Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Face, Timothy L.

2 Issues per year

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Cross-modal priming differences between native and nonnative Spanish speakers

Wendy Herd / Joan Sereno / Allard Jongman
Published Online: 2015-04-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2015-0005


Training has been shown to improve American English speakers’ perception and production of the Spanish /ɾ, r, d/ contrast; however, it is unclear whether successfully trained contrasts are encoded in the lexicon. This study investigates whether learners of Spanish process the /ɾ, r, d/ contrast differently than native speakers and whether training affects processing. Using a cross-modal priming design, thirty-three Spanish learners were compared to ten native Spanish speakers. For native speakers, auditory primes with intervocalic taps (like [koɾo]) resulted in faster reaction times in response to matching visual targets (like coro) than to orthographically and phonemically similar targets (like corro and codo). American English speakers’ reaction times were not affected by the relationship between primes and targets before training. After training, trainees responded more quickly to matching targets than to mismatching /ɾ/-/r/ prime-targets (e.g., [koɾo] followed by corro) while controls’ reaction time patterns did not change. This indicates that native Spanish speakers and Spanish learners process words containing the /ɾ, r, d/ contrast differently and that improvements from training can be encoded in the lexicon.

Keywords: cross-modal priming; high variability training; second language acquisition; Spanish acquisition; American English


  • Allen, Mark & William Badecker. 2002. Inflectional regularity: Probing the nature of lexical representation in a cross-modal priming task. Journal of Memory and Language 46(4). 705–722.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boomershine, Amanda, Kathleen Currie Hall, Elizabeth Hume & Keith Johnson. 2008. The impact of allophony versus contrast on speech perception. In Peter Avery, B.Elan Dresher & Karen Rice (eds.), Contrasts in phonology: Theory, perception, acquisition, 145–171. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bradlow, Ann R., Reiko Akahane-Yamada, David B. Pisoni & Yoh’ichi Tohkura. 1999. Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics 61(5). 977–985.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bradlow, Ann R., David B. Pisoni, Reiko Akahane-Yamada & Yoh’ichi Tohkura. 1997. Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l/: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(4). 2299–2310.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Broersma, Mirjam & Anne Cutler. 2011. Competition dynamics of second-language listening. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64(1). 74–95.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 65–85. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14(3). 261–290.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2012. Patterns of lexical diffusion and articulatory motivation for sound change. In Maria-Josep Solé & Daniel Recasens (eds.), The initiation of sound change, 211–234. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Byrd, Dani. 1994. Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Communication 15(1). 39–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chen, Matthew Y. & William S.-Y. Wang. 1975. Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language 51(2). 255–281.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Connine, Cynthia M. 2004. It’s not what you hear but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11(6). 1084–1089.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Darcy, Isabelle, Laurent Dekydtspotter, Rex A. Sprouse, Justin Glover, Christiane Kaden, Michael McGuire & John H. G. Scott. 2012. Direct mapping of acoustics to phonology: On the lexical encoding of front rounded vowels in L1 English – L2 French acquisition. Second Language Research 28(1). 5–40.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Davies, Mark. 2002. Corpus del Español. [Online Corpus]. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/.

  • Face, Timothy L. 2006. Intervocalic rhotic pronunciation by adult learners of Spanish as a second language. In Carol A. Klee & Timothy L. Face (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages, 47–58. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • Face, Timothy L. & Mandy R. Menke. 2009. Acquisition of Spanish voiced spirants by second language learners. In Joseph Collentine, Maryellen García, Barbara Lafford & Francisco Marcos Marín (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 39–52. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • GaskellM. Gareth & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2002. Representation and competition in the perception of spoken words. Cognitive Psychology 45(2). 220–266.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • González-Bueno, Manuela. 1995. Adquisición de los alófonos fricativos de las oclusivas sonoras españolas por aprendices de español como segunda lengua. Estudios de lingüística aplicada 13. 64–79.Google Scholar

  • Grainger, Jonathan, Maryline Nguyen van Kang & Juan Segui. 2001. Cross-modal repetition priming of heterographic homophones. Memory and Cognition 29(1). 53–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hayes-Harb, Rachel & Kyoko Masuda. 2008. Development of the ability to lexically encode novel second language phonemic contrasts. Second Language Research 24(1). 5–33.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Herd, Wendy, Allard Jongman & Joan Sereno. 2010. An acoustic and perceptual analysis of/t/and/d/flaps in American English. Journal of Phonetics 38(4). 504–516.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Herd, Wendy, Allard Jongman & Joan Sereno. 2013. Perceptual and production training of intervocalic/d, ɾ, r/in American English learners of Spanish. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133(6). 4247–4255.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hirata, Yukari. 2004. Computer assisted pronunciation training for native English speakers learning Japanese pitch and durational contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning 17(3–4). 357–376.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holcomb, Phillip J., Jane Anderson & Jonathan Grainger. 2005. An electrophysiological study of cross-modal repetition priming. Psychophysiology 42(5). 493–507.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, Keith E. 2008. Second language acquisition of the Spanish multiple vibrant consonant. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Logan, John S., Scott E. Lively & David B. Pisoni. 1991. Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89(2). 874–886.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Marslen-Wilson, William. 1990. Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access. In Gerry T. M. Altmann (ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistics and computational perspectives, 148–172. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Marslen-Wilson, William & Pienie Zwitserlood. 1989. Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15(3). 576–585.Google Scholar

  • Pallier, Christophe, Angels Colomé & Núria Sebastián-Gallés. 2001. The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science 12(6). 445–449.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Patterson, David & Cynthia M. Connine. 2001. Variant frequency in flap production: A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica 58(4). 254–275.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rose, Marda. 2010. Intervocalic tap and trill production in the acquisition of Spanish as a second language. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 3(2). 379–422.Google Scholar

  • Tagliaferri, Bruno. 2011. Paradigm: Perception Research Systems [Computer Program]. http://www.perceptionresearchsystems.com/ (accessed 23 March 2008).

  • Waltmunson, Jeremy C. 2005. The relative difficulty of L2 Spanish/d, t/, trill, and tap by L1 English speakers: Auditory and acoustic methods of defining pronunciation accuracy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Wang, Yue, Allard Jongman & Joan A. Sereno. 2003. Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(2). 1033–1043.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wang, Yue, Michelle M. Spence, Allard Jongman, & Joan A. Sereno. (1999). Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(6). 3649–3659.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Zampini, Mary L. 1993. Spanish voiced stop phonemes and spirantization: A study in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Zampini, Mary L. 1994. The role of native language transfer and task formality in the acquisition of Spanish spirantization. Hispania 77(3). 470–481.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zue, Victor W. & Martha Laferriere. 1979. Acoustic study of medial/t, d/in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66(4). 1039–1050.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-04-29

Published in Print: 2015-05-01

Citation Information: Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 135–155, ISSN (Online) 2199-3386, ISSN (Print) 1939-0238, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2015-0005.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in