Free Allophonic Variation in Native and Second Language Spoken Word Recognition: The Case of the German Rhotic.
German
allophonic variation
phonetic variants
rhotics
second language
speech perception
spoken-word recognition
visual-world eye-tracking
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:
18
05
2021
accepted:
22
10
2021
entrez:
6
12
2021
pubmed:
7
12
2021
medline:
7
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The question of how listeners deal with different phonetic variant forms for the same words in perception has sparked great interest over the past few decades, especially with regard to lenited and regional forms. However, the perception of free variant forms of allophones within the same syllable position remains surprisingly understudied. Because of this, in the present study, we investigate how free allophonic variation in the realization of the German rhotic (/r/) impacts spoken word recognition for native German listeners and two groups of non-native listeners (French and Italian learners of German). By means of a visual-world eye-tracking task, we tested the recognition of spoken German words starting with /r/ when the rhotic was produced either as the more canonical variant, the uvular fricative [] which is considered the German standard, or as an alveolar trill [r], a common realization in the south of Germany. Results showed that German listeners were more efficient at recognizing /r/-initial words when these were produced with the uvular fricative than with the alveolar trill. French listeners did not differ from German listeners in that respect, but Italian listeners showed exactly the opposite pattern: they showed an advantage when words were produced with the alveolar trill. These findings suggest that, for native listeners, the canonicity of the variant form is an important determiner of ease of recognition, even in the absence of orthographic or perceptual motivations for the primacy of canonical variants for this particular example of variation. For non-native listeners, by contrast, results are better explained by the match of the different allophones to the canonical realization of /r/ in their native language than by the status or frequency of the allophones in the non-native language itself.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34867589
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711230
pmc: PMC8637905
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
711230Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Llompart, Eger and Reinisch.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare 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 Acoust Soc Am. 1995 May;97(5 Pt 1):3099-111
pubmed: 7759650
Exp Psychol. 2011;58(5):412-24
pubmed: 21768069
Clin Linguist Phon. 2016;30(3-5):174-201
pubmed: 26913954
Lang Speech. 2018 Sep;61(3):430-465
pubmed: 29058989
J Mem Lang. 2009 Jul 1;61(1):19-36
pubmed: 20161243
Cognition. 2011 Apr;119(1):131-6
pubmed: 21144500
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Jul;29(4):539-53
pubmed: 12924857
Cognition. 2013 Nov;129(2):356-61
pubmed: 23973464
Phonetica. 2001 Oct-Dec;58(4):254-75
pubmed: 11641632
J Neurosci Methods. 2007 May 15;162(1-2):8-13
pubmed: 17254636
Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Dec;11(6):1084-9
pubmed: 15875980
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017 May;43(5):1040-1056
pubmed: 28263636
J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Nov;122(5):2842-54
pubmed: 18189574
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018 Nov;71(11):2378-2394
pubmed: 30362403
Lang Speech. 2019 Sep;62(3):594-622
pubmed: 30319031
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(4):796-824
pubmed: 22348434
Front Psychol. 2015 Aug 04;6:1000
pubmed: 26300792
Percept Psychophys. 2002 Feb;64(2):208-19
pubmed: 12013376
Lang Speech. 2019 Mar;62(1):137-163
pubmed: 29233049
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Jun;27(3):656-63
pubmed: 11424652
J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Dec;134(6):EL485
pubmed: 25669293
J Acoust Soc Am. 2015 Apr;137(4):EL307-13
pubmed: 25920882
Front Psychol. 2014 Jan 09;4:1015
pubmed: 24550851
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 May;19(5):238-9
pubmed: 25921867
Percept Psychophys. 2008 Apr;70(3):403-11
pubmed: 18459250
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020 Jun;46(6):1121-1145
pubmed: 31647287