Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:14:17.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISCOVERING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTEXT AND ALLOPHONES IN A SECOND LANGUAGE

Evidence for Distribution-Based Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2011

Christine E. Shea  and
Suzanne Curtin
Christine E. Shea*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Suzanne Curtin
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
*
*Address correspondence to: Christine E. Shea, Department of Linguistics, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2K 1N4, Canada; e-mail: christine-shea@uiowa.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The identification of stressed syllables by adult second-language (L2) Spanish learners was examined for evidence of influence of an allophonic alternation driven by word position and stress. The Spanish voiced stop-approximant alternation, whereby stops occur in stressed-syllable and word onsets, was utilized. If L2 learners track the distribution of this alternation, they should tend to link stops to stressed syllables in word-onset position and approximants to unstressed, word-medial position. Low- and high-intermediate-level first-language English learners of Spanish as well as native Spanish and monolingual English speakers listened to a series of nonce words and determined which of the two consonant-vowel (CV) syllables they perceived as stressed. In Experiment 1, onset allophone and vowel stress were crossed. In Experiment 2, the onset allophone alternated and a vowel unmarked for prominence was used. The results show that the monolingual English and low-intermediate groups were more likely to perceive syllables with stressed vowels as stressed, regardless of the allophone onset. In contrast, listeners with greater Spanish proficiency performed similarly to native Spanish speakers and were more likely to perceive stress on syllables with stop onsets, a pattern that follows the distributional information of Spanish. This finding suggests that learning the interplay between allophonic distributions and their conditioning factors is possible with experience and that knowledge of this relationship plays a role in the acquisition of L2 allophones.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 581 - 606
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Alameda, J. R., & Cuetos, F. (1995). Diccionario de frecuencias de las unidades lingüísticas del castellano [Frequency dictionary of the lexical units of Spanish]. Oviedo, Spain: University of Oviedo Press.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D., & Pulleyblank, D. (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In Goodman, J. & Nusbaum, H. C. (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 perspective on 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., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2008). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Retrieved 8 Sept 2008 from http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Boomershine, A., Currie Hall, K., Hume, E., & Johnson, K., (2007). The influence of allophony vs. contrast on perception: The case of Spanish and English. In Avery, P., Elan Dresher, B., & Rice, K. (Eds.), Contrast in phonology: Perception and acquisition (pp. 145–171). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Carter, D. M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language, 2, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1568–1578.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., & Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 551–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Face, T. L. (2002). Disentangling the necessarily entangled: The phonology and phonetics of Spanish spirantization. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 21, 56–71.Google 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
Goldinger, S. D. (1997). Words and voices: Perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 33–66). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goudbeek, M., Cutler, A., & Smits, R. (2006). Supervised and unsupervised learning of multidimensionally varying non-native speech categories. Speech Communication, 50, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallé, P., 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, 592–608.Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, J. (1969). Spanish phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holt, L. L., & Lotto, A. J. (2006). Cue weighting in auditory categorization: Implications for first and second language acquisition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 3059–3071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hualde, J.-I. (2005). The sounds of Spanish. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. J. (1980). Testing the psychological reality of phonemes. Language and Speech, 23, 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K., & Mullennix, J. W. (Eds.). (1997). Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Phillips, C., & Idsardi, W. (2006). The influence of meaning on the perception of speech sounds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America, 103, 11,381–11,386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, D. R. (2006). ‘Distinctive phones’ in surface representation. In Goldstein, L. M., Whalen, D. H., & Best, C. T. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 8 (pp. 3–26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavoie, L. (2001). Consonant strength: Phonological patterns and phonetic manifestations. New York: Garland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Celdran, E. (2004). Problems in the classification of approximants. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massaro, D., & Cohen, M. (1983). Phonological context in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 338–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maye, J., & Gerken, L. (2001). Learning phonemes: How far can the input take us? In Do, A. H.-J., Dominguez, L., & Johansen, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University conference on language development (Vol. 2, pp. 480–490). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Maye, J., Werker, J., & Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition, 82, B101–B111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega-Llebaria, M. (2003). Interplay between phonetic and inventory constraints in the degree of spirantization of voiced stops: Comparing intervocalic /b/ and intervocalic /g/ in Spanish and English. In Face, T. L. (Ed.), Laboratory approaches to Spanish phonetics and phonology (pp. 237–255). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S., Pettinato, M., & Dupoux, E. (2002). Allophonic variation and the acquisition of phoneme categories. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of 26th annual Boston University conference on language development (Vol. 2, pp. 650–661). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, J. L. & Hopper, P. (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137–157). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 46, 115–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. (Tech. Rep. No. CU-CS-696-93). Boulder: University of Colorado.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, C., & Curtin, S. (in press). Cue-use and context in L2 allophone production. Second Language Research.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (2007). Contrast. In de Lacy, P. (Ed.), Handbook of phonology (pp. 139–157). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar