Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T02:38:20.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological representations in children's native and non-native lexicon*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2013

ELLEN SIMON ,
MATTHIAS J. SJERPS  and
PAULA FIKKERT
ELLEN SIMON*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
MATTHIAS J. SJERPS
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
PAULA FIKKERT
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
*
Address for correspondence: Ellen Simon, Ghent University, Linguistics Department, Muinkkaai 42, 9000 Ghent, BelgiumEllen.Simon@UGent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the phonological representations of vowels in children's native and non-native lexicons. Two experiments were mispronunciation tasks (i.e., a vowel in words was substituted by another vowel from the same language). These were carried out by Dutch-speaking 9–12-year-old children and Dutch-speaking adults, in their native (Experiment 1, Dutch) and non-native (Experiment 2, English) language. A third experiment tested vowel discrimination. In Dutch, both children and adults could accurately detect mispronunciations. In English, adults, and especially children, detected substitutions of native vowels (i.e., vowels that are present in the Dutch inventory) by non-native vowels more easily than changes in the opposite direction. Experiment 3 revealed that children could accurately discriminate most of the vowels. The results indicate that children's L1 categories strongly influenced their perception of English words. However, the data also reveal a hint of the development of L2 phoneme categories.

Keywords

phonological representationschild L2vowelsmispronunciation detection

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 3 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The research reported in this study was supported by a Post-doctoral Research Grant from the Fund of Scientific Research – Flanders (FWO), awarded to the first author. The authors wish to thank all children and adults for their participation in the experiments, the school heads and teachers for their cooperation, two Dutch and English native speakers for recording stimuli, and Sarah Bernolet for help with retrieving pictures from the Ghent University Experimental Psychology picture database. The authors are grateful for helpful comments and suggestions from three anonymous Bilingualism: Language and Cognition reviewers.

References

Adank, P., van Hout, R., & Van de Velde, H. (2007). An acoustic description of the vowels of Northern and Southern Standard Dutch II: Regional varieties. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 1130–1141.Google Scholar
Altvater-Mackensen, N. (2010). Do manners matter? Asymmetries in the acquisition of manner of articulation features. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Altvater-Mackensen, N., & Fikkert, P. (2010). The acquisition of the stop–fricative contrast in perception and production. Lingua, 120, 1898–1909.Google Scholar
Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahane-Yamade, R., & Yamada, T. (2004). Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 233–250.Google Scholar
Babel, M., & Johnson, K. (2010). Accessing psycho-acoustic perception with speech sounds. In Warren, P. (ed.), Laboratory Phonology 11, pp. 179–205. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google 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.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Faber, A. (2000). Developmental increase in infants’ discrimination of non-native vowels that adults assimilate to a single native vowel. Poster presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, version 5.2.44. http://www.praat.org (accessed December 7, 2010). [Computer program]Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., & Polka, L. (2001). Target spectral, dynamic spectral, and duration cues in infant perception of German vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 504–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boomershine, A., Hall, K. C., Hume, E., & Johnson, K. (2008). The impact of allophony versus contrast on speech perception. In Avery, P., Dresher, B. E. & Rice, K. (eds.), Contrast in phonology theory, perception, acquisition, pp. 145–172. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bosch, L. (2011). Precursors to language in preterm infants: Speech perception abilities in the first year of life. In Braddick, O., Atkinson, J. & Innocenti, G. (eds.), Gene expression to neurobiology and behavior: Human brain development and developmental disorders, pp. 239–261. Amsterdam, Oxford & New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Broersma, M. (2005). Perception of familiar contrasts in unfamiliar positions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 3890–3901.Google Scholar
Chládková, K., & Hamann, S. (2011). High vowels in Standard British English: /u/-fronting does not result in merger. In Lee, W.-S. & Zee, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, pp. 476–479.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2012). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe, http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf (accessed June 25, 2012).Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (2004). Pseudo-homophony in non-native listening. 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
Cutler, A., Weber, A., Smits, R., & Cooper, N. (2004). Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3668–3678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escudero, P., Broersma, M., & Simon, E.Learning words in a third language: Effects of native vowel inventory and language proficiency. Language and Cognitive Processes, doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.662279. Published online by Taylor & Francis, July 11, 2012.Google Scholar
Fikkert, P. (2010). Developing representations and the emergence of phonology: Evidence from perception and production. In Fougeron, C., Kühnert, B., D'Imperio, M. & Vallée, N. (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 10, pp. 227–260. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. pp. 229–273. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second-language speech. In Birdsong, D. (ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis, pp. 117–137. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1986). Linguistic and developmental effects on the production and perception of stop consonants. Phonetica, 43, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. [R. A.] (1995). Factors affecting strength of perceived foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3125–3134.Google Scholar
Gerrits, E., & Schouten, M. E. H. (2004). Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 363–376.Google Scholar
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “l” and “r”. Neuropsychologia, 9, 317–323.Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Kleber, F., & Reubold, U. (2008). Compensation for coarticulation, /u/-fronting, and sound change in standard southern British: An acoustic and perceptual study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 2825–2835.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S., & Midgley, J. (2005). Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four age groups of speakers. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35, 183–199.Google Scholar
Hazan, V., & Barrett, S. (2000). The development of phonemic categorization in children aged 6–12. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 377–396.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. E. (2000). Children's phoneme identification in reverberation and noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 144–157.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. (1997). The discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9, F13–F21.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mani, N., & Plunkett, K. (2007). Phonological specificity of vowels and consonants in early lexical representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 252–272.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., Flege, J. E., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1996). The effect of age of second language learning on the production of English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 313–334.Google Scholar
Ohde, R. N., Haley, K. L., & McMahon, C. W. (1996). A developmental study of vowel perception from brief synthetic consonant–vowel syllables. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 3813–3824.Google Scholar
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a non-native phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261–283.Google Scholar
Parnell, M. M., & Amerman, J. D. (1978). Maturational influences on the perception of coarticulatory effects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 682–701.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175–184.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. (1973). Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 13, 253–260.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.Google Scholar
Polka, L., & Bohn, O.-S. (2003). Asymmetries in vowel perception. Speech Communication, 41, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polka, L., & Bohn, O.-S. (2011). Natural Referent Vowel (NRV) framework: An emerging view of early phonetic development. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 467–478.Google Scholar
Polka, L., Rvachew, S., & Molnar, M. (2008). Speech perception by 6-to-8-month-olds in the presence of distracting sound. Infancy, 13, 421–439.Google Scholar
Polka, L., & Werker, J. F. (1994). Developmental changes in perception of non-native vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 421–435.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Echeverría, S., & Bosch, L. (2005). The influence of initial exposure on lexical representation: Comparing early and simultaneous bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 240–255.Google Scholar
Simon, E. (2005). How native-like do you want to sound? A study on the pronunciation target of advanced learners of English in Flanders. Moderna språk, 99, 12–21.Google Scholar
Slobodan, P. J., Kiss, J., Morse, P. A., & Leavitt, L. A. (1978). Memory factors in infant vowel discrimination of normal and at-risk infants. Child Development, 49, 332–339.Google Scholar
Swingley, D. (2003). Phonetic detail in the developing lexicon. Language and Speech, 46, 265–294.Google Scholar
Swingley, D., & Aslin, R. N. (2000). Spoken word recognition and lexical representations in very young children. Cognition, 76, 147–166.Google Scholar
Swingley, D., & Aslin, R. N. (2002). Lexical neighborhoods and the word-form representations of 14-month-olds. Psychological Science, 13, 480–484.Google Scholar
Walley, A. C. (1993). More developmental research is needed. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walley, A. C., & Flege, J. E. (1999). Effect of lexical status on children's and adults’ perception of native and non-native vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 307–332.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Simon Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Simon Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 382.3 KB