Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:11:05.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VOCABULARY SIZE IS ASSOCIATED WITH SECOND-LANGUAGE VOWEL PERCEPTION PERFORMANCE IN ADULT LEARNERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2011

Rikke L. Bundgaard-Nielsen ,
Catherine T. Best  and
Michael D. Tyler
Rikke L. Bundgaard-Nielsen*
Affiliation:
University of Western Sydney, Australia
Catherine T. Best
Affiliation:
University of Western Sydney, Australia
Michael D. Tyler
Affiliation:
University of Western Sydney, Australia
*
*Address correspondence to: Rikke L. Bundgaard-Nielsen, MARCS Auditory Laboratories, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia; e-mail: r.bundgaardnielsen@uws.edu.au.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Improvement in second-language (L2) perception has been posited to occur early in L2 learning when the L2 vocabulary is still small, whereas a large L2 vocabulary curtails perceptual learning (the perceptual assimilation model for SLA [PAM-L2]; Best & Tyler, 2007). This proposition is extended by suggesting that early L2 lexical development facilitates the establishment of phonological categories in a manner analogous to children’s first-language (L1) acquisition before as opposed to after the vocabulary spurt. According to this view, L2 speech should be assimilated more consistently to L1 phonological categories and cross-boundary contrasts should be discriminated more accurately by learners with larger L2 vocabularies. To test this proposition, a novel whole-system approach to evaluate perception of L2 vowels in two experiments was applied. In Experiment 1, Japanese learners of Australian English (AusE) with less than 12 weeks of L2 learning in Australia completed labeling and goodness ratings on all AusE vowels, selecting from among all monomoraic and bimoraic Japanese vowels and vowel combinations. They also discriminated four L2 vowel contrasts, representing a range of PAM-L2 contrast types, and completed a L2 vocabulary size assessment. Learners with larger vocabularies had more consistent L2-L1 vowel assimilation and more accurate cross-boundary discrimination than those with smaller vocabularies, supporting the proposition that lexical development assists L2 phonological acquisition. Experiment 2 compared the perception of AusE vowels by Japanese learners after only 4–8 weeks in Australia with their perception after 6–8 months of L2 exposure. The results also supported the predicted positive association between L2 vocabulary size and L2 vowel perception rather than a general prediction of increased exposure duration leading to improved perception.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 433 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In Goodman, J. C. & Nusbaum, H. (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 Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171–204). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & McRoberts, G. W. (2003). Infant perception of non-native consonant contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways. Language and Speech, 46, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of the perceptual re-organization for speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 345–360.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Munro, M. J. & Bohn, O.-S. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., Gooding, T., Orlando, C., & Quann, C. (2009). Toddlers’ spoken word familiarity preferences in native versus nonnative dialects. Psychological Science, 20, 539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., Kitamura, C., Notley, A., & Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. (2008, March). Phonetic specificity of early words? Australian toddlers’ perception of Australian versus Jamaican English pronunciations. Poster presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Infant Studies, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., & Polka, L. (2001). Target spectral, dynamic spectra, and duration cues in infant perception of German vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 504–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonatti, L. (2007). PsyScope X Project [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved September 1, 2010 fromhttp://psy.ck.sissa.it.Google Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2008). The assimilation of L2 Australian English vowels to L1 Japanese vowel categories: Vocabulary size matters. Interspeech 2008, 1177.Google Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2011). Vocabulary size matters: The assimilation of L2 Australian English vowels to L1 Japanese categories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., & Kroos, C. (2008). Evidence of a near-merger in Western Sydney Australian English vowels. Interspeech 2008, 1121.Google Scholar
Cox, F. (2006). The acoustic characteristics of /hVd/ vowels in the speech of some Australian teenagers. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 26, 147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (2004, May). Pseudo-homophony in non-native listening. Paper presented at the 75th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., & Otake, T. (2006). Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second-language listening. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. (1983). Perception of auditory equivalence classes for speech in early infancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In Metsala, J. L. & Ehri, L. C. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, P., & Beglar, D. A. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31, 9–13. Retrieved April 1, 2008, fromhttp://jalt-publications.org/tlt/resources/2007/0707a.pdf.Google Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, 278–297.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 46, 115–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polka, L., & Bohn, O.-S. (1996). A cross-language comparison of vowel perception in English-learning and German-learning infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 577–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polka, L., & Bohn, O.-S. (2003). Asymmetries in vowel perception. Speech Communication, 41, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stager, C. L., & Werker, J. F. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word learning tasks. Nature, 388, 381–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strange, W. (1998a). Perception of consonants: From variance to invariance. In Pickett, J. M. (Ed.), The acoustics of speech communication: Fundamentals, speech perception theory, and technology (pp. 166–182). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (1998b). Perception of vowels: Dynamic constancy. In Pickett, J. M. (Ed.), The acoustics of speech communication: Fundamentals, speech perception theory, and technology (pp. 152–165). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (2006). Second-language speech perception: The modification of automatic selective perceptual routines. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 3137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, W. (2007a). Cross-language phonetic similarity of vowels: Theoretical and methodological issues. In Munro, M. J. & Bohn, O.-S. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 35–55). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, W. (2007b). Selective perception, perceptual modes, and automaticity in first- and second-language processing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 2970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, W., Akahane-Yamada, R., Kubo, R., Trent, S. A., Nishi, K., & Jenkins, J. J. (1998). Perceptual assimilation of American English vowels by Japanese listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 311–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, W., Weber, A., Levy, E. S., Shafiro, V., Hisagi, M., & Nishi, K. (2007). Acoustic variability within and across German, French and American English vowels: Phonetic context effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 1111–1129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1987). The phoneme as a perceptuomotor structure. In Allport, A., MacKay, D., Prini, W., & Scheerer, E. (Eds.), Language perception and production (pp. 67–84). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1991). Language development from an evolutionary perspective. In Krasnegor, N., Rumbaugh, D., Schiefelbusch, R., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Biological and behavioral determinants of language development. (pp. 5–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Swingley, D. (2003). Phonetic detail in the developing lexicon. Language and Speech, 46, 265–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsukada, K., Birdsong, D., Bialystok, E., Mack, M., Sung, H., & Flege, J. E. (2005). A developmental study of English vowel production and perception by native Korean adults and children. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevich, M., & Luce, P. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing perception of spoken words. Psychological Review, 9, 325–329.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 Development, 7, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar