Literature DB >> 23556605

Focusing the lens of language experience: perception of Ma'di stops by Greek and English bilinguals and monolinguals.

Mark Antoniou1, Catherine T Best, Michael D Tyler.   

Abstract

Monolingual listeners are constrained by native language experience when categorizing and discriminating unfamiliar non-native contrasts. Are early bilinguals constrained in the same way by their two languages, or do they possess an advantage? Greek-English bilinguals in either Greek or English language mode were compared to monolinguals on categorization and discrimination of Ma'di stop-voicing distinctions that are non-native to both languages. As predicted, English monolinguals categorized Ma'di prevoiced plosive and implosive stops and the coronal voiceless stop as English voiced stops. The Greek monolinguals categorized the Ma'di short-lag voiceless stops as Greek voiceless stops, and the prevoiced implosive stops and the coronal prevoiced stop as Greek voiced stops. Ma'di prenasalized stops were uncategorized. Greek monolinguals discriminated the non-native voiced-voiceless contrasts very well, whereas the English monolinguals did poorly. Bilinguals were given all oral and written instructions either in English or in Greek (language mode manipulation). Each language mode subgroup categorized Ma'di stop-voicing comparably to the corresponding monolingual group. However, the bilinguals' discrimination was unaffected by language mode: both subgroups performed intermediate to the monolinguals for the prevoiced-voiceless contrast. Thus, bilinguals do not possess an advantage for unfamiliar non-native contrasts, but are nonetheless uniquely configured language users, differing from either monolingual group.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23556605      PMCID: PMC3631263          DOI: 10.1121/1.4792358

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  14 in total

1.  The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: exemplar-Based versus abstract lexical entries.

Authors:  C Pallier; A Colomé; N Sebastián-Gallés
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-11

2.  Online processing of native and non-native phonemic contrasts in early bilinguals.

Authors:  N Sebastián-Gallés; S Soto-Faraco
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1999-09-30

3.  Language context and phonetic change detection.

Authors:  István Winkler; Teija Kujala; Paavo Alku; Risto Näätänen
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2003-10

4.  Assessing the double phonemic representation in bilingual speakers of Spanish and English: an electrophysiological study.

Authors:  Adrián García-Sierra; Nairán Ramírez-Esparza; Juan Silva-Pereyra; Jennifer Siard; Craig A Champlin
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2012-04-23       Impact factor: 2.381

5.  Perceptual learning in speech.

Authors:  Dennis Norris; James M McQueen; Anne Cutler
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception.

Authors:  C Pallier; L Bosch; N Sebastián-Gallés
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1997-09

7.  Language context elicits native-like stop voicing in early bilinguals' productions in both L1 and L2.

Authors:  Mark Antoniou; Catherine T Best; Michael D Tyler; Christian Kroos
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2010-10

8.  The motor theory of speech perception revised.

Authors:  A M Liberman; I G Mattingly
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1985-10

9.  Two ways to listen: Do L2-dominant bilinguals perceive stop voicing according to language mode?

Authors:  Mark Antoniou; Michael D Tyler; Catherine T Best
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2012-07-12

10.  Testing the double phonemic boundary in bilinguals.

Authors:  Adrian Garcia-Sierra; Randy L Diehl; Craig Champlin
Journal:  Speech Commun       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 2.017

View more
  3 in total

1.  Native phonological processing abilities predict post-consolidation nonnative contrast learning in adults.

Authors:  F Sayako Earle; Dana T Arthur
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Sleep and native language interference affect non-native speech sound learning.

Authors:  F Sayako Earle; Emily B Myers
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  ERP Response Unveils Effect of Second Language Manipulation on First Language Processing.

Authors:  Elvira Khachatryan; Flavio Camarrone; Wim Fias; Marc M Van Hulle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.