Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:31:32.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interlingual influence in bilingual speech: Cognate status effect in a continuum of bilingualism*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2011

MARK AMENGUAL
MARK AMENGUAL*
Affiliation:
Department of Spanish and Portuguese, The University of Texas at Austin
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Spanish and Portuguese, The University of Texas at Austin. 1 University Station B3700, Austin, TX 78712, USAamengual@mail.utexas.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigates voice onset times (VOTs) to determine if cognates enhance the cross-language phonetic influences in the speech production of a range of Spanish–English bilinguals: Spanish heritage speakers, English heritage speakers, advanced L2 Spanish learners, and advanced L2 English learners. To answer this question, lexical items with considerable phonological, semantic, and orthographic overlap (cognates) and lexical items with no phonological overlap with their English translation equivalents (non-cognates) were examined. The results indicate that there is a significant effect of cognate status in the Spanish production of VOT by Spanish–English bilinguals. These bilinguals produced /t/ with longer VOT values (more English-like) in the Spanish production of cognates compared to non-cognate words. It is proposed that the exemplar model of lexical representation (Bybee, 2001; Pierrehumbert, 2001) can be extended to include bilingual lexical connections by which cognates facilitate phonetic interference in the bilingual mental lexicon.

Keywords

VOTcognate effectsbilingual mental lexiconphonetic interferenceexemplar theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 517 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

Footnotes

*

I am deeply thankful to Cindy Blanco, Almeida Jacqueline Toribio, Barbara Bullock, Scott Myers, Miquel Simonet, and three anonymous reviewers for useful comments and suggestions on previous versions of this manuscript. I am also grateful to Anne Watson and Eva Vives for their help in locating participants in Spain. Finally, I wish to thank my participants for their patience and their time. All errors remain my own.

References

Abramson, A. S., & Lisker, L. (1973). Voice-timing perception in Spanish word-initial stops. Journal of Phonetics, 1, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aliaga-García, C., & Mora, J. C. (2008). Perception and production of oral stops by Catalan/Spanish learners of English: A phonetic training experiment. In Monroy, R. & Sánchez, A. (eds.), 25 years of applied linguistics in Spain: Milestones and challenges. Proceedings of the 25th AESLA Applied Linguistics Conference, pp. 9–15. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, Servicio de Publicaciones.Google Scholar
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., & Kroos, C. (2010). Language context elicits native-like stop voicing in early bilinguals’ productions in both L1 and L2. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 640–653.Google Scholar
Beckman, J., Helgason, P., McMurray, B., & Ringen, C. (2011). Rate effects on Swedish VOT: Evidence for phonological overspecification. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 39–49.Google Scholar
Benkí, J. (2005). Perception of VOT and first formant onset by Spanish and English speakers. In Cohen, J., McAlister, K. T., Rolstad, K. & MacSwan, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, pp. 240–248. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (1999–2011). Praat: A system for doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.1.05 [computer program]. http://www.praat.org (retrieved May 1, 2009).Google Scholar
Brown, E., & Harper, D. (2009). Phonological evidence of crosslinguistic exemplar connections. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 2 (2), 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (2009). Trying to hit a moving target: On the sociophonetics of code-switching. In Isurin, L., Winford, D. & de Bot, K. (eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to code switching, pp. 189–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caisse, M. (1982). Cross-linguistic differences in fundamental frequency perturbation induced by voiceless unaspirated stops. M.A. dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., & Brones, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilinguals. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13 (4), 212–214.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Zurif, E. B., & Carbone, E. (1973). The acquisition of a new phonological contrast: The case of stop consonants in French–English bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 421–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, T., & Ladefoged, P. (1999). Variation and universals in VOT: Evidence from 18 languages. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, R. (1980). The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese children and adults learning English as a second language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1, 331–360.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. (2002). Phonetic representations in the mental lexicon. In Durand, J. & Laks, B. (eds.), Phonetics, phonology and cognition, pp. 96–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A (3), 367–393.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Caño, A. (2005). On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production. Brain and Language, 94, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cristoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., & Milech, D. (1986). Bilingual lexical representation: The status of Spanish–English cognates. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A (3), 367–393.Google Scholar
De Bot, K., Cox, A., Ralston, S., Schaufeli, A., & Weltens, B. (1995). Lexical processing in bilinguals. Second Language Research, 11, 1–19.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1992a). Bilingual lexical representations: A closer look at conceptual representations. In Frost, R. & Katz, L. (eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, pp. 389–412. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1992b). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001–1018.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., Borgwaldt, S., Bos, M., & van den Eijnden, E. (2002). Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 47 (1), 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30 (1), 90–123.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (4), 496–518.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., van Jaarsveld, H., & ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 51–66.Google Scholar
Docherty, G. J. (1992). The timing of voicing in English obstruents. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. (1984). The detection of French accent by American listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 691–707.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (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. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, pp. 229–273. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J., & Eefting, W. (1986). Linguistic and developmental effects on the production and perception of stop consonants. Phonetica, 43, 155–171.Google Scholar
Flege, J., & Eefting, W. (1987). The production and perception of English stops by Spanish speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 67–83.Google Scholar
Flege, J., Frieda, E., Walley, A., & Randazza, L. (1998). Lexical factors and segmental accuracy in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 155–187.Google Scholar
Flege, J., & Hillenbrand, J. (1984). Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76 (3), 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J., & Munro, M. J. (1994). The word unit in L2 speech production and perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 381–411.Google Scholar
Flege, J., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1995). Japanese adults can learn to produce English /r/ and /l/ accurately. Language and Speech, 38, 25–55.Google Scholar
Foulkes, P., Docherty, G. J., & Jones, M. J. (2010). Analysing stops. In Di Paolo, M. & Yaeger-Dror, M. (eds.), Sociophonetics: A student's guide, pp. 58–71. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A., Sramko, V., Ostry, D. J., Rowland, S., & Halle, P. (2008). Cross language phonetic influences on the speech of French–English bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 649–663.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1997). Words and voices: Perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In Johnson, & Mullennix, (eds.), pp. 33–66.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (5), 1122–1139.Google ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Miller, J. L. (1994). Going in and out of languages: An example of bilingual flexibility. Psychological Science, 5, 201–209.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Soares, C. (1986). Processing mixed language: Some preliminary findings. In Vaid, J. (ed.), Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives, pp. 145–179. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hall, K., & Boomershine, A. (2006). Life, the critical period: An exemplar-based model of language learning. Ms., The Ohio State University. [http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~kchall/KCH, retrieved March 15, 2011]Google Scholar
Hammerly, H. (1982). Contrastive phonology and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 17–32.Google Scholar
Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition, 106, 501–511.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization. In Johnson, & Mullennix, (eds.), pp. 145–165.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2005). Decisions and mechanisms in exemplar-based phonology. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report, pp. 289–311. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/annual_report/documents/2005/Johnson_decisions289-311.pdf (retrieved March 22, 2011).Google Scholar
Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. (eds.) (1997). Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kent, R. D., & Read, C. (1992). The acoustic analysis of speech. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Kessinger, R. H., & Blumstein, S. E. (1997). Effects of speaking rate on voice-onset time in Thai, French, and English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 143–168.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dijkstra, A., Janssen, N., & Schriefers, H. (2000). Selecting the language in which to speak: Experiments on lexical access in bilingual production. Presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Langdon, H. W., & Merino, B. J. (1992). Acquisition and development of a second language. In Langdon, H. & Cheng, L. R (eds.), Hispanic children and adults with communication disorders: Assessment and intervention, pp. 132–167. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, A., & Michel, M. (2004). Three languages, one ECHO: Cognate effects in trilingual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 585–611.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word, 20, 384–422.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, M. (1989). Consonant and vowel perception and production: Early English–French bilinguals and English monolinguals. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 46, 187–200.Google Scholar
MacLeod, A. N., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (2005). Are bilinguals different? What VOT tells us about simultaneous bilinguals. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3 (2), 118–127.Google Scholar
MacLeod, A. N., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (2010). What is the impact of age of second language acquisition on the production of consonants and vowels among childhood bilinguals? International Journal of Bilingualism, 14 (4), 400–421.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magloire, J., & Green, K. P. (1999). A cross-language comparison of speaking rate effects on the production of voice onset time in English and Spanish. Phonetica, 56, 158–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R (1987). English voiceless stop production by speakers of Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 197–202.Google Scholar
Mora, J. C., & Nadeu, M. (2009). The effect of L2 use on the production of a native vowel category in cognate and non-cognate words in Catalan–Spanish bilinguals. Presented at the PaPI-2009 (4th Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia International Conference), Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.Google Scholar
Nathan, G. S. (1987). On second language acquisition of voiced stops. Journal of Phonetics, 15 (4), 313–322.Google Scholar
Nathan, G. S., Anderson, W., & Budsayamongkon, B. (1987). On the acquisition of aspiration. In Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S. (eds.), Interlanguage phonology, pp. 204–212. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Patkowski, M. (1990). Age and accent in a second language: A reply to James Emil Flege. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 73–89.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, pp. 137–157. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, C. & Warner, N. (eds.), Laboratory phonology VII, pp. 101–139. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003a). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 46, 115–154.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003b). Probabilistic phonology: Discrimination and robustness. In Bod, R., Hay, J. & Jannedy, S. (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, pp. 177–228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rallo, L. (1998). Speaking rate effects in Catalan and English: A cross-language study. In Martinez Celdrán, E. (ed.), Estudios de fonética experimental IX, pp. 243–272. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias (PPU).Google Scholar
Rosner, B. S., López-Bascuas, L., García-Albea, J. E., & Fahey, R. P. (2000). Voice-onset times for Castilian Spanish initial stops. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 217–224.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Casas, R., Davis, C., & García-Albea, J. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate–noncognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 293–310.Google Scholar
Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sherkina, M. (2003). The cognate facilitation effect in bilingual speech processing. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 135–151.Google Scholar
Solé, M. J. (1997). Timing patterns in the production of a foreign language. In Díaz, L. & Pérez, C. (eds.), Views on the acquisition and use of a second language: Proceedings of EUROSLA 97, pp. 539–551. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Sundara, M., Polka, L., & Baum, S. (2006). Production of coronal stops by simultaneous bilingual adults. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 97–114.Google Scholar
Yavaş, M. (1996). Differences in voice onset time in early and later Spanish–English bilinguals. In Roca, A. & Jensen, J. B. (eds.), Spanish in contact, pp. 131–141. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Williams, L. (1977). The voicing contrast in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics, 5, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. (1979). The modification of speech perception and production in second-language learning. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 26, 95–104.Google Scholar
Zampini, M. L., & Green, K. P. (2001). The voicing contrast in English and Spanish: The relationship between perception and production. In Nicol, J. (ed.), One mind, two languages, pp. 23–48. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar