Direct mapping of acoustics to phonology: On the lexical encoding of front rounded vowels in L1 English- L2 French acquisition

Second Language Research

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 5-40

  Darcy, Isabelle ^a   Dekydtspotter, Laurent ^a   Sprouse, Rex A ^a   Glover, Justin ^a   Kaden, Christiane ^a   McGuire, Michael ^a   Scott, John H G ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

English; French; front rounded vowels; lexical encoding; phonetic categorization; repetition priming; second language acquisition of phonology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855397827     PISSN: 02676583     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0267658311423455     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Altenberg EP,Vago RM.Theoretical implications of an error analysis of second language phonology production.Language Learning. 1983;33:427-47.
2. Archangeli D.Aspects of underspecification theory.Phonology. 1988;5:183-207.
3. Archibald J.The learnability of English metrical parameters by adult Spanish speakers.IRAL. 1993;31:129-42.
4. Archibald J.Second language phonology, phonetics, and typology.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1998;20:189-211.
5. Avery P,Rice K.Segment structure and coronal underspecification.Phonology. 1989;6:179-200.
6. Bradlow AR,Pisoni DB,Akahane-Yamada R,Tohkura Y.Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/, IV: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production.The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 1997;101:2299-2310.
7. Best CTSpeech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language research. Strange W, ed. Timonium, MD: York Press; 1995:171-204.
8. Best CT,McRoberts GW,Goodell E.Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2001;109:775-94.
9. Best CT,McRoberts GW,Sithole NM.Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, A: Human Experimental Psychology. 1988;14:345-60.
10. Best CT,Tyler MD., Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities, Language experience in second language speech learning: in honor of James Emil Flege. Bohn O-SMunro MJ, ed. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins; 2007:13-34.
11. Broselow E., Non-obvious transfer: on predicting epenthesis errors, Interlanguage phonology. Ioup GWeinberger S, ed. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House; 1987:292-304.
12. Broselow E,Chen S-I,Wang C.The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1998;20:261-80.
13. Brown C.The role of the L1 grammar in the L2 acquisition of segmental structure.Second Language Research. 1998;14:136-93.
14. Brown C., The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult, Second language acquisition and linguistic theory. Archibald J, ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 2000:4-63.
15. Carlisle R.The acquisition of consonants in a markedness relationship: A longitudinal study.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1998;20:245-60.
16. Clements GN.The geometry of phonological features.Phonology Yearbook. 1985;2:225-52.
17. Clements GN., Representational economy in constraint-based phonology, Distinctive feature theory. Hall TA, ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2001:71-146.
18. Clements GN.Feature economy in sound systems.Phono. 2003;20:287-333.
19. Clements GNContemporary views on architecture and representations in phonological theory. Raimy ECairns C, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2009:19-68.
20. Clements GN, The internal organization of speech sounds, Hume EHandbook of Phonological Theory. Goldsmith J, ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 1995:245-306.
21. Cutler A,Weber A,Otake T.Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second-language listening.Journal of Phonetics. 2006;34:269-84.
22. Dehaene-Lambertz G.Electrophysiological correlates of categorical phoneme perception in adults.NeuroReport. 1997;8:919-24.
23. Dresher BE.Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting.Linguistic Inquiry. 1999;30:27-67.
24. Dresher BEThe contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009:.
25. Dresher BE., Feature hierarchies and contrast in phonology,Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics. Corbett GGKibort A, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010:37-63.
26. Dresher BE,Kaye JD.A computational learning model for metrical phonology.Cognition. 1990;34:137-95.
27. Dufour S,Nguyen N,Frauenfelder UH.The perception of phonemic contrasts in a non-native dialect.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2007;121:EL131-36.
28. Dupoux E,Pallier C,Kakehi K,Mehler J.New evidence for prelexical phonological processing in word recognition.Language and Cognitive Processes. 2001;16:491-505.
29. Eckman FR.Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis.Language Learning. 1977;27:315-30.
30. Eckman FR., Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis, Interlanguage phonology. Ioup GWeinberger SH, ed. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House; 1987:55-69.
31. Eimas PD.Auditory and linguistic processing of cues for place of articulation by infants.Perception and Psychophysics. 1974;16:513-21.
32. Eimas PD,Siqueland ER,Jusczyk P,Vigorito J.Speech perception in infants.Science. 1971;171:303-06.
33. Eisner F,McQueen JM.The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing.Perception and Psychophysics. 2005;67:224-38.
34. Escudero P,Hayes-Harb R,Mitterer H.Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access.Journal of Phonetics. 2008;36:345-60.
35. Evans B,Iverson P.Vowel normalization for accent: An investigation of best exemplar locations in northern and southern British English sentences.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004;115:352-61.
36. Fant G.Distinctive features and phonetic dimensions.Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress and Status Report. 1969;10:1-18.
37. Flege JE.The production of "new" and "similar" phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification.Journal of Phonetics. 1987;15:47-65.
38. Flege JE., Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems, Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language research. Strange W, ed. Timonium, MD: York Press; 1995:233-77.
39. Flege JE,Hillenbrand J.Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language speech production.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1984;76:708-21.
40. Francis AL,Nusbaum HC.Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2002;28:349-66.
41. Francis AL,Baldwin K,Nusbaum HC.Effects of training on attention to acoustic cues.Perception and Psychophysics. 2002;62:1668-80.
42. Fujisaki H,Kawashima TAnnual Report of the Engineering Research Institute, Faculty of Engineering. Tokyo: University of Tokyo; 1971:59-68.
43. Goad H,White L.Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: A prosodic approach.Second Language Research. 2006;22:243-68.
44. Goad H,White L.Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A nativist approach.Lingua. 2008;118:577-94.
45. Goad H,White L,Steele J.Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1-constrained prosodic representations?.Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 2003;48:243-63.
46. Gottfried TL.Effects of consonant context on the perception of French vowels.Journal of Phonetics. 1984;12:91-114.
47. Halicki SDMunich: LINCOM Europa; 2010:.
48. Halle M., Phonological features, International encyclopedia of linguistics, Volume 3. Bright W, ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992:207-12.
49. Hancin-Bhatt B.Segment transfer: A consequence of a dynamic system.Second Language Research. 1994;10:241-69.
50. Hayes-Harb R.,Masuda K.Development of the ability to lexically encode novel second language phonemic contrasts.Second Language Research. 2008;24:5-33.
51. Hillenbrand JM,Clark MJ,Nearey TM.Effects of consonant environment on vowel formant patterns.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2001;109:748-63.
52. Højen A,Flege JE.Early learners' discrimination of second-language vowels.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2006;119:3072-84.
53. HumeEBrombergI (2005) Predicting epenthesis: An information-theoretical account. Unpublished paper presented at the 7th Annual Meeting of the French Network Phonology, Aix-en-Provence, France.
54. Iverson P,Kuhl PK,Akahane-Yamada R,Diesch E,Tohkura Y,Kettermann A,Siebert C.A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes.Cognition. 2003;87:B47-57.
55. Keyser SJ,Stevens KN.Feature geometry and the vocal tract.Phonology. 1994;11:207-36.
56. Kuhl PK,Iverson P., Linguistic experience and the 'perceptual magnet effect'., Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Strange W, ed. Timonium, MD: York Press; 1995:121-54.
57. Kuhl P,Williams K,Lacerda F,Stevens K,Lindblom B.Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age.Science. 1992;255:606-08.
58. Lardiere D.Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition.Second Language Research. 2009;25:173-227.
59. Levy ES.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. 2009a;125:1138-52.
60. Levy ES.On the assimilation-discrimination relationship in American English adults' French vowel learning.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2009b;126:2670-82.
61. Levy ES,Strange W.Perception of French vowels by American English adults with and without French language experience.Journal of Phonetics. 2008;36:141-57.
62. Liberman AM,Harris K,Hoffman HS,Griffith B.The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries.Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1957;54:358-68.
63. Lively SE,Logan JS,Pisoni DB.Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/, II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories.The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 1993;94:1242-55.
64. Lively SE,Pisoni DB,Yamada RA,Tohkura Y,Yamada T.Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/, III: Long-term retention of new phonetic categories.The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 1994;96:2076-87.
65. Logan JS,Lively SE,Pisoni DB.Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/, I: A first report.The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 1991;89:874-86.
66. Logan JS,Lively SE,Pisoni DB.Training listeners to perceive novel phonetic categories: How do we know what is learned?.The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 1993;94:1148-51.
67. Magnan S.Assessing speaking proficiency in the undergraduate curriculum: Data from French.Foreign Language Annals. 1986;5:429-38.
68. MayeJ (2000) The acquisition of speech sound categories on the basis of distributional information, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
69. Maye J,Weiss DJ,Aslin RN.Statistical phonetic learning in infants: facilitation and feature generalization.Developmental Science. 2008;11:122-34.
70. Maye J,Werker JF,Gerken L.Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination.Cognition. 2002;82:B101-11.
71. McCarthy JJ.Feature geometry and dependency: A review.Phonetica. 1988;45:84-108.
72. McQueen JM,Cutler A,Norris D.Flow of information in the spoken word recognition system.Speech Communication. 2003;41:257-70.
73. McQueen JM,Cutler A,Norris D.Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon.Cognitive Science. 2006;30:1113-26.
74. Mielke JThe emergence of distinctive features. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:.
75. NewBPallierCFerrandLMatosR (2001) Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE [A lexical database of contemporary French on the internet: Lexique]. L'Année Psychologique101: 447-62. Retrieved from: http://www.lexique.org/outils/Lexique_Annee.pdf (September2011).
76. New B,Pallier C,Brysbaert M,Ferrand L.Lexique 2: A New French Lexical Database.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 2004;36:516-24.
77. Ohala J.Phonetic explanations for sound patterns: Implications for grammars of competence.; 1995; 1995. 52.
78. Ota M,Hartsuiker RJ,Haywood SL.The KEY to the ROCK: Near-homophony in nonnative visual word recognition.Cognition. 2009;111:263-69.
79. Pallier C,Bosch L,Sebastián-Gallés N.A limit on behavioral plasticity in vowel acquisition.Cognition. 1997;64:B9-17.
80. Pallier C,Colomé A,Sebastián-Gallés N.The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based vs. abstract lexical entries.Psychological Sciences. 2001;12:445-49.
81. Pater J.The perceptual acquisition of Thai phonology by English speakers: Task and stimulus effects.Second Language Research. 2003;19:209-23.
82. Pisoni DB.Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels.Perception and Psychophysics. 1973;13:253-60.
83. Polka L.Linguistic influences in adult perception of non-native vowel contrasts.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1995;97:1286-96.
84. Schwartz BD,Sprouse RA.Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage., Language acquisition studies in generative grammar: Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW workshops 1994; 1994. 317.
85. Schwartz BD,Sprouse RA.L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model.Second Language Research. 1996;12:40-72.
86. Sebastián-Gallés N,Echeverria S,Bosch L.The influence of initial exposure on lexical representation: Comparing early and simultaneous bilinguals.Journal of Memory and Language. 2005;52:240-55.
87. Stevens KN,Liberman AM,Studdert-Kennedy M,Öhman SEG.Crosslanguage study of vowel perception.Language and Speech. 1969;12:1-23.
88. SteriadeD (1999) Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. In GordonM (ed) Papers in phonology 3: UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 25-145. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
89. Steriade D., Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account, The role of speech perception in phonology. Hume EJohnson K, ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2001:219-50.
90. Strange W,Weber A,Levy ES,Shafiro V,Hisagi M,Nishi K.Acoustic variability within and across German, French, and American English vowels: Phonetic context effects.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2007;122:1111-29.
91. Weber A,Cutler A.Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition.Journal of Memory and Language. 2004;50:1-25.
92. Werker JF,Curtin S.PRIMIR: A developmental framework of infant speech processing.Language Learning and Development. 2005;1:197-234.
93. White L,Melhorn JF,Mattys SL.Segmentation by lexical subtraction in Hungarian speakers of second-language English.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2010;63:544-54.
94. Young-Scholten M.Prosodic constraints on allophonic distribution in adult L2 acquisition.International Journal of Bilingualism. 2004;8:67-77.