Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:32:24.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second-language spoken word identification: Effects of perceptual training, visual cues, and phonetic environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2005

DEBRA M. HARDISON
DEBRA M. HARDISON
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments using the gating paradigm investigated the effects of auditory–visual (AV) and auditory-only perceptual training on second-language spoken-word identification by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Stimuli were familiar bisyllabic words beginning with /p/, /f/, //, /l/, and /s, t, k/ combined with high, low, and rounded vowels. Results support the priming role of visual cues in AV speech processing. Identification was earlier with visual cues and following training, especially for words beginning with // and /l/, which also showed significant effects of adjacent vowel. For the Japanese, the AV advantage in identifying //- and /l/-initial words was accentuated following training. Findings are discussed within a multimodal episodic model of learning.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2005 , pp. 579 - 596
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

Bard E., Shillcock R., & Altmann G. 1988. The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 395– 408.Google Scholar
Benguerel A.-P., & Pichora–Fuller M. K. 1982. Coarticulation effects in lipreading. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 600– 607.Google Scholar
Berger K. W. 1972. Speechreading: Principles and methods. Baltimore, MD: National Education Press.
Cho Y.-M. Y. 1987. Phrasal phonology of Korean. In S. Kuno, I.-H. Lee, J. Whitman, S.-Y. Bak, & Y.-S. Kang (Eds.), Harvard studies in Korean linguistics II (pp. 328– 340). Cambridge MA: Harvard University, Department of Linguistics.
Cotton S., & Grosjean F. 1984. The gating paradigm: A comparison of successive and individual presentation formats. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 41– 48.Google Scholar
Daniloff R. G., & Moll K. 1968. Coarticulation of lip rounding. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 11, 707– 721.Google Scholar
Goldinger S. D. 1997. Words and voices: Perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In K. Johnson & J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 33– 66). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Goldinger S. D., Luce P. A., & Pisoni D. B. 1989. Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 501– 518.Google Scholar
Grosjean F. 1980. Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 267– 283.Google Scholar
Grosjean F. 1985. The recognition of words after their acoustic offset: Evidence and implications. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 299– 310.Google Scholar
Grosjean F. 1996. Gating. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 597– 604.Google Scholar
Hagiwara R. E. 1995. Acoustic realizations of American /r/ as produced by women and men (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1995). UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics No. 90.
Hardison D. M. 1999. Bimodal speech perception by native and nonnative speakers of English: Factors influencing the McGurk effect. Language Learning, 49, 213– 283.Google Scholar
Hardison D. M. 2000. The neurocognitive foundation of second-language speech: A proposed scenario of bimodal development. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 312– 325). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Hardison D. M. 2003. Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context and talker variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 495– 522.Google Scholar
Hatch E., & Lazaraton A. 1991. The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York: Newbury House.
Hintzman D. L. 1986. “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411– 428.Google Scholar
Jacoby L., & Brooks L. R. 1984. Nonanalytic cognition: Memory, perception, and concept learning. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 18, pp. 1– 47). New York: Academic Press.
Jusczyk P. W. 1993. From general to language-specific capacities: The WRAPSA model of how speech perception develops. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 3– 28.Google Scholar
Kim–Renaud Y.-K. 1974. Korean consonantal phonology (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Hawaii, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 869.Google Scholar
Kricos P. B., & Lesner S. A. 1982. Differences in visual intelligibility across talkers. Volta Review, 84, 219– 225.Google Scholar
Lively S. E., Logan J. S., & Pisoni D. B. 1993. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242– 1255.Google Scholar
Luce P. A. 1986. Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. Research on speech perception (Tech. Rep. No. 6). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Marslen–Wilson W. D., & Welsh A. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word-recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29– 63.Google Scholar
Massaro D. W. 1987. Speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Massaro D. W. 1998. Perceiving talking faces: From speech perception to a behavioral principle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McGurk H., & MacDonald J. 1976. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746– 748.Google Scholar
Munhall K. G., & Tohkura Y. 1998. Audiovisual gating and the time course of speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 530– 539.Google Scholar
Owens E., & Blazek B. 1985. Visemes observed by hearing-impaired and normal-hearing adult viewers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 381– 393.Google Scholar
Pisoni D. B. 1993. Long-term memory in speech perception: Some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate and perceptual learning. Speech Communication, 13, 109– 125.Google Scholar
Price P. J. 1981. A cross-linguistic study of flaps in Japanese and in American English (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 1128A.Google Scholar
Rosenblum L. D. 2002. The perceptual basis for audiovisual speech integration. In J. H. L. Hansen & B. Pellom (Eds.), International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 2002 (pp. 1461– 1464). Sydney, Australia: Causal Productions Pty, Ltd.
Salasoo A., & Pisoni D. B. 1985. Interaction of knowledge sources in spoken word identification. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 210– 231.Google Scholar
Sekiyama K., & Sugita Y. 2002. Auditory–visual speech perception examined by brain imaging and reaction time. In J. H. L. Hansen & B. Pellom (Eds.), ICSLP 2002 (pp. 1693– 1696). Sydney, Australia: Causal Productions PTY, Ltd.
Shin S.-H. 1997. Correspondence in Kyungsang Korean truncation. In S. Davis (Ed.), Optimal Viewpoints (pp. 115– 138). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.
Silva D. J. 1989. Korean obstruent voicing: Investigations into prosodic structuring. In S. Kuno, I.-H. Lee, J. Whitman, S.-Y. Bak, & Y.-S. Kang (Eds.), Harvard studies in Korean linguistics III (pp. 177– 188). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Linguistics.
Smeele P. M. T. 1994. Perceiving speech: Integrating auditory and visual speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Summerfield Q. 1979. Use of visual information for phonetic perception. Phonetica, 26, 314– 331.Google Scholar
Tsujimura N. 1996. An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tyler L., & Wessels J. 1985. Is gating an on-line task? Evidence from naming latency data. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 217– 222.Google Scholar
Vance T. J. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Walker S., Bruce V., & O'Malley C. 1995. Facial identity and facial speech processing: Familiar faces and voices in the McGurk effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1124– 1133.Google Scholar
Woodward M. F., & Barber C. G. 1960. Phoneme perception in lip reading. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 3, 212– 222.Google Scholar