2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.10.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phonological processing differences in bilinguals and monolinguals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
11
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
3
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some studies of bilingual adults suggest that their sensitivity to L2 phonological contrasts is influenced by linguistic context (Garcia-Sierra, Ramirez-Esparza, Silva-Pereyra, Siard & Champlin, 2012;Masapollo & Polka, 2014). Other studies support the claim that bilinguals have compromised between two phonological systems (Peltola et al, 2005(Peltola et al, , 2007Tamminen et al, 2013), or support the claim that bilinguals favor one system over another (Hisagi et al, 2015). Hisagi et al (2015) found that adults with early bilingual experience showed accurate behavioral categorization and discrimination of an L2 vowel contrast, similar to the monolingual listeners; this finding is inconsistent with the model suggesting that bilinguals 'compromise'.…”
Section: Neurophysiological Measures Of Speech Discriminationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Some studies of bilingual adults suggest that their sensitivity to L2 phonological contrasts is influenced by linguistic context (Garcia-Sierra, Ramirez-Esparza, Silva-Pereyra, Siard & Champlin, 2012;Masapollo & Polka, 2014). Other studies support the claim that bilinguals have compromised between two phonological systems (Peltola et al, 2005(Peltola et al, , 2007Tamminen et al, 2013), or support the claim that bilinguals favor one system over another (Hisagi et al, 2015). Hisagi et al (2015) found that adults with early bilingual experience showed accurate behavioral categorization and discrimination of an L2 vowel contrast, similar to the monolingual listeners; this finding is inconsistent with the model suggesting that bilinguals 'compromise'.…”
Section: Neurophysiological Measures Of Speech Discriminationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Also, Vihla et al ( 2002 ) using magnetoencephalography (MEG) found general auditory processing differences in bilingual speakers of Finnish and Swedish relative to monolingual Finish speakers with right hemisphere processing differences (~200 ms) found in response to tone stimuli, as well as vowel stimuli. Also, Tamminen et al ( 2013 ) found different neural patterns for the MMN response to native-language sound contrasts in monolingual subjects relative to balanced bilingual subjects who learned two languages beginning at birth. The authors argued that the two native languages including their phonologies were active in the balanced bilinguals for neural speech processing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bidirectional crosslinguistic adaptation has also been found with respect to the distribution of the vowel space (Bergmann, Nota, Sprenger & Schmid, 2016;Mayr, Price & Mennen, 2012), the realization of liquids (de Leeuw, Mennen & Scobbie, 2012), rhoticity (Himmel & Kabak, 2016;Ulbrich & Ordin, 2014) and suprasegmentals (Mennen, 2004). This suggests that L1 and L2 sounds are linked at the 10 system-wide level (Chang, 2012;Mayr, Price & Mennen, 2012), a notion further supported by the fact that the perception of phonological categories in the L1 may become weakened by competing, non-overlapping L2 categories (Tamminen, Peltola, Toivonen, Kujala & Näätänen, 2013).…”
Section: Online Effects Of Linguistic Co-activation In the L1mentioning
confidence: 90%