Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 725–731 | Cite as

Lexical exposure to native language dialects can improve non-native phonetic discrimination

Brief Report

Abstract

Nonnative phonetic learning is an area of great interest for language researchers, learners, and educators alike. In two studies, we examined whether nonnative phonetic discrimination of Hindi dental and retroflex stops can be improved by exposure to lexical items bearing the critical nonnative stops. We extend the lexical retuning paradigm of Norris, McQueen, and Cutler (Cognitive Psychology, 47, 204–238, 2003) by having naive American English (AE)-speaking participants perform a pretest-training-posttest procedure. They performed an AXB discrimination task with the Hindi retroflex and dental stops before and after transcribing naturally produced words from an Indian English speaker that either contained these tokens or not. Only those participants who heard words with the critical nonnative phones improved in their posttest discrimination. This finding suggests that exposure to nonnative phones in native lexical contexts supports learning of difficult nonnative phonetic discrimination.

Keywords

Speech perception Perceptual learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

NV was partially supported by NICHD Grant # NICHD P01 HD001004-96 awarded to Haskins Laboratories.

References

  1. Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words, 167(224), 233-277.Google Scholar
  2. Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(2), 775-794.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradlow, A.R., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106(2), 707-729.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Kraljic, T. & Samuel, A.G. (2005). Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? Cognitive Psychology, 51, 141-178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kraljic, T. & Samuel, A.G. (2006). Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 262-268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kraljic, T. & Samuel, A.G. (2007). Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 1-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Norris, D., McQueen, J.M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 204 – 238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Olmstead, A. J. & Viswanathan, N. (2016, May). Training non-native contrast discrimination using dialectical variants. Poster presented at the International Meeting of the Psychonomic Society.Google Scholar
  10. Pruitt, J. S., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Strange, W. (1998). Perceptual assimilation of Hindi dental and retroflex stop-consonants by native English and Japanese speakers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103(5), 3091-3091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pruitt, J.S., Jenkins, J.J., & Strange, W. (2006). Training the perception of Hindi dental and retroflex stops by native speakers of American English and Japanese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 1684 – 1696.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Reinisch, E., Weber, A., & Mitterer, H. (2013). Listeners retune phoneme categories across languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39 (1), 75 -86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sailaja, Pingali (2009). Indian English. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  14. Sjerps, M. J. & McQueen, J.M. (2010). The bounds of flexibility in speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36 (1), 195 – 211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tees, R.C. & Werker, J.F. (1984). Perceptual flexibility: Maintenance or recovery of the ability to discriminate non-native speech sounds. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 579 – 590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Werker, J.F., Gilbert, J.H.V., Humphrey, K., & Tees, R.C. (1981). Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Development, 52, 349 – 355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Werker, J.F. & Logan, J.S. (1985). Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 35 – 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Werker, J.F. & Tees, R.C. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 1866 – 1877.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Xie, X., Theodore, R. M., & Myers, E. B. (2017). More than a boundary shift: Perceptual adaptation to foreign-accented speech reshapes the internal structure of phonetic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), 206.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech-Language-HearingUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Haskins LaboratoriesNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations