Perception Abilities of L1 Cypriot Greek Listeners - Types of Errors Involving Plosive Consonants in L2 English

Abstract

This paper investigates the difficulties adult second language (L2) users of English encounter with plosive consonants in the L2. It presents the results of a task examining the acquisition of plosive voicing contrasts by college students with Cypriot Greek (CG) linguistic background. The task focused on the types of errors involving plosive consonants indicating that performance was significantly better in the voiceless plosive category. Participants were able to perceive voiced plosives but they treated such instances as a /nasal + voiced plosive/ sequence. Therefore, the question raised concerns different phonological contrasts realised through similar phonetic cues. The patterns observed suggested that this gap between phonetic cues and phonological contrast might explain why CG users have difficulties perceiving voiced English plosives. In this context, voice onset time (VOT) differences between the L1 and L2 are of crucial importance. In English, voiced plosives are characterised by short lag VOT while their voiceless counterparts fall within the long lag VOT continuum. The same phonetic contrast is used in CG to differentiate between single and geminate voiceless plosives. The results are discussed in relation to the frameworks of second language phonology and speech perception suggesting that the difficulties faced by the L2 listeners support the operation of a phonetic-phonological challenge.

Predicting Fluency With Language Proficiency, Working Memory, and Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting

“…Simultaneous interpreting (SI) is a highly complex verbal task, requiring listening and comprehension of the source language. It involves the temporary storage and extraction of the meaning ( Christoffels et al, 2004 , 2006 ; Tzou et al, 2012 ; Injoque-Ricle et al, 2015 ; Aparicio et al, 2017 ), reformulation of previous information segments into the target language, and the articulation of even earlier segments ( Gerver, 1976 ; Padilla Benitez et al, 1995 ). Also, cultural nuances and communication rules have to be taken into consideration while retrieving information on how to convey the meaning of the source language ( Christoffels et al, 2004 ; Liang et al, 2018 ).…”

Speaker information affects false recognition of unstudied lexical-semantic associates

“…With regard to list type, however, it is curious that talker identity only affected semantically associated intruders and not phonological ones, particularly since the few studies investigating talker effects on lexical-semantic associates (e.g., Creel & Tumlin, 2009; Dufour & Nguyen, 2016; Kittredge, Davis & Blumstein, 2006; Lee & Zhang, 2015; 2017) might predict effects on phonologically related words but not on semantic associates. Moreover, given that talker identity directly influences the acoustic-phonetic properties of words but is not directly tied to their meaning, it is surprising that Experiment 1 failed to find an effect of talker identity on phonological intruders but found one on semantic ones when, a priori , the opposite pattern of results might have seemed more likely.…”

Electrophysiological correlates of interference control in the modified emotional Stroop task with emotional stimuli differing in valence, arousal, and subjective significance

“…Additionally, research has shown that the arousal induced by physical activity supports cognitive processing in congruent trials but undermines it in incongruent trials [ 34 ]. The influence of arousal on cognitive control was also demonstrated in a study using the recall of emotionally loaded words [ 35 , 36 ]. At the same time, data illustrating the effect of subjective significance on cognitive control is still missing [ 29 ].…”