Speakers’ perception of phonemes can be shifted based on hearing tokens of them with altered acoustic characteristics, and those shifts are extended to phonemes not heard during exposure. The patterns of extension from one vowel to others can help clarify the phonological representation of vowels and the processes that underlie extension of acoustic shifts. Three perceptual learning tasks tested how exposure to shifted F1 or F2 in a single vowel quality in American English influences other vowels with a range of characteristics, and how differences between dialects interact with those patterns of extension. In Experiment 1, shifted F1 in /ɪ/ exposure items produced perceptual shifts in the boundary between several high and mid vowels, as well as the /ε-æ/ boundary. In Experiment 2, shifted F2 in /u/ exposure items produced perceptual shifts in the boundary between front and back vowels. In Experiment 3, shifted F2 in /ε/ or /ei/ produced different patterns; shifted /ei/ only impacted the /ou-ei/ boundary, while shifted /ε/ impacted /ʌ-ε/ and /ʊ-ɪ/. The results can be explained by shifts in perception extending to vowels that share phonological features which are linked to the manipulated acoustic characteristic. However, the results are also largely consistent with extension based on acoustic similarity. There was little evidence for the listener’s dialect affecting patterns of extension.
BabelM.McAuliffeM.HaberG. (2013). Can mergers-in-progress be unmerged in speech accommodation?Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 653. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00653
3.
Baer-HenneyD.van de VijverR. (2012). On the role of substance, locality, and amount of exposure in the acquisition of morphophonemic alternations. Laboratory Phonology, 3(2), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2012-0013
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
5.
BeltzungJ.-M.PatinC.ClementsG. N. (2015). The feature [ATR]. In RiallandA.RidouaneR.van der HulstH. (Eds.), Features in phonology and phonetics: Posthumous writings by Nick Clements and coauthors (pp. 217–246). Walter de Gruyter.
CasillasJ. V. (2015). Production and perception of the /i/-/i/ vowel contrast: The case of L2-dominant early learners of English. Phonetica, 72, 182–205. https://doi.org/10.1159/000431101
9.
ChládkováK.PodlipskỳV. J.ChionidouA. (2017). Perceptual adaptation of vowels generalizes across the phonology and does not require local context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000333
10.
ChoT.LadefogedP. (1999). Variation and universals in VOT: Evidence from 18 languages. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0094
11.
ChodroffE.WilsonC. (2020). Acoustic–phonetic and auditory mechanisms of adaptation in the perception of sibilant fricatives. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(4), 2027–2048. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01894-2
12.
ChomskyN.HalleM. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row.
13.
ClopperC. G. (2014). Sound change in the individual: Effects of exposure on cross-dialect speech processing. Laboratory Phonology, 5(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2014-0004
14.
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(3), 1661–1676. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2000774
DelvauxV.SoquetA. (2007). The influence of ambient speech on adult speech productions through unintentional imitation. Phonetica, 64, 145–173. https://doi.org/10.1159/000107914
18.
DiehlR. (1976). Feature analyzers for the phonetic dimension stop vs. continuant. Perception & Psychophysics, 19(3), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204180
19.
DufourS.NguyenN.FrauenfelderU. H. (2007). The perception of phonemic contrasts in a non-native dialect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), EL131–EL136. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2710742
20.
EscuderoP.BendersT.LipskiS. C. (2009). Native, non-native and L2 perceptual cue weighting for Dutch vowels: The case of Dutch, German, and Spanish listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 37(4), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.07.006
21.
EvansB. G.IversonP. (2004). Vowel normalization for accent: An investigation of best exemplar locations in northern and southern British English sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(1), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1635413
22.
FinleyS.BadeckerW. (2009). Artificial language learning and feature-based generalization. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.05.002
23.
FujisakiH.KawashimaT. (1968). The roles of pitch and higher formants in the perception of vowels. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 16(1), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAU.1968.1161952
24.
GaskellM. G.HareM.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1995). A connectionist model of phonological representation in speech perception. Cognitive Science, 19(4), 407–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90007-1
25.
GayT. (1968). Effect of speaking rate on diphthong formant movements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44(6), 1570–1573. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1911298
26.
GordonM. J. (2002). Investigating chain shifts and mergers. In ChambersJ.TrudgillP.Schilling-EstesN. (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 244–266). Blackwell.
27.
GreenA. D. (2001). The tense-lax distinction in English vowels and the role of parochial and analogical constraints. Linguistics in Potsdam, 16, 32–57.
28.
JohnsonK.LadefogedP.LindauM. (1993). Individual differences in vowel production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94(2), 701–714. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.406887
KeatingP. (1985). Universal phonetics and the organization of grammars. In FromkinV. A. (Ed.), Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged (pp. 115–131). Academic Press.
31.
KimD.ClayardsM.KongE. J. (2020). Individual differences in perceptual adaptation to unfamiliar phonetic categories. Journal of Phonetics, 81, Article 100984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2020.100984
KraljicT.SamuelA. G. (2006). Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193841
34.
KuznetsovaA.Bruun BrockhoffP.Haubo Bojesen ChristensenR. (2015). lmertest: Tests in linear mixed effects models (R package version 2.0-29) [Computer software manual]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
35.
KwonH. (2019). The role of native phonology in spontaneous imitation: Evidence from Seoul Korean. Laboratory Phonology, 10, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.83
36.
LabovW. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Basil Blackwell.
37.
LabovW.AshS.BobergC. (2006). The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Walter de Gruyter.
38.
LadefogedP.BroadbentD. E. (1957). Information conveyed by vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908694
39.
LadefogedP.MaddiesonI. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Blackwell.
40.
LahiriA.ReetzH. (2002). Underspecified recognition. In GussenhovenC.WarnerN. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology (Vol. 7, pp. 637–675). Mouton de Gruyter.
41.
LeonardM. K.GwilliamsL.SellersK. K.ChungJ. E.XuD.MischlerG.MesgaraniN.WelkenhuysenM.DuttaB.ChangE. F. (2024). Large-scale single-neuron speech sound encoding across the depth of human cortex. Nature, 626(7999), 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06839-2
42.
LiebermanP. (1970). Towards a unified phonetic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 1(3), 307–322.
LlompartM.ReinischE. (2018). Acoustic cues, not phonological features, drive vowel perception: Evidence from height, position and tenseness contrasts in German vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 67, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.12.001
45.
MayeJ.AslinR. N.TanenhausM. K. (2008). The weckud wetch of the wast: Lexical adaptation to a novel accent. Cognitive Science, 32(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802035357
46.
MelguyY.JohnsonK. (2022). Perceptual adaptation to a novel accent: Phonetic category expansion or category shift?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 152, 2090–2104. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014602
47.
MielkeJ. (2011). Distinctive features. In van OostendorpM.EwenC. J.HumeE.RiceK. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology. John Wiley & Sons.
48.
MittererH. (2006). Is vowel normalization independent of lexical processing?Phonetica, 63(4), 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1159/000097306
49.
MittererH.ChoT.KimS. (2016). What are the letters of speech? Testing the role of phonological specification and phonetic similarity in perceptual learning. Journal of Phonetics, 56, 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.03.001
50.
MoretonE.SmolenskyP. (2002). Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. In MikkelsenL.PottsC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st west coast conference in formal linguistics (WCCFL) (pp. 306–319).
51.
MortonJ. R.SommersM. S.LulichS. M. (2015). The effect of exposure to a single vowel on talker normalization for vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(3), 1443–1451. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4913456
PodlipskýV. J.OlejarczukP. (2023). Sound change in the lab: Exposure-induced vocalic chain shifts. In SkarnitzlR.VolínJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS), Prague (pp. 312–316).
55.
PodlipskýV. J.ŠimáčkováŠ. (2015). Phonetic imitation is not conditioned by preservation of phonological contrast but by perceptual salience. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS), Glasgow.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. https://www.R-project.org/
58.
ReinischE.MittererH. (2016). Exposure modality, input variability and the categories of perceptual recalibration. Journal of Phonetics, 55, 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.12.004
59.
ReinischE.WoznyD. R.MittererH.HoltL. L. (2014). Phonetic category recalibration: What are the categories?Journal of Phonetics, 45, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.04.002
60.
RossJ. P.LilleyK. D.ClopperC. G.PardoJ. S.LeviS. V. (2021). Effects of dialect-specific features and familiarity on cross-dialect phonetic convergence. Journal of Phonetics, 86, Article 101041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101041
SchertzJ.Paquette-SmithM. (2023). Convergence to shortened and lengthened voice onset time in an imitation task. JASA Express Letters, 3(2), Article 025201. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0017066
63.
SchuhmannK. S. (2014). Perceptual learning in second language learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Stony Brook University.
64.
ScottD. R.CutlerA. (1984). Segmental phonology and the perception of syntactic structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90291-3
StevensK. N. (2002). Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(4), 1872–1891. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1458026
67.
SumnerM.SamuelA. G. (2009). The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variants. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.001
68.
VerbruggeR. R.StrangeW.ShankweilerD. P.EdmanT. R. (1976). What information enables a listener to map a talker’s vowel space?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60(1), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381065
69.
WatkinsA. J.MakinS. J. (1994). Perceptual compensation for speaker differences and for spectral-envelope distortion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96(3), 1263–1282. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.410275
70.
WeatherholtzK. (2015). Perceptual learning of systemic cross-category vowel variation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ohio State University.
71.
WeberA.Di BettaA. M.McQueenJ. M. (2014). Treack or trit: Adaptation to genuine and arbitrary foreign accents by monolingual and bilingual listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 46, 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.05.002
72.
XieX.JaegerT. F.KurumadaC. (2023). What we do (not) know about the mechanisms underlying adaptive speech perception: A computational framework and review. Cortex, 166, 377–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2023.05.003
