Increasing numbers of Hispanic immigrants are entering the US and learning American–English (AE) as a second language (L2). Previous studies investigating the relationship between AE and Spanish vowels have revealed an advantage for early L2 learners for their accuracy of L2 vowel perception. Replicating and extending such previous research, this study examined the patterns with which early and late Spanish–English bilingual adults assimilated naturally-produced AE vowels to their native vowel inventory and the accuracy with which they discriminated the vowels. Twelve early Spanish–English bilingual, 12 late Spanish–English bilingual, and 10 monolingual listeners performed perceptual-assimilation and categorical-discrimination tasks involving AE /i,ɪ,ɛ,ʌ,æ,ɑ,o/. Early bilinguals demonstrated similar assimilation patterns to late bilinguals. Late bilinguals’ discrimination was less accurate than early bilinguals’ and AE monolinguals’. Certain contrasts, such as /æ-ɑ/, /ʌ-ɑ/, and /ʌ-æ/, were particularly difficult to discriminate for both bilingual groups. Consistent with previous research, findings suggest that early L2 learning heightens Spanish–English bilinguals’ ability to perceive cross-language phonetic differences. However, even early bilinguals’ native-vowel system continues to influence their L2 perception.
AdachiT.Akahane-YamadaR.UedaK. (2006). Intelligibility of English phonemes in noise for native and non-native listeners. Acoustical Science and Technology, 27(5), 285–289.
2.
AghaA. (2003). The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 231–273.
3.
Archila-SuerteP.ZevinJ.BuntaF.HernandezA. E. (2011). Age of acquisition and proficiency in a second language independently influence the perception of non-native speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 190–201.
4.
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.
5.
BestC. T.TylerM. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In BohnO.-S.MunroM. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
6.
BohnO. S.FlegeJ. E. (1990). Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11(3), 303–328.
7.
BradlowA. R. (1995). A comparative acoustic study of English and Spanish vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(3), 1916–1924.
8.
BradlowA. R.AlexanderJ. 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.
9.
BroersmaM.ScharenbergO. (2010). Native and non-native listeners’ perception of English consonants in different types of noise. Speech Communication, 52(11–12), 980–995.
10.
ChládkováK.PodlipskýV. J. (2011). Native dialect matters: Perceptual assimilation of Dutch vowels by Czech listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(40), EL186–EL192.
11.
EscuderoP. (2014). The effect of vowel inventory and acoustic properties in Salento Italian learners of Southern British English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(3), 1577–1584.
12.
EscuderoP.BoersmaP. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(4), 551–585.
13.
EscuderoP.ChládkováK. (2010). Spanish listeners’ perception of American and Southern British English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(5), EL254–EL 260.
14.
FabraL. R.RomeroJ. (2012). Native Catalan learners’ perception and production of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 40(3), 491–508.
15.
FergusonS. H. (2012). Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: Vowel intelligibility for older adults with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(3), 779–790.
16.
FlegeJ. E. (1988). The production and perception of foreign language speech sound. In WinitzH. (Ed.), Human communication and its disorders, A review – 1988 (pp. 224–401). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
17.
FlegeJ. E. (1991). The interlingual identification of Spanish and English vowels: Orthographic evidence. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43(3), 701–731.
18.
FlegeJ. E.MacKayI. R. A. (2004). Perceiving vowels in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 1–34.
19.
FlegeJ. E.BohnO.-S.JangS. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25(4), 437–470.
20.
FlegeJ. E.MacKayI. R. A.MeadorD. (1999). Native Italian speakers’ perception and production of English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(5), 2973–2987.
21.
FlegeJ. E.MunroM. J.FoxR. A. (1994). Auditory and categorical effects on cross-language vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(6), 3623–3641.
22.
FlegeJ. E.SchirruC.MacKayI. R. A. (2003). Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication, 40(4), 467–491.
23.
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(4), 2540–2551.
24.
Garcia LecumberriM. L.CookeM.CutlerA. (2010). Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review. Speech Communication, 52(11–12), 864–886.
25.
GottfriedT. L. (1984). Effects of consonant context on the perception of French vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 12(2), 91–114.
26.
IversonP.EvansB. G. (2007). Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems: perception of formant targets, formant movement, and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(5), 2842–2854.
27.
IversonP.EvansB. G. (2009). Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems II: Auditory training for native Spanish and German speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(2), 866–877.
28.
JaegerT. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.
29.
JiaG.StrangeW.WuY.ColladoJ.GuanQ. (2006). Perception and production of English vowels by Mandarin speakers: Age-related differences vary with amount of L2 exposure. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(2), 1118–1130.
30.
JohnsonJ.NewportE. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.
31.
KangasK. A.AllenG. D. (1990). Intelligibility of synthetic speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55(4), 751–755.
32.
Kewley-PortD.BurkleT. Z.LeeJ. H. (2007). Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 2365–2375.
33.
LevyE. S. (2009a). Language experience and consonantal context effects on perceptual assimilation of French vowels by American–English learners of French. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(2), 1138–1152.
34.
LevyE. S. (2009b). On the assimilation–discrimination relationship in American English adults’ French vowel learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(5), 2670–2682.
35.
LevyE. S.Law IIF. (2009). Perception–production relationship in French vowel learning in adulthood. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(4), 2772–2773.
36.
LevyE. S.StrangeW. (2008). Perception of French vowels by American English adults with and without French language experience. Journal of Phonetics, 36(1), 141–157.
37.
LevyE. S.LeoneD.GarciaP.BaigorriM. (2010). American English adults’ and children’s perception of Spanish accented conversational and clear speech. In American Speech Language and Hearing Annual Convention. Philadelphia, PA.
38.
LongM. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 251–285.
39.
MackM. (1989). Consonant and vowel perception and production: Early English–French bilinguals and English monolinguals. Perception and Psychophysics, 46(2), 186–200.
40.
McAllisterR.FlegeJ. E.PiskeT. (2002). The influence of the L1 on the acquisition of Swedish vowel quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English, and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics, 30(2), 229–258.
41.
MorrisonG. S. (2002). Perception of English /i/ and /ɪ/ by Japanese and Spanish listeners: longitudinal results. In MorrisonG. S.ZsoldosL. (Eds.), Proceedings of North West Linguistics Conference 2002 (pp. 29–48). Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University Linguistics Graduate Student Association.
42.
MorrisonG. S. (2008). Perception of synthetic vowels by monolingual Canadian–English, Mexican–Spanish, and Peninsular–Spanish listeners. Canadian Acoustics, 36(4), 17–23.
43.
MorrisonG. S.EscuderoP. (2007). A cross-dialect comparison of Peninsula- and Peruvian-Spanish vowels. In TrouvainJ.BarryW. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1505–1508). Saarbrücken, Germany: University of Saarbrücken.
44.
NeumanA.HochbergI. (1983). Children’s perception of speech in reverberation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73(6), 2145–2149.
45.
PallierC.BoschL.Sebastian-GallesN. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception. Cognition, 64(3), B9–B17.
46.
PiskeT.FlegeJ. E.MacKayI. R. A.MeadorD. (2002). The production of English vowels by fluent early and late Italian-English bilinguals. Phonetica, 59, 49–71.
47.
PolkaL.WerkerJ. F. (1994). Developmental changes in perception of nonnative vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 421–435.
48.
RogersC.ListerJ.FeboD.BesingJ.AbramsH. (2006). Effects of bilingualism, noise and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(3), 465–485.
49.
Sebastián-GallésN.Soto-FaracoS. (1999). Online processing of native and non-native phonemic contrasts in early bilinguals. Cognition, 72(2), 111–123.
50.
ShiL.-F. (2010). Perception of acoustically degraded sentences in bilingual listeners who differ in age of English acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(4), 821–835.
51.
StataCorp. (2013). Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
52.
StrangeW.WeberA.LevyE.ShafiroV.HisagiM.NishiK. (2007). Acoustic variability within and across German, French, and American English vowels: Phonetic context effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(2), 1111–1129.
UedaK.Akahane-YamadaR.KomakiR. (2002). Identification of English /r/ and /l/ in white noise by native and non-native listeners. Acoustical Science and Technology, 23(6), 336–338.
56.
Von HapsburgD.ChamplinC. A.ShettyS. R. (2004). Reception thresholds for sentences in bilingual (Spanish/English) and monolingual (English) listeners. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15(1), 88–98.
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.
