Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system.

Classic non-native speech perception findings suggested that adults have difficulty discriminating segmental distinctions that are not employed contrastively in their own language. However, recent reports indicate a gradient of performance across non-native contrasts, ranging from near-chance to near-ceiling. Current theoretical models argue that such variations reflect systematic effects of experience with phonetic properties of native speech. The present research addressed predictions from Best's perceptual assimilation model (PAM), which incorporates both contrastive phonological and noncontrastive phonetic influences from the native language in its predictions about discrimination levels for diverse types of non-native contrasts. We evaluated the PAM hypotheses that discrimination of a non-native contrast should be near-ceiling if perceived as phonologically equivalent to a native contrast, lower though still quite good if perceived as a phonetic distinction between good versus poor exemplars of a single native consonant, and much lower if both non-native segments are phonetically equivalent in goodness of fit to a single native consonant. Two experiments assessed native English speakers' perception of Zulu and Tigrinya contrasts expected to fit those criteria. Findings supported the PAM predictions, and provided evidence for some perceptual differentiation of phonological, phonetic, and nonlinguistic information in perception of non-native speech. Theoretical implications for non-native speech perception are discussed, and suggestions are made for further research.

[1]  R. M. Dorcus Effect of suggestion and tobacco on pulse rate and blood pressure. , 1925 .

[2]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[3]  J. Gibson,et al.  Perceptual learning; differentiation or enrichment? , 1955, Psychological review.

[4]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Erratum: An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27, 339 (1955)] , 1955 .

[5]  A M Liberman,et al.  Perception of the speech code. , 1967, Psychological review.

[6]  C. Baltaxe,et al.  Principles of phonology , 1969 .

[7]  Robert G. Crowder,et al.  The sound of vowels and consonants in immediate memory , 1971 .

[8]  H. Goto,et al.  Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds "L" and "R". , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  R. G. Crowder,et al.  Representation of speech sounds in precategorical acoustic storage. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  A. Liberman,et al.  An effect of linguistic experience: The discrimination of [r] and [l] by native speakers of Japanese and English , 1975 .

[11]  Peter D. Eimas,et al.  Auditory and phonetic coding of the cues for speech: Discrimination of the [r-l] distinction by young infants , 1975 .

[12]  M. Ruhlen A guide to the languages of the world , 1977 .

[13]  J. Werker,et al.  Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception. , 1981, Child development.

[14]  Catherine T. Best,et al.  Perceptual equivalence of acoustic cues in speech and nonspeech perception , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  M. Mochizuki The identification of /r/ and /l/ in natural and synthesized speech , 1981 .

[16]  Catherine T. Best,et al.  Categorical perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese bilinguals , 1981, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[17]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Some effects of laboratory training on identification and discrimination of voicing contrasts in stop consonants. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  K. Mackain Assessing the role of experience on infants' speech discrimination , 1982, Journal of Child Language.

[19]  W. Nelson Francis,et al.  FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH USAGE: LEXICON AND GRAMMAR , 1983 .

[20]  D. Whalen Subcategorical phonetic mismatches slow phonetic judgments , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  Ian Maddieson,et al.  Patterns of sounds , 1986 .

[22]  W. Strange,et al.  Effects of discrimination training on the perception of /r-l/ by Japanese adults learning English , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  J. Werker,et al.  Perceptual flexibility: maintenance or recovery of the ability to discriminate non-native speech sounds. , 1984, Canadian journal of psychology.

[24]  J. Werker,et al.  Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  J S Logan,et al.  Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Towards an articulatory phonology , 1986, Phonology.

[27]  C. Fowler An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct realist perspective , 1986 .

[28]  Janet F. Werker,et al.  Cross-language speech perception: Initial capabilities and developmental change. , 1988 .

[29]  P. Kuhl Auditory perception and the evolution of speech , 1988 .

[30]  C. Best,et al.  Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  J E Flege,et al.  Chinese subjects' perception of the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast: performance before and after training. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  R. S. McGowan,et al.  The emergence of phonetic segments: evidence from the spectral structure of fricative-vowel syllables spoken by children and adults. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[33]  P. Kuhl,et al.  Categorization of Speech by Infants: Support for Speech-Sound Prototypes. , 1989 .

[34]  A M Liberman,et al.  A specialization for speech perception. , 1989, Science.

[35]  C. Fowler Real Objects of Speech Perception: A Commentary on Diehl and Kluender , 1989 .

[36]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Articulatory gestures as phonological units , 1989, Phonology.

[37]  R. Diehl,et al.  On the Objects of Speech Perception , 1989 .

[38]  Franklin S. Cooper,et al.  The Haskins Laboratories’ pulse code modulation (PCM) system , 1990 .

[39]  Carol A. Fowler,et al.  Young infants’ perception of liquid coarticulatory influences on following stop consonants , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Representation and reality: physical systems and phonological structure , 1990 .

[41]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Gestural specification using dynamically-defined articulatory structures , 1990 .

[42]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[43]  P. Kuhl Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[44]  D. Whalen Subcategorical phonetic mismatches and lexical access , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[45]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: a first report. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  L. Polka Cross-language speech perception in adults: phonemic, phonetic, and acoustic contributions. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  Y. Tohkura,et al.  The effects of experimental variables on the perception of American English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese listeners , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[48]  C. Browman,et al.  Articulatory Phonology: An Overview , 1992, Phonetica.

[49]  J. L. Miller,et al.  Phonetic prototypes: influence of place of articulation and speaking rate on the internal structure of voicing categories. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  W. Strange,et al.  Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants , 1992 .

[51]  L Polka,et al.  Characterizing the influence of native language experience on adult speech perception , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[52]  K. Stevens,et al.  Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. , 1992, Science.

[53]  S. Lively,et al.  An examination of the perceptual magnet effect , 1993 .

[54]  Catherine T. Best,et al.  Emergence of Language-Specific Constraints in Perception of Non-Native Speech: A Window on Early Phonological Development , 1993 .

[55]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[56]  C. Best The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. , 1994 .

[57]  Stefaan Decoene Detection theory - a users guide - macmillan,na, creelman,cd , 1994 .

[58]  Joanne L. Miller On the internal structure of phonetic categories: a progress report , 1994, Cognition.

[59]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. III. Long-term retention of new phonetic categories. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[60]  J. Werker,et al.  Developmental changes in perception of nonnative vowel contrasts. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[61]  Keith R. Kluender,et al.  Speech perception as a tractable problem in cognitive science. , 1994 .

[62]  R. Fox Modularity and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception , 1994 .

[63]  N. Takagi Signal detection modeling of Japanese listeners' /r/-/l/ labeling behavior in one-interval identification task. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[64]  J. Sussman,et al.  Further tests of the "perceptual magnet effect" in the perception of [i]: identification and change/no-change discrimination. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[65]  S. Crain,et al.  Cognitive Profiles of Reading-Disabled Children: Comparison of Language Skills in Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax , 1995 .

[66]  Phonological and phonotactic influences on perception of two non‐native vowel contrasts , 1995 .

[67]  Catherine T. Best,et al.  Divergent developmental patterns for infants' perception of two nonnative consonant contrasts , 1995 .

[68]  Catherine T. Best,et al.  Learning to perceive the sound pattern of english , 1995 .

[69]  Effects of bilingualism on non‐native phonetic contrasts. , 1996 .

[70]  O. Bohn,et al.  A cross-language comparison of vowel perception in English-learning and German-learning infants. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[71]  Pierre A. Hallé,et al.  The format of representation of recognized words in infants' early receptive lexicon , 1996 .

[72]  P. Ladefoged,et al.  The sounds of the world's languages , 1996 .

[73]  P. Kuhl,et al.  Influences of phonetic identification and category goodness on American listeners' perception of /r/ and /l/. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[74]  Catherine T. Best,et al.  Assimilation of non‐native vowel contrasts to the American English vowel system. , 1996 .

[75]  J. Werker,et al.  Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks , 1997, Nature.

[76]  C. Pallier,et al.  A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception , 1997, Cognition.

[77]  U. Frauenfelder,et al.  Processing of illegal consonant clusters : A case of perceptual assimilation ? , 1998 .

[78]  A. Lotto,et al.  Depolarizing the perceptual magnet effect. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[79]  Hollis S. Scarborough,et al.  Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ , 1998 .

[80]  Ulrich H. Frauenfelder,et al.  The processing of illegal consonant clusters: A case of perceptual assimilation? , 1998 .

[81]  Catherine T. Best,et al.  Left-Hemisphere Advantage for Click Consonants is Determined by Linguistic Significance and Experience , 1999 .

[82]  J E Flege,et al.  Adults’ perception of native and nonnative vowels: Implications for the perceptual magnet effect , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[83]  Pierre A. Hallé,et al.  Phonetic vs. phonological influences on French listeners' perception of American English approximants , 1999 .

[84]  J. Flege,et al.  An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: the case of Japanese adults' perception of English consonants. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[85]  J. Segui,et al.  Where Is the /b/ in “absurde” [apsyrd]? It Is in French Listeners' Minds , 2000 .