The current study determines the influence of cross-language similarity on native English speakers’ perception and production of Marshallese consonant contrasts. Marshallese provides a unique opportunity to study this influence because all Marshallese consonants have a secondary articulation. Results of discrimination and production tasks indicate that learners more easily acquire sounds if they are perceptually less similar to native language phonemes. In addition, the degree of cross-language similarity seemed to affect perception and production and may also interact with the effect of orthography.
AoyamaK.FlegeJ. E.GuionS. G.Akahane-YamadaR.YamadaT. (2004). Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: the case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 233–250.
2.
BakerW.TrofimovichP. (2006). Perceptual paths to accurate production of L2 vowels: The role of individual differences. IRAL—International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, 231–250.
3.
BakerW.TrofimovichP.FlegeJ. E.MackM. (2008). Child-adult differences in second-language phonological learning: The role of cross-language similarity. Language and Speech, 51, 317–342.
4.
BassettiB. (2006). Orthographic input and phonological representations in learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Written Language and Literacy, 9, 95–114.
5.
BenderB. W. (1963). Marshallese phonemics: Labialization or palatalization?Word, 19, 335–341.
6.
BenderB. W. (1968). Marshallese phonology. Oceanic Linguistics, 7, 16–35.
7.
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, YYMD: Yor.
8.
BestC.McRobertsT.SitholeG. W. (1987). Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English speaker Adults and Infants. M. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 91, 1–29.
9.
BestC. T.TylerM. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In BohnO. S.MunroM. (Eds.), Second-language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production. A Festschrift in honour of James E. Flege (pp.13–34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
10.
Bettoni-TechioM.KoerichR. D. (2006). Palatalization in Brazilian Portuguese/English interphonology. Revista virtual de Estudos da Linguogem, 4, 1–17.
11.
BhatD. N. S. (1978). A general study of palatalization. Universals of Human Language, 2, 47–92.
12.
BladonR. A. W.Al-BamerniA. (1976). Coarticulation resistance in English /l/. Journal of Phonetics, 4, 135–150.
13.
BohnO.-S.BestC. T. (2012). Native-language phonetic and phonological influences on perception of American English approximants by Danish and German listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 109–128.
14.
BroersmaM. (2010). Perception of final fricative voicing: Native and non-native listeners’ use of vowel duration. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 127, 1636–1644.
15.
CarballoG.MendozaE. (2000). Acoustic characteristics of trill productions by groups of Spanish children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 14, 587–601.
16.
CasaliR. F. (1990). Contextual labialization in Nawuri. Studies in African Linguistics, 21, 319–346.
17.
ChiosainM. N.PadgettJ. (2012). An acoustic and perceptual study of Connemara Irish palatalization. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42, 171–191.
18.
ChoiJ. (1992). Phonetic underspecification and target-interpolation: An acoustic study of Marshallese vowel allophony. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
19.
ColantoniL.SteeleJ. (2008). Integrating articulatory constraints in models of L2 phonological acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 1–46.
20.
DhananjayaN.YegnanarayanaB.BhaskararaoP. (2012). Acoustic analysis of trills. The Acoustical Society of America, 131, 3141–3152.
21.
DicksonD. R. (1962). An acoustic study of nasality. Journal of Speech Hearing Research, 5, 103–111.
22.
ErdenerV. D.BurnhamD. K. (2005). The role of audiovisual speech and orthographic information in nonnative speech production. Language Learning, 55, 191–228.
23.
EscuderoP.Hayes-HarbR.MittererH. (2008). Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 345–360.
24.
EscuderoP.SimonE.MittererH. (2012). The perception of English front vowels by North Holland and Flemish listeners: Acoustic similarity predicts and explains cross-linguistic and L2 perception. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 280–288.
25.
EscuderoP.VasilievP. (2011). Cross-language acoustic similarity predicts perceptual assimilation of Canadian English and Canadian French vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, El277–EL283.
26.
EscuderoP.WanrooijK. (2010). The effect of L1 orthography on non-native vowel perception. Language & Speech, 53, 343–365.
27.
FlegeJ. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: theory, findings, and problems. In StrangeW. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in crosslanguage research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.
28.
FlegeJ. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second language segmental production and perception. In MeyerA.SchillerN. (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production (pp. 319–355). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
29.
FlegeJ. E.LiuS. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 527–552.
30.
FlegeJ. E.WangC. (1989). Native-language phonotactic constraints affect how well Chinese subjects perceive the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast. Journal of Phonetics, 17, 299–315.
31.
HaleM. (2000). Marshallese phonology: The phonetics-phonology interface and historical linguistics. The Linguistic Review, 17, 241–257.
32.
Hayes-HarbR.NicolJ.BarkerJ. (2010). Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. Language and Speech, 53, 367–381.
33.
LadefogedP.MaddiesonI. (2004). The sounds of the world’s languages. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
34.
Larson-HallJ. (2004). Predicting perceptual success with segments: A test of Japanese speakers of Russian. Second Language Research, 20, 33–76.
35.
Larson-HallJ. (2006). What does more time buy you? Another look at the effects of long-term residence on production accuracy of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese speakers. Language and Speech, 49, 521–548.
36.
LauferA.BaerT. (1988). The emphatic and pharyngeal sounds in Hebrew and Arabic. Language and Speech, 31, 181–205.
37.
MacKayI. R. A.FlegeJ. E.ImaiS. (2006). Evaluating the effects of chronological age and sentence duration on degree of perceived foreign accent. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 157–183.
38.
Martinez-DaudenG.LlisterriJ. (1990). Phonetic interference in bilingual speakers learning a third language: The production of lateral consonants. 9th World congress of applied linguistics, 1–9.
39.
MayrR.EscuderoP. (2010). Explaining individual variation in L2 perception: Rounded vowels in English learners of German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 279–297.
40.
NarayananS. S.AlwanA. A.HakerK. (1997). Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data. Part 1: The laterals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 1064–1077.
41.
NewmanR. S. (2001). The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 1181–1196.
42.
PiskeT.MacKayI. R. A.FlegeJ. E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 191–215.
43.
RafatY. (2011). Orthography-induced transfer in the production of novice adult English-speaking learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.
44.
RafatY. (2013). Orthography-induced transfer in the production of English-speaking learners of Spanish. The Language Learning Journal. DOI:10.1080/09571736.2013.784346.
45.
RafatY. (2015). The interaction of acoustic and orthographic input in the L2 production of assibilated/fricative rhotics. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 43–64.
46.
RecasensD.EspinosaA. (2005). Articulatory, positional and coarticulatory characteristics for clear /l/ and dark /l/: Evidence from two Catalan dialects. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35, 1–25.
47.
RecasensD.FontdevilaJ.PallaresM. D. (1996). Linguopalatal coarticulation and alveolar-palatal correlations for velarized and nonvelarized /l/. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 165–185.
SheldonA.StrangeW. (1982). The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 243–261.
51.
SnodgrassJ. G.Levy-BergerG.HaydonM. (1985). Human Experimental Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
52.
SoléM. J. (2002). Aerodynamic characteristics of trills and phonological patterning. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 655–688.
53.
StevensK. N. (2000). Diverse acoustic cues at consonantal landmarks. Phonetica, 57, 139–151.
54.
StrangeW.Akahane-YamadaR.KuboR.TrentS. A.NishiK. (2001). Effects of consonantal context on perceptual assimilation of American English vowels by Japanese listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 1691–1704.
55.
StrangeW.BohnO-S.NishiK.TrentS. A. (2005). Contextual variation in the acoustic and perceptual similarity of North German and American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1751–1762.
56.
StrangeW.HisagiM.Akahane-YamadaR.KuboR. (2011). Cross-language perceptual similarity predicts categorial discrimination of American vowels by native Japanese listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, EL226–231.
57.
StrangeW.WeberA.LevyE. S.ShafiroV.HisagiM. (2007). Acoustic variability within and across German, English, and American English vowels: Phonetic context effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 1111–1129.
58.
TrofimovichP.BakerW. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 1–30.
59.
TrofimovichP.GatbontonE.SegalowitzN. (2007). A dynamic look at L2 phonological learning: Seeking processing explanations for implicational phenomena. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 407–448.
60.
WagnerK. O. C.Baker-SmemoeW. (2013). An investigation of the production of ejectives by native (L1) and second (L2) language speakers of Q’eqchi’ Mayan. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 452–467.
61.
WaltmunsonJ. C. (2005). The relative degree of difficulty of L2 Spanish /d, t/, trill, and tap by L1 English speakers: Auditory and acoustic methods of defining pronunciation accuracy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
62.
YeouM. (2001). Pharyngealization in Arabic: Modelling, acoustic analysis, airflow and perception. Revue de La Faculté des Lettres El Jadida, 6, 51–70.
