Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-25T02:09:46.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between the perception of non-native phonotactics and loanword adaptation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2007

Lisa Davidson
Lisa Davidson
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines how phonetic details produced by non-bilingual borrowers (‘disseminators’) are categorised when new words are transmitted to the monolinguals of the borrowing language community (‘recipients’). The stimuli are based on research showing that the schwa inserted by English speakers into non-native clusters (e.g. /zgɑmo/→[zəgɑmo]) differs acoustically from lexical schwa (e.g. [zəgɑmo]). In Experiment 1, listeners transcribed Cluster (CC), Lexical (CəC) and Transitional (CəC) stimuli produced by an English speaker. Transcriptions of CəC stimuli were split between CC and CVC, and participants wrote CəC with a vowel less often than they did CəC. Experiment 2 demonstrated that listeners had difficulty discriminating between CəC and both CC and CəC. These findings suggest that CəC is acoustically intermediate between clusters and schwas; thus recipients may assign CəC token to either of the phonotactic categories CC or CəC. The ramifications of these findings for loanwords and the acquisition of phonological contrast are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , August 2007 , pp. 261 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Best, Catherine T. (1995). A direct-realist view of cross-language perception. In Strange (1995). 171–204.Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T., McRoberts, Gerald W. & Goodell, Elizabeth (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system. JASA 109. 775–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Catherine T., Morrongiello, Barbara & Robson, Rick (1981). Perceptual equivalence of acoustic cues in speech and nonspeech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 29. 191–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, Ellen (2004). Language contact phonology: richness of the stimulus, poverty of the base. NELS 34. 1–21.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen & Finer, Daniel (1991). Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research 7. 35–59.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis (1992). ‘Targetless’ schwa: an articulatory analysis. In Docherty, Gerard J. & Ladd, D. Robert (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology II: gesture, segment, prosody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 26–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, Nelson & Morse, Philip A. (1986). The use of auditory and phonetic memory in vowel discrimination. JASA 79. 500–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, Lisa (2005). Addressing phonological questions with ultrasound. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 19. 619–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, Lisa (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: influences on the production of non-native sequences. JPh 34. 104–137.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa & Noyer, Rolf (1997). Loan phonology in Huave: nativization and the ranking of faithfulness constraints. WCCFL 15. 65–79.Google Scholar
Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dupoux, E. & Gout, A. (2000). Electrophysiological correlates of phonological processing: a cross-linguistic study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12. 635–647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kakehi, Kazuhiko, Hirose, Yuki, Pallier, Christophe & Mehler, Jacques (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: a perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25. 1568–1578.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Pallier, Christophe, Kakehi, Kazuhiko & Mehler, Jacques (2001). New evidence for prelexical phonological processing in word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes 16. 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, Fred & Iverson, Gregory (1993). Sonority and markedness among onset clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Second Language Research 9. 234–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, James Emil (1995). Second-language speech learning: theory, findings, and problems. In Strange (1995). 229–273.Google Scholar
Francis, Alexander L. & Ciocca, Valter (2003). Stimulus presentation order and the perception of lexical tones in Cantonese. JASA 114. 1611–1621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukazawa, Haruka, Kitahara, Mafuyu & Ota, Mits (1998). Lexical stratification and ranking invariance in constraint-based grammars. CLS 34:2. 47–62.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios I. (2002). A grammar of gestural coordination. NLLT 20. 269–337.Google Scholar
Green, David M. & Swets, John A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hall, Nancy (2003). Gestures and segments: vowel intrusion as overlap. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hallé, Pierre A., Segui, Juan, Frauenfelder, Uli & Meunier, Christine (1998). Processing of illegal consonant clusters: a case of perceptual assimilation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24. 592–608.Google ScholarPubMed
Haugen, Einar (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Lg 26. 210–231.Google Scholar
Hessen, A. J. van & Schouten, M. E. H. (1992). Modeling phoneme perception II: a model of stop consonant discrimination. JASA 92. 1856–1868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1995). Japanese phonology. In Goldsmith, John (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass & Oxford: Blackwell. 817–838.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Haike & Gussenhoven, Carlos (2000). Loan phonology: perception, salience, the lexicon and OT. In Dekkers, Joost, Leeuw, Frank & Weijer, Jeroen (eds.) Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Idsardi, William J. (2007). Perceptual distortions in the adaptation of English consonant clusters: syllable structure or consonantal contact constraints? Language and Speech 50. 23–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, Yoonjung (2003). Perceptual similarity in loanword adaptation: English postvocalic word-final stops in Korean. Phonology 20. 219–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Suchato, Atiwong (2006). Issues in loanword adaptation: a case study from Thai. Lingua 116. 921–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Soohee & Curtis, Emily (2000). Phonetic duration of English /s/ and its borrowing in Korean. In Akatsuka, Noriko & Strauss, Susan (eds.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10. Palo Alto: CSLI. 406–419.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene & Paradis, Carole (2005). Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. LI 36. 223–258.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, Wetterlin, Allison & Jönsson-Steiner, Elisabet (forthcoming). Tones and loans in the history of Scandinavian. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Riad, Thomas (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Tone and Intonation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Macmillan, Neil A. & Creelman, C. Douglas (1991). Detection theory: a user's guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macmillan, Neil A., Goldberg, Rina F. & Braida, Louis D. (1988). Resolution for speech sounds: basic sensitivity and context memory on vowel and consonant continua. JASA 84. 1262–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W. & Cohen, Michael M. (1983). Phonological constraints in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 34. 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miura, Akira (1993). English in Japanese. New York: Weatherhill.Google ScholarPubMed
Moreton, Elliott (2002). Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition 84. 55–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohala, John J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, Charles (ed.) Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives. London: Longman. 237–278.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole & LaCharité, Darlene (1997). Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. JL 33. 379–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon (2005). A psycholinguistic theory of loanword adaptations. BLS 30. 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2003). Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: the role of perception. In Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: Causal Productions. 367–370.Google Scholar
Pisoni, David (1973). Auditory and phonetic codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels. Perception and Psychophysics 13. 253–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt, Mark (1998). Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception and Psychophysics 60. 941–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Repp, Bruno H. & Crowder, Robert G. (1990). Stimulus order effects in vowel discrimination. JASA 88. 2080–2090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, Yvan (1999). A structural account of root node deletion in loanword phonology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 44. 359–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Yvan & Demuth, Katherine (2006). Vowel epenthesis in loanword adaptation: representational and phonetic considerations. Lingua 116. 1112–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinohara, Shigeko (2006). Perceptual effects in final cluster reduction patterns. Lingua 116. 1046–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Daniel (1992). Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: evidence from Cantonese. Phonology 9. 289–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer (2006). Loan phonology is not all perception: evidence from Japanese loan doublets. In Vance, Timothy J. & Jones, Kimberly A. (eds.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14. Palo Alto: CLSI. 63–74.Google Scholar
Strange, Winifred (ed.) (1995). Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language research. Timonium, Md.: York Press.Google Scholar
Swets, John A. (1986). Form of empirical ROCs in discrimination and diagnostic tasks: implications for theory and measurement of performance. Psychological Bulletin 99. 181–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takagi, Naoyuki & Mann, Virginia (1994). A perceptual basis for the systematic phonological correspondences between Japanese loanwords and their English source words. JPh 22. 343–356.Google Scholar
Uffmann, Christian (2006). Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: empirical and formal issues. Lingua 116. 1079–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendelin, Inga & Peperkamp, Sharon (2006). The influence of orthography on loanword adaptations. Lingua 116. 996–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werker, Janet F. & Logan, John S. (1985). Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 37. 35–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werker, Janet F. & Tees, Richard C. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. JASA 75. 1866–1878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, Richard (1996). Consonant clusters and cue preservations in Tsou. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira (1993). Cantonese loanword phonology and Optimality Theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2. 261–291.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira (2006). The symbiosis between perception and grammar in loanword phonology. Lingua 116. 950–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar