2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discrimination of native and non-native vowel contrasts in bilingual Turkish–German and monolingual German children: Insight from the Mismatch Negativity ERP component

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
24
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Latency analyses showed that processing of known and unknown words occurred earlier in the dominant language than in the non-dominant language. Similarly, Rinker and colleagues found that language experience influenced the electrophysiological brain responses of 5- to 6-year-old German monolinguals and Turkish-German bilinguals in their study comparing ERPs to vowel contrasts unique to German or common to both German and Turkish (Rinker et al, 2010). The study focused on one ERP component, the mismatch negativity, which is particularly sensitive to differences in processing between native and non-native phonemes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Latency analyses showed that processing of known and unknown words occurred earlier in the dominant language than in the non-dominant language. Similarly, Rinker and colleagues found that language experience influenced the electrophysiological brain responses of 5- to 6-year-old German monolinguals and Turkish-German bilinguals in their study comparing ERPs to vowel contrasts unique to German or common to both German and Turkish (Rinker et al, 2010). The study focused on one ERP component, the mismatch negativity, which is particularly sensitive to differences in processing between native and non-native phonemes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Four of these studies were conducted in United States with infants between 6 and 20 months, all being exposed to Spanish and English (Conboy & Mills, 2006; Conboy & Kuhl, 2011; Garcia-Sierra et al, 2011; Shafer, Yu, & Garrido-Nag, 2012). The remaining six studies were conducted in Japan (Japanese and English; Hidaka et al, 2012; Takahashi et al, 2011), United Kingdom (Welsh and English; Kuipers & Thierry, 2012), Canada (English in addition to French, Spanish, Chinese; Petitto et al, 2012), Germany (German and Turkish; Rinker, Alku, Brosch, & Kiefer, 2010) and Finland (Finnish and French; Shestakova, Huotilainen, Ceponiene, & Cheour, 2003). …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(The investigation of the MMN-response to the vowel contrast vowel contrast /Ɛ/ versus /e/ was the aim of a previous study [17]). The duration of the stimulus was 250 ms. A 5-ms rise and fall time was applied at the beginning and the end of the stimulus waveform using Hanning-windowing.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A few studies of L2 learning during preschool suggest that as little as two months of input can lead to native-like neural discrimination, at least for some phonological contrasts [15,16]. The findings of Rinker et al [17], however, indicate that two years of input may be insufficient to develop robust phonological categories. They suggested that the L2 phonological input (in this case, German) to the bilingual children (with Turkish as an L1) may have been of insufficient quantity (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Again, however, subsequent works did not confirm these findings when the L2 was English both for Finnish listeners (Peltola et al, 2007) and Japanese listeners (Bomba et al, 2011). Finally, Rinker et al (2010) for bilingual Turkish–German kindergarten children growing up in Germany have shown that the MMN response is less robust in Turkish–German children to the German vowel, when compared to a German control group. Thus, immersion education and natural acquisition contexts did not guarantee native-like L2 vowel discrimination.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%