Research on language-specific tuning in speech perception has focused mainly on consonants, while that on non-native vowel perception has failed to address whether the same principles apply. Therefore, non-native vowel perception was investigated here in light of relevant theoretical models: the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM) and the Natural Referent Vowel (NRV) framework. American-English speakers completed discrimination and native language assimilation (categorization and goodness rating) tests on six nonnative vowel contrasts. Discrimination was consistent with PAM assimilation types, but asymmetries predicted by NRV were only observed for single-category assimilations, suggesting that perceptual assimilation might modulate the effects of vowel peripherality on non-native vowel perception. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

This article presents data bearing on the question of what happens at the phonetic level during a sound change of the type which Labov, Yaeger, and Steiner (1972) labeled an "apparent merger.

The perceptual assimilation model (PAM) [Best et al., JEP:HPP 14, 345–360 (1988)] predicts that two non-native sounds that are assimilated to the same nature category will be harder for listeners to discriminate between than sounds that are assimilated to two different native categories (TC contrasts); how difficult will depend on whether they are equally good (or bad) exemplars of the single native category (SC contrasts) or not (CG contrasts). PAM was based on studies of consonant perception, as were subsequent tests of the model. This study extends the model to non-native vowels. American listeners performed keyword identification [W. Strange and T. L. Gottfried, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 68, 1622–1625 (1979)] and categorical AXB discrimination tasks using six non-native vowel contrasts, Norwegian /i–y/, /i–■/, French /o–õ/, /œ–y/, /œ–■/, and Thai /■–■/. Assimilation patterns for a particular vowel contrast, inferred from keyword results, were more variable than in consonant studies but nonetheless strongly related to discrimination performance: TC contrasts were better discriminated than CG contrasts, which in turn were better discriminated than SC contrasts. Moreover, listeners who assimilated a particular contrast in TC fashion were better able to discriminate it than listeners who assimilated it in CG or SC fashion. [Work supported by NIH.]

No abstract

In a near-merger, speakers produce two contrasting words differently, without reliably being able to discern the contrast in their own speech or in the speech of others. Acoustic measurements typically reveal small differences between the elements of near-merged minimal pairs along several acoustic dimensions. We argue that statistical evaluation of the potential distinctiveness of these near-merged elements must simultaneously take into account all of these dimensions. For this reason, discriminant analysis is used to assess the differences between near-merged/il–Il/, /el–εl/, and /ul–υl/ for five Utah speakers. In contrast with independent univatiate analyses of variance of F1, F2,f0, and spectral slope, the multivariate discriminant analyses suggest that all three contrasts are preserved by all five speakers. However, hompohones likeheelandhealare not distinguished by the discriminant analyses. Discriminant analysis is thus a powerful technique for assessing whether a reliable basis exists for the claim that two potentially contrastive items are in fact distinctive.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract