| Literature DB >> 27199849 |
Abstract
The present study examines cognate effects in the phonetic production and processing of the Catalan back mid-vowel contrast (/o/-/ɔ/) by 24 early and highly proficient Spanish-Catalan bilinguals in Majorca (Spain). Participants completed a picture-naming task and a forced-choice lexical decision task in which they were presented with either words (e.g., /bɔsk/ "forest") or non-words based on real words, but with the alternate mid-vowel pair in stressed position ((*)/bosk/). The same cognate and non-cognate lexical items were included in the production and lexical decision experiments. The results indicate that even though these early bilinguals maintained the back mid-vowel contrast in their productions, they had great difficulties identifying non-words and real words based on the identity of the Catalan mid-vowel. The analyses revealed language dominance and cognate effects: Spanish-dominants exhibited higher error rates than Catalan-dominants, and production and lexical decision accuracy were also affected by cognate status. The present study contributes to the discussion of the organization of early bilinguals' dominant and non-dominant sound systems, and proposes that exemplar theoretic approaches can be extended to include bilingual lexical connections that account for the interactions between the phonetic and lexical levels of early bilingual individuals.Entities:
Keywords: bilingualism; cognates; cross-linguistic influence; lexical storage; mental lexicon; speech processing; speech production
Year: 2016 PMID: 27199849 PMCID: PMC4845252 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00617
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Language dominance as a function of group according to the BLP (Birdsong et al., .
Age, age of exposure, accent self-ratings, and typical daily use of both languages for each language dominance group.
| Age | 21.1 (1.6) | 21.5 (4.6) |
| Age of exposure | CAT = 0 (0) | CAT = 1.8 (2.1) |
| SPN = 1.2 (2.3) | SPN = 0 (0) | |
| Self-reported accent (1 = strongly accented; 9 = native-like) | CAT = 8.3 (0.9) | CAT = 6.3 (2.4) |
| SPN = 5.3 (1.9) | SPN = 8.5 (0.7) | |
| Typical daily use (1 = only Spanish; 9 = only Catalan) | 8.6 (0.8) | 3.8 (2.5) |
Stimuli included in the production and lexical decision tasks.
| bota | bota | boot | /o/ | Cognate |
| boca | boca | mouth | /o/ | Cognate |
| ós | oso | bear | /o/ | Cognate |
| copa | copa | glass | /o/ | Cognate |
| doctor | doctor | doctor | /o/ | Cognate |
| flor | flor | flower | /ɔ/ | Cognate |
| escriptori | escritorio | desk | /ɔ/ | Cognate |
| bosc | bosque | forest | /ɔ/ | Cognate |
| sol | sol | sun | /ɔ/ | Cognate |
| pilota | pelota | ball | /ɔ/ | Cognate |
| poma | manzana | apple | /o/ | Non-cognate |
| tassó | vaso | glass | /o/ | Non-cognate |
| tisores | tijeras | scissors | /o/ | Non-cognate |
| papallona | mariposa | butterfly | /o/ | Non-cognate |
| genoll | rodilla | knee | /o/ | Non-cognate |
| porc | cerdo | pig | /ɔ/ | Non-cognate |
| groc | amarillo | yellow | /ɔ/ | Non-cognate |
| taronja | naranja | orange | /ɔ/ | Non-cognate |
| foc | fuego | fire | /ɔ/ | Non-cognate |
| oli | aceite | oil | /ɔ/ | Non-cognate |
Most Catalan-Spanish bilinguals would consider Catalan “tassó” a cognate of Spanish “tazón” (Bowl/Mug) and the Catalan translation of Spanish “vaso” to be “got” (Glass). The translation of the Catalan word “tassó” into Spanish “vaso” is specific to Majorcan Catalan and it is expected that both Catalan- and Spanish- dominant bilingual participants in this study are familiar with this lexical pairing specific to the Majorcan dialect of Catalan.
Figure 2Bark converted two-dimensional (F1 and F2) contour maps using kernel density estimation plotting the Catalan back mid-vowels as a function of language dominance.
Figure 3Bark converted two-dimensional (F1 and F2) contour maps using kernel density estimation plotting the Catalan back mid-vowels as a function of cognate status and language dominance.
Figure 4Individual Pillai scores as a measure of back mid-vowel merger of cognates (blue triangles) and non-cognates (red circles) plotted as a function of a speaker's BLP score. Fitted lines for cognates (blue) and non-cognates (red).
Experimental items used in the lexical decision task.
| /botə/ | /flɔ/ | Cognate | ||
| /bokə/ | /əskriptɔri/ | Cognate | ||
| /os/ | /bɔsk/ | Cognate | ||
| /kopə/ | /sɔl/ | Cognate | ||
| /dokto/ | /pilɔtə/ | Cognate | ||
| /pomə/ | /pɔrk/ | Non-cognate | ||
| /təso/ | /grɔk/ | Non-cognate | ||
| /tizorəs/ | /tərɔn | Non-cognate | ||
| /pəpəʎonə/ | /fɔk/ | Non-cognate | ||
| / | /ɔli/ | Non-cognate | ||
indicates the incorrect mid-vowel (non-word).
Figure 5Error rate (%) for cognate and non-cognate items as a function of vowel type (/o/, /ɔ/) and vowel status (word, non-word) by language dominance. Error bars enclose ± one standard error.
Figure 6Response times (ms) for cognate and non-cognate items as a function of vowel type (/o/, /ɔ/) and vowel status (word, non-word) by language dominance. Error bars enclose ± one standard error.
Figure 7Individual error rates (%) for words and non-words plotted as a function of a speaker's BLP score. Fitted lines for /o/-type words (blue) and /ɔ/-type words (red).
Results from the correlations between BLP score and error rate for words and non-words.
| Words | ||
| Words | ||
| Non-words ( | ||
| /ɔ/-type ( |
Figure 8Accuracy rate in the lexical decision task plotted as a function of the Pillai score of each individual speaker by cognate status. Fitted lines for cognates (left) and non-cognates (right).