Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 13:1 (2018) ► pp.26–37

The influence of phoneme inventory on elicited speech errors in Arabic speakers of English

| Qassim University
| University of Kansas
| University of Kansas
| University of Kansas

Previous studies have shown that nonnative phonemic contrasts pose perceptual difficulties for L2 learners, but less is known about how these contrasts affect speech production in L2 learners. In the present study, we elicited speech errors in a tongue twister task investigating L1 Arabic speakers producing L2 English words. Two sets of word productions were contrasted: words with phonemic contrasts existing in both L1 Arabic and L2 English (e.g. tip vs dip, sing vs zing) or words with phonemic contrasts existing in English alone (pit vs bit, fat vs vat). Results showed that phonemic contrasts that do not exist in Arabic induced significantly more speech errors in L2 Arabic speakers of English compared to native English speakers than did phonemic contrasts found in both languages. Implications of these findings for representations in L2 learners are discussed.

Keywords: speech production, speech errors, tongue twister, Arabic, phoneme inventory
Article outline
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.17014.alj
References
Aoyama, K., Flege, J., Guion, S., Akahane-Yamada, R., and Yamada, T.
(2004) Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: the case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics, 321, 233–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baars, B. J., Motley, M. T. & MacKay, D. G.
(1975) Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 141, 382–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balukas, C. & Koops, C.
(2015) Spanish-English bilingual voice onset time in spontaneous code-switching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 191, 423–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., and Schils, E.
(1997) Age and ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 191, 447–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broersma, M.
(2002) Comprehension of non-native speech: Inaccurate phoneme processing and activation of lexical competitors. In: Hansen, J. and Pellom, B. L. (eds) Seventh International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Denver, CO: Center for Spoken Language.Google Scholar
Broersma, M., and Cutler, A.
(2011) Competition dynamics of second-language listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 641, 74–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M. & New, B.
(2009) Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A Critical Evaluation of Current Word Frequency Norms and the Introduction of a New and Improved Word Frequency Measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 411, 977–990 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chan, K. Y. and Vitevitch, M. S.
(2015) The influence of neighborhood density on the recognition of Spanish-accented words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 411, 69–85.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., and Otake, T.
(2006) Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second-language listening. Journal of Phonetics, 341, 269–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., and Otake, T.
(2004) Pseudo-homophony in non-native listening. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1151, 2392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S.
(1986) A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 931, 283–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams, D. R., and Meyer, A. S.
(2000) Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 261, 1355–1367.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E.
(1980) Phonetic Approximation in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 301, 117–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, James. E.
(1987) The production of ‘New’ and ‘Similar’ phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification.” Journal of Phonetics, 151, 47–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., and Port, R.
(1981) Cross-language phonetic interference: Arabic to English. Language and Speech, 241, 125–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D.
(1996) Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 221, 1166–1183.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., Runnqvist, E. and Costa, A.
(2014) Language switching makes pronunciation less nativelike. Psychological Science, 251, 1031–1036. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H. and Goldrick, M.
(2012) Does bilingualism twist your tongue? Cognition, 1251, 491–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J.
(1966) Language Universals. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., and Abrahamsson, N.
(2003) Maturational constraints in SLA. In Doughty and Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1971) Selected Writings Volume 1: Phonological Studies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kučera, H., and Francis, W. N.
(1967) Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Li, C., Goldrick, M. & Gollan, T. H.
(2017) Bilinguals’ Twisted Tongues: Frequency Lag or Interference? Memory & Cognition, 451, 600–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, L.
(2002) Coronal epenthesis and markedness. Phonology, 191, 219–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luce, P. A., and Pisoni, D. B.
(1998) Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 191, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., and Davis, C. K.
(1984) Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report, 101, 357–376.Google Scholar
Olson, D. J.
(2013) Bilingual language switching and selection at the phonetic level: Asymmetrical transfer in VOT production. Journal of Phonetics, 411, 407–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallier, C., Colome´, A., and Sebastián-Gallés, N.
(2001) The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science, 121, 445–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Echeverría, S., and Bosch, L.
(2005) The influence of initial exposure on lexical representation: Comparing early and simultaneous bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 521, 240–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S.
(1992) The role of word structure in segmental serial ordering. Cognition, 421, 213–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swan, M., and Smith, B.
(2001) Learner English. A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S.
(2002) The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 735.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., Armbrüster, J., and Chu, S.
(2004) Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 514.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Jongman, A., and Sereno, J. A.
(2003) Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1131, 1033–1044. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warker, J. A. & Dell, G. S.
(2006) Speech errors reflect newly learned phonotactic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 321, 387–398.Google Scholar
Weber, A., and Cutler, A.
(2004) Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 501, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Aljasser, Faisal
2019. Word frequency effects in phonological retrieval in Modern Standard Arabic. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 8:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.