Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
Nonnative or second language (L2) perception of segmental sequences is often characterised by perceptual modification processes, which may “repair” a nonnative sequence that is phonotactically illegal in the listeners’ native language (L1) by transforming the sequence into a sequence that is phonotactically legal in the L1. Often repairs involve the insertion of phonetic materials (epenthesis), but we focus, here, on the less-studied phenomenon of perceptual deletion of nonnative phonemes by testing L1 Mandarin listeners’ perception of post-vocalic laterals in L2 English using the triangulating methods of a cross-language goodness rating task, an AXB task, and an AX task. The data were analysed in the framework of the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM/PAM-L2), and we further investigated the role of L2 vocabulary size on task performance. The experiments indicate that perceptual deletion occurs when the post-vocalic lateral overlaps with the nucleus vowel in terms of tongue backness specification. In addition, Mandarin listeners’ discrimination performance in some contexts was significantly correlated with their English vocabulary size, indicating that continuous growth of vocabulary knowledge can drive perceptual learning of novel L2 segmental sequences and phonotactic structures.
Acknowledgement
We want to thank the participants of the present study. Thanks also go to Alexander Kilpatrick and Jonathon Lum for their help in generating the experiment stimuli.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission. Yizhou Wang: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft. Rikke L Bundgaard-Nielsen: Conceptualisation, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision. Brett J Baker: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing. Olga Maxwell: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing.
-
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
-
Ethical approval: This project has been approved by the institutional human research ethics committee at the University of Melbourne (Ethics ID: 1954616.1).
-
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Appendix 1: Spectrograms of sample stimuli. Red speckles indicate formants
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4217c/4217c880eb9c1af1489488705d78c398bcb3221e" alt=""
Appendix 2: Post hoc analysis of sensitivity index (d-prime) between six contrasts in Experiment 2 (AXB discrimination task)
AusE /V/-/Vl/ contrast | M diff | SE | df | t value | p value | Sig | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
/i/-/il/ | vs | /aɪ/-/aɪl/ | 0.356 | 0.272 | 165 | 1.31 | 0.779 | |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /u/-/ul/ | 1.848 | 0.272 | 165 | 6.799 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | 3.126 | 0.272 | 165 | 11.5 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | 4.005 | 0.272 | 165 | 14.734 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 4.37 | 0.272 | 165 | 16.075 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /u/-/ul/ | 1.492 | 0.272 | 165 | 5.488 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | 2.77 | 0.272 | 165 | 10.19 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | 3.649 | 0.272 | 165 | 13.424 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 4.014 | 0.272 | 165 | 14.765 | <0.001 | *** |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | 1.278 | 0.272 | 165 | 4.702 | 0.001 | *** |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | 2.157 | 0.272 | 165 | 7.936 | <0.001 | *** |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 2.522 | 0.272 | 165 | 9.277 | <0.001 | *** |
/oʊ/-/oʊl/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | 0.879 | 0.272 | 165 | 3.234 | 0.018 | * |
/oʊ/-/oʊl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 1.244 | 0.272 | 165 | 4.575 | 0.001 | *** |
/ɔ/-/ɔl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 0.365 | 0.272 | 165 | 1.341 | 0.762 |
-
Note. Tukey method for comparing a family of 6 estimates.
Appendix 3: Post hoc analysis of mean reaction time (RT) in correct trials between six contrasts in Experiment 2 (AXB discrimination task)
AusE /V/-/Vl/ contrast | M diff | SE | df | t value | p value | Sig | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
/i/-/il/ | vs | /aɪ/-/aɪl/ | –26.6 | 28.4 | 165 | –0.936 | 0.937 | |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /u/-/ul/ | –153.3 | 28.4 | 165 | –5.396 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | –193.1 | 28.4 | 165 | –6.798 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | –258.4 | 28.4 | 165 | –9.096 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –314.3 | 28.4 | 165 | –11.063 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /u/-/ul/ | –126.7 | 28.4 | 165 | –4.46 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | –166.6 | 28.4 | 165 | –5.863 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | –231.8 | 28.4 | 165 | –8.16 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –287.7 | 28.4 | 165 | –10.127 | <0.001 | *** |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | –39.9 | 28.4 | 165 | –1.403 | 0.725 | |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | –105.1 | 28.4 | 165 | –3.701 | 0.004 | ** |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –161 | 28.4 | 165 | –5.667 | <0.001 | *** |
/oʊ/-/oʊl/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | –65.3 | 28.4 | 165 | –2.298 | 0.201 | |
/oʊ/-/oʊl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –121.2 | 28.4 | 165 | –4.264 | <0.001 | *** |
/ɔ/-/ɔl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –55.9 | 28.4 | 165 | –1.967 | 0.366 |
-
Note. Tukey method for comparing a family of 6 estimates.
Appendix 4: Post hoc analysis of sensitivity index (d-prime) between six contrasts in Experiment 3 (AX discrimination task)
AusE /V/-/Vl/ contrast | M diff | SE | df | t value | p value | Sig | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
/i/-/il/ | vs | /aɪ/-/aɪl/ | 0.125 | 0.149 | 369 | 0.84 | 0.960 | |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /u/-/ul/ | 1.088 | 0.149 | 369 | 7.31 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | 1.42 | 0.149 | 369 | 9.539 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | 2.968 | 0.149 | 369 | 19.94 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 3.742 | 0.149 | 369 | 25.139 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /u/-/ul/ | 0.963 | 0.149 | 369 | 6.47 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | 1.295 | 0.149 | 369 | 8.699 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | 2.843 | 0.149 | 369 | 19.1 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 3.617 | 0.149 | 369 | 24.299 | <0.001 | *** |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | 0.332 | 0.149 | 369 | 2.23 | 0.227 | |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | 1.88 | 0.149 | 369 | 12.631 | <0.001 | *** |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 2.654 | 0.149 | 369 | 17.829 | <0.001 | *** |
/oʊ/-/oʊl/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | 1.548 | 0.149 | 369 | 10.401 | <0.001 | *** |
/oʊ/-/oʊl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 2.322 | 0.149 | 369 | 15.599 | <0.001 | *** |
/ɔ/-/ɔl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | 0.774 | 0.149 | 369 | 5.198 | <0.001 | *** |
-
Note. Tukey method for comparing a family of 6 estimates.
Appendix 5: Post hoc analysis of Criterion (bias towards “Same” responses) between six contrasts in Experiment 3 (AX discrimination task)
AusE /V/-/Vl/ contrast | M diff | SE | df | t value | p value | Sig | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
/i/-/il/ | vs | /aɪ/-/aɪl/ | –0.0994 | 0.0724 | 369 | –1.373 | 0.743 | |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /u/-/ul/ | –0.5608 | 0.0724 | 369 | –7.744 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | –0.7774 | 0.0724 | 369 | –10.734 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | –1.4164 | 0.0724 | 369 | –19.557 | <0.001 | *** |
/i/-/il/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –1.7183 | 0.0724 | 369 | –23.725 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /u/-/ul/ | –0.4614 | 0.0724 | 369 | –6.371 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | –0.678 | 0.0724 | 369 | –9.361 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | –1.317 | 0.0724 | 369 | –18.184 | <0.001 | *** |
/aɪ/-/aɪl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –1.6189 | 0.0724 | 369 | –22.352 | <0.001 | *** |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /oʊ/-/oʊl/ | –0.2166 | 0.0724 | 369 | –2.991 | 0.035 | * |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | –0.8556 | 0.0724 | 369 | –11.813 | <0.001 | *** |
/u/-/ul/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –1.1574 | 0.0724 | 369 | –15.981 | <0.001 | *** |
/oʊ/-/oʊl/ | vs | /ɔ/-/ɔl/ | –0.639 | 0.0724 | 369 | –8.822 | <0.001 | *** |
/oʊ/-/oʊl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –0.9408 | 0.0724 | 369 | –12.991 | <0.001 | *** |
/ɔ/-/ɔl/ | vs | /aʊ/-/aʊl/ | –0.3019 | 0.0724 | 369 | –4.168 | <0.001 | *** |
-
Note. Tukey method for comparing a family of 6 estimates.
References
Bates, Douglas M., Martin Mächler, Ben M. Bolker & Steve C. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistic Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, 171–204. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T. & Pierre A. Hallé. 2010. Perception of initial obstruent voicing is influenced by gestural organization. Journal of Phonetics 38(1). 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.09.001.Search in Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T. & Michael D. Tyler. 2007. Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Ocke-Schwen Bohn (ed.), Language experience in second language speech perception, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.17.07besSearch in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5(9–10). 341–345.Search in Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni. 2001. The vocalisation of dark l in Australian English. In David Blair & Peter Collins (eds.), English in Australia, 69–87. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/veaw.g26.07borSearch in Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni & Barbara M. Horvath. 1997. L-vocalisation in Australian English. In Frans L. Hinskens, Roeland van Hout & W. Leo Wetzels (eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory, 101–123. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Louis M. Goldstein. 1986. Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology 3. 219–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000658.Search in Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Louis M. Goldstein. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49(3–4). 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261913.Search in Google Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, Rikke L., Catherine T. Best & Michael D. Tyler. 2011a. Vocabulary size matters: The assimilation of second language Australian English vowels to first-language Japanese vowel categories. Applied Psycholinguistics 32(1). 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000287.Search in Google Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, Rikke L., Catherine T. Best & Michael D. Tyler. 2011b. Vocabulary size is associated with second-language vowel perception performance in adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22. 433–461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000040.Search in Google Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, Rikke L., Catherine T. Best, Christian Kroos & Michael D. Tyler. 2012. Second language learners’ vocabulary expansion is associated with improved second language vowel intelligibility. Applied Psycholinguistics 33. 643–664. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000518.Search in Google Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, Rikke L., Brett J. Baker, Christian H. Kroos, Mark Harvey & Catherine T. Best. 2015. Discrimination of multiple coronal stop contrasts in Wubuy (Australia): A natural referent consonant account. PLoS One 10(12). e0142054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142054.Search in Google Scholar
Cabrelli, Jannifer, Alicia Luque & Irene Finestrat-Martínez. 2019. Influence of L2 English phonotactics in L1 Brazilian Portuguese illusory vowel perception. Journal of Phonetics 73. 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.10.006.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Colantoni, Laura, Jeffrey Steele & Paola Escudero. 2015. Second language speech. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139087636Search in Google Scholar
Cox, Felicity & Janet Fletcher. 2017. Australian English: Pronunciation and transcription. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316995631Search in Google Scholar
Cox, Felicity & Sallyanne Palethorpe. 2007. Australian English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 37(3). 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100307003192.Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne. 2015. Representation of second language phonology. Applied Psycholinguistics 36(1). 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000459.Search in Google Scholar
Daidone, Danielle & Isabelle Darcy. 2021. Vocabulary size is a key factor in predicting second language lexical encoding accuracy. Frontiers in Psychology 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688356.Search in Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa. 2011. Phonetic, phonemic, and phonological factors in cross-language discrimination of phonotactic contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 37(1). 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020988.Search in Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa & Jason A. Shaw. 2012. Sources of illusion in consonant cluster perception. Journal of Phonetics 40. 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.11.005.Search in Google Scholar
De-Jong, Kenneth & Hanyong Park. 2012. Vowel epenthesis and segment identity in Korean learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(1). 127–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000520.Search in Google Scholar
Dehaene-Lambertz, Ghislaine, Emmanuel Dupoux & Ariel Gout. 2000. Electrophysiological correlates of phonological processing: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12(4). 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562390.Search in Google Scholar
Duanmu, San. 2007. The phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199215782.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Duncan, Tamara S. & Johanne Paradis. 2016. English language learners’ nonword repetition performance: The influence of age, L2 vocabulary size, length of L2 exposure, and L1 phonology. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 59(1). 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0020.Search in Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kkazuhiko Kakehi, Yuki Hirose, Christophe Pallier & Jacques Mehler. 1999. Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25(6). 1568–1578. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1568.Search in Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Erika Parlato, Sonia Frota, Yuki Hirose & Sharon Peperkamp. 2011. Where do illusory vowels come from? Journal of Memory and Language 64(3). 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.12.004.Search in Google Scholar
Durvasula, Karthik, Ho-Hsin Huang, Sayako Uehara, Qian Luo & Yen-Hwei Lin. 2018. Phonology modulates the illusory vowels in perceptual illusion: Evidence from Mandarin and English. Laboratory Phonology 9(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.57.Search in Google Scholar
Durvasula, Karthik & Jimin Kahng. 2015. Illusory vowels in perceptual epenthesis: The role of phonological alternations. Phonology 32(3). 385–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675715000263.Search in Google Scholar
Durvasula, Karthik & Jimin Kahng. 2016. The role of phrasal phonology in speech perception: What perceptual epenthesis shows us. Journal of Phonetics 54. 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.08.002.Search in Google Scholar
Georgiou, Georgios P., Natalia V. Perfilieva & Maria Tenizi. 2020. Vocabulary size leads to better attunement to L2 phonetic differences: Clues from Russian learners of English. Language Learning and Development 16(4). 382–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2020.1814779.Search in Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan, Ian Wilson & Donald Derrick. 2013. Articulatory phonetics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Guan, Qianwen. 2019. Emerging modes of temporal coordination: Mandarin and non-native consonant clusters. Université Sorbonne Paris Cité Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Karuvannur P. Mohanan. 1985. Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16(1). 57–116.Search in Google Scholar
Hallé, Pierre A. & Catherine T. Best. 2007. Dental-to-velar perceptual assimilation: A cross-linguistic study of the perception of dental stop+/l/ clusters. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121(5). 2899–2914. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2534656.Search in Google Scholar
Hardcastle, William & William Barry. 1989. Articulatory and perceptual factors in /l/ vocalisations in English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 15(2). 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300002930.Search in Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathon, Felicity Cox & Zoe Evans. 1997. An acoustic phonetic study of broad, general, and cultivated Australian English vowels. Australian Journal of Linguistics 17(2). 155–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609708599550.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith & Matthias Sjerps. 2018. Speaker normalization in speech perception. In UC Berkeley PhonLab Annual Report, 32–64. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2fc6x1ph.10.5070/P7141042474Search in Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, Alexander, Rikke L. Bundgaard-Nielsen & Brett J. Baker. 2019. Japanese co-occurrence restrictions influence second language perception. Applied Psycholinguistics 40(2). 585–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830920930042.Search in Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, Alexander, Shigeto Kawahara, Rikke L. Bundgaard-Nielsen, Brett J. Baker & Janet Fletcher. 2020. Japanese perceptual epenthesis is modulated by transitional probability. Language and Speech 64(1). 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830920930042.Search in Google Scholar
Lin, Susan, Sallyanne Palethorpe & Felicity Cox. 2012. An ultrasound exploration of Australian English /CVl/ words. In Proceedings of the 14th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 105–108. Canberra, Australia: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Ma, Wei Ji. 2012. Organizing probabilistic models of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16(10). 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.08.010.Search in Google Scholar
Macmillan, Neil A. & C. Douglas Creelman. 2005. Detection theory: A user’s guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Majerus, Steve, Martine Poncelet, Martial Van der Linden & Brendan S. Weekes. 2008. Lexical learning in bilingual adults: The relative importance of short-term memory for serial order and phonological knowledge. Cognition 107(2). 395–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.10.003.Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, John & Cynthia Brown. 2004. When intake exceeds input: Language specific perceptual illusions induced by L1 prosodic constraints. International Journal of Bilingualism 8(1). 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069040080010201.Search in Google Scholar
Miao, Ruiqin. 2005. Loanword adaptation in Mandarin Chinese: Perceptual, phonological and sociolinguistic factors. Stony Brook University Unpublished PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Mitchell, Alexander George & Arthur Delbridge. 1965. The pronunciation of English in Australia. Sydney and London: Angus and Robertson.Search in Google Scholar
Nation, Paul. 2006. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review 63(1). 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59.Search in Google Scholar
Nation, Paul & David Beglar. 2007. A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher 31(7). 9–13.Search in Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon. 2015. Phonology versus phonetics in loanword adaptation. In Joaquín Romero & María Riera (eds.), The phonetics-phonology interface: Representations and methodologies, 335–371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.335.04pepSearch in Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon, Inga Vendelin & Kimihiro Nakamura. 2008. On the perceptual origin of loanword adaptations: Experimental evidence from Japanese. Phonology 25(1). 129–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675708001425.Search in Google Scholar
Proctor, Michael, Rachel Walter, Caitlin Smith, Tünde Szalay, Louis Goldstein & Shrikanth Nrayanan. 2019. Articulatory characterization of English liquid-final rimes. Journal of Phonetics 77. 100921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.100921.Search in Google Scholar
Roussel, Nancye & Judith Oxley. 2010. Perception of American English dark /l/ by normally hearing young adult women. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 24(6). 451–472. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699200903491259.Search in Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard & Osamu Fujimura. 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21. 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31340-3.Search in Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2008. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In Kristin Hanson & Sharon Inkelas (eds.), The nature of the word: Studies in Honor of Paul Kiparsky, 151–179. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7894.003.0011Search in Google Scholar
Stoet, Gijsbert. 2010. PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods 42(4). 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096.Search in Google Scholar
Stoet, Gijsbert. 2017. PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology 44(1). 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643.Search in Google Scholar
Strange, Winifred. 2011. Automatic selective perception (ASP) of first and second language speech: A working model. Journal of Phonetics 39(4). 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.09.001.Search in Google Scholar
Strange, Winifred & Valerie L. Shafer. 2008. Speech perception in second language learners. In Jette G. Hansen-Edwards & Mary L. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition, 153–192. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.36.09strSearch in Google Scholar
Szalay, Tünde, Titia Benders, Felicity Cox, Michael Proctor, Sallyanne Palethorpe & Michael Proctor. 2021. Spectral contrast reduction in Australian English /l/-final rimes. Laboratory Phonology 149(1). 1183. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.185.Search in Google Scholar
Tyler, Michael D., Catherine T. Best, Alice Faber & Andrea G. Levitt. 2014. Perceptual assimilation and discrimination of non-native vowel contrasts. Phonetica 71(1). 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356237.Search in Google Scholar
Wagner, Monica, Valerie L. Shafer, Brett A. Martin & Mitchell Steinschneider. 2012. The phonotactic influence on the perception of a consonant cluster /pt/ by native English and native Polish listeners: A behavioral and event related potential (ERP) study. Brain and Language 123(1). 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.002.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Yizhou, Rikke L. Bundgaard-Nielsen, Brett J. Baker & Olga Maxwell. 2023. Same vowels but different contrasts: Mandarin listeners’ perception of English /ei/-/iː/ in unfamiliar phonotactic contexts. Journal of Phonetics 97. 101221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2023.101221.Search in Google Scholar
Werker, Janet F. & John S. Logan. 1985. Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics 37. 35–44. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207136.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston