Lexical and Phonetic Influences on the Phonolexical Encoding of Difficult Second-Language Contrasts: Insights From Nonword Rejection.
L1-accented input
L2 lexicon
lexical decision
lexical representation
nonword rejection
phonolexical encoding
second language learning
speech perception
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
28
01
2021
accepted:
27
04
2021
entrez:
17
6
2021
pubmed:
18
6
2021
medline:
18
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Establishing phonologically robust lexical representations in a second language (L2) is challenging, and even more so for words containing phones in phonological contrasts that are not part of the native language. This study presents a series of additional analyses of lexical decision data assessing the phonolexical encoding of English /ε/ and /æ/ by German learners of English (/æ/ does not exist in German) in order to examine the influence of lexical frequency, phonological neighborhood density and the acoustics of the particular vowels on learners' ability to reject nonwords differing from real words in the confusable L2 phones only (e.g., *l[æ]mon, *dr[ε]gon). Results showed that both the lexical properties of the target items and the acoustics of the critical vowels affected nonword rejection, albeit differently for items with /æ/ → [ε] and /ε/ → [æ] mispronunciations: For the former, lower lexical frequencies and higher neighborhood densities led to more accurate performance. For the latter, it was only the acoustics of the vowel (i.e., how distinctly [æ]-like the mispronunciation was) that had a significant impact on learners' accuracy. This suggests that the encoding of /ε/ and /æ/ may not only be asymmetric in that /ε/ is generally more robustly represented in the lexicon than /æ/, as previously reported, but also in the way in which this encoding takes place. Mainly, the encoding of /æ/ appears to be more dependent on the characteristics of the L2 vocabulary and on one's experience with the L2 than that of its more dominant counterpart (/ε/).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34135819
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659852
pmc: PMC8200638
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
659852Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Llompart.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Apr;28(2):270-8
pubmed: 11999854
Lang Speech. 2002 Dec;45(Pt 4):407-34
pubmed: 12866911
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1980 Feb;6(1):110-25
pubmed: 6444985
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2019 Mar;45(3):552-571
pubmed: 29985041
Lang Speech. 2019 Sep;62(3):594-622
pubmed: 30319031
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Sep;9(3):317-23
pubmed: 5149302
J Child Lang. 1997 Feb;24(1):187-219
pubmed: 9154014
Lang Speech. 2018 Dec;61(4):522-546
pubmed: 29552939
J Acoust Soc Am. 2020 Jan;147(1):EL37
pubmed: 32007024
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017 May;43(5):1040-1056
pubmed: 28263636
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43230
pubmed: 22916227
J Acoust Soc Am. 2019 Jan;145(1):EL13
pubmed: 30710915
Percept Psychophys. 1999 Jul;61(5):977-85
pubmed: 10499009
Front Psychol. 2016 Sep 21;7:1345
pubmed: 27708592
Percept Psychophys. 2005 Feb;67(2):301-14
pubmed: 15971693
Behav Res Methods. 2019 Feb;51(1):195-203
pubmed: 30734206
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014;67(6):1176-90
pubmed: 24417251
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020 Aug;46(8):1590-1610
pubmed: 32162959
Ear Hear. 1998 Feb;19(1):1-36
pubmed: 9504270
J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Aug;122(2):1111-29
pubmed: 17672658
J Mem Lang. 2008 Apr;58(3):787-814
pubmed: 19343088
Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2020;35(8):980-991
pubmed: 33043066