Perceptual Distortions in the Adaptation of English Consonant Clusters: Syllable Structure or Consonantal Contact Constraints?

Abstract

We present the results from an experiment that tests the perception of English consonantal sequences by Korean speakers and we confirm that perceptual epenthesis in a second languge (L2) arises from syllable structure restrictions of the first language (L1), rather than linear co-occurence restrictions. Our study replicates and extends Dupoux, Kakehi, Hirose, Pallier, & Mehler's (1999) results that suggested that listeners perceive epenthetic vowels within consonantal sequences that violate the phonotactics of their L1. Korean employs at least two kinds of phonotactic restrictions: (i) syllable structure restrictions that prohibit the occurence of certain consonants in coda position STRUCTURE (e.g., *[c.], *[g.]), while allowing others (e.g., [k.], [l.]), and (ii) consonantal contact restrictions that ban the co-occurrence of certain heterosyllabic consonants (e.g., *[k.m]; *[l.n]) due to various phonological processes that repair such sequences on the surface (i.e., /k.m/ --> [n.m]; /ll.n/ --> [l.l]). The results suggest that Korean syllable structure restrictions, rather than consonantal contact restrictions, result in the perception of epenthetic vowels. Furthermore, the frequency of co-occurrence fails to explain the epenthesis effects in the percept of consonant clusters employed in the present study. We address questions regarding the interaction between speech perception and phonology and test the validity of Steriade's (2001 a,b) Perceptual-Mapping (P-Map) hypothesis for the Korean sonorant assimilation processes. Our results indicate that Steriade's hypothesis makes incorrect predictions about Korean phonology and that speech perception is not isomorphic to speech production.

Which epenthetic vowel? Phonetic categories versus acoustic detail in perceptual vowel epenthesis

“…As a consequence, Japanese listeners tend to perceive an illusory, epenthetic, /u/ within illegal consonant clusters (Dupoux et al, 1999;Dehaene-Lambertz et al, 2000;Dupoux et al, 2001;Monahan et al, 2009;Dupoux et al, 2011; and it is evident in loanword adaptation as well (e.g., the word "sphynx" is borrowed in Japanese as /sufiNkusu/). Similar effects have been documented in other languages, with different epenthetic vowels [/Ø/ in Korean (Kabak and Idsardi, 2007;Berent et al, 2008;de Jong and Park, 2012); schwa in English (Berent et al, 2007;Davidson and Shaw, 2012); /i/ in Brazilian Portuguese (Dupoux et al, 2011;; and /e/ in Spanish (Hall e et al, 2014)]. Even within languages, there sometimes is variation in the quality of the epenthetic vowel; for instance, in Japanese, the epenthetic vowel can in certain contexts be /i/ or /o/ (Mattingley et al, 2015;.…”

Relationship between perceptual accuracy and information measures: A cross-linguistic study

“…A similar finding on perceptual epenthesis by Kabak and Idsardi (2007) shows that such epenthtic vowel is a result of a syllable structure of listeners' L1. Kabak and Idsardi (2007) focuses specifically on effects of Korean listeners' experience in their L1 syllable on perception of consonant clusters.…”

“…Taken together, both Dupoux et al (1999) and Kabak & Idsardi (2007) show that phonological knowledge of syllable structure in the case of Japanese and Korean, influences CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 8 the process of L2 perception.…”

“…A number of underlying reasons behind epenthesis have been suggested (see Hall 2011). Among them, the differences in syllable structures between two languages are believed to play an important role (Kabak & Idsardi 2007).…”

“…Kabak and Idsardi (2007) focuses specifically on effects of Korean listeners' experience in their L1 syllable on perception of consonant clusters. While replicating the experimental paradigms in Doupoux et al (1999), Kabak and Idsardi (2007) explicitly investigated the underlying motivations of perceptual epenthesis by testing Korean listeners' perception of two different types of consonant clusters: one that would violate a general well-formedness of a syllable (e.g. /ac.ma/,) and another that would make a permissible sequence (but not necessarily a violation of syllable structure, e.g.…”