). Input matters: Speed of word recognition in 2-year-olds exposed to multiple accents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 164, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callan, D. E., Jones, J. A., Callan, A. M., & Akahane-Yamada, R. (2004). Learning-induced neural plasticity associated with improved identification performance after training of a difficult second-language phonetic contrast. NeuroImage, 19, 113–124.Google Scholar
Callan, D. E., Tajima, K., Callan, A. M., Kubo, R., Masaki, S., & Akahane-Yamada, R. (2003). Phonetic perceptual identification by native- and second-language speakers differentially activates brain regions involved with acoustic phonetic processing and those involved with articulatory-auditory/orosensory internal models. NeuroImage, 22, 1182–1194.Google Scholar
Casillas, J. V., & Simonet, M. (2018). Perceptual categorization and bilingual language modes: Assessing the double phonemic boundary in early and late bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cebrian, J. (2006). Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel categorization. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 372–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekaran, B., Sampath, P., & Wong, P. C. M. (2010). Individual variability in cue-weighting and lexical tone learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(1), 456–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chládkova, K., & Podlipský, V. J. (2011). Native dialect matters: Perceptual assimilation of Dutch vowels by Czech listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(4), EL186–EL192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chao, S-C., Ochoa, D., & Daliri, A. (2019). Production variability and categorical perception of vowels are strongly linked. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00096.Google Scholar
Cheung, B., Chudek, M., & Heine, S. (2011). Evidence for a sensitive period for acculturation: Younger immigrants report acculturating at a faster rate. Psychological Science, 22(2), 147–152.Google Scholar
Chodroff, E., & Wilson, C. (2017). Structure in talker-specific phonetic realization: Covariation of stop consonant VOT in American English. Journal of Phonetics, 61, 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, C., & Luce, P. (2005). Perceptual adaptation to speaker characteristics: VOT boundaries in stop voicing categorization. In Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Plasticity in Speech Perception (pp. 15–17).Google Scholar
Clayards, M. (2018). Differences in cue weights for speech perception are correlated for individuals within and across contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(3), EL172–EL177.Google Scholar
Darcy, I., & Krüger, F. (2012). Vowel perception and production in Turkish children acquiring L2 German. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 568–581.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Larson-Hall, J. (2005). What does the critical period really mean? In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 88–108). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E., & Celata, C. (2019). Plasticity of native phonetic and phonological domains in the context of bilingualism. Journal of Phonetics, 75, 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, B., Mitterer, H., Broersma, M., Escera, C., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2015). Variability in L2 phonemic learning originates from speech-specific capabilities: An MMN study on late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(5), 955–970.Google Scholar
Díaz, B., Mitterer, H., Broersma, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2012). Individual differences in late bilinguals’ L2 phonological processes: From acoustic-phonetic to lexical access. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 680–689.Google Scholar
DiCanio, C., Nam, H., Amith, J. D., García, R. C., & Whalen, D. H. (2015). Vowel variability in elicited versus spontaneous speech: Evidence from Mixtec. Journal of Phonetics, 48, 45–59.Google Scholar
Docherty, G. J., Watt, D., Llamas, C., Hall, D., & Nycz, J. (2011). Variation in voice onset time along the Scottish border. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 591–594).Google Scholar
Dmitrieva, O. (2019). Transferring perceptual cue-weighting from second language into first language: Cues to voicing in Russian speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 83, 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dmitrieva, O., Llanos, F., Shultz, A. A., & Francis, A. L. (2015). Phonological status, not voice onset time, determines the acoustic realization of onset f0 as a secondary voicing cue in Spanish and English. Journal of Phonetics, 49, 77–95.Google Scholar
Dmitrieva, O., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (2010). Phonological neutralization by native and non-native speakers: The case of Russian final devoicing. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 483–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earle, F. S., & Myers, E. B. (2015). Overnight consolidation promotes generalization across talkers in the identification of nonnative speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(1), EL91–EL97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eilers, R. E., & Oller, D. K. (1976). The role of speech discrimination in developmental sound substitutions. Journal of Child Language, 3(3), 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L., Diehl, R. L., & Buchwald, S. E. (1977). Perceptual switching in bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62(4), 971–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Benders, T., & Lipski, S. (2009). Native, non-native and L2 perceptual cue weighting for Dutch vowels: The case of Dutch, German, and Spanish listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 17(4), 452–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., & Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(4), 551–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Sisinni, B., & Grimaldi, M. (2014). The effect of vowel inventory and acoustic properties in Salento Italian learners of Southern British English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(3), 1577–1584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escudero, P., & Williams, D. (2012). Native dialect influences second-language vowel perception: Peruvian versus Iberian Spanish learners of Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(5), EL406–EL412.Google Scholar
Evans, B. G., & Iverson, P. (2004). Vowel normalization for accent: An investigation of best exemplar locations in norther and southern British English sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(1), 352–361.Google Scholar
Evans, S., & Davis, M. H. (2015). Hierarchical organization of auditory and motor representations in speech perception: Evidence from searchlight similarity analysis. Cerebral Cortex, 25(12), 4772–4788. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv136.Google Scholar
Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., Goldwater, S., & Morgan, J. L. (2013). A role for the developing lexicon in phonetic category acquisition. Psychological Review, 120(4), 751–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., & Morgan, J. L. (2009). The influence of categories on perception: Explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychological Review, 116(4), 752–782.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1984). The detection of French accent by American listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76(3), 692–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J. E. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1988). Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in English sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84(1), 70–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1992). The intelligibility of English vowels spoken by British and Dutch talkers. In Kent, R. D. (Ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders: Theory, measurement, and management (pp. 157–232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issue in cross-language research (pp. 229–273). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1998). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in English sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 70–79.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1999). Relation between L2 production and perception. In Ohala, J et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetics Sciences (pp. 1273–1276). Berkeley, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2005a). Origins and development of the Speech Learning Model. Paper presented at the Acoustical Society of America Workshop in L2 speech learning, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.10181.19681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2005b). Evidence for plasticity in studies examining second language speech acquisition. Paper presented at the ISCA Workshop on Plasticity in Speech Perception, University College London. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.34539.80167.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2007). Language contact in bilingualism: Phonetic system interactions. In Cole, J & Hualde, J (Eds.), Laboratory phonology (Vol. 9, pp. 353–380). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2019). A non-critical period for second-language speech learning. In Nyvad, A. M., Hejná, M et al. (Eds.), A sound approach to language matters: In honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn (pp. 501–541). Aarhus: Department of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O.-S., & Yang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Davidian, R. (1984). Transfer and developmental processes in adult foreign language speech production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 323–347.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1986). Linguistic and developmental effects on the production and perception of stop consonants. Phonetica, 43, 155–171.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987). Production and perception of English stop consonants by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15(1), 67–83.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1988). Imitation of a VOT continuum by native speakers of Spanish and English: Evidence for phonetic category formation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 729–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J. E., Frieda, E. M., Walley, A. C., & Randazza, L. A. (1998). Lexical factors and segmental accuracy in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(2), 155–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Hammond, R. (1982). Mimicry of non-distinctive phonetic differences between language varieties. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 527–552.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Munro, M. (1994). The word unit in second language speech production and perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 381–411.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & Fox, R. A. (1994). Auditory and categorical effects on cross-language vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(6), 3623–3641.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995a). Factors affecting strength of perceived foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3126–3134.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995b). Effects of age of second-language learning on the production of English consonants. Speech Communication, 16, 1–26.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & Skelton, L. (1992). Production of the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast by native speakers of English, Mandarin, and Spanish. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92(1), 128–143.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Port, R. (1981). Cross-language phonetic interference: Arabic to English. Language and Speech, 24(2), 125–146.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Schirru, C., & MacKay, I. R. A. (2003). Interaction between the native and second language phonetic systems. Speech Communication, 40, 467–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1995). Japanese adults can learn to produce English /I/ and /l/ accurately. Language and Speech, 38, 25–55.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Wang, C. (1989). Native-language phonotactic constrains affect how well Chinese subjects perceive the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast. Journal of Phonetics, 17, 299–315.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Wayland, R. (2019). The role of input in native Spanish late learners’ production and perception of English phonetic segments. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
Francis, A. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2002). Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(2), 349–366.Google Scholar
Francis, A. L., Kaganovich, N., & Driscoll-Huber, C. (2008). Cue-specific effects of categorization training on the relative weighting of acoustic cues to consonant voicing in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124(2), 1234–1251.Google Scholar
Franken, M. K., Acheson, D. J., McQueen, J. M., Eisner, F., & Hagoort, P. (2017). Individual variability as a window on production-perception interactions in speech motor control. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(4), 2007–2018.Google Scholar
Frieda, E. M., Walley, A. C., Flege, J. E., & Sloane, M. E. (2000). Adults’ perception and production of the English vowel /i/. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 43, 129–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia Lecumberri, M. L., Cooke, M., & Cutler, A. (2011). Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review. Speech Communication, 52, 864–886.Google Scholar
Galbraith, G. C., Buranahirun, C. E., Kang, J., Ramos, O. V., & Lunde, S. E. (2000). Individual differences in autonomic activity affects brainstem auditory frequency-following response amplitude in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 283(3), 201–204.Google Scholar
Garibaldi, C. L., & Bohn, O.-S. (2015). Phonetic similarity predicts ultimate attainment quite well: The case of Danish /i, y, u/ and /d, t/ for native speakers of English and of Spanish. Paper presented at the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Giannakopoulou, A., Uther, M., & Ylinen, S. (2013). Enhanced plasticity in spoken language acquisition for child learners: Evidence from phonetic training studies in child and adult learners of English. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29(2), 201–218.Google Scholar
Golestani, N. (2016). Neuroimaging of phonetic perception in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 674–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golestani, N., Molko, N., Dehaene, S., LiBihan, D., & Pallier, C. (2007). Brain structure predicts the learning of foreign speech sounds. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 575–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottfried, T. L. (1984). Effects of consonant context on the perception of French vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 12, 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guenther, F., Hampson, M., & Johnson, D. (1998). A theoretical investigation of reference frames for the planning of speech movements. Psychological Review, 105(4), 611–633.Google Scholar
Gupta, P., & Dell, G. S. (1999). The emergence of language from serial order and procedural memory. In MacWhinney, B (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 447–481). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Han, Z., & Odlin, T. (Eds.). (2006). Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Palethorpe, S., & Watson, C. (2000). Monophthongal vowel changes in received pronunciation: An acoustic analysis of the Queen’s Christmas broadcasts. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 30(1–2), 63–78.Google Scholar
Hazan, V., & Barrett, S. (2000). The development of phonemic categorization in children aged 6–12. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, V., & Kim, Y. H. (2010). Can we predict who will benefit from computer-based phonetic training? Paper presented at the Interspeech 2010, Satellite Workshop on “Second Language Studies: Acquisition, Learning, Education and Technology,” Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Hazan, V., & Rosen, S. (1991). Individual variability in the perception of cues to place variability in initial stops. Perception and Psychophysics, 49(2), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heald, S. L. M., & Nusbaum, H. (2015). Variability in vowel production within and between days. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0136791. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136791.Google Scholar
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
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93(4), 411–428.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Højen, A., & Flege, J. E. (2006). Early learners’ discrimination of second-language vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5), 3072–3084.Google Scholar
Holt, L., & Lotto, A. J. (2006). Cue weighting in auditory categorization: Implications for first and second language acquisition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5), 3059–3071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, L. L., & Lotto, A. J. (2010). Speech perception as categorization. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72(5), 1218–1227.Google Scholar
Hopp, H., & Schmid, M. S. (2013). Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition: The impact of age of acquisition and bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 361–394.Google Scholar
Hoormann, J., Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., & Blanke, L. (1992). The human frequency-following response (FFR): Normal variability and relation to the click-evoked brainstem response. Hearing Research, 59(2), 179–188.Google Scholar
Houde, J. F., & Jordan, M. I. (1998). Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science, 279(5354), 1213–1216.Google Scholar
Houde, J. F., & Jordan, M. I. (2002). Sensorimotor adaptation of speech I: Compensation and adaptation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 295–310.Google Scholar
Hu, W., Mi, L., Yang, Z., Tao, S., Li, M., Wang, W., Dong, Q., & Liu, C. (2016). Shifting perceptual weights in L2 vowel identification after training. Plos ONE, 11(9), e0162876. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162876.Google Scholar
Idemaru, K., & Holt, L. L. (2011). Word recognition reflects dimension-based statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1939.Google Scholar
Idemaru, K., & Holt, L. (2013). The developmental trajectory of children’s perception and production of English /r/-/l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(6), 4232–4246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Idemaru, K., Holt, L. L., & Seltman, H. (2012). Individual differences in cue weights are stable across time: The case of Japanese stop lengths. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(6), 3950–3964.Google Scholar
Imai, S., Walley, A. C., & Flege, J. E. (2005). Lexical frequency and neighborhood density effects on the recognition of native and Spanish-accented words by native and Spanish listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(2), 896–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iverson, P., & Evans, B. G. (2007). Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems: Perception of formant targets, formant movement, and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(5), 2842–2854.Google Scholar
Iverson, P., & Evans, B. (2009). Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems II: Auditory training for native Spanish and German speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(2), 866–877.Google Scholar
Iverson, P., Hazan, V., & Bannister, K. (2005). Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: A comparison of methods for teaching English/r/-/l/to Japanese adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(5), 3267–3278.Google Scholar
Iverson, P., Wagner, A., & Rosen, S. (2016). Effects of language experience on pre-categorical perception: Distinguishing general from specialized processes in speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(4), 1799–1809.Google Scholar
Jia, G., & Aaronson, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese children and adolescents learning English in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 131–161.Google Scholar
Jia, G., Strange, W., Wu, Y., Collado, J., & Guan, Q. (2006). Perception and production of English vowels by Mandarin speakers: Age related differences vary with amount of exposure. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(2), 1118–1130.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2000). Adaptive dispersion in vowel perception. Phonetica, 57, 181–188.Google Scholar
Johnson, K., Flemming, E., & Wright, R. (1993). The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets are hyperarticulated. Language, 69, 505–528.Google Scholar
Jongman, A., & Wade, T. (2007). Acoustic variability and perceptual learning: The case of non-native accented speech. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 135–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kachlika, M., Saito, K., & Tierney, A. (2019). Successful second language learning is tied to robust domain-general auditory processing and stable neural representation of sound. Brain and Language, 192, 15–24.Google Scholar
Kartushina, N., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2013). On the role of L1 speech production in L2 perception: Evidence from Spanish learners of French. Paper presented at Interspeech 2013, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
Kartushina, N., Hervais-Adelman, A., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Golestani, N. (2016). Mutual influences between native and non-native vowels in production: Evidence from short-term visual articulatory feedback training. Journal of Phonetics, 57, 21–39.Google Scholar
Kharlamov, V. (2014). Incomplete neutralization of the voicing contrast in word-final obstruents in Russian: Phonological, lexical, and methodological in influences. Journal of Phonetics, 43(1), 47–56.Google Scholar
Kent, R. D., & Forner, L. L. (1980). Speech segment durations in sentence recitations by children and adults. Journal of Phonetics, 8, 157–168.Google Scholar
Kewley-Port, D. (2001). Vowel formant discrimination, II: Effects of stimulus uncertainty, consonantal context, and training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(4), 2141–2155.Google Scholar
Kidd, G. R., Watson, C. S., & Gygi, B. (2007). Individual differences in auditory abilities. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 418–435.Google Scholar
Kim, D., & Clayards, M. (2019). Individual differences in the link between perception and production and the mechanism of phonetic imitation. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 34(6), 769–786.Google Scholar
Kim, D., Clayards, M., & Goad, H. (2018). A longitudinal study of individual differences in the acquisition of new vowel contrasts. Journal of Phonetics, 67, 1–20.Google Scholar
Kim, M. R. (2012). L1–L2 transfer in VOT and f0 production by Korean English learners: L1 sound change and L2 stop production. Phonetic and Speech Sciences, 4(3), 31–41.Google Scholar
Kleinschmidt, D. F., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review, 122(2), 148–203.Google Scholar
Kluender, K. R., Lotto, A. J., Holt, L. L., & Bloedel, S. L. (1998). Role of experience for language-specific functional mappings of vowel sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104(6), 3568–3582.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. (1981). Contrastive phonology and the acquisition of phonetic skills. Phonetica, 38, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, E. J., & Edwards, J. (2015). Individual differences in L2 learner’s perceptual cue weighting patterns. Paper presented at the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Kong, E. J., & Edwards, J. (2016). Individual differences in categorical perception of speech: Cue weighting and executive function. Journal of Phonetics, 59, 40–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, E. J., & Yoon, I. H. (2013). L2 proficiency effect on the acoustic cue-weighting pattern by Korean L2 learners of English. Journal of the Korean Society of Speech Sciences, 5(4), 81–90.Google Scholar
Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2006). Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 262–268.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. (1983). Perception of auditory equivalence classes for speech in early infancy. Infant Behavioral Development, 6, 263–285.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics, 50, 93–107.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. (2000). A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(2), 11850–11857.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T., (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 979–1000.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P., Conboy, B. T., Padden, D., Nelson, T., & Pruitt, J. (2005). Early speech perception and later language development: Implications for the “critical period.” Language Learning and Development, 1, 237–264.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Vol. 1. Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lee, H., & Jongman, A. (2018). Effects of sound change on the weighting of acoustic cues to the three-way laryngeal stop contrast in Korean: Diachronic and dialectal comparisons. Language and Speech, 63(3), 509–530.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Potamianos, A., & Narayanan, S. (1999). Acoustics of children’s speech: Developmental changes of temporal and spectral parameters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105(3), 1455–1468.Google Scholar
Lehet, M., & Holt, L. (2017). Dimension-based statistical learning affects both speech perception and production. Cognitive Science, 41, 885–912.Google Scholar
Lengeris, A. (2009). Individual differences in second-language vowel learning. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Lengeris, A., & Hazan, V. (2010). The effect of native vowel processing ability and frequency discrimination acuity on the phonetic training of English vowels for native speakers of Greek. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(6), 3757–3768.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lev-Ari, S., & Peperkamp, S. (2013). Low inhibitory skill leads to non-native perception and production in bilinguals’ native language. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 320–331.Google Scholar
Levy, E. S. (2009a). Language experience and consonantal context effects on perceptual assimilation of French vowels by American-English learners of French. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(2), 1138–1152.Google Scholar
Levy, E. S. (2009b). On the assimilation-discrimination relationship in American English adults’ French vowel learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(5), 2670–2682.Google Scholar
Levy, E. S., & Law, F. F., II. (2009). Production of French vowels by American-English learners of French: Language experience, consonantal context, and the perception-production relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(3), 1290–1305.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
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. & Marchal, A (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 403–439). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
MacKay, I. R. A., Flege, J. E., & Imai, S. (2006). Evaluating the effects of chronological age and sentence duration on degree of perceived foreign accent. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 157–183.Google Scholar
MacKay, I. R. A., Flege, J. E., Piske, T., & Schirru, C. (2001). Category restructuring during second-language acquisition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 516–528.Google Scholar
MacKay, I. R. A., Meador, D., & Flege, J. E. (2001). The identification of English consonants by native speakers of Italian. Phonetica, 58, 103–125.Google Scholar
Magezi, D. (2015). Linear mixed-effects models for within-participant psychology experiments: an introductory tutorial and free graphical user interface (LMMgui). Frontiers in Psychology, 6(2). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00002.Google Scholar
Markham, D. (1999). Phonetic imitation, accent, and the learner. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Markham, D., & Hazan, V. (2004). Acoustic-phonetic correlates of talker intelligibility for adults and children. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 116(5), 3108–3118.Google Scholar
Maye, J., Werker, J., & Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition, 82, B101–B111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, R., & Escudero, P. (2010). Explaining individual variation in L2 perception: Rounded vowels in English learners of German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, R., Flege, J. E., & Piske, T. (2003). The influence of the L1 on Swedish quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 229–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQueen, J. M., Tyler, M. D., & Cutler, A. (2012). Lexical retuning of children’s speech perception: Evidence for knowledge about words’ component sounds. Language Learning and Development, 8, 317–339.Google Scholar
Miller, J. L. (1994). On the internal structure of phonetic categories. Cognition, 50, 271–285.Google Scholar
Mielke, J., Baker, A., & Archangeli, D. (2016). Individual-level contact limits phonological complexity: Evidence from bunched and retroflex /ɹ/. Language, 92(1), 101–140.Google Scholar
Mitterer, H., Reinisch, E., & McQueen, J. M. (2018). Allophones, not phonemes in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 98, 77–92.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 and Psychophysics, 18(5), 331–340.Google Scholar
Mochizuki, M. (1981). The identification of/r/and/l/in natural and synthesized speech. Journal of Phonetics, 9(3), 283–303.Google Scholar
Mora, J. C., & Mora-Plaza, I. (2019). Contributions of cognitive attention control to L2 speech learning. In Nyvad, A. M., Hejná, M et al. (Eds.), A sound approach to language matters – In honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn (pp. 477–499). Aarhus: Dept. of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Mora, J. C., Keidel, J. L., & Flege, J. E. (2010). Why are the Catalan contrasts between /e/-/ε/ and /o/-/ɔ/ so difficult for even early Spanish-Catalan bilinguals to perceive? In Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, K, Wrembel, M, & Jul, M (Eds.), New sounds 2010: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech (pp. 325–330).Google Scholar
Mora, J. C., Keidel, J. L., & Flege, J. E. (2015). Effects of Spanish use on the production of Catalan vowels by early Spanish-Catalan bilinguals. In Romero, J & Riera, M (Eds.), The phonetics–phonology interface: Representations and methodologies (pp. 33–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Morrongiello, B., Robson, R. C., Best, C. T., & Clifton, R. K. (1984). Trading relations in the perception of speech by 5-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 231–250.Google Scholar
Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2 phonological attainment. In Piske, T & Young-Scholten, M (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 159–174). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nam, Y., & Polka, L. (2016). The phonetic landscape in infant consonant perception is an uneven terrain. Cognition, 155, 57–66.Google Scholar
Nasir, S. M., & Ostry, D. J. (2009). Auditory plasticity and speech motor learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(48), 20470–20475.Google Scholar
Nathan, L., Wells, B., & Donlan, C. (1998). Children’s comprehension of unfamiliar regional accents: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Child Language, 25, 343–365.Google Scholar
Neuman, A., & Hochberg, L. (1983). Children’s perception of speech in reverberation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73, 2145–2149.Google Scholar
Newman, R. S. (2003). Using links between speech perception and speech production to evaluate different acoustic metrics: A preliminary report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(5), 2850–2860.Google Scholar
Newman, R. S., Clouse, S. A., & Burnham, J. L. (2001). The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 1181–1196.Google Scholar
Newton, C., & Ridgway, S. (2015). Novel accent perception in typically-developing school-aged children. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 32(1) 111–123.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K. (2011). Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nittrouer, S. (2004). The role of temporal and dynamic signal components in the perception of syllable-final stop voicing by children and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(4), 1777–1790.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.Google Scholar
Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1994). Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5, 42–46.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S., & Bouchon, C. (2011). The relation between perception and production in L2 phonological processing. Paper presented at Interspeech 2011, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
Perkell, J. S., Guenther, F. H., Lane, H., Matthies, M. L., Stockmann, E., Tiede, M., & Zandipour, M. (2004). The distinctness of speakers’ productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(4), 2338–2344.Google Scholar
Perkell, J. S., Matthies, M. L., Tiede, M., Lane, H., Zandipour, M., Marrone, N., … Guenther, F. H. (2004). The distinctness of speakers’ /s/-/ʃ/ contrast is related to their auditory discrimination and use of an articulatory saturation effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(6), 1259–1269.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B., Aslin, R. N., Perey, A. J., & Hennessy, B. L. (1982). Some effects of laboratory training on identification and discrimination of voicing contrasts in stop consonants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 297–314.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D., Lively, S., & Logan, J. (1994). Perceptual learning of nonnative speech contrasts: Implications for theories of speech perception. In Goodman, J & Nusbaum, H (Eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words (pp. 121–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Polka, L., & Bohn, O. S. (2003). Asymmetries in vowel perception. Speech Communication, 41(1), 221–231.Google Scholar
Polka, L., & Bohn, O. S. (2011). Natural Referent Vowel (NRV) framework: An emerging view of early phonetic development. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 467–478.Google Scholar
Reiterer, S. M., Hu, X., Sumathi, T. A., & Singh, N. C. (2013). Are you a good mimic? Neuro-acoustic signatures for speech imitation ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(3). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00782.Google Scholar
Remez, R. E., Fellowes, J. M, & Rubin, P. E. (1997). Talker identification based on phonetic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 23, 651–666.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: Issue in cross-language research (pp. 229–273). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. L., Lister, J. L., Febo, D. M., Besing, J. M., & Abrams, H. B. (2006). Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(3), 465–485.Google Scholar
Saito, K., Sun, H., & Tierney, A. (2019). Explicit and implicit aptitude effects on second language speech learning: Scrutinizing segmental and suprasegmental sensitivity and performance via behavioral and neurophysiological measures. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(5), 1123–1140.Google Scholar
Samuel, A. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(4), 474–494.Google Scholar
Sancier, M., & Fowler, C. A. (1997). Gestural drift in a bilingual speaker of Brazilian Portuguese and English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schertz, J., Cho, T., Lotto, A., & Warner, N. (2015). Individual differences in phonetic cue use in production and perception of a non-native sound contrast. Journal of Phonetics, 52, 183–204.Google Scholar
Schertz, J., Cho, T., Lotto, A., & Warner, N. (2016). Individual differences in perceptual adaptability of foreign sound categories. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 78, 355–367.Google Scholar
Schmidtke, J. (2016). The bilingual disadvantage in speech understanding in noise is likely a frequency effect related to reduced language exposure. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(7). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00678.Google Scholar
Schulze, K., Vargha-Khade, F., & Mishkin, M. (2012). Test of a motor theory of long-term auditory memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(18), 7121–7125.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(3), 243–261.Google Scholar
Shultz, A. A., Francis, A. L., & Llanos, F. (2012). Differential cue weighting in perception and production of consonant voicing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(2), EL95–EL101.Google Scholar
Slevc, L. R., & Miyake, A. (2006). Individual differences in second-language proficiency. Psychological Science, 17(8), 675–681.Google Scholar
Smit, A., Hand, L., Freilinger, J., Bernthal, J., & Bird, A. (1990). The Iowa articulation norms project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 779–798.Google Scholar
Smits, R., Sereno, J., & Jongman, A. (2006). Categorization of sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 733–754.Google Scholar
Smith, B. L. (1979). A phonetic analysis of consonantal devoicing in children’s speech. Journal of Child Language, 6(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1979). Individual differences in second-language ability: A factor-analytic study. Language and Speech, 22, 151–162.Google Scholar
Song, J., & Iverson, P. (2018). Listening effort during speech perception enhances auditory and lexical process for non-native listeners and accents. Cognition, 179, 163–170.Google Scholar
Song, J. Y., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Demuth, K. (2015). Development of phonetic variants (allophones) in 2-year-olds learning American English: a study of alveolar stops /t, d/ codas. Journal of Phonetics, 55, 152–169.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (1992). Learning non-native phoneme contrasts: Interactions among subject, stimulus, and task variables. In Tohkura, E, Vatikiotis-Bateson, E, & Sagisaka, Y (Eds.), Speech perception, production, and linguistic structure (pp. 197–219). Tokyo: Ohmsha.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (2007). Cross-language phonetic similarity of vowels: Language experience in second language speech learning. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 35–55). Berlin: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (2011). Automatic selective perception (ASP) of first and second language speech: A working model. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 456–466.Google Scholar
Strange, W., Bohn, O.-S., Nishi, K., & Trent, S. A. (2005). Contextual variation in the acoustic and perceptual similarity of North German and American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1751–1762.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N., Liberman, A. M., Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Öhman, S. (1969). Cross-language study of vowel perception. Language and Speech, 12, 1–23.Google Scholar
Takagi, N. (1993). Perception of American English /r/ and /l/ by adult Japanese learners of English: A unified view. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California at Irvine.Google Scholar
Theodore, R. M., Miller, J. L., & DeSteno, D. (2009). Individual talker differences in voice-onset time: Contextual influences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(6), 3974–3982.Google Scholar
Theodore, R. M., Monto, N. R., & Graham, S. (2020). Individual differences in distributional learning for speech: What’s ideal for ideal observers? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63, 1–13Google Scholar
Thorin, J., Sadakata, M., Desain, P., & McQueen, J. M. (2018). Perception and production in interaction during non-native speech category learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(1), 92–103.Google Scholar
Tourville, H. A., & Guenther, F. H. (2011). The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Language and Cognitive Processing, 26(7), 952–981.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Principles of phonology. C. A. Baltaxe (Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1981). Similarity relations in recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 479–496.Google Scholar
Tyler, M. D. (2019). PAM-L2 and phonological category acquisition in the foreign language classroom. In Nyvad, A. M., Hejná, M et al. (Eds.), A sound approach to language matters – In honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn (pp. 607–630). Aarhus: Department of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Walley, A. C., & Flege, J. E. (1999). Effect of lexical status on children’s and adults’ perception of native and non-native vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 27(3), 307–332.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Byers-Heinlein, K. (2008). Bilingualism in infancy: First steps in perception and comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(4),144–150.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Logan, J. (1985). Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 35–44.Google Scholar
Westbury, J. R., Hashi, M., & Lindstrom, M. J. (1998). Differences among speakers in lingual articulation for American English /r/. Speech Communication, 26(3) 203–226.Google Scholar
Whalen, D., Abramson, A. S., Lisker, L., & Mody, M. (1993). F0 gives voicing information even without unambiguous voice onset times. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93(4), 2152–2159.Google Scholar
Williams, L. (1977). The perception of stop consonant voicing by Spanish-English bilinguals. Perception and Psychophysics, 21(4), 289–297.Google Scholar
Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Flege, J. E., & Liu, S. (2000). Pronunciation proficiency in the first and second languages of Korean-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(2), 131–149.Google Scholar
Ylinen, S., Uther, M., Latvala, A., Vepsäläinen, S. Iverson, P., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Näätänen, R. (2010). Training the brain to weight speech cues differently: A study of Finish second-language users of English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(6), 1319–1332.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P. K., Imada, T., Kotani, M., & Tohkura, Y. I. (2005). Effects of language experience: Neural commitment to language-specific auditory patterns. NeuroImage, 26(3), 703–720.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2007). Neural plasticity in speech acquisition and learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(2), 147–160.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
×