1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1879-7865
  • E-ISSN: 1879-7873
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present article addresses the extent to which learners’ mental representations, in particular the phonological and lexical representations of learners’ background languages, influence their ability to perceive and extract linguistic units from a novel speech stream. In the study, native speakers of French were exposed to an unfamiliar language, either Polish or Modern Standard Arabic. A word recognition test taken at first exposure revealed important differences in how French speakers/listeners extract words from the Polish or Arabic speech stream, suggesting that source language representations work differently depending on the specificities of the target language. In addition to providing insights into the effects of source and target language properties on speech perception, these results contribute to on-going discussions about what constitutes crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer in second language acquisition research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lia.22017.maj
2023-10-27
2024-07-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bahrani, N., & Modarresi Ghavami, G.
    (2021) Khuzestani Arabic. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 51(2), 299–313. 10.1017/S0025100319000203
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100319000203 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bassetti, B.
    (2021) Cross-modal cross-linguistic influence on second language phonology: Consonant spelling and consonant duration in Italian L1 speakers of English L2. Colloque International du Réseau d’Acquisition des Langues Secondes (RéAL2), Université Toulouse 2Jean Jaurès, 5–7 July 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Best, C.
    (1995) A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception: New directions in research and theory. InW. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 171–204). York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carroll, S.
    (1992) On cognates. Second Language Research, 8(2), 93–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2012) Segmentation on first exposure to an L2: Evidence for knowledge-driven, top-down processing. InK. Braunmüller, C. Gabriel, & B. Hänel-Faulhaber (Eds.), HSM13 Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies (pp. 23–45). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hsm.13.04car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.13.04car [Google Scholar]
  6. (2013) Introduction to the special issue: Aspects of word learning on first exposure to a second language. Second Language Research, 29(2), 131–144. 10.1177/0267658312463375
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312463375 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2014) Processing ‘words’ in early-stage foreign language acquisition: A comparison of first exposure and low proficiency learners. InZ.-H. Han & R. Rast (Eds.), First exposure to a second language: Learners’ initial input processing (pp. 107–138). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084390.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084390.005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carroll, S. E., & Windsor, J. W.
    (2015) Segmental targets versus lexical interference. Production of second-language targets on first exposure and the result of minimal training. InH. Peukert, (Ed.), Transfer effects in multilingual language development (pp. 53–86). John Benjamins.10.1075/hsld.4.03car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsld.4.03car [Google Scholar]
  9. Cotter, W. M.
    (2020) The Arabic dialect of Gaza City. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 52(1), 122–134. 10.1017/S0025100320000134
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100320000134 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cutler, A.
    (2001) Listening to a second language through the ears of a first. Interpreting, 51, 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dimroth, C., Rast, R., Starren, M., & Watorek, M.
    (2013) Methods for studying a new language under controlled input conditions: The VILLA project. Eurosla Yearbook, 131, 109–138. 10.1075/eurosla.13.07dim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.13.07dim [Google Scholar]
  12. Flege, J. E.
    (1995) Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. InW. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 233–273). York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I.
    (2004) The Cumulative-Enhancement Model of language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11, 3–16. 10.1080/14790710408668175
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710408668175 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fodor, J. A.
    (1985) Fodor’s guide to mental representation: The intelligent Auntie’s Vade-Mecum. Mind, 94(373), 76–100. 10.1093/mind/XCIV.373.76
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCIV.373.76 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fougeron, C., & Smith, C. L.
    (1993) Illustrations of the IPA: French. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 231, 73–76. 10.1017/S0025100300004874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300004874 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gambi, C., & Pickering, M.
    (2017) Models linking production and comprehension. InE. M. Fernández & H. Smith Cairns (Eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 157–181). Wiley. 10.1002/9781118829516.ch7
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goswami, U.
    (2012) Phonological representation. InN. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer. Online10.1007/978‑1‑4419‑1428‑6_148
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_148 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gullberg, M., Roberts, L., & Dimroth, C.
    (2012) What word-level knowledge can adult learners acquire after minimal exposure to a new language?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50(4), 239–276. 10.1515/iral‑2012‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2012-0010 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jarvis, S.
    (2000) Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245–309. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00118
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00118 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2011) Conceptual transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 1–8. 10.1017/S1366728910000155
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000155 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2016) Clarifying the scope of conceptual transfer. Language Learning, 66(3), 608–635. 10.1111/lang.12154
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12154 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A.
    (2008) Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203935927
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935927 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kellerman, E.
    (1983) Now you see it, now you don’t. InS. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112–134). Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1986) An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon. InE. Kellerman & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 35–48). Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mustafawi, E.
    (2017) Arabic phonology. InThe Routledge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics (pp. 11–31). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315147062‑2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147062-2 [Google Scholar]
  27. Odlin, T.
    (1989) Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524537
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524537 [Google Scholar]
  28. Odlin, T., & Jarvis, S.
    (2004) Same source, different outcomes: A study of Swedish influence on the acquisition of English in Finland. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11, 123 – 140. 10.1080/14790710408668183
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710408668183 [Google Scholar]
  29. Onishi, H.
    (2016) The effects of L2 experience on L3 perception. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(4), 459–475. 10.1080/14790718.2016.1217604
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1217604 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pavlovskaya, N., Ho-Cheong Leung, A., Jarad, S., & Young-Scholten, M.
    (2013) What do adult L2 learners know about phonology after minimal exposure? Opening new lines of communication in applied linguistics: Proceedings of the 46th BAAL Annual Meeting, Edinburgh, 393–408.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pierrehumbert, J.
    (1990) Phonological and phonetic representation. Journal of Phonetics, 181, 375–394. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30380‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30380-8 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rast, R.
    (2008) Foreign language input: Initial processing. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690432
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690432 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rast, R., & Dommergues, J.-Y.
    (2003) Towards a characterisation of saliency on first exposure to a second language. InS. Foster-Cohen & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook31 (pp. 131–156). John Benjamins.10.1075/eurosla.3.09ras
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.3.09ras [Google Scholar]
  34. Ringbom, H.
    (1987) The role of L1 in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2001) Lexical transfer in L3 production. InJ. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 59–68). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853595509‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595509-005 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2006) Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599361
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599361 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rubach, J.
    (1984) Cyclic and lexical phonology: The structure of Polish. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783111392837
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111392837 [Google Scholar]
  38. Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N.
    (1996) Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 351, 606–621. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0032
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0032 [Google Scholar]
  39. Shoemaker, E.
    (2009) Acoustic cues to speech segmentation in spoken French: Native and non-native strategies, PhD Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
  40. (2014) The development of perceptual sensitivity to Polish sibilants at first exposure. Proceedings of AMP 2014. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Shoemaker, E., & Rast, R.
    (2013) Extracting words from the speech stream at first exposure. Second Language Research, 29(2), 165–183. 10.1177/0267658313479360
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313479360 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tremblay, A., & Owens, N.
    (2010) The role of acoustic cues in the development of (non-) target-like second-language prosodic representations. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 551, 85–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B.
    (1998) Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 295–333. 10.1093/applin/19.3.295
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.3.295 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lia.22017.maj
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lia.22017.maj
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error