This study investigated Japanese, Cantonese, English, and French listeners’ ability to perceive non-native quantity contrasts (e.g., short vs. long). In these languages, duration is used to mark phonemic quantity contrasts to different degrees. We had native listeners of these four languages listen to resynthesized pseudo-Japanese and pseudo-Estonian stimuli in AXB and identification tasks. The stimuli contrasted in consonant and vowel quantity. The results showed that while Japanese listeners, who have systematic phonemic quantity contrasts in their L1, generally outperformed other listeners in identification and in discrimination, their identification accuracy for overlong Estonian vowels and consonants was not as high as that for long Estonian vowels and consonants. Meanwhile, French listeners, who have no quantity contrasts in their L1 phonology, did not perform worse than the other groups as predicted. Our findings show that the role of duration in L1 phonology alone is not enough to predict the perception accuracy of non-native quantity contrasts when duration is the only acoustic cue.
AltmannH.BergerI.BraunB. (2012). Asymmetries in the perception of non-native consonantal and vocalic length contrasts. Second Language Research, 28(4), 387–413.
2.
BatesD. M.MächlerM.BolkerB. M.WalkerS. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
de ClercqB.EllenS.CroccoC. (2014). Rosa versus rossa: The acquisition of Italian geminates by native speakers of Dutch. Phrasis: Studies in Language and Literature, 50, 3–29.
5.
FengQ.BusàM. G. (2022). Mandarin Chinese-speaking learners’ acquisition of Italian consonant length contrast. System, 111, Article 102938.
6.
FengQ.BusàM. G. (2023). Acquiring Italian stop consonants: A challenge for Mandarin Chinese-speaking learners. Second Language Research, 39(3), 759–783.
7.
FlegeJ. E.BohnO. (2021). The revised speech learning model (SLM-r). In WaylandR. P. (Ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp. 3–83). Cambridge University Press.
8.
FlegeJ. E.PortR. F. (1981). Cross-language phonetic interference: Arabic to English. Language and Speech, 24(2), 125–146.
9.
GuillemotC. (2018). The role of L1 durational correlates in L2 acquisition: A production study of Japanese geminates by Italian, French and English L2 learners. In WilsonI. (Ed.), Proceedings of the international symposium on applied phonetics (ISAPh 2018) (pp. 57–61). ISCA.
10.
HalléP. A.BuechP.ChangY.-C.HsiehF.-F.GaoJ.RidouaneR. (2023). Perception of Tashlhiyt consonant quantity contrast by native vs. nonnative listeners from three languages. In SkarnitzlR.VolínJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS 2023) (pp. 2130–2134). Guarant International.
11.
HalléP. A.RidouaneR.BestC. T. (2016). Differential difficulties in perception of Tashlhiyt Berber consonant quantity contrasts by native Tashlhiyt listeners vs. Berber-naïve French listeners. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 209.
12.
HirataY. (2004). Effects of speaking rate on the vowel length distinction in Japanese. Journal of Phonetics, 32(4), 565–589.
13.
HouseA. S. (1961). On vowel duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33(9), 1174–1178.
14.
IdemaruK.GuionS. G. (2008). Acoustic covariants of length contrast in Japanese stops. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 38(2), 167–186.
15.
JiangN. (2018). Second language processing: An introduction. Routledge.
16.
KaoD. L. (1971). Structure of the syllable in Cantonese. Mouton.
17.
KitaharaM. (2001). Category structure and function of pitch accent in Tokyo Japanese. Indiana University.
18.
LeeA.MokP. (2018). Acquisition of Japanese quantity contrasts by L1 Cantonese speakers. Second Language Research, 34(4), 419–448.
19.
LeeA.ShinoharaY.MutT. C. (2022). Non-native length contrast perception by Japanese and Cantonese speakers. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 45, Article 060003.
20.
LehisteI. (1965). The function of quantity in Finnish and Estonian. Language, 41(3), 447–456.
MaddiesonI. (2005). Tone. In HaspelmathM.DryerM. S.GilD.ComrieB. (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 58–61). Oxford University Press.
23.
McAllisterR.FlegeJ. E.PiskeT. (2002). The influence of L1 on the acquisition of Swedish quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics, 30(2), 229–258.
24.
MeisterE.NemotoR.MeisterL. (2015). Production of Estonian quantity contrasts by Japanese speakers. Eesti Ja Soome-ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri, 6(3), 79–96.
25.
MeisterL.MeisterE. (2011). Perception of the short vs. long phonological category in Estonian by native and non-native listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 39(2), 212–224.
26.
MinagawaY.MaekawaK.KiritaniS. (2002). 日本語学習者の長/短母音の同定におけるピッチ型と音節位置の効果 [Effects of pitch accent and syllable position in identifying Japanese long and short vowels: Comparison of English and Korean speakers]. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan, 6(2), 88–97.
27.
MokP. P. K.LeeA.LiJ. J.XuR. B. (2018). Orthographic effects on the perception and production of L2 Mandarin tones. Speech Communication, 101, 1–10.
28.
PajakB.LevyR. (2014). The role of abstraction in non-native speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 46(1), 147–160.
29.
TakiguchiI.TakeyasuH.GirikoM. (2010). Effects of a dynamic F0 on the perceived vowel duration in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on speech prosody (SP2010).
30.
TsukadaK.HajekJ. (2023). Cross-language perception of Japanese consonant length by speakers from Italian- and Mandarin-speaking backgrounds. Second Language Research, 39(3), 925–938.
31.
ÚlfsbjörninnS. (2022). An argument for phonological stress in French: The syntagm over contrast. Journal of French Language Studies, 32, 1–17.
