Abstract

Learning to move from auditory signals to phonemic categories is a crucial component of first, second, and multilingual language acquisition. In L1 and simultaneous multilingual acquisition, learners build up phonological knowledge to structure their perception within a language. For sequential multilinguals, this knowledge may support or interfere with acquiring language-specific representations for a new phonemic categorization system. Syllable structure is a part of this phonological knowledge, and language-specific syllabification preferences influence language acquisition, including early word segmentation. As a result, we expect to see language-specific syllable structure influencing speech perception as well. Initial evidence of an effect appears in Ali et al. (2011), who argued that cross-linguistic differences in McGurk fusion within a syllable reflected listeners’ language-specific syllabification preferences. Building on a framework from Cho and McQueen (2006), we argue that this could reflect the Phonological-Superiority Hypothesis (differences in L1 syllabification preferences make some syllabic positions harder to classify than others) or the Phonetic-Superiority Hypothesis (the acoustic qualities of speech sounds in some positions make it difficult to perceive unfamiliar sounds). However, their design does not distinguish between these two hypotheses. The current research study extends the work of Ali et al. (2011) by testing Japanese, and adding audio-only and congruent audio-visual stimuli to test the effects of syllabification preferences beyond just McGurk fusion. Eighteen native English speakers and 18 native Japanese speakers were asked to transcribe nonsense words in an artificial language. English allows stop consonants in syllable codas while Japanese heavily restricts them, but both groups showed similar patterns of McGurk fusion in stop codas. This is inconsistent with the Phonological-Superiority Hypothesis. However, when visual information was added, the phonetic influences on transcription accuracy largely disappeared. This is inconsistent with the Phonetic-Superiority Hypothesis. We argue from these results that neither acoustic informativity nor interference of a listener’s phonological knowledge is superior, and sketch a cognitively inspired rational cue integration framework as a third hypothesis to explain how L1 phonological knowledge affects L2 perception.

Highlights

  • Second language acquisition and representation is extensively affected by a learner’s knowledge of other languages

  • Overall accuracy patterns in identifying the target consonants [p], [t], and [k] were similar across the two language groups, with lower overall accuracy in Japanese, and in coda positions. This seems to be consistent with a primarily phonetic influence on perception, since English speakers have no phonotactic reason to underperform on coda identification

  • How do learners resolve the conflicts? Unlike the findings reported in previous studies (e.g., Ali et al, 2011), in the audio-visual incongruent condition in the present study, both English and Japanese speakers showed very similar McGurk effects, including in the particular case of McGurk fusion, in each consonant position

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Second language acquisition and representation is extensively affected by a learner’s knowledge of other languages These effects appear at many levels, including lexical (Schulpen et al, 2003; Weber and Cutler, 2004; Otake, 2007) and phonological recognition (Dupoux et al, 1999; Carlson et al, 2016). This can happen even at an abstract level, with first language (L1) knowledge helping second/later language (L2) learners identify which phonetic dimensions are used for phonemic discrimination in the new language (Lin, 2001; Pajak and Levy, 2012). This argues against previous proposals, Phonetic- and Phonological-Superiority Hypotheses, that claim one cue consistently outweighs the other (Cho and McQueen, 2006; Ali et al, 2011), and suggests that learners may be capable of combining information from their L1 structure with perceived cue-reliability as part of a rational cue integration framework for L2 perception and categorization

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call