Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-7lvjp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T19:53:25.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECTS OF L1–L2 PHONOLOGICAL MAPPINGS ON L2 PHONOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY

EVIDENCE FROM SELF-PACED LISTENING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2020

Jeong-eun Kim Open the ORCID record for Jeong-eun Kim [Opens in a new window] ,
Yejin Cho ,
Youngsun Cho ,
Yeonjung Hong ,
Seohyun Kim  and
Hosung Nam Open the ORCID record for Hosung Nam [Opens in a new window]
Jeong-eun Kim*
Affiliation:
Jeonbuk National University
Yejin Cho
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
Youngsun Cho
Affiliation:
Korea University
Yeonjung Hong
Affiliation:
Korea University
Seohyun Kim
Affiliation:
Korea University
Hosung Nam*
Affiliation:
Korea University Haskins Laboratories
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeong-eun Kim, Department of English Language and Literature, Jeonbuk National University, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeollabuk-do 54896, Republic of Korea. E-mail: jek48@jbnu.ac.kr; and Hosung Nam, Department of English Language and Literature, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Anamdong 5-ga, Sungbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea, and Haskins Laboratories, Speech Production and Perception, 300 George Street #900, New Haven, CT 06511. E-mail: hnam@korea.ac.kr.
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeong-eun Kim, Department of English Language and Literature, Jeonbuk National University, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeollabuk-do 54896, Republic of Korea. E-mail: jek48@jbnu.ac.kr; and Hosung Nam, Department of English Language and Literature, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Anamdong 5-ga, Sungbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea, and Haskins Laboratories, Speech Production and Perception, 300 George Street #900, New Haven, CT 06511. E-mail: hnam@korea.ac.kr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the effects of asymmetrical mappings of L2 sounds to L1 sounds on real-time processing of L2 phonology. L1-Korean participants completed a self-paced listening (SPL) task paired with a picture verification (PV) task, in which an English sentence was presented word by word along with a picture that matched or mismatched the sentence. In the critical region, an L2 vowel was deliberately replaced with the wrong vowel for two types of English vowel pairs: Type 1: English vowel pairs showing a one-to-one mapping to Korean counterparts (e.g., English: /i/ and /æ/ to Korean /i/ and /æ/, respectively); and Type 2: English vowel pairs showing a two-to-one mapping to a Korean counterpart (e.g., English /i/ and /ɪ/ to Korean /i/). We analyzed response times (RTs) and PV accuracy. Longer RTs were observed for Type 1 errors than Type 2 errors, indicating lower sensitivity to L2 vowels with two-to-one mapping to an L1 vowel. Also, PV accuracy was lower for the sentences containing Type 2 errors. These results suggest that asymmetrical L2-L1 sound mapping can affect learners’ processing of L2 phonological knowledge, which in turn can negatively affect their comprehension.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 42 , Issue 5 , December 2020 , pp. 1041 - 1076
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF- 2016S1A5A2A03926788).

References

REFERENCES

Baker, W., & Trofimovich, P. (2005). Interaction of native and second language vowel systems in early and late bilinguals. Language and Speech, 48, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, W., & Trofimovich, P. (2006). Perceptual paths to accurate production of L2 vowels: The role of individual differences. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W., Trofimovich, P., Flege, J. E., Mack, M., & Halter, R. (2008). Child-adult differences in second language phonological learning: The role of cross-language similarity. Language and Speech, 51, 317–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (Version 1.1-7) [Computer software]. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package5lme4Google 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). York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.32) [Computer program]. http://www.praat.orgGoogle Scholar
Bohn, O. S., & Flege, J. E. (1990). Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohn, O. S., & Flege, J. E. (1992). The production of new and similar vowels by adult German learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar
Bultena, S., Dijkstra, T., & van Hell, J. G. (2014). Cognate effects in sentence context depend on word class, L2 proficiency, and task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1214–1241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cebrian, J. (2006). Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel categorization. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 372–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory-based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 615–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, M., & Kormos, J. (2012). The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 782–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Henderson, J. M., Anes, M. D., Weeks, P. A., & McFarlane, D. K. (1996). Effects of lexical frequency and syntactic complexity in spoken-language comprehension: Evidence from the auditory moving-window technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 324–335.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1991). Age of learning affects the authenticity of voice‐onset time (VOT) in stop consonants produced in a second language. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 395–411.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). York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O. S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Hillenbrand, J. (1984). Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & Fox, R. A. (1994). Auditory and categorical effects on cross‐language vowel perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 3623–3641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, C. A., Sramko, V., Ostry, D. J., Rowland, S. A., & Hallé, P. (2008). Cross language phonetic influences on the speech of French–English bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 649–663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, J., Choi, T., Lim, I., & Lee, J. (2011a). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for Korean learners of English: Perception of English front vowels. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 11, 385–413.Google Scholar
Han, J., Choi, T., Lim, I., & Lee, J. (2011b). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for Korean learners of English: Production of English front vowels. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 3, 53–61.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, J. C., & Park, S. G. (1997). Cross-language vowel perception and production by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 343–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S.-A., & Cowie, I. (1994). Interference for “new” versus “similar” vowels in Korean speakers of English. Ohio State University Working Papers, 43, 117–130.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, J. E., & Nam, H. (2017). Measures of implicit knowledge revisited: Processing modes, time pressure, and modality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, B., Christensen, H. B., & Jensen, S. P. (2019). Package “lmerTest”: Tests in linear mixed effects models (lmer objects of the lme4 package). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/lmerTest.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. (2002). Standard Korean pronouncing dictionary: Sounds, accent and rhythm. Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, S., & Cho, M. H. (2018). Predicting L2 vowel identification accuracy from cross-language mappings between L2 English and L1 Korean. Language Sciences, 66, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., & Rayson, P. (2014). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2015). Second language sensitivity to agreement errors: Evidence from eye movements during comprehension and translation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1283–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, G., & Harrington, S. (2013). Online communities of practice and second language phonological acquisition. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marinis, T. (2007). On-line processing of passives in L1 and L2 children. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L., & Umeda, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the second conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA) (pp. 265−276). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Marinis, T. (2008). On-line processing of sentences involving reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns in L1 and L2 children. In Algueró, A. G. & Freitas, M. J. (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2007 (pp. 348−358). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Marinis, T. (2010). Using on-line processing methods in language acquisition research. In Unsworth, S. & Blom, E. (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research (pp. 139–162). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T., & Saddy, D. (2013). Parsing the passive: Comparing children with specific language impairment to sequential bilingual children. Language Acquisition, 20, 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Thompson, S., & Plonsky, L. (2018). A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 861–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C., Marinis, T., & van der Lely, H. (2007). Passive verb morphology: The effect of phonotactics on passive comprehension in typically developing and Grammatical-SLI children. Lingua, 117, 1434–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J. (1993). Production of English vowels by native speakers of Arabic: Acoustic measurements and accentedness ratings. Language and Speech, 36, 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oomen, C. C. E., & Postma, A. (2002). Limitations in processing and resources and speech monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Tsimpli, I. (2005). Morphological cues in children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of subject/object ambiguities in Greek. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 471–481). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., Tsimpli, I., & Amvrazis, N. (2013). Self-paced listening. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B. (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 50–68). Routledge.Google Scholar
Peirce, J. W., & MacAskill, M. R. (2018). Building experiments in PsychoPy. Sage.Google Scholar
Peristeri, E., & Tsimpli, I. (2013). Use of Reference in the Narratives of Children with High Functioning Autism and Children with Specific Language Impairment. Paper presented at the 4th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Autism, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2013). Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 62, 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., Shiu, J. L., & Tomita, Y. (2015). Validating an elicited imitation task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language Learning, 65, 723–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolentino, L. C., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Across languages, space, and time: A review of the role of cross-language similarity in L2 (morpho) syntactic processing as revealed by fMRI and ERP methods. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsukada, K., Birdsong, D., Bialystok, E., Mack, M., Sung, H., & Flege, J. (2005). A developmental study of English vowel production and perception by native Korean adults and children. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Event-related brain potentials and second language learning: Syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 26, 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Leeser, M. J. (2012). Missing verbal inflections as a representational problem: Evidence from self-paced reading. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 109–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (2005). The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory capacity and language comprehension. Memory, 13, 403–413.Google ScholarPubMed
Yang, B. (1996). A comparative study of American English and Korean vowels produced by male and female speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, R. (2014). Measuring university-level L2 learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–30.Google Scholar