Individual differences in cognitive ability and L2 speech ...€¦ · So why study individual differences in L2 phonology? There are of course all type of reasons for doing that,

Individual differences in cognitive ability

and L2 speech perception

Joan C. Mora Universitat de Barcelona

[email protected]

GRAL Research Group on

the Acquisition of

Languages

http://www.ub.edu/GRAL

Work supported by grant FFI2010-21478 Indiana University , Wednesday 13 November 2013

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

First of all I would like to thank Prof. Isabelle Darcy for having invited me to come to IU to give this talk. It is a great pleasure to be able to be here and I feel very happy to have had this opportunity. I hope that this talk is inspiring and provides some “food for thought” and somehow also serves to strengthen collaborative work between the Department of Second Language Studies at IU and the Applied Linguisics section of the English department at UB. I would also like to thank the Department of Second Language Studies, the Cognitive Science Program and the Department of Linguistics and the Department of Spanish and Portuguese for sponsoring this talk. And finally to Prof. Isabelle Darcy for making it possible. I will be talking about the relationship between cognitive abilities and L2 phonological development in instructed adult L2 learners.

Pronunciation often is a difficult skill and a learning challenge

for L2 learners, most learners struggle with pronunciation at

most levels of L2 competence.

Why study individual differences in L2 phonology?

Learners vary greatly in the amount of foreign accent they

exhibit when speaking an L2. We still don’t fully understand

the causes of this inter-learner variation.

Pedagogy:

Research:

There is an important social dimension to speaking an L2 with

a strong foreign accent: integration, self-confidence, …

> help L2 learners with pronunciation

Social dimension:

Acquisition of phonology

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So why study individual differences in L2 phonology? There are of course all type of reasons for doing that, I will just mention three of them that I think initially motivated this line of research on the acquisition of L2 phonology. There is a pedagogical reason, Pronunciation often is a difficult skill and a learning challenge for L2 learners, most learners struggle with pronunciation at most levels of L2 competence. There also a scientific reason for it, learners vary greatly in the amount of foreign accent they exhibit when speaking an L2, and we still don’t understand the causes of this variation. And finally there is a social reason for it, there is an important social dimension to speaking an L2 with an accent: (integration, self-confidence, …) and eventually we would want to help learners become fluent users of their second language phonology. This talk will deal with the role of cognitive factors on L2 phonological development.

Contextual factors:

Age- and experience-related factors

- L1 background

- Age of Onset of L2 learning

- L2 exposure (Length of Residence)

- Frequency/amount of L1/L2 use

The earlier the start the better for L2 phonology

Factors affecting L2 phonological development

(Baker et al., 2008; Baker and Trofimovich, 2005; Flege 2009; Flege, Bohn, & Jang, 1997,

Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999; Guion et al., 2000; Moyer 2009; among others)

Immigrant populations

living in L2 community

quality and quantity of L2 input received

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Let me just quickly outline what are the factors that previous research has found important for L2 phonological development. First, contextual factors: the learner’s linguistic background, the age of onset of L2 learning or age of arrival in an L2-speaking country, the amount and extent of L2 exposure, and the frequency and amount of use of the L2 (and the L1). All these have been found to be important for L2 phonological development, particularly in research conducted with immigrant populations. This research has generally found that earlier is better for L2 phonology and that large amounts of quality L2 input is beneficial.

Contextual factors:


- Formal learning context:

> Classroom instruction

> Short-term immersion /study abroad

(Avello, 2013; Avello, Mora & Pérez-Vidal, 2012; Bongaerts, van Summeren, Planken, &

Schils, 1997; Cebrian, 2006; Díaz-Campos, 2004; Fullana, 2006; García-Lecumberri &

Gallardo, 2003; Højen 2003; Mora, 2008; Muñoz & Llanes, in press; Piske, 2007; among

others)

Student

populations in

Foreign

Language

Very limited gains in L2 phonology

Adult learners in

L1 & L2 contexts

Robust gains in L2 speech perception and production

> Phonetic training in the lab

(esp. high variability)

(Bradlow et al. 1999; Hazan et al., 2005; Iverson and Evans 2009; Logan et al. 1991;

Ylinen et al. 2010; among others)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

However, in formal learning contexts with student populations, where opportunities for L2 exposure and use are scarce, gains in phonology have been shown to be very limited. In contrast, even in these contexts, phonetic training in the lab has proved to be very effective, producing robust gains in L2 speech perception and production with adult L2 learners.

Very large inter-subject variation even in the LAB context

where INPUT and EXPOSURE factors are tightly

controlled in the experimental design.


Bradlow, Akahane-Yamada, Pisoni & Tohkura, 1997; Golestani & Zatorre, 2009; Hazan & Kim,

2012; Kim & Hazan, 2010; MacKay, Meador & Flege, 2001; Pallier, Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés,

1997; Polka, 1991)

(Bongaerts et al., 1997; Christiner & Reiterer, in press; Hazan & Kim, 2012; Kim & Hazan,

2010; Lengeris & Hazan, 2010; Moyer, 1999; Gottfried, 2007; Slevk and Miyake, 2006;

Reiterer et al. 2011; Hu et al. 2013)

Individual factors:

- Motivation

- Personality (extroversion, introversion)

- Musicality (singing and musical ability)

- Sound processing skills (auditory acuity, frequency discrimination)

- Imitation skills (aptitude for oral mimicry)

- Cognitive skills (working memory, attention, inhibition)

- …..

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

In all these contexts however (whether in immersion settings, in classroom instruction or in phonetic training), studies often report very large inter-subjct variability. There may be of course many individual factors that could explain this variation. Motivation, personality, musicality, auditory acuity, imitation skills, all these might expalin part of the inter-subject variation typically associated with L2 phonological development.


(Bongaerts et al., 1997; Christiner & Reiterer, in press; Hazan & Kim, 2012; Kim & Hazan,

2010; Lengeris & Hazan, 2010; Moyer, 1999; Gottfried, 2007; Slevk & Miyake, 2006;

Reiterer et al. 2011; Hu et al. 2013

Individual factors:

- Motivation

- Personality (extroversion, introversion)

- Musicality (singing and musical ability)

- Sound processing skills (auditory acuity, frequency discrimination)

- Imitation skills (aptitude for oral mimicry)

- Cognitive skills (memory, attention, inhibition)

- …..

Bradlow, Akahane-Yamada, Pisoni & Tohkura, 1997; Golestani & Zatorre, 2009; Hazan & Kim,

2012; Kim & Hazan, 2010; MacKay, Meador & Flege, 2001; Pallier, Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés,

1997; Polka, 1991)

Very large inter-subject variation even in the LAB context

where INPUT and EXPOSURE factors are tightly

controlled in the experimental design.

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Among these, cognitive factors are likely to explain an important part, but we do not fully understand at present what is the exact role of these cognitive factors in L2 phonological development.


(Cerviño-Povedano & Mora, 2011; Darcy et al. 2011; submitted; Lev-Ari & Peperkamp,

2013; MacKay et al., 2001; Masoura & Gathercole, 1999; Papagno & Vallar, 1995;

Safronova & Mora, 2013; Segalowitz 1997; Service 1992;)

Cognitive factors:

- Working memory (WM)

- Phonological short-term memory (PM)

- Acoustic memory (AM)

- Attention Control (AC)

- Inhibition (INH)

- …

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

By cognitive factors we mean cognitive functions such as WM, PM, AM, AC and INH. So the question we wish to address in this talk is “To what extent do learners’ individual differences in cognitive ability relate to their L2 phonological development?”.


(Cerviño-Povedano & Mora, 2011; Darcy et al. 2011; submitted; Lev-Ari & Peperkamp,

2013; MacKay et al., 2001; Masoura & Gathercole, 1999; Papagno & Vallar, 1995;

Safronova & Mora, 2013; Segalowitz 1997; Service 1992;)

Cognitive factors:

- Working memory (WM)

- Phonological short-term memory (PM)

- Acoustic memory (AM)

- Attention Control (AC)

- Inhibition (INH)

- …

To what extent do learners’ individual differences in their

capacity and use of these skills relate to their L2

phonological development?

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

In order to address this question we will draw on previous research conducted in the University of Barcelona and on more recent research conducted in the Second Language Psycholinguistics Lab in the University of Indiana by Prof. Isabelle Darcy with whom we started a very fruitful collaboration on the topic of this talk not long ago. I will focus on phonological memory, acoustic memory, attention control and inhibition as potential sources of inter-learner variability in L2 phonological acquisition.

Cognitive skills and L2 speech perception

Phonological

short-term

Memory (PM)

Acoustic

Memory

(AM)

Attention

Control

(AC)

INHIBITION

(INH)

Cognitive ability L2 phonological acquisition

- Phonetic training

- Cross-language speech perception

- Training cognitive skills

- L2 phonological development

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

The way these cognitive skills relate to L2 phonological acquisition is not trivial, and this is in fact one of the big challenges of this kind of research. One could look at the role of cognitive skills in phonetic training to assess how much they relate to training gains, or learners’ ability to hear differences between L1 and L2 sounds, to assess their role in the formation of L2 phonetic categories. One could even think of assessing the effect of cognitive skills by training them and try to observe the efects of traiing on speech perception. Or one could look at how these skills relate to learners’ level of phonological development in the L2. So far we have explored this last approach.


Phonological

short-term

Memory (PM)

Acoustic

Memory

(AM)

Attention

Control

(AC)

INHIBITION

(INH)


- Phonetic training




JoanCarles

Sticky Note

We have related learners’ performance in cognitive tasks (PM, AM, AC, INH) to measures of L2 phonological competence/knowledge.


Phonological

short-term

Memory (PM)

Acoustic

Memory

(AM)

Attention

Control

(AC)

INHIBITION

(INH)


Categorization tasks:

- Forced choice identification

- AXB / ABX Discrimination

- Oddity discrimination

Stimuli:

- L2 words / nonwords

- L2 English (and L2 Spanish)

Speech-

based

tasks

- Phonetic training




JoanCarles

Sticky Note

To do so, we have used (and when necessary developed) tasks that would recruit learners’ cognitive resources during L2 speech processing, so they are speech- or language-based. To obtain measures of learners’ L2 phonological competence we have focused (so far) on segmental contrasts (vowels and consonants) and have used categorization tasks based on either word or nonword stimuli in the learners’ L2 (either English or Spanish) to obtain accuracy and latency data. We have looked at perception and production, but today’s focus will be on perception. I will illustrate some of these tasks as I explain some of the studies. We will start with phonological memory, then acoustic memory, and finally attention control and inhibition.

- Measures relate more directly to recruitment of cognitive

resources required in language processing

e.g. syntax, semantics, phonology

BUT - less “universal/pure”?

- biased? > language knowledge

- Different cognitive skills may be involved in different

ways in different domain-specific language functions

e.g. inhibition in language switching vs.

inhibition in lexical access and retrieval

Advantages of language- or speech-based tasks

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

First a brief methodological note on the advantages of using speech-based tasks over non-linguistic tasks to assess cognitive skills. The measures relate more directly to the recruitment of the cognitive resources required in language processing, and these can be different for phonology than for other domains of language. READ: for example the cognitive skill that allows you to inhibit one language when using another in language switching may not be exactly the same as the one that allows you to suppress the activation of a lexical item during lexical retrieval. Some language functions may be domain-specific and be more relevant, say, for speech than for semantics. AS such they may be better able to explain Language development in SLA. However they may be considered to be less “pure” or dependent on a specific language and consequently less universal.

Phonological short-term memory (PM)

(Baddeley and Hitch 1974; Baddeley 1986, 2000, 2003)

> Individuals vary in their PM capacity

> necessary for language processing

Responsible for encoding of phonological elements and

their serial order and storing them in LTM.

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

We wil begin then by looking at PM. In Baddeley’s modular model of working memory Phonological Memory is a memory store that encodes phonological elements (sounds) and their serial temporal order. This memory store is necessary for language processing and we know that individuals vary in their Phonological Memory capacity.


- PM stores auditory-verbal

information temporarily

- Decaying auditory traces are

refreshed through sub-vocal

articulatory rehearsal

mechanism

Responsible for encoding of phonological elements and

their serial order and storing them in LTM.

> Individuals vary in their PM capacity

> necessary for language processing

- Capacity: few secs. /

7 auditory representations

(Baddeley and Hitch 1974; Baddeley 1986, 2000, 2003)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

How does that work in this particular model? Phonological elements (sounds) are stored in the form of auditory memory traces that decay rapidly, unless they are refreshed through a mechanism of sub-vocal (silent) articulatory rehearsal. It is believed that this store can approximately hold about 7 auditory representations.


(Adams et al., 1999; Adams and Gathercole 1996, 2000; Atkin & Baddeley, 1998; Baddeley,

1993; Blake et al., 1994; Dufva and Voeten 1999; Gathercole, et al. 1997, 1999; French,

2006; French and O’Brien, 2008; Mackay, et al.,2001; O’Brien et al., 2006, 2007)

Learners with larger PM capacity may be more efficient in

the processing of L2 sounds:

- Speech segmentation.

- Phonological and lexical

encoding.

- Cross-language speech

perception: L1-L2 sound

differences.

- Perception of acoustic

differences between

contrasting L2 sounds.

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So Phonological Memory may be related to L2 phonological acquisition in that learners with large PM capacity may be more efficient in the processing L2 speech sounds in aspects such as segmentation, phonological and lexical encoding, cross-language speech perception and the perception of L2 contrasts. So high PM capacity may provide learners with an advantage, not only in vocabulary and grammar acquisition and language learning in general as previous studies have shown, but also in the domain of L2 phonology.


Serial nonword recognition (SNWR)

Identifying pairs of nonword sequences (in L1) of

increasing length as Same/Different

- CVC nonword sequences are 5, 6, and 7 items in length

- 8 trials (4S+4D) at each sequence length = 24 (12S+12D)

- All vowels in a sequence are different.

- Score % correctly identified sequences (weighted)

(French and O’Brien, 2008; Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2010; O’Brien et al., 2006, 2007)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

In order to obtain a measure of learners’ PM we have been using SNWR tasks. In this task listeners hear pairs of sequences of nonwords in their L1 of increasing length and they have to decide if the first sequence in a pair is the same as or different from the second. “Different” means that an item has changed position within a sequence. In this example items 3 and 4 have changed positions, so the correct response would be “Different”. In the trial below the two sequences are the same, so the correct response would be “Same”. Trials are presented at increasing item lengths 5 -6- 7. There are 8 trials at each item length, 4 “different” and 4 “same” and in each sequence nonwords contain a different vowel and a variery of different consonants. A weighted score is calculated based on the number of correctly identified sequences. In order to do the task learners have to phonologically encode the nonwords and subvocally rehearse them in order to keep the first sequence in memory so that it can be compared to the second. The more elements in the sequence, the more difficult the task becomes.


Serial nonword recognition (SNWR)

Identifying pairs of nonword sequences (in L1) of

increasing length as Same/Different

> requires phonological encoding (and subvocal

rehearsal).

English 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

com jeel lerb mun tob gan dartch

mot joodge lart teed jarm neb gop

S D

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Let’s see one example: same or different? (play). Let’s listen to another one (play).

ItemLength

765

PS

TM

we

igh

ted

sc

ore

(m

ea

n p

erc

en

tag

e)

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

HighCatUse

LowCatUse

Subject group

Figure 1


SNWR task provides a language-dependent measure of PM

Cerviño-Povedano, Mora & Aliaga-Garcia (2011)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

One of the methodological issues with this task with bilingual populations (such as the bilingual Catalan-Spanish learners of English in Barcelona) is that the measure it provides is language-dependent. So if you do the task in Catalan and you are dominant in Spanish, you would perform worse than if you are dominant in Catalan. This is in fact what we found, bilinguals using Catalan more frequently than Spanish, perform better on this task, especially at the longest most difficult sequence lengths. So one way around this is to ask participants to do the task in the language they feel most comfortable. But of course Spanish has 5 vowels only and this would mean repeating two vowels in 7-item sequences, which would make the task much easier in Spanish than in Catalan. And since in this research were are interested in individual differences we wanted to make the task really demanding.

Danish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

tys dam rød mild fup

vul bend sids påk ryd ham jøb

Russian 1 2 3 4 5

tjuk fek niz zhus bok

tsekh vyl mol’ khaz chjos


Catalan 1 2 3 4 5 6

llOs ler rin tEsh jan rup

bur guEig llan soll fer biny

D

S

S

D

S

D

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So another option is to use a language unknown to participants (L0) that would neutralize these language dominance effects. We tried out several languages and we ended up using Danish because it allowed us to select a 7-vowel set that would not advantage any of the groups (see the vowel plots at the end of this presentation). The task became a little bit more difficult because of the different phonetics and probably subjects adopt a perception mode that is more phonetic in nature, but the sound sequences still require phonological encoding through cross-language sound mappings. In our case an L0 also has the advantage that we could use it at the same time with learners of Spanish and Learners of English.This is what it sounded like.

// //

//

//

//

// //

//

Nat

Man

Nat

Man

% correct

discrimination

PM and AXB discrimination of natural (Nat) and duration-manipulated (Man) // and //:


AXB sheep – ship – ship vs. sheep – sheep – ship

Mora & Cerviño-Povedano (2010)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So in previous research, using a variety of L2 phonology measures and stimuli, we find that learners with higher PM capacity have better perception skills in the L2. We do not normally find very strong correlations between PM scores and L2 phonology scores, but grouping participants into high and low PM groups we consistently find that HIGH PM groups do better. This suggests that PM is related to L2 speech perception. In this case the results show that High PM learners are better than Low PM learners at correctly identifying the tense and lax high front vowels, with natural as well as duration-manipulated stimuli.


Cerviño-Povedano and Mora (2011)

190 ms. 50 ms. 190 ms. 50 ms.

PM and perception of duration-manipulated /ft/ and /ft/ Forced choice identification of pictures for feet or fit.

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

In this case the duration-manipulated stimuli were based on a continuum. The results showed that HIGH PM learners relied less than LOW PM learners on duration (and more on quality) in a forced-choice identification task with the words feet and fit, especially when the duration manipulation was larger.

PM and perception of vowel contrasts in an oddity

discrimination task.


0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

C1 C2 C3

DAN_HIGHPSTM

DAN_LOWPSTM

- - -

A’

CHANGE TRIALS

bid_bead_bead

bead_bid_bead

bead_bead_bid

A’ score (1=native-like; 0.5=no sensitivity) Choose the odd one out

Cerviño-Povedano, in progress

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

A similar pattern was obtained with an oddity discrimination task with natural stimuli. Here we used A’ as a measure of sensibility to the vowel contrasts. HIGH PM learners outperformed LOW PM learners. So this data shows that PM is related to L2 speech development.

Acoustic memory (AM)

AM is a memory storage for acoustic information listeners

use to encode phonological units.

> within-category acoustic differences for L2 sounds

> cross-language differences between similar sounds

> L2-specific weighting of phonetic cues (e.g. temporal

and spectral information in vowels or voicing in

consonants):

- underlying phonetic properties of speech sounds

(Cowan, 1984; Crowder and Morton, 1969; Fujisaki & Kawashina, 1969, 1970; Liberman et al.

1967; Pisoni, 1973, 1975; Studdert-Kennedy, 1973)

It is involved in the auditory processing of acoustic-

phonetic properties of speech sounds before

phonological encoding.

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Let’s now look at another cognitive skill that may be implicated in L2 phonological acquisition: Acoustic Memory. Acoustic memory has been viewed as a component of auditory sensory memory responsible for the temporary storage of acoustic information previous to the phonological encoding of sounds. As such it is involved in general auditory processing too, including speech, and the auditory processing of acoustic information at a stage prior to phonological encoding. It may be related to learners’ accuracy in the perception of acoustic differences between L2 sounds at a within-category level, or to cross-language differences between similar L1 and L2 sounds, or to cross-language differences in phonetic cue weighting. These cues (e.g. temporal and spectral information in vowels or voicing in consonants) encode linguistically relevant properties of L2 speech sounds and their use in context but are not identifiable as individual phonological units, rather they constitute the underlying phonetic properties of which sound units or representations are made up. Thus, whereas PSTM is a memory storage for phonological units and their serial order, AM is a memory storage for acoustic information listeners use to encode phonological units.


How can we measure AM?

(Blesser, 1992; Cowan & Morse 1986; Crowder & Morton 1969; Jacquemot et al., 2003; Scott

et al. 2000)

Rotated Speech (through spectral inversion)

- non-intelligible (would require specific training).

- as temporally and spectrally complex as speech.

- preserves most speech-like properties

(voicing, friction, pitch changes)

Stimuli should:

- not involve phonological encoding

- be non-intelligible

- be as acoustically complex as speech

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

How can we measure this type of acoustic memory? Clearly stumuli should avoid phonological encoding and be non-intelligible. We could use tones for example, but preferably they should also be as complex as speech if we want to relate AM to L2 phonological processing. We used a SNWR task with rotated nonwords.


[maɲ]

Rotated [maɲ]

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

This is what a rotated nonword looks like, and sounds like!

Sequences of 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 “Rotated Nonwords”:

3

4

5

6


S

S

D

D

N= 111

(Safronova, 2011; Safronova & Mora, 2012)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Let’s try out a few examples. These are some piloting results with L1-Catalan-Spanish learners of English. We are now improving these stimuli through various filtering options and by modifying the inter-stimuli intervals, but essentially this is what they sound like.


Pearson r AM

DIS Nat .502***

DIS Man .435**

ANOVA

within: Nat/Man p<.001

between: Low/High p=.009

Group differences:

Low AM (N=27)

High AM (N=39)

Nat: p=.007

Man: p=.010

(Safronova 2011; Safronova & Mora 2012)

* *

AM and AXB discrimination (// and //)

N=66

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

These are the results that we obtained with a smaller group of participants that also did an AXB discrimination task. Clearly learners with higher AM scores did better in the discrimination task (correlations are significant and moderately high). In the group analyses the HIGH AM group significantly outperformed the LOW AM group in L2 vowel discrimination accuracy. Here we did not control for proficiency, but participants were all upper-intermediate/advanced learners.

Attention Control (AC)

> L2 use is a complex cognitive task that requires the

foregrounding and backgrounding of linguistic information.

> Language as an attention-directing system.

> Linguistic skill as rapid & flexible control over the

attention-directing functions of language.

Phonological attention control:

A person’s ability to shift focus of attention from one

attention-directing function of speech (e.g.: duration) to

another (e.g. voice quality)

How can Attention Control be operationalized?

> alternating runs procedure requiring switching

between tasks where the dimensions under focus

appear predictably. (Monsell, 2003; Rogers & Monsell, 1995; Segalowitz & Frenkiel-Fishman, 2005; Segalowitz,

2010)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Let’s now look at the possible relationship between a learners’ ability to control attention and L2 speech perception. We may define phonological attention control as a person’s ability to shift focus of attention from one speech-based attention-directing function (e.g.: duration) to another (e.g. voice quality). This definition is based on the assumption that the use of an L2 is a complex task that requires the learner to bring to the foreground a specific linguistic dimension that needs to be under focus for speech processing. From this perspective Language is understood as an attention-directing system and linguistic skill as the ability to exert control rapidly and flexibly over these attention directing functions of language. For example, time adverbials serve the function of directing attention towards the temporal location of events (now, then, …). One way of measuring a person’s AC capacity is to obtain a measure of how fast she can re-allocate her attention when a change of focus is required, and one testing paradigm that you can use to do that is the predictable alternating runs procedure.

Task-switching paradigm: predictable alternating runs


Number

Letter

odd Left key vowel even Right key consonant

Rogers & Monsell (1995)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So this is how the original testing procedure works. Rogers and Monsell (1995). Subjects were presented with Letter-Number combinations and then they had to decide whether the number was odd or even and whether the letter was a vowel or a consonant. But they were asked to do that by focusing on the number when it appeared at the top of the screen, and on the letter when it appeared at the bottom of the screen, as in the following example.



Number

Letter


E7




Number

Letter

A4





Number

Letter P1





Number

Letter S5





Number

Letter

6J





Number

Letter

8U





Number

Letter 9O





Number

Letter 2A





Number

Letter

E3



Task-switching paradigm: measures

Number

Switch trial (S)

Switch

Shorter RTs

Lo

ng

er

RT

s L

on

ger R

Ts

Shorter RTs

AC Measures: - Shift cost = Switch RTs - Repeat RTs

- Error rate = Switch trials + Repeat trials

Repeat trial (R)

Repeat trial

Letter


JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Subjects’ reaction times are recorded and what typically happens is that RTs are shorter on repeat trials than they are on switch trials, that is, there is a shift cost when subjects have to re-allocate their attention on a different dimension. Subjects with larger AC capacity obtain shorter shift costs and lower error rates. So two measures are obtained, the Shift Cost and the Error rate.


A speech-based version of the alternating runs paradigm

(Safronova 2011; Safronova & Mora 2013)

Dimesion 2: voice quality

(a) male: i, e, a, etc.

(b) female: i, e, a, etc.

Dimension 1: segmental duration (quantity)

(a) short: i, e, a, etc.

(b) long: i, e, a, etc.

Duration is used in English to encode voicing in word-

final obstruents and at the same time is secondary to

identifying vowel quality distinctions.

Pitch is very important in speech. Besides identifying

talkers on the basis of sex and age, pitch changes are

used linguistically to convey meaning, as with intonation.

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

We developed a speech-based version of this task using two dimensions that are used in speech: segmental duration and voice quality (pitch). We chose these acoustic dimensions because Duration is used in English to encode voicing in word-final obstruents and at the same time is secondary to identifying vowel quality distinctions; and because Pitch is very important in speech. Besides identifying talkers on the basis of sex and age, pitch changes are used linguistically to convey meaning, as with intonation- Pitch, however, encodes linguistic information (such as pitch changes signalling the information structure of a sentence: narrow vs. broad focus sentences) as well as indexical information (fundamental frequency associated with talker identity and related to talker characteristics). These two types of information come through the auditory channel simultaneously and listeners need to focus on one (linguistic information normally) while bringing indexical information to the perceptual background. Let me show you one example.



speech-based attention-directing function to another

Time (s)

0.07458 0.69110

5000

Fre

qu

ency

(H

z)

0.0745787854 0.691117031

place

Time (s)

0.08064 0.85050

5000

Fre

qu

ency

(H

z)

0.0806364247 0.85050821

plays[pleɪs] [pleɪz ̻̥]

160ms 330ms 340ms 210ms

Foregrounding of duration vs. backgrounding of (partial)

closure voicing in word-final obstruents.

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

For example, English speakers typically use the allophonic vowel length difference in the context of final obstruents as a cue to voicing because final obstruents are often devoiced. So here they need to focus their attention on the length difference in the vowel and the following fricative.



speech-based attention-directing function to another

Foregrounding vs. backgrounding temporal and spectral

information.

[bɪt]

[biːt]

[biːd]

115ms

156ms

355ms

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Whereas in the case of vowels produced before a voiceless consonant, the usual vowel duration difference is just a secondary cue and listeners need to focus on the quality difference, as in this example.

Task-switching paradigm (speech-based version)

Length

Left key Right key Female Male Long Short


voice

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So this is how we used the task-switching paradigm to obtain a speech-based measure of listeners’ attention control capacity. Participants had to decide whether the sound they heard was long or short when a speaker appeared at the top of the screen or whether it was produced by a male or a female voice when it appeared at the bottom of the screen.


Length



voice

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Let’s listen to some examples. Could you say whether the vowel is long/short (top) or spoken by a male/female (bottom)?


Length



voice


Length



voice


Length



voice


Length



voice


Length



voice


Length



voice


Length



voice


Length



voice

(Safronova & Mora, 2013)


Error Rate (% ER)

Switch trials = 8.00

Repeat trials = 5.23

RTs

Switch RTs = 1117 ms

Repeat RTs = 923 ms

Switch cost = 193 ms

Results (descriptives N= 83)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So here’s the descriptives for 83 participants. As expected the error rates were higher on switch than on repeat trials, and RTs were slower on switch than on repeat trials.

Results: Error Rate



Pearson r AC ER

DIS Nat -.431**

DIS Man -.476**

ANOVAs


between: Low/High p<.001

Group differences:

Low AC ER (N=32)

High AC ER (N=28)

Nat: p=.002

Man: p<.001

* *

N=60

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

When relating error rate and shift cost scores to participants’ vowel discrimination accuracy, error rates significantly correlated with vowel accuracy scores and group analyses showed that learners with larger attention control capacity performed better in the vowel perception task, suggesting that AC is related to L2 phonological development.


Pearson r AC SC

DIS Nat n.s. -.039

DIS Man n.s. -.159

ANOVAs


between: Low/High n.s.

Group differences:

Low AC SC (N=30)

High AC SC (N=30)

Nat: p=.572

Man: p=.209


N=60

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

However, we did not find such clear relationship between AC shift costs and ABX discrimination, possibly due to task design issues. Because they were given feedback on error and the visual layout required relatively long time out durations (5 sec) listeners possibly focused more on accuracy than on speed. So although the error rates clearly indicate a relationship between attention control and discrimination accuracy, no clear relationship between the shift costs and discrimination emerged. In a more recent study we used a different task-switching paradigm that worked much better in this sense.

Spain

• 35 L2 learners of English

• 10 native speakers

– Universidad de Sevilla

(Spain)

United States

• 26 L2 learners of Spanish


– Indiana University

(Bloomington, USA)

- L2 production

- L2 perception

- Attention Control

Darcy, Mora & Daidone (2013)

- Inhibition

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

In this study we investigated the role of attention control and inhibition in L2 phonological development for L2 speech perception and production. The study was conducted in Spain and in the United States. We collected data from 35 Spanish L2 learners of English in the university of Sevilla and 26 L2 learners in Indiana University. Because the focus of this talk is on perception, I will discuss the perception data only.

Spain

• 35 L2 learners of English


– Universidad de Sevilla

(Spain)

United States

• 26 L2 learners of Spanish


– Indiana University

(Bloomington, USA)

- L2 production

- L2 perception

- Attention Control

Darcy, Mora & Daidone (2013)

- Inhibition

A B B A B

time

A S1 S2 S3

Response:

A or B female voice 1 female voice 2

Perception: speeded categorial ABX task

Stimulus item A item B Condition

Spanish saˈɾeβo saˈðeβo Test C

English səˈʃi:dən səˈtʃi:dən Test C

Spanish faˈneða faˈneɪða Test V

English fəˈni:dɪʃ fəˈnɪdɪʃ Test V

Spanish gaˈtaso gaˈðaso Control C

English gəˈtæfɪn gəˈdæfɪn Control C

Spanish luˈpito luˈpato Control V

English ləˈpi:dɪk ləˈpædɪk Control V

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

As a measure of L2 perceptual competence we used learners‘ accuracy scores in a speeded categorial ABX task focusing on difficult vowel and consonant contrasts. In this task, one trial consists of a series of 3 nonword stimuli, and subjects have to match the third one to either the first or the second one. The stimuli were - trisyllabic nonwords in both languages - recorded by two native bilingual speakers (Spanish /Am. English) in Spanish and in English. - In the control condition (bottom of table): the same contrasts contrasts are present in both Spanish and English phonologies (/t-d/ and /a-i/ + /ae-i/) - In the test condition (top of table), depending on the L2 of the participant, one vocalic and one consonantal contrast will not be contrastive in that L2.

L1: English Spanish English Spanish

Perception results: speeded categorial ABX task

Test Control

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

The results show that all participants are very accurate on the control contrasts regardless of the language of the stimulus, as well as on the test contrasts that are contrastive in their L1, but much less accurate on the L2 test contrasts. L1 English participants are less accurate on the Spanish-test stimuli, and vice versa for L1 Spanish participants.

Switch-Repeat alternation of stimuli

Spanish

Nasal

English

Nasal

ˈnoma ˈnoʊmə

ˈnole ˈnoʊleɪ

ˈniso ˈnɪsoʊ

Spanish

Nonnasal

English

Nonnasal

ˈpiɣo ˈpɪgoʊ

ˈdofe ˈdoʊfeɪ

ˈsaso ˈsæsoʊ

- Attention switching

between acoustic

dimensions: Nasality vs.

Native language phonetics

- 2 stimuli sets (Spanish &

Am.English)

- 2 native bilinguals

recorded 2 stimuli sets.


JoanCarles

Sticky Note

We measured attention control through an alternating switch-repeat task similar to the one described earlier, but the presentation procedure and acoustic dimensions were different. Here participants must switch attention between Nasality vs. Native language phonetics. Participants must decide whether a nonword begins with a nasal or not, and whether a nonword is spoken in their L1 or not. So we have 2 sets of stimuli: Spanish, and English, both containing nonwords starting with a nasal and without.

Question Auditory stimulus Response

Example: L1-English learner of L2-Spanish

English?

YES NO


JoanCarles

Sticky Note

This is how the switching task worked. In this example, the L1 of the participant is English. The participant sees a question on the screen, for example “English?”. Then they hear a nonword and have to respond to the question as fast as possible.

English?

YES NO





Nasal?

YES NO




Nasal?

YES NO



English?

[ˈnoma] NO English?

[ˈdoʊfeɪ] YES

Nasal? [ˈsæsoʊ] NO

Nasal? [ˈniso] YES

Measures: RT on Switch vs. Repeat (baseline) conditions Switch cost: Switch – Repeat, for each participant


R

R

S


JoanCarles

Sticky Note

There are 2 types of trials: SWITCH and REPEAT trials. A Switch trial is a trial following a different question, whereas a repeat trial is a trial following the same question as before. SWITCH trials require participants to re-focus their attention on a different acoustic dimension. We measured the RT on switch vs. repeat trials, and we calculated a “Shift cost”.

66

L1: English Spanish

* *

Results:


JoanCarles

Sticky Note

The results show that in both groups RTs are shorter in repeat than in switch trials.

- L2 perception - Attention Control

Vocabulary test score

used as covariate to partial out proficiency


Perception

(ABX)

Attention

(shift cost)

L2 Sp n.s.

L2 En r= -.488*

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

We then used correlations to explore the relationship between attention control scores (shift costs) and the ABX perception scores. The L1-Spanish learners of English who had obtained smaller shift costs, that is, those with higher attention control skills, were more accurate at discriminating the L2 sound contrasts (however, we did not find that for the L1-English learners of Spanish). This may be because of differences in how sensitive the ABX task in English and Spanish were in capturing inter-learner differences in their phonological development. However, at least for the L1-Spanish learners of English these results point in the same direction as those presented before. Attention control seems to be implicated in L2 phonological development.

Inhibitory control:

A person’s ability to bring to the background stimuli

(visual, auditory) or stimuli features (colour, shape) that

are irrelevant to the mental process at hand.

Inhibition

Inhibition in language and speech:

- Bilingual language control: e.g. L1/L2

- Inhibition of the language not in use

- Lexical selection in word retrieval processes

- inhibition as the suppression of activation: higher inhibition >

harder to activate (harder to overcome suppression)

- Cue-weighting in L1/L2 speech processing

- Focusing attention on a cue inhibits another:

e.g. V Duration is inhibited when processing V quality (Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Costa, Santesteban & Ivanova, 2006; Lev-Ari & Peperkamp,

2013; Miyake et al., 2000)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Finally I will explain what we found for Inhibitory control in the same study with the same participants. Inhibitory control may be defined as a person’s ability to bring to the background stimuli (visual, auditory) or stimuli features (colour, shape) that are irrelevant to the mental process at hand. In language and speech inhibitory control is a cognitive skill involved in: - bilingual language control: when bilinguals need to inhibit the language not in use when using the other. - in lexical selection: in word retrieval processes the selected lexical item is the one receiving the strongest level of activation whereas unselected items must have a lower level of activation. Therefore in this context inhibition can be understood as the suppression of activation. The higher the inhibition, the harder it would be to re-activate a lexical item, i.e. the harder to overcome the suppression of the activation. - finally, in phonetic cue-weighting one may think of inhibition as speakers’ ability to avoid paying attention to an irrelevant phonetic cue.

Amount of inhibition is related to proficiency level

- Activation HIGH in L1 > strong inhibition

- Activation LOW in L2 (if proficiency is LOW) > little inhibition

(Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Costa, Santesteban & Ivanova, 2006; Calabria et al. 2012)

Inhibition

- RTs are slower in

Switch than

Nonswitch trials.

- L1-to-L2 and L2-to-L1

switching costs are

asymmetrical:

> shifting to L1

requires more time (to

overcome inhibition)

L1 shift

cost

L2 shift

cost

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So how does Inhibition work in language processing? Here is an example from bilingual language control. Essentially activation is always HIGH in the L1 and LOW in the L2 (depending on the proficiency level). So one needs a very strong inhibitory control to inhibit the L1, whereas little inhibition is required to inhibit the L2. This explains for example the asymmetric switch costs typically found in language switching tasks using picture naming. Shifting to the L1 requires more time to overcome the inhibition.

Amount of inhibition = Level of proficiency




Inhibition

Spanish-Catalan highly

proficient early bilinguals

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

However, this does not happen with bilinguals who are highly proficient in both their languages. Here their L1-to-L2 and L2-to-L1 switching costs are the same.

Inhibition and L2 phonological acquisition

(Lev-Ari & Peperkamp, 2013; Darcy, Mora & Daidone, 2013; Mora & Darcy, 2013)

Inhibition

> Stronger inhibitory skill might result in better

inhibition of the language not in use, and to more

efficient phonological processing when switching

between speech dimensions or languages.

> Learners with better inhibitory control may be more

efficient at inhibiting their L1 phonetics and phonology

when speaking their L2

> more accurate, less foreign-accented speech

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

What is the role then of inhibitory control in L2 phonological develoment? Learners with stronger inhibitory skill might be more successful at inhibiting their L1 when using the L2, and might be more efficient in phonological processing when switching between speech dimensions or between languages. Learners with better inhibitory control may be more efficient at inhibiting their L1 phonetics and phonology when speaking their L2 and this may lead to more accurate, less foreign accented speech.

• Vegetables – Lettuce

– Potato

– Artichoke

– Onion

– Spinach

– Tomato

• Animals – Duck

– Snake

– Elephant

– Horse

– Tiger

– Cow

• Occupations – Plumber

– Teacher

– Fireman

– Carpenter

– Engineer

– Nurse


– Potato

– Artichoke

– Onion

– Spinach

– Tomato


– Snake

– Elephant

– Horse

– Tiger

– Cow


– Teacher

– Fireman

– Carpenter

– Engineer

– Nurse

Memorize Practice

Type: Vegetable-L___ Recognize

Inhibited

Control (non practiced

category)

RT on

inhibited

/

RT on

control


– Potato

– Artichoke

– Onion

– Spinach

– Tomato


– Snake

– Elephant

– Horse

– Tiger

– Cow


– Teacher

– Fireman

– Carpenter

– Engineer

– Nurse

PLUS additional items never

presented before (e.g. secretary)

Inhibition score =

(RT to inhibited)/(RT to control)

Inhibition: inhibitory control task

Increased

activation

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

In order to measure learners’ inhibitory control capacity we used a task based on lexical selection and retrieval. Participants memorize 6 words of different categories (vegetables, occupations, or animals) Then, they practice only half of the words of 2 of the categories they have memorized (e.g. tomato, nurse) by typing them several times. The practicing of some items increases their level of activation and causes the inhibition of the NON-PRACTICED items. The items from the NONPRACTICED CATEGORY will serve as the control. Participants are then tested on recognition of practiced as well as 2 types of unpracticed words: from practiced categories (should be inhibited according to theories of lexical access), and from unpracticed categories (control). The inhibition score they obtain is the RT on the inhibited devided by the RT on the control, so that a score > 1 indicated inhibition.

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

control inhibited

Reacti

on

Tim

e (

ms)

Inhibition: results

- ABX accuracy

- Inhibition

Perception

(ABX)

Inhibition

(score)

L2 Sp

r= .507*

L2 En

r= .615*

(Proficiency partialled out)

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Overall participants were slower on the recognition of inhibited than control words, as expected. We also found inhibitory control to be related to learners’ accuracy in the ABX task, suggesting that learners that inhibitory control was related to their L2 phonological development.


Phonological

short-term

Memory (PM)

Acoustic

Memory

(AM)

Attention

Control

(AC)

INHIBITION

(INH)

Cognitive skills L2 phonological competence

- Explain inter-learner variability

- L2-Learner populations may differ

in crucial respects. e.g. we recently

found a much weaker relationship

between Inhibitory control and ABX

discrimination with a bilingual

population in Barcelona.

- Not all cognitive skills seem to have

the same weight, but:

- variety of cognitive tasks

- variety of L2 phonological

assessment tasks

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So it seems that in general the cognitive skills that we have explored in relation to L2 phonological development do explain a certain amount of variance in learners’ segmental perception skills. However, not all cognitive skills appear to be related to L2 phonological processing with equal strength. This may be explained by the fact that we have used a variety of cognitive tasks, a variety of L2 phonology assessment tasks, and ALSO L2-learners may differ in important ways due to their language background e.g. we recently found a much weaker relationship between Inhibitory control and ABX discrimination with a bilingual population in Barcelona.

PM, AM, AC & L2 Vowel Perception

Phonological

short-term

Memory (PM)

Acoustic

Memory

(AM)

Attention

Control

(AC ER)

Regression Analyses (N=60) R2=.286 (28.6%); p=.001 (Nat)

R2=.285 (28.5%); p=.001 (Man)

AXB

discrimination

/iː/-/ɪ/

% Unique Variance

Explained p=

0.01 .945 Nat

0.03 .881 Man

11.3 .007 Nat

4.9 .070 Man

3.5 .123 Nat

9.5 .013 Man

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

In a regression analysis on data from 60 bilingual Catalan-Spanish learners of English we found that AM and AC error rates, but not PM, explained a significant amount of variance in their AXB discrimination scores.

PM, AM, AC & L2 Vowel Perception

Phonological

short-term

Memory (PM)

Acoustic

Memory

(AM)

Attention

Control

(AC SC)

Regression Analyses R2=.258 (25.8%); p=.002 (Nat)

R2=.236 (23.6%); p=.004 (Man)

AXB

discrimination

/iː/-/ɪ/

% Unique Variance

Explained p=

0.23 .696 Nat

0.55 .552 Man

20.4 .001 Nat

14.6 .003 Man

0.7 .510 Nat

4.5 .092 Man

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

When we did the same analyses with Shift Costs as a measure of AC, AM acounted for up to 20% of the variance in the L2 phonology score. So there is still plenty of work to do in this fascinating area of research and still many questions remain to be investigated.

- Improving the speech-based tasks to measure cognitive

skills. > current PhD work on phonological memory by Eva Cerviño-

Povedano

- Training and pedagogy:

> What is the role of individual differences in

cognitive skills on L2 perception and production

gains obtained through phonetic training?

> Can speech-related cognitve functions be trained

efficiently for the benefit of L2 phonological

development? How?

- What is the role of individual differences in cognitive

skills on cross-language speech perception and the

formation of L2 phonetic categories? > current PhD work by

Elena Safronova.

Next steps

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

So what are the immediate next steps in this line of research? First we need to do further work on the tasks that we are using to measure cognitive skills in order to improve them. See, for example, PhD work in progress on PM by Eva Cerviño-Povedano. Second, we need to consider important implications of this research for phonetic training and pedagogy that are likely to lead to further unexplored areas of research in L2 phonological development. For example: What is the role of cognitive skills on L2 perception and production gains obtained through phonetic training? Can speech-related cognitve functions be trained efficiently for the benefit of L2 phonological development? and if so, How?. And finally, What is the role of individual differences in cognitive skills on cross-language speech perception and the formation of L2 phonetic categories? > current PhD work by Elena Safronova.

Thank you!

• Shiri Lev Ari, Sharon Peperkamp (LSCP,

Paris)

• Paola Rodrigues, Tanya Flores, Diana Arroyo, Ana Fernandez, Maggie Peters, Fiona Pannatt

• Amanda Rabideau (Univ. of Utah)

• Elena Safronova (Barcelona)

• Eva Cerviño-Povedano (Barcelona)

• Marina Barrio Parra, M. Heliodora Cuenca Villarín (Sevilla)

• Ron Roosevelt (Sevilla)

• Carmen Muñoz (Barcelona)

• Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig (Bloomington)

• SLPL lab members (Bloomington)

• Jeffrey Holliday (Bloomington)

• Danielle Daidone (Bloomington)

• Grant support : – Grant-in-Aid, Indiana University Bloomington

– Grants HUM2007-64302 (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) and 2009SGR137 (Generalitat de Catalunya)

- Ajut per a la internacionalització de projectes. Facultat de Filologia, UB.

Comments/questions:

[email protected]

JoanCarles

Sticky Note

Thank you! I would be very pleased to answer any questions you may have.

References

79

Adams, A. M.; Gathercole, S. E. (1996). Phonological working memory and spoken language development in

young children. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 41 (1). 216–233.

Adams, A. M.; Gathercole, S. E. (2000). Limitations in working memory: Implications for language

development. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 35. 95–116.

Adams, S., Bourke, L., Willis, C. 1999. Working memory and spoken language comprehension in young

children. International Journal of Psychology. 34. 364-373.

Aliaga-Garcia, C.; Mora, J. C.; Cerviño-Povedano, E. (2011). Phonological short-term memory and L2 speech

learning in adulthood. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 47 (1). 1-14.

Atkins, P. W. B., & Baddeley, A. D. (1998). Working memory and distributed vocabulary learning. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 19, 537-552.

Avello, P.; Mora, J. C.; Pérez-Vidal, C. (2012). Perception of FA by non-native listeners in a study abroad

context. Research in Language 10 (1). 63-78.

Baddeley, A. (1986) Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Baddeley, A. D. 2003. Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders 36.

189-208.

Baddeley, A.; Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G.A. (ed.) The psychology of learning and

motivation. New York: Academic Press. 47-89.

Baker, W.; Trofimovich, P. (2005) Interaction of native- and second-language vowel system(s) in early and

late bilinguals. Language and Speech 48, 1-27.

Baker, W.; Trofimovich, P.; Flege, J.E.; Mack, M; Halter, R. (2008). Child-adult differences in second-language

phonological learning: The role of cross-language similarity. Language and Speech 51. 316-341.

Best, C. (1995) A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W. (ed.) (1995) Speech

perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Timonium, MD: York Press. 171-

204.

References

80

Best, C. T.; Tyler, M. D.; Gooding, T. N.; Orlando, C. B.; Quann, C.A. (2009). Development of phonological

constancy: Toddlers’ perception of native- and Jamaican-accented words. Psychological Science 20. 539-

542

Best, C.; Tyler, M. (2007). Non-native and second language speech perception. In Bohn, O.-S., Munro, M.J.

(eds) (2007) Language experience in second language speech learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 15-34.

Blake, J.; Austin,W.; Cannon, M.; Lisus, A.; Vaughan, A. (1994). The relationship between memory span and

measures of imitative and spontaneous language complexity in preschool children. International Journal of

Behavioral Development 17. 91–107.

Blesser, B. (1972). Speech perception under conditions of spectral transformation: I. Phonetic characteristics.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 15, 5-41.

Bongaerts, T., Van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the

pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(4), 447-465.

Bradlow, A.R.; Akahane-Yamada, R.; Pisoni, D.B.; Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify

English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics

61, 977–985.

Calabria, M., Hernández, M., Branzi, F. M. & Costa, A. (2012). Qualitative differences between language

control and executive control: evidence from task-switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 339: 1-10.

Cebrian, J. (2006). Experience and the use of duration in the categorization of L2 vowels. Journal of

Phonetics 34. 372-387.

Cerviño-Povedano, E.; Mora, J. C. (2011). Investigating Catalan learners of English over-reliance on duration:

vowel cue weighting and phonological short-term memory. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K.; Wrembel, M.; Kul, M.

(eds.) Achievements and perspectives in SLA of speech: New Sounds 2010. VolumeI. Frankfurt am Main:

Peter Lang. 56-64.

Cerviño-Povedano, E.; Mora, J. C.; Aliaga-Garcia, C. (2011). Phonological short-term memory and language

dominance in Catalan/Spanish bilingual EFL learners. Poster presented at the 5th Phonetics and Phonology

in Iberia Conference PaPI-2011, 21-22 June 2011, Tarragona, Spain.

References

81

Christiner M and Reiterer SM (2013) Song and speech: examining the link between singing talent and

speech imitation ability. Front. Psychol. 4:874. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00874

Costa, A. & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language

switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language 50: 491-511.

Costa, A., Santesteban, M. & Ivanova, I. (2006). How do highly proficient bilinguals control thei lexicalization

process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 5:1057-1074.

Cowan, N. (1984). On short and long auditory stores. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 341-370.Cowan, N.;

Morse, P. (1986). The use of auditory and phonetic memory in vowel discrimination. Journal of Acoustical

Society of America 79 (2). 500–507.

Crowder, R. G.; Morton, J. (1969). Precategorical acoustic storage. Perception & Psychophysics 5. 365–373.

Darcy, I., Daidone, D. & Kojima, C. (submitted). Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations

in second language learners.

Darcy, I., Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R., Glover, J., Kaden, C., McGuire, M., and Scott, J. (2012). Direct

Mapping of Acoustics to Phonology: On the lexical encoding of front round vowels in L1 English-L2 French

acquisition. Second Language Research, 28, 5-40.

Díaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of Learning in the Acquisition of Spanish Second Language Phonology.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26 (2). 249-273.

Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review 19. 42-68.

Dufva, M., Voeten, J.M. 1999. Native language literacy and phonological memory as prerequisites for

learning English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics 20. 329-348.

Flege, J. E., Bohn, O.-S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers' production and

perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437-470.

Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal

of Memory and Language, 41, 78-104.

References

82

Flege, J.E. (2009). Give input a chance!. In Piske, T.; Young-Scholten, M. (eds.) Input Matters in SLA. Bristol:

Multilingual Matters. 175-190.

French, L. M. (2006). Phonological working memory and second language acquisition: a developmental study

of francophone children learning English in Quebec. Edwin Mellen Pr.

French, L.; O’Brien, I. (2008). Phonological memory and children’s second language grammar learning.

Applied Psycholinguistics 29. 463-487.

Fujisaki, H., & Kawashima, T. (1969). On the modes and mechanisms of speech perception. Annual Report of

the Engineering Research Institute, 28, 67-73.

Fujisaki, H., & Kawashima, T. (1970). Some experiments on speech perception and a model for the

perceptual mechanism. Annual Report of the Engineering Research Institute, 29, 207-214.

Fullana, N. (2006). The development of English (FL) perception and production skills: Starting age and

exposure effects. In Muñoz, C. (ed) (2006) Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon, England:


Gathercole, S. E.; Hitch, G. J.; Service, E.; Martin, A. J. (1997). Phonological short-term memory and new

word learning in children. Developmental Psychology 33 (6). 966-979.

Gathercole, S.E.; Pickering, S.J.; Hall, M.; Peaker, S.M. (2001). Dissociable lexical and phonological

influences on serial recognition and serial recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 54 (A). 1-30.

Golestani, N., & Zatorre, R. J. (2009). Individual differences in the acquisition of second language

phonology. Brain and language, 109(2), 55-67.;

Gottfried, T. L. 2007: ‘Music and language learning: Effect of musical training on learning L2 speech

contrasts’.

Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexicosemantic system. Bilingualism: Language and

Cognition,1, 67–81.

Grønnum, N. (1998). Danish. Illustrations of the IPA. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 28. 99-

105.

References

83

Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., & Loftin, J. D. (2000). The effect of L1 use on pronunciation in Quichua-Spanish

bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 27-42.

Guion, S.G. & Pederson, E. (2007). Investigating the role of attention in phonetic learning. In O.-S. Bohn & M.

Munro (Eds.) Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 57-

77.

Hazan, V., and Kim, Y. H. (2010). “Can we predict who will benefit from computer-based phonetic training?” in

Online Proceedings of the INTERSPEECH 2010 Satellite Workshop on Second Language Studies:

Acquisition, Learning, Education and Technology (L2WS 2010), Tokyo, Japan. Available at

http://www.gavo.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/L2WS2010/papers/L2WS2010_P2-06.pdf

Hazan, V., Sennema, A., Iba, M., & Faulkner, A. (2005). Effect of audiovisual perceptual training on the

perception and production of consonants by Japanese learners of English. Speech communication, 47(3),

360-378.

Højen, A. 2003. Second Language Speech Perception and Production in Adult Learners Before and After

Short-Term Immersion. PhD thesis, University of Aarhus.

Hu, X.; Ackermann, H.; Martin, J.; Erb, M.; Winkler, S.; Reiterer, S. M. (2013). Language aptitude for

pronunciation in advanced second language (L2) learners: behavioural predictors and neural substrates.

Brain and Language: in press.

Hummel, K. M.; French, L. M. (2010). Phonological memory and implications for the second language

classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review 66(3). 371–391.

Isaacs, T.; Trofimovich, P. (2011). Phonological memory, attention control, and musical ability: Effects of

individual differences on rater judgments of second language speech. Applied Psycholinguistics 32. 113-140.

Iverson, P.; Evans, B.G. (2009). Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems II:

Auditory training for native Spanish and German speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126.

866–877.






References

84

Jacquemot, C., Pallier, C., LeBihan, D., Dehaene, S., & Dupoux, E. (2003). Phonological grammar shapes

the auditory cortex: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(29),

9541-9546.

Kim, Y.H. and Hazan, V. (2010) Individual variability in the perceptual learning of L2 speech sounds and its

cognitive correlates. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K.,Wrembel, M. and Kul, M. (eds) New Sounds 2010:

Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech. 251-256.

Lecumberri, M. G., & Gallardo, F. (2003). English FL sounds in school learners of different ages. Age and the

acquisition of English as a foreign language, 115-35.

Lengeris, A.; Hazan, V. (2010). The effect of native vowel processing ability and frequency discrimination

acuity on the phonetic training of English vowels for native speakers of Greek. Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America 128(6). 3757-3768.

Lev-Ari, S., & Peperkamp, S. (2013). Low inhibitory skill leads to non-native perception and production in

bilinguals’ native language. Journal of Phonetics,41(5), 320-331.

Llanes, À. & Muñoz, C. (2013) Age effects in a study abroad context: children and adults studying abroad and

at home. Language Learning 63(1), 63-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00731.x

Logan, J.S.; Lively, S.E.; and Pisoni, D.B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A

first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89. 874–886.

Masoura, E. V., & Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Phonological Short-term Memory and Foreign Language

Learning. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 383-388.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and

diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable

analysis.Cognitive psychology, 41(1), 49-100.

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(3), 134-140.

Mora, J. C. (2008). Learning context effects on the acquisition of a second language phonology. In Pérez-

Vidal, C.; Juan-Garau, M.; Bel, A. (eds), A portrait of the young in the new multilingual Spain. Clevedon:


References

85

Mora, J. C. and Darcy, I. (2013). Inhibition and phonological processing in a second language. Paper

presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association EUROSLA 23, 28-

31 August 2013, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Mora, J.C.; Cerviño-Povedano, E. (2010). Phonological short-term memory and L2 vowel perception. Paper

presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association (EUROSLA-20),

Reggio Emilia, Italy. September 1-4, 2010.

Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in second language acquisition, 21(1), 81-

108.

Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2 phonological

attainment. In Piske, T.; Young-Scholten, M. (eds) (2009). Input Matters in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

159-174.

Muñoz, C. & Llanes, À. (in press) Study Abroad and Changes in Degree of Foreign Accent in Children and

Adults. The Modern Language Journal.

O’Brien, I.; Segalowitz, N.; Collentine, J.; Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexical, narrative, and

grammatical skills in second language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27. 377-

402.

O’Brien, I.; Segalowitz, N.; Freed, B.; Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second language

oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29. 577-582.

Pallier, C., Bosch, L., & Sebastian-Gallés, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception.

Cognition, 64, B9-B17.

Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1995). Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary learning in polyglots. The

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 48, 98-107.

Piske, T. (2007). Implications of James E. Flege’s research for the foreign language classroom. In Bohn, O-

S.; Munro, M. J. (eds.) (2007). Language Experience in Second Language Learning. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. 301-314.

References

86

Piske, T., Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R., & Meador, D. (2002). The production of English vowels by fluent early

and late Italian-English bilinguals. Phonetica,59(1), 49-71.

Pisoni, D. B. (1973). Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and

vowels. Perception & Psychophysics, 13(2), 253-260.

Pisoni, D. B. (1975). Auditory short-term memory and vowel perception.Memory & Cognition, 3(1), 7-18.

Polka, 1991

Reiterer, S. M., Hu, X., Erb, M., Rota, G., Nardo, D., Grodd, W., ... & Ackermann, H. (2011). Individual

differences in audio-vocal speech imitation aptitude in late bilinguals: functional neuro-imaging and brain

morphology.Frontiers in psychology, 2.

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of

experimental psychology: General, 124(2), 207.

Safronova, E.; Mora, J. C. (2012). Acoustic and phonological memory in L2 vowel perception. In Martín

Alegre, S., Moyer, M., Pladevall, E. and Tubau, S. (Eds.). At a Time of Crisis: English and American Studies

in Spain. Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona/AEDEAN.

384-390.

Safronova, E.; Mora, J. C. (2013). Attention control in L2 phonological acquisition. In Llanes Baró, A., Astrid

Ciro, L., Gallego Balsà, L. and Mateus Serra, R. M. (eds) Applied Linguistics in the Age of Globalization.

Lleida: Edicions de la Universitat de Lleida. 109-114.

Scott, S.K.; Blank, C.C.; Rosen, S.; Wise, R.J.S. (2000). Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in

the left temporal lobe. Brain, 123, 2400-2406.

Scott, S.K.; Rosen, S.; Lang, H.; & Wise, R.J. (2006). Neural correlates of intelligibility in speech investigated

with noise vocoded speech—a positron emission tomography study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of

America 120 (2). 1075-1083.

Segalowitz, N. (1997). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In A.M.B. de Groot & J.Kroll

(eds) (1997). Tutorials in bilingualism. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 85–112.

References

87

Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive Basis of Second Language Fluency. New York: Routledge.

Segalowitz, N. and Frenkiel-Fishman, S. (2005) Attention control and ability level in a complex cognitive skill:

attention-shifting and second language proficiency. Memory and Cognition, 33, 644-653.

Service, Elisabet. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign-language learning. The Quarterly Journal

of Experimental Psychology. A. Human experimental psychology, 45A, 21-50.

Slevc, L. R., & Miyake, A. (2006). Individual Differences in Second-Language Proficiency Does Musical Ability

Matter?. Psychological Science, 17(8), 675-681.

Studdert-Kennedy, M. The perception of speech. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends in linguistics. Vol. XII.

The Hague: Mouton, 1973.

Ylinen, S.; Uther, M.; Latvala, A.; Vepsalainen, S.; Iverson, P.; Akahane-yamada, R.; Naatanen, R. (2010).

Training the brain to weight speech cues differently: A study of Finnish second-language users of English.

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22 (6). 1319-1332.

(Mora & Cerviño-Povedano 2010)


- 54 Catalan-Spanish Bilinguals

- ID (cue weighting): natural & duration manipulated MPs

- PM (SNWR): Catalan (L1), English (L2) and Russian (L0).

- PM score (median split) Low vs. High

Natural Shortening/Lengthening Manipulated

voiced 425ms /dd/

240ms /dd/

425ms → 240ms

240ms → 425ms

/dd/ 240ms

/dd/ 425ms

unvoiced 245ms /pk/

165ms /pk/

245ms → 165ms

165ms → 245ms

/pk/ 165ms

/pk/ 245ms

Stimuli manipulation (Ylinen et al. 2010): Tense // was given the duration of lax // (shortened) in every minimal

pair produced by every speaker (and lax // → // tense (lengthened))

89

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

34 29 38 6 31 35

Inh

ibit

ion

Sco

re

Participant ID

Non-learners

- 1 means 2 RTs are the same

- higher bar = higher inhibition (higher RT in inhibited condition)

Inhibition: Results

90



Inhibition: Results

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

28 21 27 10 15 8 20 29 24 1 18 2 12 13 16 17 26

Inh

ibit

ion

Sco

re

Participant ID

L2 Spanish

91



Inhibition: Results

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

36 15 8 24 33 28 17 9 22 11 27 44 34 19 31

Inh

ibit

ion

Sco

re

Participant ID

L2 English

Amount of inhibition = Level of proficiency



Language Switching Task (picture naming)

Trials: - switch (L1-L2 / L2-L1) and non-switch (L1-L1 / L2-L2)

- language cued by background colour:

Measure: RTs from stimuli onset to voice-key activation


L1 L2 L2

L1 L1 L2 L2 L1 L1 L2

>switch> >non-s> >switch> >non-s> >switch> >non-s>

Inhibition

93

Spanish L2

/e/ - /eɪ /: amount of tongue

movement

/ɾ/ - /ð/ Average score (max. 8)

English L2

/i:/ - /ɪ/ : spectral differences (Bark)

/ʃ/ - /tʃ/ Average score (max. 8)

L2 learners Mean

score SD

n = 35 6.89 1.32

Native speakers

(English)

n = 10 8 0

L2 learners Mean score SD

n = 26 4.27 2.20

Native speakers

(Spanish)

n = 9 7.89 0.3

/ɪ/ /i:/

/ɪ/

/i:/

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,006,008,0010,0012,00

B1 -

B0

B2-B1

L2 learners

Native speakers

Production results: delayed sentence repetition

u

ɛ

ɒ

ɑ

æ

e ø

ʌ

i y

o

ɔ

a

œ

œ̙

ɶ


Danish

Danish

u

ɛ

ɒ

ɑ

æ

e ø

ʌ

i y

o

ɔ

a

œ

œ̙

ɶ


Danish

u

ɛ

ɑ

i y

o

œ


Danish

u

ɛ

ɑ

i y

o

œ


Danish

i

e

a

ɛ ɔ

o

u

ə

i

e

a

o

u

o Catalan

Spanish

Documents

Individual differences in cognitive ability and L2 speech ...€¦ · So why study individual differences in L2 phonology? There are of course all type of reasons for doing that,