Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:40:40.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native-language benefit for understanding speech-in-noise: The contribution of semantics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

NARLY GOLESTANI ,
STUART ROSEN  and
SOPHIE K. SCOTT
NARLY GOLESTANI*
Affiliation:
Institute of Cognitive NeuroscienceUniversity College London & University Medical School, Geneva
STUART ROSEN
Affiliation:
Department of Phonetics and LinguisticsUniversity College London
SOPHIE K. SCOTT
Affiliation:
Institute of Cognitive NeuroscienceUniversity College London
*
Address for correspondence: Narly Golestani, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UKn.golestani@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bilinguals are better able to perceive speech-in-noise in their native compared to their non-native language. This benefit is thought to be due to greater use of higher-level, linguistic context in the native language. Previous studies showing this have used sentences and do not allow us to determine which level of language contributes to this context benefit. Here, we used a new paradigm that isolates the semantic level of speech, in both languages of bilinguals. Results revealed that in the native language, a semantically related target word facilitates the perception of a previously presented degraded prime word relative to when a semantically unrelated target follows the prime, suggesting a specific contribution of semantics to the native language context benefit. We also found the reverse in the non-native language, where there was a disadvantage of semantic context on word recognition, suggesting that such top–down, contextual information results in semantic interference in one's second language.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 385 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

Footnotes

*

This work was supported by a Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship under the European Commission's FP6 framework to N.G. and by a Wellcome Trust SRF award to S.K.S. We would like to thank David Green and Marc Brysbaert for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

Andruski, J. E., Blumstein, S. E. & Burton, M. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52 (3), 163–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, D. L., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B. & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavioral Research Methods, 39 (3), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, I. H., Bissonnette, V., Vyas, A. & Barclay, P. (1989). Semantic priming: Subliminal perception or context? Perception & Psychophysics, 45 (2), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilger, R. C., Nuetzel, J. M., Rabinowitz, W. M. & Rzeczkowski, C. (1984). Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27 (1), 32–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boothroyd, A., Mulhearn, B., Gong, J. & Ostroff, J. (1996). Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100 (3), 1807–1818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A. R. & Alexander, J. A. (2007). Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121 (4), 2339–2349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A. R. & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106 (4.1), 2074–2085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A., Weber, A., Smits, R. & Cooper, N. (2004). Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116 (6), 3668–3678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrand, L. & Alario, X. (1998). Normes d'associations verbales pour 366 noms d'objets concrets. L’ Année Psychologique, 98, 689–739.Google Scholar
Florentine, M. (1985a). Speech perception in noise by fluent, non-native listeners. Presented at the Acoustical Society of Japan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florentine, M. (1985b). Non-native listeners’ perception of American-English in noise. Proceedings of Inter-Noise ’85, pp. 1021–1024.Google Scholar
Golestani, N., Obleser, J. & Scott, S. K. (2009). Bilingual speech perception in the brain: Complementary involvement of higher- and lower-level components of the language network during context- versus stimulus-driven processing. Ms., University College London. [Submitted]Google Scholar
Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N. & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61 (5), 1337–1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, L. H., Florentine, M. & Buus, S. (1997). Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40 (3), 686–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. A. & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27 (2), 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreira, S. & Hamilton, M. (2006). Goats don't wear coats: An examination of semantic interference in rhyming assessments of reading readiness for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30 (2), 547–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabelek, A. K. & Donahue, A. M. (1984). Perception of consonants in reverberation by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75 (2), 632–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L. & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/ (retrieved May 16, 2009).Google Scholar
New, B., Brysbaert, M., Veronis, J. & Pallier, C. (2007). The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28 (4), 661–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takata, Y. & Nabelek, A. K. (1990). English consonant recognition in noise and in reverberation by Japanese and American listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88 (2), 663–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Utman, J. A., Blumstein, S. E. & Burton, M. W. (2000). Effects of subphonetic and syllable structure variation on word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 62 (6), 1297–1311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Wijngaarden, S. J., Steeneken, H. J. & Houtgast, T. (2002). Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112 (6), 3004–3013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Golestani Appendix

Golestani Appendix

Download Golestani Appendix(PDF)
PDF 75.2 KB