Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:50:44.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Phonological priming and the role of phonology in nonnative word recognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2018

KIRA GOR*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
Address for correspondence: Kira Gor, Graduate Program in Second Language Acquisition, School of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, 3215 Jiménez Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USAkiragor@umd.edu

Abstract

Research on nonnative auditory word recognition makes use of a lexical decision task with phonological priming to explore the role of phonological form in nonnative lexical access. In a medium-lag lexical decision task with phonological priming, nonnative speakers treat minimal pairs of words differentiated by a difficult phonological contrast as a repetition of the same word. While native speakers show facilitation in medium-lag priming only for identical word pairs, nonnative speakers also show facilitation for minimal pairs. In short-lag phonological priming, when the prime and the target have phonologically overlapping onsets, nonnative speakers show facilitation, while native speakers show inhibition. This review discusses two possible reasons for facilitation in nonnative phonological priming: reduced sensitivity to nonnative phonological contrasts, and reduced lexical competition of nonnative words with underdifferentiated, or fuzzy phonolexical representations. Nonnative words may be processed sublexically, which leads to sublexical facilitation instead of the inhibition resulting from lexical competition.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Barrios, S., Jiang, N., & Idsardi, W. J. (2016). Similarity in L2 phonology: Evidence from L1 Spanish late-learners’ perception and lexical representation of English vowel contrasts. Second Language Research, 1–26, 0267658316630784.Google Scholar
Broersma, M. (2012). Increased lexical activation and reduced competition in second-language listening. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 12051224.Google Scholar
Broersma, M., & Cutler, A. (2008). Phantom word activation in L2. System, 36 (1), 2234.Google Scholar
Broersma, M., & Cutler, A. (2011). Competition dynamics of second-language listening, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 7495.Google Scholar
Cook, S. V. (2012). Phonological form in L2 lexical access: Friend or Foe? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Cook, S. V., & Gor, K. (2015). Lexical access in L2: Representational deficit or processing constraint? The Mental Lexicon, 10, 247270.Google Scholar
Cook, S.V., Pandža, N.B., Lancaster, A., & Gor, K. (2016). Fuzzy nonnative phonolexical representations lead to fuzzy form-to-meaning mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1345. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01345Google Scholar
Chrabaszcz, A., & Gor, K. (2017). Quantifying contextual effects in second language processing of phonolexically ambiguous and unambiguous words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 909942.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., & Otake, T. (2006). Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second-language listening. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 269284.Google Scholar
Darcy, I., Daidone, D., & Kojima, C. (2013). Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 372420.Google Scholar
Darcy, I., Dekydspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., Glover, J., Kaden, C., McGuire, M., & Scott, J. HG. (2012). Direct mapping of acoustics to phonology: On the lexical encoding of front rounded vowels in L1 English-L2 French acquisition. Second Language Research, 28, 540.Google Scholar
Diependaele, K., Lemhöfer, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). The word frequency effect in first-and second-language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 843863.Google Scholar
Dufour, S. (2008). Phonological priming in auditory word recognition: When both controlled and automatic processes are responsible for the effects. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 3341.Google Scholar
Dufour, S., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2016). Inhibitory phonetic priming: Where does the effect come from? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 180196.Google Scholar
Dufour, S., & Peereman, R. (2003a). Inhibitory priming effects in auditory word recognition: When the target's competitors conflict with the prime word. Cognition, 88, B33B44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dufour, S., & Peereman, R. (2003b). Lexical competition in phonological priming: Assessing the role of phonological match and mismatch lengths between primes and targets. Memory and Cognition, 31, 12711283.Google Scholar
Dufour, S., & Peereman, R. (2004). Phonological priming in auditory word recognition: initial overlap facilitation effect varies as a function of target word frequency. Current Psychology Letters, 14. (Online). Retrieved from http://cpl.revues.org/index437.html on December 14, 2009.Google Scholar
Dufour, S., & Peereman, R. (2009). Competition effects in phonological priming: The role of mismatch position between primes and targets. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 475490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, M. R., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2016). Phonotactic constraints are activated across languages in bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 702. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00702Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 501518.Google Scholar
Gor, K. (2015). Phonology and morphology in lexical processing. In Schwieter, J. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Processing, pp. 173199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gor, K. (forthcoming). Yes to the king, and no to the ship: Heritage speakers differ from late second language learners in word recognition. In Kresin, S. & Bauckus, S. (eds.), Festschrift in Honor of Olga Kagan. Bloomington, Indiana: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Gor, K., & Cook, S. (unpublished manuscript). A mare in a pub: Nonnative facilitation in phonological priming. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (in revision).Google Scholar
Gor, K., Cook, S., & Jackson, S. (2010). Lexical access in highly proficient late L2 learners: Evidence from semantic and phonological auditory priming. Paper presented at Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Hamburger, M. B., & Slowiaczek, L. M. (1996). Phonological priming reflects lexical competition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 520525.Google Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R., & Masuda, K. (2008). Development of the ability to lexically encode novel second language phonemic contrasts. Second Language Research, 24, 533.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 136.Google Scholar
Monsell, S., & Hirsh, K. W. (1998). Competitor priming in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 24, 14951520.Google ScholarPubMed
Pallier, C., Colomé, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science, 12, 445449.Google Scholar
Radeau, M., Morais, J., & Segui, J. (1995). Phonological priming between monosyllabic spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 12971311.Google Scholar
Slowiaczek, L. M., & Hamburger, M. B. (1992). Prelexical facilitation and lexical interference in auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 12391250.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374408.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2016). Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word perception and production. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 7594.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 125.Google Scholar