Speech sounds that contain multiple phonetic cues are often difficult for foreign-language learners, especially if certain cues are weighted differently in the foreign and native languages. Greek adult and child speakers of English were studied to determine the effect of native language on second-language (L2) cue weighting and, in particular, to explore whether perceptual training could help to improve accuracy in phoneme identification and discrimination. Two forms of stimuli were used: natural (unedited) stimuli and ‘modified’ vowel duration stimuli which were edited to ensure that duration could not be used as a cue in the tasks. Results show the Greek speakers performed poorly when they were unable to use the duration cue as compared with the native English speakers. After high-variability training, performance was improved for both Greek adult (20 –30 years) and child (7 –8 years) groups. However, the degree of improvement was most pronounced for children. This suggests enhanced plasticity for spoken language in this developmental stage. These data have impact on informing the strategies used for teaching spoken language in English as additional language (EAL) populations in different age groups.
BestCT (1995) A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In: StrangeW (ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Baltimore, MD: York Press, 171 –204.
2.
BestCTTylerMD (2007) Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In: MunroMJBohnOS (eds) Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13 –34.
3.
BestCTMcRobertsGWSitholeNM (1988) Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance14: 345 –60.
4.
BoersmaPWeeninkDJM (2004) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer: Version 4.2.17 [computer program]. Amsterdam: Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from: http://www.praat.org (February2013).
5.
BohnOS (1995) Cross language speech perception in adults: First language transfer doesn’t tell it all. In: StrangeW (ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross language research. Baltimore, MD: York Press, 279 –304.
6.
BradlowARPisoniDBAkahane-YamadaRTohkuraY (1997) Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/and /l/ IV: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America101:2299 –2310.
7.
CebrianJ (2006) Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel categorization. Journal of Phonetics34: 371 –87.
8.
DiazBBausCEsceraCCostaASebastian-GallesN (2008) Brain potentials to native phoneme discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105: 16083 –88.
9.
EscuderoP (2005) Linguistic perception and second language acquisition: Explaining the attainment of optimal phonological categorization. Unpublished PhD thesis, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
10.
EscuderoPBoersmaP (2004) Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition26: 551 –85.
11.
FlegeJE (1995) Second language speech learning theory, findings and problems. In: StrangeW (ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Baltimore, MD: York Press, 233 –77.
12.
FlegeJE (2002) Interactions between the native and second-language phonetic systems. In: BurmeisterPPiskeTRohdeA (eds) An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 217 –44.
13.
FlegeJESchirruCMacKayIRA (2003) Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication40: 467 –91.
14.
FrancisALNusbaumHC (2002) Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance28: 349 –66.
15.
GiannakopoulouAUtherMYlinenS (2011) Phonetic cue-weighting in the acquisition of a second language (L2): Evidence from Greek speakers of English. In: WrembelMKulMDziubalska-KolaczykK (eds) Achievements and perspectives in SLA of speech: New Sounds 2010. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 91 –102.
16.
GiannakopoulouAUtherMYlinenS (in preparation) [untitled manuscript].
17.
GolestaniNZatorreRJ (2009) Individual differences in the acquisition of second language phonology. Brain and Language109: 55 –67.
18.
HillenbrandJGettyLAClarkMJWheelerK (1995) Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America97: 3099 –3111.
19.
HoltLLLottoAJ (2006) Cue weighting in auditory categorization: Implications for first and second language acquisition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America119: 3059 –71.
20.
IversonPEvansBG (2007) Auditory training of English vowels for first-language speakers of Spanish and German. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbrücken, 1625 –28.
21.
IversonPEvansBG (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 America126: 866 –77.
22.
IversonPKuhlPK (1995) Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America97: 553 –62.
23.
IversonPKuhlPKAkahane-YamadaRDieschETohkuraYKettermannASiebertC (2003) A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition87: B47 –B57.
24.
KuhlPK (1993) Early linguistic experience and phonetic perception: Implications for theories of developmental speech perception. Journal of Phonetics21: 125–39.
25.
KuhlPKIversonP (1995) Linguistic experience and the ‘perceptual magnet effect’. In: StrangeW (ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Baltimore, MD: York Press, 121 –54.
26.
KuhlPKConboyBTCoffey-CorinaSPaddenDRivera-GaxiolaMNelsonT (2008) Early phonetic perception as a gateway to language: New data and Native Language Magnet theory, expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society363: 979 –1000.
27.
LengerisA (2009) Perceptual assimilation and L2 learning: Evidence from the perception of southern British English vowels by native speakers of Greek and Japanese. Phonetica66: 169 –87.
28.
LengerisAHazanV (2010) The effect of native vowel processing ability and frequency discrimination acuity on the phonetic training of English vowels for native speakers of Greek. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America128: 3757 –68.
29.
LivelySELoganJSPisoniDB (1993) Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/ II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America94: 1242 –55.
30.
LoganJDLivelySEPisoniDB (1991) Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America89: 874 –86.
31.
MagnusonJSYamadaRATohkuraYPisoniDBLivelySEBradlowAR (1995) The role of talker variability in non-native phoneme training. Proceedings of the 1995 Spring Meeting of the Acoustical Society of Japan: 393 –94.
32.
McAllisterRFlegeJEPiskeT (2002) The influence of L1 on the acquisition of Swedish quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics30: 229 –58.
33.
McClellandJL (2001) Failures to learn and their remediation: A Hebbian account. In: McClellandJLSieglerRS (eds) Mechanisms of cognitive development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 97 –121.
34.
NishiKKewley-PortD (2007) Training Japanese listeners to perceive American English vowels: Influence of training sets. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research50: 1496–1509.
35.
PerrachioneTKLeeJHaLYYWongPCM (2011) Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America130: 461 –72.
36.
PisoniDBLivelySELoganJS (1994) Perceptual learning of non-native speech contrasts: Implications for theories of speech perception. In: GoodmanJNusbaumHC (eds) Development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 121 –66.
StrangeWDittmannS (1984) Effects of discrimination training on the perception of /r –l/ by Japanese adults learning English. Perception and Psychophysics36: 131 –45.
40.
StrangeWAkahane-YamadaRKuboRTrentSANishiKJenkinsJJ (1998) Perceptual assimilation of American English vowels by Japanese listeners. Journal of Phonetics26: 311 –44.
41.
UtherMSinghPZipitriaIUtherJ (2005) MAC: An adaptive, perception-based speech remediation s/w for mobile devices: Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) workshop on language tutoring. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
42.
YlinenSUtherMLatvalaAVepsäläinenSIversonPAkahane-YamadaRNäätänenR (2010) Training the brain to weight speech cues differently: A study of Finnish second-language users of English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience22: 1319–32.
