Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:41:23.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Japanese co-occurrence restrictions influence second language perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

ALEXANDER J. KILPATRICK ,
RIKKE L. BUNDGAARD-NIELSEN  and
BRETT J. BAKER
ALEXANDER J. KILPATRICK*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
RIKKE L. BUNDGAARD-NIELSEN
Affiliation:
MARCS Institute for Brain Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University
BRETT J. BAKER
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Alexander Kilpatrick, University of Melbourne, Babel Building University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. E-mail: alex.kilpatrick@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most current models of nonnative speech perception (e.g., extended perceptual assimilation model, PAM-L2, Best & Tyler, 2007; speech learning model, Flege, 1995; native language magnet model, Kuhl, 1993) base their predictions on the native/nonnative status of individual phonetic/phonological segments. This paper demonstrates that the phonotactic properties of Japanese influence the perception of natively contrasting consonants and suggests that phonotactic influence must be formally incorporated in these models. We first propose that by extending the perceptual categories outlined in PAM-L2 to incorporate sequences of sounds, we can account for the effects of differences in native and nonnative phonotactics on nonnative and cross-language segmental perception. In addition, we test predictions based on such an extension in two perceptual experiments. In Experiment 1, Japanese listeners categorized and rated vowel–consonant–vowel strings in combinations that either obeyed or violated Japanese phonotactics. The participants categorized phonotactically illegal strings to the perceptually nearest (legal) categories. In Experiment 2, participants discriminated the same strings in AXB discrimination tests. Our results show that Japanese listeners are more accurate and have faster response times when discriminating between legal strings than between legal and illegal strings. These findings expose serious shortcomings in currently accepted nonnative perception models, which offer no framework for the influence of native language phonotactics.

Keywords

Japaneseperceptual assimilationphonologyphonotacticssecond language perception
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 585 - 611
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

REFERENCES

Adank, P., Evans, B. G., Stuart-Smith, J., & Scott, S. K. (2009). Comprehension of familiar and unfamiliar native accents under adverse listening conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 520.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In J. C. Goodman & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words (pp. 167–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct-realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171–204). Timonium: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Strange, W. (1992). Effects of language-specific phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 305–330.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In J. Munro & O. S. Bohn (Eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 206–244). London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1950). Studies in colloquial Japanese IV phonemics. Language, 26, 86–125.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat (Version 5.4.08) [Computer software]. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.praat.org/ Google Scholar
Bonatti, L. L. (2010). Psyscope X (Build 77) [Computer software]. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from http://psy.ck.sissa.it/ Google Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., & Baker, B. (2014). Frequency in the input affects perception of phonological contrasts for native speakers. In J. Hay & E. Parnell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Australasian International Speech Science and Technology Conference (pp. 205–208). Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury, Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2011). Vocabulary size is associated with second-language vowel perception performance in adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 433–461.Google Scholar
Cabinet of Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (1991). 外来語の表記. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/k19910628002/k19910628002.html Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cuetos, F., Hallé, P., Dominguez, A., & Segui, J. (2011). Perception of prothetic /e/ in #sC utterances: Gating data. Oral Communication at the 17th ICPhS, 17, 17–21.Google Scholar
Davidson, L., & Shaw, J. A. (2012). Sources of illusion in consonant cluster perception. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 234–248.Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Kakehi, K., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C., & Mehler, J. (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1568.Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Parlato, E., Frota, S., Hirose, Y., & Peperkamp, S. (2011). Where do illusory vowels come from? Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 199–210.Google Scholar
Edwards, J., Beckman, M. E., & Munson, B. (2004). The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children’s production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 421–436.Google Scholar
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, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Hallé, P. A., & Best, C. T. (2007). Dental-to-velar perceptual assimilation: A cross-linguistic study of the perception of dental stop + /l/ clusters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 2899–2914.Google Scholar
Hallé, P. A., Dominguez, A., Cuetos, F., & Segui, J. (2008). Phonological mediation in visual masked priming: Evidence from phonotactic repair. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 177.Google Scholar
Hallé, P. A., Segui, J., Frauenfelder, U., & Meunier, C. (1998). Processing of illegal consonant clusters: A case of perceptual assimilation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 592.Google Scholar
Itô, J., & Mester, A. (1995). The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on reranking. Papers in Optimality Theory, 18, 181–209.Google Scholar
Itô, J., & Mester, A. (1999). The phonological lexicon. In N. Tsujimura (Ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 62–100). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kabak, B., & Idsardi, W. J. (2007). Perceptual distortions in the adaptation of English consonant clusters: Syllable structure or consonantal contact constraints? Language and Speech, 50, 23–52.Google Scholar
Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).Google Scholar
Kawahara, S., Ono, H., & Sudo, K. (2006). Consonant co-occurrence restrictions in Yamato Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 14, 27–38.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1993). Innate predispositions and the effects of experience in speech perception: The native language magnet theory. In B. de Boysson-Bardies, S. de Schonen, P. Jusczyk, P. MacNeilage, & J. Morton (Eds.), Developmental neurocognition: Speech and face processing in the first year of life (pp. 259–274). Hingham: Kluewr Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 979–1000.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255, 606–608.Google Scholar
Lewkowicz, D. J. (2014). Early experience and multisensory perceptual narrowing. Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 292–315.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38, 289–306.Google Scholar
Mutsukawa, M. (2009). Japanese loanword phonology: The nature of inputs and the loanword sublexicon. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Pintér, G. (2015). The emergence of new consonant contrasts. In H. Kubozono (Ed.), Handbook of Japanese phonetics and phonology (pp. 121–165). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A., & McQueen, J. M. (1998). Is compensation for coarticulation mediated by the lexicon? Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 347–370.Google Scholar
Schmid, P. M., & Yeni-Komshian, G. H. (1999). The effects of speaker accent and target predictability on perception of mispronunciations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 56–64.Google Scholar
Scott, L. S., & Monesson, A. (2010). Experience-dependent neural specialization during infancy. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1857–1861.Google Scholar
Scott, L. S., Pascalis, O., & Nelson, C. A. (2007). A domain-general theory of the development of perceptual discrimination. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 197–201.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 701–717.Google Scholar
Tamoka, K., & Makioka, S. (2004). Frequency of occurrence for units of phonemes, morae, and syllables appearing in a lexical corpus of a Japanese newspaper. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 531–547.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, N. (2013). An introduction to Japanese linguistics (3rd ed.). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vance, T. J. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science, 9, 325–329.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Charles-Luce, J., & Kemmerer, D. (1997). Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech, 40, 47–62.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Auer, E. T. (1999). Phonotactics, neighborhood activation, and lexical access for spoken words. Brain and Language, 68, 306–311.Google Scholar
Wagner, M., Shafer, V. L., Martin, B., & Steinschneider, M. (2012). The phonotactic influence on the perception of a consonant cluster /pt/ by native English and native Polish listeners: A behavioral and event related potential (ERP) study. Brain and Language, 123, 30–41.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Gilbert, J. H., Humphrey, K., & Tees, R. C. (1981). Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Development, 52, 349–355.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Pons, F., Dietrich, C., Kajikawa, S., Fais, L., & Amano, S. (2007). Infant-directed speech supports phonetic category learning in English and Japanese. Cognition, 103, 147–162.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49–63.Google Scholar