Search

One of the basic goals of second language (L2) speech research is to understand the perception-production link, or the relationship between L2 speech perception and L2 speech production. Although many studies have examined the link, they have done so with strikingly different conceptual foci and methods. Even studies that appear to use similar perception and production tasks often present nontrivial differences in task characteristics and implementation. This conceptual and methodological variation makes meaningful synthesis of perception-production findings difficult, and it also complicates the process of developing new perception-production models that specifically address how the link changes throughout L2 learning. In this study, we scrutinize theoretical and methodological issues in perception-production research and offer recommendations for advancing theory and practice in this domain. We focus on L2 sound learning because most work in the area has focused on segmental contrasts.

To examine difficulties experienced by cochlear implant (CI) users when perceiving non-native speech, intelligibility of non-native speech was compared in conditions with single and multiple alternating talkers. Compared to listeners with normal hearing, no rapid talker-dependent adaptation was observed and performance was approximately 40% lower for CI users following increased exposure in both talker conditions. Results suggest that lower performance for CI users may stem from combined effects of limited spectral resolution, which diminishes perceptible differences across accents, and limited access to talker-specific acoustic features of speech, which reduces the ability to adapt to non-native speech in a talker-dependent manner.

Intensive English Program (IEP) Instructors and content faculty both listen to international students at the university. For these two groups of instructors, this study compared perceptions of international student speech by collecting comprehensibility ratings and transcription samples for intelligibility scores. No significant differences were found between the two groups, suggesting that the perceptions of these two groups are reasonably well-matched. Seven linguistic features were assessed, and grammatical accuracy was found to have the strongest effect on content faculty's ratings of comprehensibility. None of the linguistic features correlated significantly with intelligibility. These results raise questions about IEP assessment practices for speaking. Rankings of speech samples based on comprehensibility, intelligibility, and linguistic features all yielded different pictures of who was most understandable, highlighting the implications of using different criteria to assess student speech.

Previous research has shown that native listeners benefit from clearly produced speech, as well as from predictable semantic context when these enhancements are delivered in native speech. However, it is unclear whether native listeners benefit from acoustic and semantic enhancements differently when listening to other varieties of speech, including non-native speech. The current study examines to what extent native English listeners benefit from acoustic and semantic cues present in native and non-native English speech. Native English listeners transcribed sentence final words that were of different levels of semantic predictability, produced in plain- or clear-speaking styles by Native English talkers and by native Mandarin talkers of higher- and lower-proficiency in English. The perception results demonstrated that listeners benefited from semantic cues in higher- and lower-proficiency talkers' speech (i.e., transcribed speech more accurately), but not from acoustic cues, even though higher-proficiency talkers did make substantial acoustic enhancements from plain to clear speech. The current results suggest that native listeners benefit more robustly from semantic cues than from acoustic cues when those cues are embedded in non-native speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Numerous tasks have been developed to measure receptive vocabulary, many of which were designed to be administered in person with a trained researcher or clinician. The purpose of the current study is to compare a common, in-person test of vocabulary with other vocabulary assessments that can be self-administered. Method: Fifty-three participants completed the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) via online video call to mimic in-person administration, as well as four additional fully automated, self-administered measures of receptive vocabulary. Participants also completed three control tasks that do not measure receptive vocabulary. Results: Pearson correlations indicated moderate correlations among most of the receptive vocabulary measures (approximately r = .50-.70). As expected, the control tasks revealed only weak correlations to the vocabulary measures. However, subsets of items of the four self-administered measures of receptive vocabulary achieved high correlations with the PPVT (r > .80). These subsets were found through a repeated resampling approach. Conclusions: Measures of receptive vocabulary differ in which items are included and in the assessment task (e.g., lexical decision, picture matching, synonym matching). The results of the current study suggest that several self-administered tasks are able to achieve high correlations with the PPVT when a subset of items are scored, rather than the full set of items. These data provide evidence that subsets of items on one behavioral assessment can more highly correlate to another measure. In practical terms, these data demonstrate that self-administered, automated measures of receptive vocabulary can be used as reasonable substitutes of at least one test (PPVT) that requires human interaction. That several of the fully automated measures resulted in high correlations with the PPVT suggests that different tasks could be selected depending on the needs of the researcher. It is important to note the aim was not to establish clinical relevance of these measures, but establish whether researchers could use an experimental task of receptive vocabulary that probes a similar construct to what is captured by the PPVT, and use these measures of individual differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Silent pauses are a natural part of speech production and have consequences for speech perception. However, studies have shown mixed results regarding whether listeners process pauses in native and non-native speech similarly or differently. A possible explanation for these mixed results is that perceptual consequences of pauses differ depending on the type of processing that listeners engage in: a focus on the content/meaning of the speech versus style/form of the speech. Thus, the present study examines the effect of silent pauses of listeners' perception of native and non-native speech in two different tasks: the perceived credibility and the perceived fluency of the speech. Specifically, we ask whether characteristics of silent pauses influence listeners' perception differently for native versus non-native speech, and whether this pattern differs when listeners are rating the credibility versus the fluency of the speech. We find that while native speakers are rated as more fluent than non-native speakers, there is no evidence that native speakers are rated as more credible. Our findings suggest that the way a non-native accent and disfluency together impact speech perception differs depending on the type of processing that listeners are engaged in when listening to the speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]