» Articles » PMID: 11248981

Discrimination of Non-native Consonant Contrasts Varying in Perceptual Assimilation to the Listener's Native Phonological System

Overview
Journal J Acoust Soc Am
Date 2001 Mar 16
PMID 11248981
Citations 80
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Perception in context of Chinese and Japanese: the role of language proficiency.

Lu S, Ren R, Guo T, Tang X Front Psychol. 2025; 16:1528955.

PMID: 39917732 PMC: 11801191. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1528955.


An inductive bias for slowly changing features in human reinforcement learning.

Hedrich N, Schulz E, Hall-McMaster S, Schuck N PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(11):e1012568.

PMID: 39585903 PMC: 11637442. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012568.


I know how you'll say it: evidence of speaker-specific speech prediction.

Sala M, Vespignani F, Casalino L, Peressotti F Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; 31(5):2332-2344.

PMID: 38528302 PMC: 11543741. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02488-2.


Production of Arabic Geminates by English Speakers.

Al-Deaibes M, Jarrah M J Psycholinguist Res. 2023; 52(6):2877-2902.

PMID: 37924492 DOI: 10.1007/s10936-023-10025-w.


Processing of English Coda Laterals in L2 Listeners: An Eye-Tracking Study.

Wang Y Lang Speech. 2023; 67(4):909-923.

PMID: 37897248 PMC: 11583516. DOI: 10.1177/00238309231203899.


References
1.
Werker J, Gilbert J, Humphrey K, Tees R . Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Dev. 1981; 52(1):349-55. View

2.
MacKain K . Assessing the role of experience on infants' speech discrimination. J Child Lang. 1982; 9(3):527-42. DOI: 10.1017/s030500090000489x. View

3.
Liberman A, Cooper F, SHANKWEILER D, Studdert-Kennedy M . Perception of the speech code. Psychol Rev. 1967; 74(6):431-61. DOI: 10.1037/h0020279. View

4.
Goto H . Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds "L" and "R". Neuropsychologia. 1971; 9(3):317-23. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90027-3. View

5.
Crowder R . Representation of speech sounds in precategorical acoustic storage. J Exp Psychol. 1973; 98(1):14-24. DOI: 10.1037/h0034286. View