Karin Wanrooij

The Effect of L1 Orthography on Non-native Vowel Perception

Previous research has shown that orthography influences the learning and processing of spoken non-native words. In this paper, we examine the effect of L1 orthography on non-native sound perception. In Experiment 1, 204 Spanish learners of Dutch and a control group of 20 native speakers of Dutch were asked to classify Dutch vowel tokens by choosing from auditorily presented options, in one task, and from the orthographic representations of Dutch vowels, in a second task. The results show that vowel categorization varied across tasks: the most difficult vowels in the purely auditory task were the easiest in the orthographic task and, conversely, vowels with a relatively high success rate in the purely auditory task were poorly classified in the orthographic task. The results of Experiment 2 with 22 monolingual Peruvian Spanish listeners replicated the main results of Experiment 1 and confirmed the existence of orthographic effects. Together, the two experiments show that when listening to auditory stimuli only, native speakers of Spanish have great difficulty classifying certain Dutch vowels, regardless of the amount of experience they may have with the Dutch language. Importantly, the pairing of auditory stimuli with orthographic labels can help or hinder Spanish listeners’ sound categorization, depending on the specific sound contrast.

Fast phonetic learning occurs already in 2-to-3-month old infants. An ERP study

An important mechanism for learning speech sounds in the first year of life is “distributional learning,” i.e., learning by simply listening to the frequency distributions of the speech sounds in the environment. In the lab, fast distributional learning has been reported for infants in the second half of the first year; the present study examined whether it can also be demonstrated at a much younger age, long before the onset of language-specific speech perception (which roughly emerges between 6 and 12 months). To investigate this, Dutch infants aged 2 to 3 months were presented with either a unimodal or a bimodal vowel distribution based on the English /æ/~/ε/ contrast, for only 12 minutes. Subsequently, mismatch responses (MMRs) were measured in an oddball paradigm, where one half of the infants in each group heard a representative [æ] as the standard and a representative [ε] as the deviant, and the other half heard the same reversed. The results (from the combined MMRs during wakefulness and active sleep) disclosed a larger MMR, implying better discrimination of [æ] and [ε], for bimodally than unimodally trained infants, thus extending an effect of distributional training found in previous behavioral research to a much younger age when speech perception is still universal rather than language-specific, and to a new method (using event-related potentials). Moreover, the analysis revealed a robust interaction between the distribution (unimodal vs. bimodal) and the identity of the standard stimulus ([æ] vs. [ε]), which provides evidence for an interplay between a perceptual asymmetry and distributional learning. The outcomes show that distributional learning can affect vowel perception already in the first months of life.

Distributional training of speech sounds can be done with continuous distributions

In previous research on distributional training of non-native speech sounds, distributions were always discontinuous: typically, each of only eight different stimuli was repeated multiple times. The current study examines distributional training with continuous distributions, in which all presented tokens are acoustically different. Adult Spanish learners of Dutch were trained on either a discontinuous or a continuous bimodal distribution of the Dutch vowel contrast /a/-/aː/. Both groups improved their perception of the contrast; this shows that continuous training works equally well as discontinuous training. Using the more natural continuous distributions is therefore recommended for future distributional learning experiments.

Distributional vowel training is less effective for adults than for infants. A study using the mismatch response

Distributional learning of speech sounds (i.e., learning from simple exposure to frequency distributions of speech sounds in the environment) has been observed in the lab repeatedly in both infants and adults. The current study is the first attempt to examine whether the capacity for using the mechanism is different in adults than in infants. To this end, a previous event-related potential study that had shown distributional learning of the English vowel contrast /æ/∼/ε/ in 2-to-3-month old Dutch infants was repeated with Dutch adults. Specifically, the adults were exposed to either a bimodal distribution that suggested the existence of the two vowels (as appropriate in English), or to a unimodal distribution that did not (as appropriate in Dutch). After exposure the participants were tested on their discrimination of a representative [æ] and a representative [ε], in an oddball paradigm for measuring mismatch responses (MMRs). Bimodally trained adults did not have a significantly larger MMR amplitude, and hence did not show significantly better neural discrimination of the test vowels, than unimodally trained adults. A direct comparison between the normalized MMR amplitudes of the adults with those of the previously tested infants showed that within a reasonable range of normalization parameters, the bimodal advantage is reliably smaller in adults than in infants, indicating that distributional learning is a weaker mechanism for learning speech sounds in adults (if it exists in that group at all) than in infants.

Observed effects of “distributional learning” may not relate to the number of peaks. A test of “dispersion” as a confounding factor

Distributional learning of speech sounds is learning from simply being exposed to frequency distributions of speech sounds in one’s surroundings. In laboratory settings, the mechanism has been reported to be discernible already after a few minutes of exposure, in both infants and adults. These “effects of distributional training” have traditionally been attributed to the difference in the number of peaks between the experimental distribution (two peaks) and the control distribution (one or zero peaks). However, none of the earlier studies fully excluded a possibly confounding effect of the dispersion in the distributions. Additionally, some studies with a non-speech control condition did not control for a possible difference between processing speech and non-speech. The current study presents an experiment that corrects both imperfections. Spanish listeners were exposed to either a bimodal distribution encompassing the Dutch contrast /ɑ/∼/a/ or a unimodal distribution with the same dispersion. Before and after training, their accuracy of categorization of [ɑ]- and [a]-tokens was measured. A traditionally calculated p-value showed no significant difference in categorization improvement between bimodally and unimodally trained participants. Because of this null result, a Bayesian method was used to assess the odds in favor of the null hypothesis. Four different Bayes factors, each calculated on a different belief in the truth value of previously found effect sizes, indicated the absence of a difference between bimodally and unimodally trained participants. The implication is that “effects of distributional training” observed in the lab are not induced by the number of peaks in the distributions.