On the relationship between perception and production of L2 sounds: Evidence from Anglophones’ processing of the French /u/–/y/ contrast

Abstract

Previous studies have yielded contradictory results on the relationship between perception and production in second language (L2) phonological processing. We re-examine the relationship between the two modalities both within and across processing levels, addressing several issues regarding methodology and statistical analyses. We focus on the perception and production of the French contrast /u/–/y/ by proficient English-speaking late learners of French. In an experiment with a prelexical perception task (ABX discrimination) and both a prelexical and a lexical production task (pseudoword reading and picture naming), we observe a robust link between perception and production within but not across levels. Moreover, using a clustering analysis we provide evidence that good perception is a prerequisite for good production.

The acoustic cue-weighting and the L2 production-perception link: A case of English-speaking adults’ learning of Korean stops

“…To conclude, the current findings demonstrated that some English learners of Korean produced and perceived the L2 stop sounds in a connected way in using multiple acoustic dimensions. As previously reported (Hattori & Iverson, 2010;Levy & Law, 2010;Melnik-Leroy et al, 2022), however, the L2 learners' production-perception link was observed in only a limited context: the correlation was evident for the lax-aspirated stop pair (but not for the tense-lax or the tense-aspirated pairs) when individual variability due to their L2 proficiency was carefully controlled. Individual learners' freedom to employ a redundant cue might make it hard to find a consistent link between production and perception.…”

“…On a more general note, such an absence of correlation between production and perception may also be due to a difference in tasks used in production and perception, or asynchronous nature of production and perception learning across individuals. For the former, Melnik-Leroy et al (2022) suggested that the link between production and perception may be found within but not across processing levels. In their study on French vowels, /u/ and /y/, the production task used 3 syllable pseudo-words (pre-lexical) and naming real words (lexical) and the accuracy of the target vowels was measured.…”

“…Reversely, feedback on French learners' Danish vowel production improved their ability to discriminate the vowels as well as production accuracy at the post-training test (Kartushina et al, 2015, but also see Baese-Berk, 2019). On the other hand, other studies reported contradictory findings that correlation was not found (Peperkamp & Bouchon, 2011) or there was only a moderate amount of interaction between the two modalities in L2 speech learning precisely conditioned by tasks, contrast pairs, levels of processing, or L2 experience (Hanulíková et al, 2012;Hattori & Iverson, 2010;Levy & Law, 2010;Melnik-Leroy et al, 2022). So far, it is inconclusive whether perception is closely linked to production in updating and processing L2 sounds.…”

Metacognition in Second Language Speech Perception and Production

“…Although the dominant theoretical perspectives have attributed L2 speakers’ difficulties in production to a lack of accurate perceptual representations for L2 sounds and have predicted a tight relationship between the two domains (Best, 1995; Best & Tyler, 2007; Flege, 1995), research has provided no evidence for a consistent relationship between L2 speech sound perception and production (Bradlow et al., 1997; Flege, 1995; Flege & Eefting, 1987b; Hanulíková et al., 2012; Hattori & Iverson, 2010; Kartushina & Frauenfelder, 2014; Nagle, 2018; Nagle & Baese‐Berk, 2021; Okuno & Hardison, 2016; Peperkamp & Bouchon, 2011; Sheldon & Strange, 1982). The strength of the relationship has been modulated by a number of variables, ranging from L2 experience and proficiency (Bohn & Flege, 1997; Jia et al., 2006; Rallo Fabra & Romero, 2012), to the level of linguistic processing explored (e.g., prelexical, phonological, lexical; see Bohn & Flege, 1997; Hao & de Jong, 2016; Melnik‐Leroy et al., 2021; Peperkamp & Bouchon, 2011), L2 sound difficulty (e.g., similar to vs. distinct from native categories; e.g., Bohn & Flege, 1992; Evans & Alshangiti, 2018; Hao & de Jong, 2016; Levy, 2009; Levy & Law, 2010; Nagle, 2018), and L2 production accuracy measures (e.g., listener‐based judgments vs. acoustic analyses; Evans & Alshangiti, 2018; Flege et al., 1999; Hattori & Iverson, 2010; Inceoglu, 2019). Therefore, for researchers to better understand the relationship between L2 perception and production, there must be strict and systematic control of participants’ linguistic experience, the difficulty of the L2 sounds, and the tasks and measures for assessing L2 production.…”

Spoken word recognition in a second language: The importance of phonetic details

“…A significant body of research has investigated how foreign and L2 speech sounds can be categorized according to pre-existing L1 phonological categories ( Desmeules-Trudel and Joanisse, 2020 ; Escudero, 2005 ; Escudero and Chládková, 2010 ; Escudero and Vasiliev, 2011 ; Escudero and Williams, 2010 ; Escudero et al, 2014 ; Flege and MacKay, 2004 ; Faris et al, 2016 ; Frieda and Nozawa, 2007 ; Kuhl and Iverson, 1995 ; Levy, 2009 ; Levy and Strange, 2008 ; Major, 2008 ; Melnik-Leroy et al, 2021 ; Tyler et al, 2014 ). This phenomenon, referred to as assimilation ( Best, 1995 ; Best and Tyler, 2007 ) or equivalence qualification ( Flege, 1995 ), has been described in several theoretical frameworks on L2 speech perception, as well as for word recognition ( Best, 1995 ; Best et al, 2001 ; Best and Tyler, 2007 ; Escudero, 2005 ; Flege, 1995 ; Flege and Bohn, 2021 ; Tyler et al, 2014 ; Weber and Cutler, 2004 ).…”