Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 1, 2017

Individual differences in second language speech perception across tasks and contrasts: The case of English vowel contrasts by Korean learners

  • Donghyun Kim EMAIL logo , Meghan Clayards and Heather Goad
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard


The present study examines whether individual differences in second language (L2) learners’ perceptual cue weighting strategies reflect systematic abilities. We tested whether cue weights indicate proficiency in perception using a naturalistic discrimination task as well as whether cue weights are related across contrasts for individual learners. Twenty-four native Korean learners of English completed a two-alternative forced choice identification task on /ɪ/-/i/ and /ɛ/-/æ/ contrasts varying orthogonally in formant frequency and duration to determine their perceptual cue weights. They also completed a two-talker AX discrimination task on natural productions of the same vowels. In the cue-weighting task, we found that individual L2 learners varied greatly in the extent to which they relied on particular phonetic cues. However, individual learners’ perceptual weighting strategies were consistent across contrasts. We also found that more native-like performance on this task – reliance on spectral differences over duration – was related to better recognition of naturally produced vowels in the discrimination task. Therefore, the present study confirms earlier reports that learners vary in the extent to which they rely on particular phonetic cues. Additionally, our results demonstrate that these individual differences reflect systematic cue use across contrasts as well as the ability to discriminate naturally produced stimuli.

Funding source: SSHRC

Award Identifier / Grant number: 435-2014-1504

Award Identifier / Grant number: 435-2015-0490

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2016-SE-188196

Funding statement: SSHRC (Grant / Award Number: “435-2014-1504” and “435-2015-0490); FRQSC (Grant / Award Number: “2016-SE-188196”).


Table 5:

Summary of fixed effects in a mixed-effects logistic regression model in the identification task by the native listeners. Model coefficient estimates (β), standard errors, corresponding z-values, and p-values. Reference level is provided in parentheses.

Estimate (β)
Std. Error
Contrast (/I/-/i/)
Contrast × Spectrum
Contrast × Duration


Aoyama, Katsura, James E. Flege, Susan Guion-Anderson, Reiko R. Akahane-Yamada & Tsuneo Yamada. 2004. Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics 32(2). 233–250.10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00036-6Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2013. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.3.55.Search in Google Scholar

Chandrasekaran, Bharath, Padma D. Sampath & Patrick C. M. Wong 2010. Individual variability in cue-weighting and lexical tone learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128(1). 456–465.10.1121/1.3445785Search in Google Scholar

Coleman, John. 2003. Discovering the acoustic correlates of phonological contrasts. Journal of Phonetics 31(3-4). 351–372.10.1016/j.wocn.2003.10.001Search in Google Scholar

Dorman, Michael F., Michael Studdert-Kennedy & Lawrence J. Raphael. 1977. Stop-consonant recognition: Release bursts and formant transitions as functionally equivalent, context-dependent cues. Perception & Psychophysics 22(2). 109–122.10.3758/BF03198744Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola. 2000. Developmental patterns in the adult L2 acquisition of new contrasts: The acoustic cue weighting in the perception of Scottish tense/lax vowels by Spanish speakers. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola. 2005. Linguistic perception and second language acquisition: Explaining the attainment of optimal phonological categorization. Utrecht: Utrecht University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola, Titia Benders & Silvia Lipski. 2009. Native, non-native and L2 perceptual cue weighting for Dutch vowels: The case of Dutch, German, and Spanish listeners. Journal of Phonetics 37(4). 452–465.10.1016/j.wocn.2009.07.006Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola, Titia Benders & Karin Wanrooij. 2011. Enhanced bimodal distributions facilitate the learning of second language vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(4). EL206–EL212.10.1121/1.3629144Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James E., Ocke-Schwen Bohn & Sunyoung Jang. 1997. Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics 25(4). 437–470.10.1006/jpho.1997.0052Search in Google Scholar

Francis, Alexander L., Natalya Kaganovich & Courtney Driscoll-Huber. 2008. Cue-specific effects of categorization training on the relative weighting of acoustic cues to consonant voicing in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124(2). 1234–1251.10.1121/1.2945161Search in Google Scholar

Hattori, Kota & Paul Iverson. 2009. English /r/-/l/ category assimilation by Japanese adults: Individual differences and the link to identification accuracy. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(1). 469–479.10.1121/1.3021295Search in Google Scholar

Hillenbrand, James M., Michael J. Clark & Robert A. Houde. 2000. Some effects of duration on vowel recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108(6). 3013–3022.10.1121/1.1323463Search in Google Scholar

Holt, L. Lori & Andrew J. Lotto. 2006. Cue weighting in auditory categorization: Implications for first and second language acquisition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(5). 3059–3071.10.1121/1.2188377Search in Google Scholar

Idemaru, Kaori, Lori L. Holt & Howard Seltman. 2012. Individual differences in cue weights are stable across time: The case of Japanese stop lengths. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132(6). 3950–3964.10.1121/1.4765076Search in Google Scholar

Iverson, Paul, Valerie Hazan & Kerry Bannister. 2005. Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: A comparison of methods for teaching English /r/-/l/ to Japanese adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(5). 3267–3278.10.1121/1.2062307Search in Google Scholar

Iverson, Paul, Patricia K. Kuhl, Reiko Akahane-Yamada, Eugen Diesch, Yoh’ich Tohkura, Andreas Kettermann & Claudia Siebert. 2003. A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition 87(1). B47–B57.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00198-1Search in Google Scholar

Kawahara, Hideki, Toru Takahashi, Masanori Morise & Hideki Banno. 2009. Development of exploratory research tools based on TANDEM-STRAIGHT. Proceedings of Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association, 2009 Annual Summit and Conference. 111–120.Search in Google Scholar

Kondaurova, Maria V. & Alexander L. Francis. 2008. The relationship between native allophonic experienc nse/lax vowel contrast by Spanish and Russian listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124(6). 3959–3971.10.1121/1.2999341Search in Google Scholar

Kondaurova, Maria V. & Alexander L. Francis. 2010. The role of selective attention in the acquisition of English tense and lax vowels by native Spanish listeners comparison of three training methods. Journal of Phonetics 38(4). 569–587.10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.003Search in Google Scholar

Kong, Eun Jong & Jan R. Edwards. 2011. Individual differences in speech perception: Evidence from visual analogue scaling and eye-tracking. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong: 1126–1129.Search in Google Scholar

Kong, Eun Jong & Jan R. Edwards. 2015. Individual differences in L2 learners’ perceptual cue weighting patterns. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, UK.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William, Sharon Ash & Charles Boberg. 2006. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110167467Search in Google Scholar

Lengeris, Angelos & Valerie Hazan. 2010. The effect of native vowel processing ability and frequency discrimination acuity on the phonetic training of English vowels for native speakers of Greek. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128(6). 3757–3768.10.1121/1.3506351Search in Google Scholar

Lisker, Leigh. 1986. “Voicing” in English: A catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees. Language and Speech 29(1). 3–11.10.1177/002383098602900102Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Ran & Lori L. Holt. 2015. Dimension-based statistical learning of vowels. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41(6). 1783–1798.10.1037/xhp0000092Search in Google Scholar

Llanos, Fernando, Olga Dmitrieva, Amanda A. Shultz & Alexander L. Francis. 2013. Auditory enhancement and second language experience in Spanish and English weighting of secondary voicing cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134(3). 2213–2224.10.1121/1.4817845Search in Google Scholar

Macmillan, Neil A. & C. Douglas Creelman. 2005. Detection theory: A user’s guide, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Morrison, Geoffrey S. 2005. An appropriate metric for cue weighting in L2 speech perception: Response to Escudero and Boersma (2004). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(4). 597–606.10.1017/S0272263105050266Search in Google Scholar

Morrison, Geoffrey S. 2008. L1-Spanish speakers’ acquisition of the English /i/-/ɪ/ contrast: Duration-based perception is not the initial developmental stage. Language and Speech 51(4). 285–315.10.1177/0023830908099067Search in Google Scholar

Morrison, Geoffrey S. & Maria V. Kondaurova. 2009. Analysis of categorical response data: Use logistic regression rather than endpoint-difference scores or discriminant analysis (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126(5). 2159–2162.10.1121/1.3216917Search in Google Scholar

Nittrouer, Susan & Marnie E. Miller. 1997. Predicting developmental shifts in perceptual weighting schemes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(4). 2253–2266.10.1121/1.418207Search in Google Scholar

Perrachione, Tyler K., Ji-Yeon Lee, Louisa Y. Y. Ha & Patrick C. M. Wong. 2011. Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(1). 461–472.10.1121/1.3593366Search in Google Scholar

Piske, Thorsten T., Ian R. A. MacKay & James E. Flege. 2001. Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics 29(2). 191–215.10.1006/jpho.2001.0134Search in Google Scholar

R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing in Google Scholar

Schertz, Jessamyn, Taehong Cho, Andrew Lotto & Natasha Warner. 2015. Individual differences in phonetic cue use in production and perception of a non-native sound contrast. Journal of Phonetics 52. 183–204.10.1016/j.wocn.2015.07.003Search in Google Scholar

Schertz, Jessamyn, Taehong Cho, Andrew Lotto & Natasha Warner. 2016. Individual differences in perceptual adaptability of foreign sound categories. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 78. 355–367.10.3758/s13414-015-0987-1Search in Google Scholar

Shultz, Amanda A., Alexander L. Francis & Fernando Llanos. 2012. Differential cue weighting in perception and production of consonant voicing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132(2). EL95–EL101.10.1121/1.4736711Search in Google Scholar

Tsukada, Kimiko, David Birdsong, Ellen Bialystok, Molly M. Mack, Hyekyung Sung & James E. Flege. 2005. A developmental study of English vowel production and perception by native Korean adults and children. Journal of Phonetics 33(3). 263–290.10.1016/j.wocn.2004.10.002Search in Google Scholar

Wanrooij, Karin, Paola Escudero & Maartje E. J. Raijmakers. 2013. What do listeners learn from exposure to a vowel distribution? An analysis of listening strategies in distributional learning. Journal of Phonetics 41(5). 307–319.10.1016/j.wocn.2013.03.005Search in Google Scholar

Werker, Janet F. & John S. Logan. 1985. Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics 37(1). 35–44.10.3758/BF03207136Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-4-20
Accepted: 2016-9-12
Published Online: 2017-8-1

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 3.6.2023 from
Scroll to top button