This study compares the underlying perceptual structure of vowel perception in monolingual Chinese, monolingual English and bilingual Chinese–English listeners. Of particular interest is how listeners’ spatial organization of vowels is affected either by their L1 or their experience with L2. Thirteen English vowels, /i, ɪ, e, ε, æ, u, ʊ, o, ɔ, ɑ, ɔɪ, aɪ, aʊ/, embedded in /hVd/ syllable produced by an Ohio male speaker were presented in pairs to three groups of listeners. Each listener rated 312 vowel pairs on a nine-point dissimilarity scale. The responses from each group were analyzed using a multidimensional scaling program (ALSCAL). Results demonstrated that all three groups of listeners used high/low and front/back distinctions as the two most important dimensions to perceive English vowels. However, the vowels were distributed in clusters in the perceptual space of Chinese monolinguals, while they were appropriately separated and located in that of bilinguals and English monolinguals. Besides the two common perceptual dimensions, each group of listeners utilized a different third dimension to perceive these English vowels. English monolinguals used high-front offset. Bilinguals used a dimension mainly correlated to the distinction of monophthong/diphthong. Chinese monolinguals separated two high vowels, /i/ and /u/, from the rest of vowels in the third dimension. The difference between English monolinguals and Chinese monolinguals evidenced the effect of listeners’ native language on the vowel perception. The difference between Chinese monolinguals and bilingual listeners as well as the approximation of bilingual listeners’ perceptual space to that of English monolinguals demonstrated the effect of L2 experience on listeners’ perception of L2 vowels.
AssmannP. F. (1995). The role of formant transitions in the perception of concurrent vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 575–584.
2.
BestC. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In StrangeW. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language research (pp. 171–204). Timonium, MD: York Press.
3.
BestC. T.McRobertsG. W.GoodellE. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 775–794.
4.
BohnO.-S.FlegeJ. E. (1990). Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 303–328.
5.
BorgI.GorenenP. J. F. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Springer.
6.
BradlowA. R. (1993). Language-specific and universal aspects of vowel production and perception: A cross-linguistic study of vowel inventories. Ithaca, NY: DMLL publications, Cornell University.
7.
ButcherA. (1976). The influence of the native language on the perception of vowel quality. Arbeitsberichte Institut für Phonetik, 6, University of Kiel.
8.
CebrianJ. (2006). Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel categorization. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 372–387.
9.
ChungH.KongE. J.EdwardJ.WeismerG.FourakisM.HwangY. (2012). Cross-linguistic studies of children’s and adults’ vowel spaces. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, 442–454.
10.
ClopperC. G.PisoniD. B.de JongK. (2005). Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of six regional varieties of American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1661–1676.
11.
DuanmuS. (2000). The phonology of Standard Chinese. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
FlegeJ. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: theory, findings and problems. In StrangeW. (Eds.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–273). Timonium, MD: York Press.
13.
FlegeJ. E.BohnO.-S.JangS. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.
14.
FlegeJ. E.MacKayI. R. A.MeadorD. (1999). Native Italian speakers’ perception and production of English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2973–2987.
15.
FlegeJ. E.MunroM. J.FoxR. A. (1994). Auditory and categorical effects on cross-language vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 3623–3641.
16.
FoxR. A. (1978). Individual perception variation and a perception/production link in vowels. In FarkasF.JacobsenW. M.TodrysK. W. (Eds.), Papers from the 14th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.98–107). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
17.
FoxR. A. (1982). Individual variation in the perception of vowels: Implications for a perception-production link. Phonetica, 39, 1–22.
18.
FoxR. A. (1983). Perceptual structure of monophthongs and diphthongs in English. Language and Speech, 26, 21–60.
19.
FoxR. A.FlegeJ. E.MunroM. J. (1995). The perception of English and Spanish vowels by native English and Spanish listeners: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 2540–2551.
20.
FoxR. A.JacewiczE. (2009). Cross-dialectal variation in formant dynamics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 2603–2618.
21.
FoxR. A.TrudeauM. D. (1988). A multidimensional scaling study of esophageal vowels. Phonetica, 45, 30–42.
22.
FriedaE. M.NozawaT. (2007). You are what you eat phonetically: The effect of linguistic experience on the perception of foreign vowels. In BohnO.-S.MunroM. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning (pp. 79–86). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
23.
GandourJ.HarshmanR. (1978). Cross language differences in tone perception: A multidimensional scaling investigation. Language and Speech, 21, 1–33.
24.
GuionS. G.FlegeJ. E.Akahane-YamadaR.PruittJ. C. (2000). An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2711–2724.
25.
HarshmanR. A.LundyM. E. (1984). The PARAFAC model for three way factor analysis and multidimensional scaling. In LawH. G.SnyderC. W.HattierJ. A.MacDonaldR. P. (Eds.), Research methods of multimode data analysis (pp. 122–215). New York, NY: Praeger.
26.
HillenbrandJ. M.NearyT. M. (1999). Identification of resynthesized /hVd/ utterances: Effects of formant contour. Journal of the Acoustical Society in America, 105, 3509–3523.
27.
HøjenA.FlegeJ. E. (2006). Early learners’ discrimination of second language vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 3072–3084.
28.
JacewiczE.FoxR. A. (2012). The effects of cross-generational and cross-dialectal variation on vowel identification and classification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, 1413–1433.
29.
JacewiczE.FoxR. A. (2013). Cross-dialectal differences in dynamic formant patterns in American English vowels. In MorrisonG. S.AssmannP. (Eds.), Vowel inherent spectral change (pp. 177–198). New York, NY: Springer.
30.
JaworskaN.Chupetlovska-AnastasovaC. (2009). A review of multidimensional scaling and its utility in various psychological domains. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 5, 1–10.
31.
JohnsonK. (2006). Resonance in an exemplary-based lexicon: The emergence of social identify and phonology. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 485–499.
32.
JusczykP. (1993). How word recognitionmayevolve from infant speech perception capabilities. In AltmannG.ShillcockR. (Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting (pp. 27–56). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KuhlP. K.WilliamsK. A.LacerdaF.StevensK. N.LindblomB. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255, 606–608.
35.
KuhlP. K.IversonP. (1995). Linguistic experience and the “perceptual magnet effect”. In StrangeW. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 121–154). Timonium, MD: York Press.
36.
KuhlP. K.ConboyB. T.Coffey-CorinaS.PadenD.Rivera-GaxiolaM.NelsonT. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data and native language magnet theory expanded. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 979–1000.
37.
LabovW.AshS.BobergC. (2006). Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
38.
LevyE.StrangeW. (2008). Perception of French vowels by American English adults with and without French language Experience. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 141–157.
MorrisonG. S. (2013). Theories of vowel inherent spectral change. In MorrisonG. S.AssmannP. (Eds.), Vowel inherent spectral change (pp.31–47). New York, NY: Springer.
41.
NeareyT. M.AssmannP. F. (1986) Modeling the role of inherent spectral change in vowel identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 1297–1308.
42.
NishiK.StrangeW.Akahane-YamadaR.KuboR.Trent-BrownS. A. (2008). Acoustic and perceptual similarity of Japanese and American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 576–588.
43.
PolsL.van der KampL.PlompR. (1969). Perceptual and physical space of vowels sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 46, 458–467.
44.
PolkaL. (1995). Linguistic influences in adult perception of non-native vowel contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1286–1296.
45.
RogersC. L.GlasbrennerM. M.DeMasiT. M.BianchiM. (2013). Vowel inherent spectral change and the second-language learner. In MorrisonG. S.AssmannP. F. (Eds.), Vowel inherent spectral change (pp. 263–282). New York, NY: Springer.
46.
ScholesR. (1967). Phonemic categorization of synthetic vocalic stimuli by speakers of Japanese, Spanish, Persian, and American English. Language and Speech, 10, 46–68.
47.
ScholesR. (1968). Phonemic interference as a perceptual phenomenon. Language and Speech, 2, 86–103.
48.
ShepardR. (1972). Psychological representation of speech sounds. In DavidE.DenesP. (Eds.), Human communication: A unified view (pp. 67–113). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
49.
ShiX. (2005). Hanyu Fangyan Yuanyin Geju de Shiyan Yanjiu (Phonetic experiment of vowel patterns in Chinese dialects). (Dissertation), Tianjin, China: Nankai University.
50.
SinghS.WoodsG. (1971). Perceptual structure of 12 American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 1861–1866.
51.
StrangeW.BohnO.-S.TrentS. A.NishiK. (2004). Acoustic and perceptual similarity of North German and American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 1791–1807.
52.
StrangeW.JenkinsJ. J.JohnsonT. L. (1983) Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74, 695–705.
53.
TakaneY.SergentJ. (1983). Multidimensional scaling models for reaction times and same-different judgments. Psychometrika, 48, 393–425.
54.
TakaneY.YoungF. W.de LeeuwJ. (1977). Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: Alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 42, 7–67.
55.
TerbeekD. (1977). A cross-language multidimensional scaling study of vowel perception. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 37, 1–27.
56.
TerbeekD.HarshmanR. (1971). Cross-language differences in perception of natural vowel sounds. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 19, 26–38.
57.
WerkerJ. F.TeesR. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49–63.
58.
WuZ. J. (1986). The spectrographic album of monosyllables of standard Chinese. Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
59.
YuanJ. (1983). Hanyu Fangyan Gaiyao (An outline of Chinese dialects). Beijing, China: Wenzi Gaige Chubanshe.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
