The perception of phonological quantity based on durational cues by native speakers, second-language users and nonspeakers of finnish

Language and Speech

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 313-338

  Ylinen, Sari ^a,b   Shestakova, Anna ^a   Alku, Paavo ^c   Huotilainen, Minna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^c AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Perception; Phoneme boundary effect; Quantity; Second language; Speech sound duration

Indexed keywords

EID: 29544431569     PISSN: 00238309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00238309050480030401     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. AOYAMA, K. (2001). A psycholinguistic perspective on Finnish and Japanese prosody: Perception, production and child acquisition of consonantal quantity distinctions. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. BEHNE, D. M., CZIGLER, P. E., & SULLIVAN, K. P. H. (1998). Perceived vowel quantity in Swedish: Effects of postvocalic voicing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 3088-3089.
3. BEHNE, D. M., SULLIVAN, K. P. H., & CZIGLER, P. E. (1999). Perceived vowel quantity in Swedish: Native and British listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 1095.
4. BEST, C. T., McROBERTS, G., & SITHOLE, N. (1988). The phonological basis of perceptual loss of non-native contrasts: Maintenance of discrimination among Zulu clicks by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 14, 345-360.
5. BEST, C. T., & STRANGE, W. (1992). Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 305-330.
6. BOHN, O. -S. (1995). Cross-language speech perception in adults: First language transfer doesn't tell it all. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience. Issues in cross-language research (pp. 279-304). Baltimore: York Press.
7. BONDARKO, L. V. (1998). Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. St. Petersburg: University of St. Petersburg.
8. De SILVA, V. (1999). Quantity and quality as universal and specific features of sound systems. Experimental phonetic research on interaction of Russian and Finnish sound systems. Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia, 48. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
9. FLEGE, J. E. (1988). The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Human communication and its disorders: A review (pp.224-401). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
10. FLEGE, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning. Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience. Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233-277). Baltimore: York press.
11. GESCHEIDER, G. A. (1985). Psychophysics. Method, theory, and application. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.
12. HAN, M. S. (1992). The timing control of geminate and single stop consonants in Japanese: A challenge for non-native speakers. Phonetica, 49, 102-127.
13. HARRIKARI, H. (2000). Segmental length in Finnish - studies within a constraint-based approach. Publications of the Department of General Linguistics. No. 33. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
14. HAYES-HARB, R. (2005). Optimal L2 speech perception: Native speakers of English and Japanese consonant length contrasts. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4, 1-29.
15. HIRATA, Y. (2004a). Training native English speakers to perceive Japanese length contrasts in word versus sentence contexts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 2384-2394.
16. HIRATA, Y. (2004b). Effects of speaking rate on the vowel length distinction in Japanese. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 565-589.
17. ISEI-JAAKKOLA, T. (2004). Lexical quantity in Japanese and Finnish. Publications of the Department of Phonetics, 48. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
18. KARLSSON, F. (1969). Suomen yleiskielen segmentaalifoneemien paradigma. Virittäjä, 73, 351-362.
19. KATO, H., & TAJIMA, K. (2002). Native and non-native perception of phonemic length contrasts in Japanese: A categorization study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 2387.
20. KATO, H., & TAJIMA, K. (2004). Effects of speaking rate on the perception of phonemic length contrasts in Japanese. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 2392-2393.
21. KATO, H., TAJIMA, K., & AKAHANE-YAMADA, R. (2001). Native and non-native perception of phonemic length contrasts in Japanese. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 2686.
22. KUHL, P. K. (1981). Discrimination of speech by nonhuman animals: Basic auditory sensitivities conducive to the perception of speech-sound categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 340-349.
23. KUHL, P. K. (1987). The special-mechanisms debate in speech research: Categorization tests on animals and infants. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception. The groundwork of cognition (pp. 355-386). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. KUHL, P. K. (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.
25. KUHL, P. K. (1993). Early linguistic experience and phonetic perception: Implications for theories of developmental speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 125-139.
26. KUHL, P. K. (1994). Learning and representation in speech and language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4, 812-822.
27. KUHL, P. K., & MILLER, J. D. (1975). Speech perception by the chinchilla: Voiced-voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants. Science, 190, 69-72.
28. KUHL, P. K., & MILLER, J. D. (1978). Speech perception by the chinchilla: Identification functions for synthetic VOT stimuli. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 63, 905-917.
29. KUHL, P. K., & PADDEN, D. M. (1983). Enhanced discriminability at the phonetic boundaries for the place feature in macaques. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73, 1003-1010.
30. LEHISTE, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
31. LEHTONEN, J. (1970). Aspects of quantity in standard Finnish. Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia, VI. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
32. LIBERMAN, A. M., HARRIS, K. S., HOFFMAN, H. S., & GRIFFITH, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358-368.
33. MASSARO, D. W. (1987). Categorical partition: A fuzzy-logical model of categorization behavior. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception. The groundwork of cognition (pp.254-283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. McALLISTER, R., FLEGE, J. E., & PISKE, T. (2002). The influence of LI on the acquisition of Swedish quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 229-258.
35. NENONEN, S., SHESTAKOVA, A., HUOTILAINEN, M., & NÄÄTÄ NEN, R. (2003). Linguistic relevance of duration within the native language determines the accuracy of speech-sound duration processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 492-495.
36. NYLUND, A., & BEHNE, D. M. (1997). Acoustic characteristics of perceived vowel quantity and quality in English and Norwegian vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 3134-3135.
37. O'DELL, M. (2003). Intrinsic timing and quantity in Finnish. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, 979. Tampere: University of Tampere.
38. PICKETT, E. R., BLUMSTEIN, S. E., & BURTON, M. W. (1999). Effects of speaking rate on the singleton/geminate consonant contrast in Italian. Phonetica, 56, 135-157.
39. PIND, J. (1995). Speaking rate, voice-onset time, and quantity: The search for higher-order invariants for two Icelandic speech cues. Perception and Psychophysics, 57, 291-304.
40. PISONI, D. B., LIVELY, S. E., & LOGAN, J. S. (1994). Perceptual learning of non-native speech contrasts: Implications for theories of speech perception. In J. C. Goodman & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words. (pp. 121-166). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
41. RICHARDSON, U., LEPPÄNEN, P. H. T., LEIWO, M., & LYYTINEN, H. (2003). Speech perception of infants with high familial risk for dyslexia differ at the age of six months. Developmental Neuropsychology, 23, 358-397.
42. SCHOUTEN, B., GERRITS, E., & van HESSEN, A. (2003). The end of categorical perception as we know it. Speech Communication, 41, 71-80.
43. STRANGE, W. (1999). Perception of consonants: From variance to invariance. In J. M. Pickett (Ed.), The acoustics of speech communication: Fundamentals, speech perception theory, and technology (pp. 166-182). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
44. STUDDERT-KENNEDY, M., LIBERMAN, A. M., HARRIS, K. S., & COOPER, F. S. (1970). The motor theory of speech perception: A reply to Lane's critical review. Psychological Review, 77, 234-249.
45. SUOMI, K., TOIVANEN, J., & YLITALO, R. (2003). Durational and tonal correlates of accent in Finnish. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 113-138.
46. SUOMI, K., & YLITALO, R. (2004). On durational correlates of word stress in Finnish. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 35-63.
47. TAJIMA, K., ROTHWELL, A., & MUNHALL, K. G. (2002). Native and non-native perception of phonemic length contrasts in Japanese: Effect of identification training and exposure. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 2387.
48. VAINIO, M. (1996). Phoneme frequencies in Finnish text and speech. In A. Iivonen & A. Klippi (Eds.), Studies in logopedics and phonetics 5 (pp. 181-192). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
49. WIIK, K. (1965). Finnish and English vowels. A comparison with special reference to the learning problems met by native speakers of Finnish learning English. Publications of University of Turku, B: 94. Turku: University of Turku.
50. WOOD, C. C. (1976). Discriminability, response bias, and phoneme categories in discrimination of voice onset time. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 1381-1389.
51. YAMADA, R. A., & TOHKURA, Y. (1992). Perception of American English /r/ and /1/ by native speakers of Japanese. In Y. Tohkura, E. Vatikiotis-Bateson, & Y. Sagisaka (Eds.), Speech perception, production and linguistic structure (pp. 155-174). Tokyo: Ohmsha.
52. YLEISTEN, KIELITUTKINTOJEN PERUSTEET (2002). Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
53. YLINEN, S., SHESTAKOVA, A., HUOTILAINEN, M., ALKU, P., & NÄÄTÄNEN, R. (submitted). Mismatch negativity (MMN) elicited by changes in phoneme length: A cross-linguistic study.