Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton November 16, 2016

Native and non-native listeners’ sensitivity to English onset restrictions and universal onset markedness

Shinsook Lee

Abstract

Language-specific phonotactic restrictions modulate the perception of L1 and L2 sound structures. However, sonority-driven onset markedness is also known to affect listeners’ perception of onset clusters; onsets of large sonority distances elicit more accurate perception than those of small sonority distances (e.g., bl versus bd versus lb, Berent et al. 2007). Although English admits only onset sequences of a large sonority rise, certain prohibited onset clusters can emerge due to word-initial schwa deletion (e.g., banana [bnǽnə], potato [ptéɪɾoʊ]). The study investigated whether native and non-native listeners were perceptually sensitive to the sonority-based onset markedness as well as to legal versus illegal English onset clusters resulting from word-initial schwa deletion. Native English, Korean, and Japanese listeners completed identity judgment tests with auditory nonce words. The nonce words contained ill-formed as well as well-formed onsets resulting from initial schwa deletion and ill-formed onsets were further divided into onsets of a sonority rise, flat, and fall. The results of accuracy tests indicated that all the listener groups differentiated between well-formed and ill-formed English onset clusters and response latency showed a similar trend. The results also revealed that the listeners showed an illusionary vowel effect as a function of the onset markedness irrespective of their L1s.


Department of English Language Education, Korea University, 145, Anam-ro, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea

Acknowledgments

An earlier short version of the paper appeared in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Monolingual and Bilingual Speech 2015 (pp. 182-195). I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

Berent, I., D. Steriade, T. Lennertz and V. Vaknin. 2007. “What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions”. Cognition 104. 591– 630.10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.015Search in Google Scholar

Berent, I., T. Lennertz, J. Jun, M. Moreno and P. Smolensky. 2008. “Language universals in human brains”. PNAS 105(14). 5321–5325.10.1073/pnas.0801469105Search in Google Scholar

Berent, I., T. Lennertz, P. Smolensky and V. Vaknin-Nusbaun. 2009. “Listeners’ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters”. Phonology 26. 75–108.10.1017/S0952675709001729Search in Google Scholar

Berent, I. and T. Lennertz. 2010. “Universal constraints on the sound structure of language: Phonological or acoustic?”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 36(1). 212–223.10.1037/a0017638Search in Google Scholar

Best, C. 1995. “A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception”. In: Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues. Baltimore: York Press. 171–204.Search in Google Scholar

Best, C. and M. Tyler. 2007. “Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities”. In Bohn, O.-S. and M. Munro (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of J. Flege. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 13–34.10.1075/lllt.17.07besSearch in Google Scholar

Clements, G.N. 1990. “The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification”. In Kingston, J. and M. Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 283–333.10.1017/CBO9780511627736.017Search in Google Scholar

Clements, G.N. 2006. “Does sonority have a phonetic basis? Comments on the chapter by Bert Vaux”. Ms. CNRS/Sorbonne-nouvelle, Paris.Search in Google Scholar

Dupoux, E., P. Pallier, N. Sebastián-Gallés and J. Mehler. 1997. “A distressing ‘deafness’ in French?”. Journal of Memory and Language 36. 406–421.10.1006/jmla.1996.2500Search in Google Scholar

Dupoux, E., K. Kakehi, Y. Hirose, C. Pallier and J. Mehler. 1999. “Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25(6). 1568–1578.10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1568Search in Google Scholar

Dupoux, E., S. Peperkamp and N. Sebastián-Gallés. 2001. “A robust method to study stress deafness”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110. 1606–1618.10.1121/1.1380437Search in Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. 1998. “Motivation in second and foreign language learning”. Language Teaching 31. 117–135.10.1017/S026144480001315XSearch in Google Scholar

Flege, J.E. 1995. “Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems”. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues. Baltimore: York Press. 233–277.Search in Google Scholar

Flemming, E. 2006. “Contrast and the realization of schwa vowels in English”. Slides from a presentation. http://web.edu/flemming/www/Search in Google Scholar

Friederici, A. and J. Wessels. 1993. “Phonotactic knowledge of word boundaries and its use in infant speech perception”. Perception and Psychophysics 54(3). 287– 295.10.3758/BF03205263Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, R.C. 1985. Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Gay, T. 1978. “Physiological and acoustic correlates of perceived stress”. Language and Speech 21. 347–353.10.1177/002383097802100409Search in Google Scholar

Gierut, J. 1999. “Syllable onsets: Clusters and adjuncts in acquisition”. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 42. 708-726.10.1044/jslhr.4203.708Search in Google Scholar

Halle, M. 1971. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110869453Search in Google Scholar

Hallé, P., J. Segui, U. Frauenfelder and C. Meunier. 1998. “Processing of illegal consonant clusters: A case of perceptual assimilation?”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24. 592–608.10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.592Search in Google Scholar

Hallé, P., N. Kartushina, J. Segui and U. Frauenfelder. 2013. “Looking for lexical feedback effects in /tl/ → /kl/ repairs”. INTERSPEECH. 2013–2017. 25–29 August 2013, Lyon, France.10.21437/Interspeech.2013-503Search in Google Scholar

Hammond, M. 1999. The phonology of English: A prosodic optimality-theoretic approach. Oxford UP.Search in Google Scholar

Heffner, R-M.S. 1950. General phonetics. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hooper, J. B. 1972. “The syllable in phonological theory”. Language 48. 525–540.10.2307/412031Search in Google Scholar

Jusczyk, P., P. Luce and J. Charles-Luce. 1994. “Infants’ sensitivity of phonotactic patterns in the native language”. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 630–645.10.1006/jmla.1994.1030Search in Google Scholar

Kabak, B. and W. Idsardi. 2007. “Perceptual distortions in the adaptation of English consonant clusters: Syllable structure or consonantal contact constraints?” Language and Speech 50(1). 23–52.10.1177/00238309070500010201Search in Google Scholar

Ladefoged, P. 2006. A course in phonetics. Boston: Cengage Learning.Search in Google Scholar

Lee-Ellis, S. 2012. Looking into bilingualism through the heritage speaker’s mind. (PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.)Search in Google Scholar

Lee, S. 2011. “The perceptual interaction between schwa deletion and English phonotactic constrains”. Korean Journal of Linguistics 36(3). 699–733.10.18855/lisoko.2011.36.3.006Search in Google Scholar

Lee, S. 2012. “Perception of English word-initial onsets resulting from schwa deletion by English and Korean speakers”. English Language and Linguistics 18(3). 143–169.10.17960/ell.2012.18.3.006Search in Google Scholar

Lee, S. and M-H. Cho. 2014. “Perception of English sC clusters resulting from schwa deletion by native and non-native listeners”. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Langage Speech. Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 5. 373–386.Search in Google Scholar

Lowenstamm, J. 1981. “On the maximal cluster approach to syllable structure”. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 575–604.Search in Google Scholar

Massaro, D. and M. Cohen. 1983. “Phonological context in speech perception”. Perception and Psychophysics 34(4). 338–348.10.3758/BF03203046Search in Google Scholar

Messer, S. 1967. “Implicit phonology in children”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6. 609–613.10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80024-0Search in Google Scholar

Moyer, A. 2004. Age, accent, and experience in second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.10.21832/9781853597190Search in Google Scholar

Ohala, D.K. 1999. “The influence of sonority on children’s cluster reduction”. Journal of Communication Disorders 32. 397–421.10.1016/S0021-9924(99)00018-0Search in Google Scholar

Patterson, D., P. LoCasto and C. Connine. 2003. “Corpora analyses of frequency of schwa deletion in conversational American English”. Phonetica 60. 45–69.10.1159/000070453Search in Google Scholar

Peperkamp, S. 2007. “Do we have innate knowledge about phonological markedness? Comments on Berent, Steriade, Lennertz, and Vaknin”. Cognition 104. 631–637.10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.009Search in Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, J. 2001. “Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast”. In: Bybee, J. and P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency effects and emergent grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 137–157.Search in Google Scholar

Pitt, M. 1998. “Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters”. Perception & Psychophysics 60(6). 941–951.10.3758/BF03211930Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, E. 1982. “The syllable”. In Smith, N. (ed.), The structure of phonological representations. Dordrecht: Fortis. 337–383.Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, E. 1984. “On major class features and syllable theory”. In: Aranoff, M. and R.T. Oehrle (eds.), Language and sound structure: Studies in phonology presented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 107–136.Search in Google Scholar

Spinelli, E. and F. Gros-Balthazard. 2007. “Phonotactic constraints help to overcome effects of schwa deletion in French”. Cognition 104. 397–406.10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.002Search in Google Scholar

Strange, W. and V. Shafer. 2008. “Speech perception in second language learners”. In Edwards, J.H. and M. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. 153–191.10.1075/sibil.36.09strSearch in Google Scholar

Tamási, K. and I. Berent. 2015. “Sensitivity to phonological universals: The case of stops and fricatives”. Journal of Psycholinguist Research 44(4). 359–381.10.1007/s10936-014-9289-3Search in Google Scholar

Vennemann, T. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110849608Search in Google Scholar

Wright, R. 2008. “A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness”. In Hayes, B., R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 34–57.Search in Google Scholar

Yavaş, M. 2006. Applied English phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix

Nonce words which conform to English phonotactic constraints on onset clustersNonce words which violate English phonotactic constraints on onset clusters
Disyllabic wordsTrisyllabic wordsDisyllabic wordsTrisyllabic words
kolitesenocioustommand[tm]konato[kn]
kolicesonenzictommutekonorrow
daroleperrificpanoe[pn]denanna[dn]
daradeporontopanaldonanza
pollapseterrelicpatoo[pt]topater[tp]
pollecttorillapatettopastic
torrectselesterbadelle[bd]ketender[kt]
tareerselanticbagaar[bg]ketansic
galoonkaresticnekotic[nk]nafamic[nf]
gelievekarulanekkemptnofetic
samineberociousmappell[mp]mapestic[mp]
semectberenticmapeckmapecian
sekkosegalunsterratame[rt]romina[rm]
saccortgalimpicratoonromelic
Published Online: 2016-11-16
Published in Print: 2016-11-1

© Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Scroll Up Arrow