Categorical phonotactic knowledge filters second language input, but probabilistic phonotactic knowledge can still be acquired

Abstract

Probabilistic phonotactic knowledge facilitates perception, but categorical phonotactic illegality can cause misperceptions, especially of non-native phoneme combinations. If misperceptions induced by first language (L1) knowledge filter second language input, access to second language (L2) probabilistic phonotactics is potentially blocked for L2 acquisition. The facilitatory effects of L2 probabilistic phonotactics and categorical filtering effects of L1 phonotactics were compared and contrasted in a series of cross-modal priming experiments. Dutch native listeners and L1 Spanish and Japanese learners of Dutch had to perform a lexical decision task on Dutch words that started with /sC/ clusters that were of different degrees of probabilistic wellformedness in Dutch but illegal in Spanish and Japanese. Versions of target words with Spanish illegality resolving epenthesis in the clusters primed the Spanish group, showing an L1 filter; a similar effect was not found for the Japanese group. In addition, words with wellformed /sC/ clusters were recognised faster, showing a positive effect on processing of probabilistic wellformedness. However, Spanish learners with higher proficiency were facilitated to a greater extent by wellformed but epenthesised clusters, showing that although probabilistic learning occurs in spite of the L1 filter, the acquired probabilistic knowledge is still affected by L1 categorical knowledge. Categorical phonotactic and probabilistic knowledge are of a different nature and interact in acquisition.

Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change: *Rime-xxŋ and ash-tensing in the history of English

“…It strikes me that understanding phonology (like other aspects of language) involves a delicate journey to work out how several kinds of thing influence both what comes out of our mouths and what judgements we report when questioned on intuitions -many of these things are grammar-external, and may involve usage-based generalisation, but some have all the hallmarks of grammar-internality. Shatzman & Kager (2007) and Lentz & Kager (2015) are examples of careful work probing wellformedness judgements which shows that both categorical phonotactics and probabilistic knowledge play a role and that the two are of different natures. If this is right (and I assume that it is), we need the notion of the S-gap, and of psychologically real phonotactics to enforce them.…”

Selection of Optimum Mother Wavelet Function for Turkish Phonemes

“…The analysis is based on objective parameters which are fundamental frequency, pitch perturbation (jitter) and amplitude perturbation (shimmer) and the analysis can be easily repeated [4]. In recent years, the acoustic analysis parameters are commonly used in the evaluation of medical and surgical outcomes [5], speaker and speech recognition [6], speech analysis and synthesis, linguistic and phonetic knowledge acquisition [7], diagnosis of sound diseases [8], and planning of treatment and monitoring of treatment processes [9]. Wavelet transform which is a multi-resolution analysis technique is one of the most widely used methods in the acoustic analysis [10].…”

American English-Speakers’ Perception of Non-Native Phonotactic Constraints: The Influence of Training in Phonology

“…As a result of the uniqueness of the speech sounds and phonotactic constraints that constitute different languages, it can often be difficult for non-native listeners of a language to accurately decipher the sounds of a word produced by a speaker of the given language. Researchers have studied this phenomenon in great depth among many different languages, resulting in discoveries, such as possible explanations for it and methods through which it can be overcome (D. E. Callan, Jones, A. M. Callan, & Akahane-Yamada, 2004;Lentz & Kager, 2015;Onishi, Chambers, & Fisher, 2002;Polka, 1992). However, up to this point in time, no research has been conducted to assess whether or not individuals who have an extensive amount of knowledge in the study of phonology will be as susceptible to this phenomenon as those without such knowledge.…”

“…Neither English nor Farsi possess phonetic categories similar to Salish, so the fact that English-speaking participants and Farsi-speaking participants had an equal amount of difficulty perceiving the Salish speech sounds presented in the task suggests that phonetic familiarity may have an influence on the misperceptions non-native listeners make (Polka, 1992). Similarly, Lentz and Kager (2015) conducted a study that sought to determine the influence that categorical phonotactic knowledge (i.e., knowledge of phonotactic constraints) of one's first language has on second language input. This study compared first language (L1) Spanish speakers, Japanese speakers, and other language speakers who spoke Dutch as a second language (L2) to L1 Dutch speakers concerning their accuracy and reaction time in performing a lexical decision task (a task in which participants discern words from non-words) with Dutch words (Lentz & Kager, 2015).…”