Effects of consonant context on the perception of French vowels

Gottfried, Terry L.

doi:10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30858-7

Cited by 93 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current results support this argument by showing 1) decreased sensitivity to F0 in perceiving the aspirated stop, and 2) more stable lenis responses across F0 values. This leads us to conclude that different phonologies between the two dialects influence not only the production but also the perception of speech, which might be in line with the influence of L1 phonology on L2 speech production and perception in cross-linguistics studies (e.g., Miyawaki, Strange, Verbrugge, Liberman, Jenkins & Fujimura, 1975;Williams, 1979;Beddor & Strange, 1982;Gottfried, 1984;Yamada & Tohkura, 1992;Best & Strange, 1992;Strange, 1995;Chen, Robb, Gilbert & Lerman, 2001;Xu, Gandour & Francis, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Speakers of tonal and non-tonal Korean dialects use different cue weightings in the perception of the three-way laryngeal stop contrast

Lee

Jongman

Politzer-Ahles

2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigated the perception of the three-way distinction among Korean voiceless stops in non-tonal Seoul and tonal Kyungsang Korean. The question addressed is whether listeners from these two dialects differ in the way they perceive the three stops. Forty-two Korean listeners (21 each from Seoul and South Kyungsang) were tested in a perception experiment with stimuli in which VOT and F0 were systematically manipulated. Analyses of the perceptual identification functions show that VOT and F0 cues trade off each other for the perception of the three stops. However, the trading relationship differs between the two dialects. Logistic regression analyses confirmed the two dialects use the perceptual cues differently for the lenis and aspirated stops. While Seoul listeners rely primarily on F0 for making lenis responses and on VOT and F0 for aspirated responses, F0 plays a less important role in modulating both lenis and aspirated responses for Kyungsang than for Seoul listeners. It is proposed that different tonal systems between the two dialects and the ongoing diachronic sound change in the stops of Seoul Korean contribute to the inter-dialect difference in cue weighting for the three-way stop distinction. The results suggest that although the difference in phonology between the two dialects influences the phonetic realization, the phonetic trade-off among multiple cues allows each dialect to maintain the phonemic distinction in a unique way.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Speakers of tonal and non-tonal Korean dialects use different cue weightings in the perception of the three-way laryngeal stop contrast

Lee

Jongman

Politzer-Ahles

2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, predictions based on context-specific spectral similarity patterns that PF ͓͔ would be perceived as similar to AE ͓e ( ͔ or ͓(͔ and that ͓e/i, e/͔ would yield single category assimilation patterns ͑cf. Gottfried, 1984͒ were not borne out for most AE listeners in this study. Similarly, the mid to mid-low, back vowel pairs in both languages were generally perceived as dissimilar by most AE listeners, except for PF ͓Å/o͔ in alveolar context ͑see Gottfried and Beddor, 1988͒.…”

Section: B Height Contrasts and Low Vowelsmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…In the first study, NG and PF vowels were produced and presented in a "neutral" context ͓͑hVb.͔ for NG vowels and ͓Vb͑.͔͒ for PF vowels͒ that minimized coarticulatory influences of preceding and following consonants, while presenting closed syllables in which both tense and lax AE vowels are allowed phonologically. Most previous studies of AE listeners' perception of German and French contrasts presented citation-form monosyllables of the form #V#, CV, or CVC ͑Best et al, 1996;Flege and Hillenbrand, 1984;Gottfried, 1984;Gottfried and Beddor, 1988;Polka, 1995;Strange et al, 2004͒ or synthetically-generated #V# or CVC syllable continua ͑Gottfried andBeddor, 1988;Rochet, 1995͒. In the studies using CV or CVC syllables, the vowels were preceded and/or followed by alveolar consonants /d, t, s/. Our recent work on the acoustic variability of AE, NG, andPF vowels ͑Strange et al, 2005, 2007͒ suggests that perception by AE listeners of back vs front, rounded NG and PF vowels may differ markedly in coronal and non-coronal contexts ͑see also Levy, 2009;Levy and Strange, 2008͒ due to the extreme allophonic fronting of AE ͓u:, *, o*͔ in coronal contexts in most dialects of AE ͑cf., Hillenbrand et al, 2001͒. Thus, results of the previous studies may not be representa-tive of assimilation of front, rounded vowels ͑or indeed other non-native vowels͒ in general.…”

Section: Study 1: German and French Vowels In Citation-form Uttermentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-language categorization of French and German vowels by naïve American listeners

Strange

Levy

Law

2009

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American English (AE) speakers' perceptual assimilation of 14 North German (NG) and 9 Parisian French (PF) vowels was examined in two studies using citation-form disyllables (study 1) and sentences with vowels surrounded by labial and alveolar consonants in multisyllabic nonsense words (study 2). Listeners categorized multiple tokens of each NG and PF vowel as most similar to selected AE vowels and rated their category "goodness" on a nine-point Likert scale. Front, rounded vowels were assimilated primarily to back AE vowels, despite their acoustic similarity to front AE vowels. In study 1, they were considered poorer exemplars of AE vowels than were NG and PF back, rounded vowels; in study 2, front and back, rounded vowels were perceived as similar to each other. Assimilation of some front, unrounded and back, rounded NG and PF vowels varied with language, speaking style, and consonantal context. Differences in perceived similarity often could not be predicted from context-specific cross-language spectral similarities. Results suggest that listeners can access context-specific, phonetic details when listening to citation-form materials, but assimilate non-native vowels on the basis of context-independent phonological equivalence categories when processing continuous speech. Results are interpreted within the Automatic Selective Perception model of speech perception.

show abstract

“…Two vowel studies indirectly support this inference. Gottfried (1984) found that native English speakers of French discriminated vowels in French/tVt/ words more accurately than did English monolinguals. Gottfried & Beddor (1988) showed that native English speakers of French resembled French native speakers more closely than did English monolinguals in identifying the members of a French /o/-/&/ continuum.…”

Section: ¹He Present Studymentioning

confidence: 82%

Effects of experience on non-native speakers' production and perception of English vowels

Flege

Bohn

Jang

1997

Journal of Phonetics

679

565

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of consonant context on the perception of French vowels

Cited by 93 publications

References 31 publications

Speakers of tonal and non-tonal Korean dialects use different cue weightings in the perception of the three-way laryngeal stop contrast

Speakers of tonal and non-tonal Korean dialects use different cue weightings in the perception of the three-way laryngeal stop contrast

Cross-language categorization of French and German vowels by naïve American listeners

Effects of experience on non-native speakers' production and perception of English vowels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About