Cover not available
Part of
Topics in Theoretical Asian Linguistics: Studies in honor of John B. Whitman
Edited by Kunio Nishiyama, Hideki Kishimoto and Edith Aldridge
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 250] 2018
► pp. 331–341

Chapter 15
The role of perceived similarity and contrast

English loanwords into Korean and Japanese

| RIKEN Center for Brain Science

This study explores a pattern of speech perception in Korean and Japanese with special attention to American English vowel /æ/. Two identification tests reveal that Korean speakers pay more attention to the second formant (F2) signaling the backness of a vowel, whereas Japanese speakers are more sensitive to the first formant (F1) signaling the height of a vowel. The distinct sensitivity to different acoustic cues in the languages discussed here is accounted for by two language-specific factors: Different L1 vowel systems and language-specific variations.

Keywords: perceived similarity, language-specificity, native phonology, language experience, Korean, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Experiment
    • 2.1Identification of non-native vowels using natural stimuli
      • 2.1.1Method
      • 2.1.2Results
    • 2.2Identification of synthesized stimuli
      • 2.2.1Method
      • 2.2.2Results
  • 3.Discussion
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.16hwa
References
Ahn, S.
1998 An Introduction to Korean Phonology. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Best, C. T.
1995 A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-language Speech Research, W. Strange (ed.), 167–200. Timonium MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Kakehi, K., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C. & Mehler, J.
1999 Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology-human Perception and Performance 25(6): 1568–1578.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E.
1995 Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Speech perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-language Speech Research, W. Strange (ed.), 233–277. Timonium MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, P. & Jang, S.
1997 Effects of experience on non-native speakers production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics 25, 437–470.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hisagi, M.
2007 Perception of Japanese Temporally-cued Phonetic Contrasts by Japanese and American English Listeners: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Measures. PhD dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
Ingram, J. C. L. & Park, S. -G.
1997 Cross-language vowel perception and production by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics 25: 343–370.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K.
2004 Cross-linguistic perceptual differences emerge from the lexicon. In Proceedings of the 2003 Texas Linguistics Society Conference: Coarticulation in Speech Production and Perception, A. Agwuele, W. Warren & S. -H. Park (eds.) 26–41. Sommerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kang, Y.
2003 Perceptual similarity in loanword adaptation: English postvocalic word-final stops in Korean. Phonology 20: 219–273.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 A corpus-based study of positional variation in Seoul Korean vowels. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 23.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N. & Lindblom, B.
1992 Linguistic experiences alter phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255: 606–608.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, C.
1999 Eoneo (language). Seoul: Tapchulpansa.Google Scholar
Kim, J.
2010 Perception and production of English front vowels by Korean speakers. Journal of Korean Society of Speech Sciences 2(1): 51–58.Google Scholar
Mitsuya, T., MacDonald, E. N., Purcell, D. W. & Munhall, K. G.
2010 A cross-language study of compensatory response to formant-shifted feedback. Paper presented at The Second Language Studies – Acquisition, Learning, Education and Technology, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S.
2005 A psycholinguistic theory of loanword adaptations. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, M. Ettlinger, N. Fleischer & M. Park-Doob (eds.), 341–352. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S. & Dupoux, E.
2003 Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: The role of perception. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, M. J. Solé, D. Recasens & J. Romero (eds.), 367–370. Adelaide: Causal Productions.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S., Vedelin, I., & Nakamura, K.
(2008) On the perceptual origin of loanword adaptations: Experimental evidence from Japanese. Phonology 25: 129–164.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverman, D.
1992 Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: Evidence from Cantonese. Phonology 9: 289–328.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strange, W., Akahane-Yamada, R., Kubo, R., Trent, S. A., & Nishi, K.
2001 Effects of consonantal context on perceptual assimilation of American English vowels by Japanese listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109: 1691–1704.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szpyra-Kozłowska J. & Radomski, M.
2015 Perception versus spelling in loanword adaptation from English into Polish: The case of /æ/ and /ɪ/. Paper presented at Approaches to Phonetics and Phonology.Google Scholar
Tsukada, K., Birdsong, D., Bialystok, E., Mack, M., Sung, H. & Flege, J.
2005 A developmental study of English vowel production and perception by native Korean adults and children. Journal of Phonetics 33: 263–290.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vance, T.
2008 The Sounds of Japanese. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Yoon, T., Kang, Y., Han, S., Maeng, H., Lee, J., & Kim, K.
2015 A corpus-based approach to dialectal variation in Korean vowels. Proceedings of ICPhS 2015.Google Scholar