Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:17:51.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of identification training on the identification and production of American English vowels by native speakers of Japanese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2005

STEPHEN G. LAMBACHER ,
WILLIAM L. MARTENS ,
KAZUHIKO KAKEHI ,
CHANDRAJITH A. MARASINGHE  and
GARRY MOLHOLT
STEPHEN G. LAMBACHER
Affiliation:
University of Aizu
WILLIAM L. MARTENS
Affiliation:
McGill University
KAZUHIKO KAKEHI
Affiliation:
Chukyo University
CHANDRAJITH A. MARASINGHE
Affiliation:
University of Aizu
GARRY MOLHOLT
Affiliation:
West Chester University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effectiveness of a high variability identification training procedure to improve native Japanese identification and production of the American English (AE) mid and low vowels /æ/, //, //, //, // was investigated. Vowel identification and production performance for two groups of Japanese participants was measured before and after a 6-week identification training period. Recordings were made of both group's pre-/posttraining vowel productions of the five vowels, which were evaluated by a group of native AE listeners using a five-alternative, forced-choice identification task and by an acoustic analysis of the vowel productions. The overall results confirmed that the identification performance of the experimental (trained) participants improved after identification training with feedback and that the training also had a positive effect on their production of the target AE vowels.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 227 - 247
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Best C. T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171– 204). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Boersma P., & Weenink D. 2002. PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer. Available on-line at http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat.
Bohn O., & Flege J. E. 1990. Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 303– 328.Google Scholar
Bradlow A., Pisoni D., Akahane–Yamada R., & Tohkura Y. 1997. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299– 2310.Google Scholar
Flege J. E. 1987. The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47– 65.Google Scholar
Flege J. E. 1988. The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Human communication and its disorders (pp. 224– 401). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Flege J. E. 1989. Chinese subjects' perception of the word-final English /t/–/d/ contrast: Performance before and after training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 1684– 1697.Google Scholar
Flege J. E. 1995a. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233– 277). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Flege J. E. 1995b. Two procedures for training a novel second language phonetic contrast. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 426– 442.Google Scholar
Fujisaki H., Nakamura K., & Imoto T. 1975. Auditory perception of duration of speech and nonspeech stimuli. In G. Fant & M. A. A. Tatham (Eds.), Auditory analysis and perception of speech (pp. 197– 219). London: Academic Press.
Ingram J., & Park S. G. 1997. Cross-language vowel perception and production by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 343– 370.Google Scholar
Iverson P., Kuhl P. K., Akahane–Yamada R., Diesch E., Tohkura Y., Kettermann A., & Siebert C. 2003. A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87, B47– B57.Google Scholar
Jamieson D. G., & Morosan D. E. 1986. Training non-native speech contrasts in adults: Acquisition of the English /θ/–/ð/ contrast by francophones. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 205– 215.Google Scholar
Keating P. A., & Huffman M. K. 1984. Vowel variation in Japanese. Phonetica, 41, 191– 207.Google Scholar
Kinoshita K., Behne D. M., & Arai T. 2002. Duration and F0 as perceptual cues to Japanese vowel quantity. In J. Hansen & B. Pellom (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 757– 760). Boulder, CO: Center for Spoken Language Research.
Ladefoged P. 2001. Vowels and consonants: An introduction to the sounds of languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lambacher S., Martens W., & Molholt G. 2000. A comparison of identification of American English vowels by native speakers of Japanese and English. In H. Umeda (Ed.), Proceedings of the Phonetic Society of Japan Meeting (pp. 213– 218). Tokyo: Phonetic Society of Japan.
Lehiste I. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lively S., Logan J., & Pisoni D. 1993. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environments and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242– 1255.Google Scholar
Logan J. S., Lively S. E., & Pisoni D. B. 1991. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874– 886.Google Scholar
Logan J. S., & Pruitt J. S. 1995. Methodological issues in training listeners to perceive non-native phonemes. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 351– 377). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
MacKain K. S., Best C. T., & Strange W. 1981. Categorical perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 369– 390.Google Scholar
Macken M., & Ferguson C. 1981. Phonological universals in language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 110– 129). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Major R. 1987. A model for interlanguage phonology. In G. L. Ioup & S. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology (pp. 101– 124). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pisoni D. 1977. Identification and discrimination of the relative onset time of two component tones: Implications for voicing perception in stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1352– 1361.Google Scholar
Pisoni D., Lively S., & Logan J. 1994. Perceptual learning of non-native speech contrasts: Implications for theories of speech perception. In J. Goodman & H. Nusbaum (Eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words (pp. 121– 166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Polka L. 1995. Linguistic influences in adult perception of non-native vowel contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1286– 1296.Google Scholar
Rochet B. L. 1995. Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 379– 410). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Rvachew S. 1994. Speech perception training can faciliate sound production learning. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 347– 357.Google Scholar
Shiffrin R., & Schneider W. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Applied Psycholinguistics, 84, 127– 190.Google Scholar
Strange W., Akane–Yamada R., Kubo R., Trent S., Nishi K., & Jenkins J. 1998. Perceptual assimilations of American English vowels by Japanese listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 26, 311– 344.Google Scholar
Strange W., & Dittman S. 1984. Effects of discrimination training on the perception of /r–l/ by Japanese adults learning English. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 131– 145.Google Scholar
Strange W., & Jenkins J. 1978. Role of linguistic experience in perception of speech. In R. D. Walk & H. L. Pick (Eds.), Perception and experience (pp. 125– 169). New York: Plenum Press.
Tsukada K. 1999. An acoustic phonetic analysis of Japanese-accented English. Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University Sydney.
Werker J. F. 1994. Cross-language speech perception: Development changes does not involve loss. In J. Goodman & H. Nusbaum (Eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words (pp. 93– 120). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yamada R. 1995. Age and acquisition of speech language sounds: Perception of American English /r/ and /l/ by native speakers of Japanese. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 305– 320). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Yamada T., Yamada R., & Strange W. 1995. Perception of English vowels and consonants by Japanese learners of English. In Proceedings of the Acoustical Society of Japan (pp. 379– 380). Utsunomiya, Japan: Acoustical Society of Japan.