Search

Second language (L2) learners often exhibit difficulty perceiving novel phonological contrasts and/or using them to distinguish similar-sounding words. The auditory lexical decision (LD) task has emerged as a promising method to elicit the asymmetries in lexical processing performance that help to identify the locus of learners’ difficulty. However, LD tasks have been implemented and interpreted variably in the literature, complicating their utility in distinguishing between cases where learners’ difficulty lies at the level of perceptual and/or lexical coding. Building on previous work, we elaborate a set of LD ordinal accuracy predictions associated with various logically possible scenarios concerning the locus of learner difficulty, and provide new LD data involving multiple contrasts and native language (L1) groups. The inclusion of a native speaker control group allows us to isolate which patterns are unique to L2 learners, and the combination of multiple contrasts and L1 groups allows us to elicit evidence of various scenarios. We present findings of an experiment where native English, Korean, and Mandarin speakers completed an LD task that probed the robustness of listeners’ phonological representations of the English /æ/-/ɛ/ and /l/-/ɹ/ contrasts. Words contained the target phonemes, and nonwords were created by replacing the target phoneme with its counterpart (e.g.,lecture/*[ɹ]ecture,battle/*b[ɛ]ttle). For the /æ/-/ɛ/ contrast, all three groups exhibited the same pattern of accuracy: near-ceiling acceptance of words and an asymmetric pattern of responses to nonwords, with higher accuracy for nonwords containing [æ] than [ɛ]. For the /l/-/ɹ/ contrast, we found three distinct accuracy patterns: native English speakers’ performance was highly accurate and symmetric for words and nonwords, native Mandarin speakers exhibited asymmetries favoring [l] items for words and nonwords (interpreted as evidence that they experienced difficulty at the perceptual coding level), and native Korean speakers exhibited asymmetries in opposite directions for words (favoring [l]) and nonwords (favoring [ɹ]; evidence of difficulty at the lexical coding level). Our findings suggest that the auditory LD task holds promise for determining the locus of learners’ difficulty with L2 contrasts; however, we raise several issues requiring attention to maximize its utility in investigating L2 phonolexical processing.

Research often demonstrates discrepancies between learners’ perception and encoding of novel lexical contrasts. In some cases, L2 learners appear to establish contrastive lexical representations that are undermined by online perceptual neutralization (e.g., Cutler and Weber, 2006). In others, L2 learners’ target-like online perceptual representations access non-target-like lexical representations (e.g., Darcy et al., 2013). Here we further investigate the relationship between learners’ perceptual and lexical representation of novel contrasts in order to better understand the source of the difficulty that they face. Two groups of naive English speakers learned 5 minimal pairs distinguished by the notoriously difficult [t Π]-[t ʃʰ] aspiration or [t ʃʰ]-[dʒh] voicing contrast among Hindi affricates. Following a word learning phase, participants were tested on their perception and lexical representation of the novel contrasts. We observed that while listeners generally demonstrated perceptual sensitivity to the two affricate contrasts, they failed to encode the novel contrast lexically. Interestingly, there was a significant positive correlation between participants’ perceptual acuity and their ability to contrast newly learned minimal pairs, suggesting that learner’s ability to encode a novel segmental contrast may be predicted by their pre-existing perceptual sensitivity, as has been reported for lexical tone contrasts (e.g., Perrachione et al., 2011).

Native English speakers’ pre-existing perceptual sensitivity to Mandarin lexical tone contrasts is associated with the ability to distinguish newly learned minimal pairs (Wong and Perrachione, 2007). Perrachione et al. (2011) further demonstrated that degree of pre-existing sensitivity predicts whether learners subsequently benefit more from single- or multiple-talker training. Together these findings point to the importance of pre-existing sensitivity in second language learning, yet the role of sensitivity to consonant contrasts has not been explored. We investigated variability in pre-existing sensitivity among native English speakers perceiving Hindi voiced and voiceless dental-retroflex stop contrasts. Fifty-two participants completed a web-based AXB task involving the four contrasts produced by four native Hindi speakers. Participants varied widely in their discrimination accuracy, ([t]-[ʈ], mean proportion correct = 0.59, min = 0.31, median = 0.59, max = .84; [tʰ]-[ʈʰ], mean = 0.53, min = 0.31, median = 0.53, max = 0.75; [d]-[ɖ], mean = 0.56, min = 0.25, median = 0.56, max = 0.75; [dɦ]-[ɖɦ], mean = 0.64, min = 0.38, median = 0.63, max = 0.81). In addition, the relative difficulty of the contrasts differed across speakers, complicating the construct of pre-existing sensitivity. We conclude that listeners exhibit variability in their pre-existing sensitivity to Hindi consonant contrasts, warranting further investigation into how this ability relates to their word learning success.

Hindi consonant contrasts are known to pose difficulties for native English speakers (e.g., Polka, 1991; Werker and Tees, 2002; and Cibelli, 2015). While a limited set of Hindi consonants have received a great deal of attention (i.e., the coronal stops), we do not yet know how learners perceive other segments from Hindi’s relatively large consonant inventory. To address this gap, we conducted a perceptual assimilation study modeled after Faris et al. (2018) to investigate the perceptual assimilation of twenty Hindi consonants (tʃ, tʃʰ, dʒ, dʒʰ, t, tʰ, d, dʰ, ʈ, ʈʰ, ɖ, ɖʰ, ʃ, ʂ, s, z, l, r, ɽ, ɽʰ) by native English speakers with no prior Hindi language learning experience. We later examined the discrimination of 46 pairs from the same set of phones in a new group of participants from the same population using an AX discrimination task. Participants exhibited patterns of perceptual assimilation and discrimination of Hindi phonemes that suggest that native English speakers will experience difficulty across the Hindi consonant inventory. We consider the findings in the context of the Perceptual Assimilation Model (Best, 1994 and Best and Tyler, 2007), providing a fuller account of the difficulty posed by the Hindi consonant inventory for second-language learners.Hindi consonant contrasts are known to pose difficulties for native English speakers (e.g., Polka, 1991; Werker and Tees, 2002; and Cibelli, 2015). While a limited set of Hindi consonants have received a great deal of attention (i.e., the coronal stops), we do not yet know how learners perceive other segments from Hindi’s relatively large consonant inventory. To address this gap, we conducted a perceptual assimilation study modeled after Faris et al. (2018) to investigate the perceptual assimilation of twenty Hindi consonants (tʃ, tʃʰ, dʒ, dʒʰ, t, tʰ, d, dʰ, ʈ, ʈʰ, ɖ, ɖʰ, ʃ, ʂ, s, z, l, r, ɽ, ɽʰ) by native English speakers with no prior Hindi language learning experience. We later examined the discrimination of 46 pairs from the same set of phones in a new group of participants from the same population using an AX discrimination task. Participants exhibited patterns of perceptual assimilation and discrimination of Hindi phonemes that suggest that native English speakers will experience difficulty acro...

Adult second language (L2) learners gain knowledge of L2 allophones with experience. However, it is not well understood how this knowledge is acquired. We investigated whether naive subjects use lexical cues in the form of visual referents to acquire L2 allophones. We exposed native English speakers to one of two artificial languages where novel words containing two acoustically similar sounds, [b] and [β], occurred in an overlapping distribution. The words were paired with an image that either did or did not reinforce the contrast (i.e., [bati]—"apple" and [βati]—"penguin" (DiffImage group) or [bati]—"penguin" and [βati]—"penguin" (SameImage group)). Participants completed three tests to determine whether the exposure phase impacted their ability to perceive and lexically encode the [b]-[β] contrast in trained and untrained words. If subjects use lexical cues in the form of visual referents to infer the phonological status of [b] and [β], then participants in the DiffImage group, but not the SameImage group, should discriminate and lexically encode the distinction. Data from 40 participants suggest that lexical cues may impact participants’ lexical encoding, but not perceptual sensitivity, to the [b]-[β] contrast. We discuss our findings in relation to proposed learning mechanisms.