Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2001 Feb;109(2):775-94.
doi: 10.1121/1.1332378.

Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system

C T Best  1 , G W McRoberts, E Goodell
Affiliations

Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system

C T Best et al. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Feb.

Abstract

Classic non-native speech perception findings suggested that adults have difficulty discriminating segmental distinctions that are not employed contrastively in their own language. However, recent reports indicate a gradient of performance across non-native contrasts, ranging from near-chance to near-ceiling. Current theoretical models argue that such variations reflect systematic effects of experience with phonetic properties of native speech. The present research addressed predictions from Best's perceptual assimilation model (PAM), which incorporates both contrastive phonological and noncontrastive phonetic influences from the native language in its predictions about discrimination levels for diverse types of non-native contrasts. We evaluated the PAM hypotheses that discrimination of a non-native contrast should be near-ceiling if perceived as phonologically equivalent to a native contrast, lower though still quite good if perceived as a phonetic distinction between good versus poor exemplars of a single native consonant, and much lower if both non-native segments are phonetically equivalent in goodness of fit to a single native consonant. Two experiments assessed native English speakers' perception of Zulu and Tigrinya contrasts expected to fit those criteria. Findings supported the PAM predictions, and provided evidence for some perceptual differentiation of phonological, phonetic, and nonlinguistic information in perception of non-native speech. Theoretical implications for non-native speech perception are discussed, and suggestions are made for further research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG. 1
FIG. 1
The AXB discrimination performance in experiment 1 for the factors of contrast×trial type×native likeness. The three panels display results for (a) Zulu plosive versus implosive bilabial stops (SC), (b) voiceless aspirated versus ejective velar stops (CG), and (c) voiceless versus voiced lateral fricatives (TC).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abramson AS, Lisker L. Discriminability along the voicing continuum: Cross-language tests. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences; Prague: Academia; 1970. pp. 569–573.
    1. Aslin RN, Pisoni DB. Some developmental processes in speech perception. In: Yeni-Komshian GH, Kavanagh JF, Ferguson CA, editors. Child Phonology: Perception. Academic; New York: 1980.
    1. Avery RA, Best CT. Phonological and phonotactic influences on perception of two nonnative vowel contrasts. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;97:3362.
    1. Best CT. Phonetic influences on the perception of nonnativce speech contrasts by 6–8 and 10–12 month-olds. presented at the Society for Research in Child Development; Seattle. April.1991.
    1. Best CT. Emergence of language-specific constraints in perception of non-native speech: A window on early phonological development. In: de Boysson-Bardies B, de Schonen S, Jusczyk P, MacNeilage P, Morton J, editors. Developmental Neurocognition: Speech and Face Processing in the First Year. Kluwer Academic; Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 1993.

Publication types