Home Linguistics & Semiotics The perception–production link varies with stages of L2 development and vowel properties
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The perception–production link varies with stages of L2 development and vowel properties

  • Mi-Hui Cho and Shinsook Lee EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 24, 2023

Abstract

This study investigates whether the perception–production link in phonological acquisition varies with stages of L2 development. It also examines whether the perception–production link for L2 vowels varies according to vowel properties, or whether the L2 vowels match or mismatch with L1 vowels. Korean learners of English in the UK were divided into more experienced and less experienced groups based on age of arrival and length of residence. The learners completed English vowel production, English vowel identification, and English–Korean vowel mapping tasks with English words (e.g., beat, bot). The intelligibility of their production and the accuracy of their vowel identification were assessed. Results show that only the more experienced learners’ perception and production were significantly correlated. Among L2 Standard Southern British English vowels similar to L1 Korean vowels (/i, ʌ, u/) only /i/ showed a significant correlation between perception and production, while among L2 vowels dissimilar to L1 vowels (/eɪ, ɘʊ, ɑ, ɒ/) only /ɑ/ showed a negative correlation, indicating that the correlation varied with vowel properties. The study contributes to the L2 phonological acquisition literature by exploring the perception–production link in terms of different stages of L2 development and L2 vowel properties.


Corresponding author: Shinsook Lee, Department of English Language Education, Korea University, 145, Anam-Ro, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea, E-mail:

Appendix 1

Perception and production accuracy rates (%) of L2 SSBE vowels for the more and less experienced groups. The numbers are rounded up when the fractional part is more than 0.05.

Vowel Perception Production
More experienced group Less experienced group More experienced group Less experienced group
beat /i/ 97.9 82.2 98.9 84.4
bit /I/ 90.6 67.7 88.9 69.4
bait /eI/ 100 100 98.9 97.8
bet /ɛ/ 92.7 54.2 91.7 74.4
bat /a/ 82.3 63.5 61.7 31.7
Burt /ɜ/ 98.0 88.5 91.1 87.8
Bart /ɑ/ 80.2 25.0 68.3 81.7
but /ʌ/ 84.4 84.4 96.7 73.3
bot /ɒ/ 63.5 35.4 56.7 24.4
bought /ɔ/ 95.8 53.1 50.6 41.7
boat /əʊ/ 82.3 59.4 95.6 71.7
boot /u/ 99.0 95.8 97.2 99.4
Appendix 2

Korean L2 learners’ mean mapping percentages of L2 SSBE vowels onto L1 Korean vowels. Mapping percentages more than 8 % (i.e., above chance level) are given. The numbers are rounded up when the fractional part is more than 0.5. Mean goodness ratings are in parentheses. “M” represents the more experienced group and “L” represents the less experienced group.

beat /i/ bit /ɪ/ bait /eɪ/ bet /ɛ/ bat /a/ but /ʌ/ Burt /ɜ/ Bart /ɑ/ bot /ɒ/ bought /ɔ/ boat /əʊ/ boot /u/
M L M L M L M L M L M L M L M L M L M L M L M L
/i/<이> 100 (5.6) 100 (5.8) 85 (4.8) 75 (5.0)
/e/<에> 21 (5.3) 75 (4.1) 54 (3.8) 67 (5.1) 42 (5.6)
/ɛ/<애> 25 (4.2) 37 (3.3) 23 (5.4) 58 (5.8) 33 (4.3) 25 (4.6)
/ʌ/<어> 17 (4.3) 85 (5.0) 92 (5.2) 85 (4.3) 100 (4.7) 54 (4.3) 83 (3.8) 33 (3.6) 50 (4.1)
/ɯ/<으>
/a/<아> 63 (5.5) 54 (5.2) 46 (4.6)
/o/<오> 67 (3.9) 50 (4.9) 92 (4.9) 96 (4.6) 92 (3.5) 83 (4.0)
/u/<우> 13 (4.0) 96 (4.8) 100 (5.1)
/jɛ/<얘>
/wa/<와>
/jʌ/<여>
/jo/<요>
/ju/<유>
/wɛ/<왜>

References

Allport, Allan, Donald G. MacKay, Wolfgang Prinz & Eckart Scheerer. 1987. Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, speaking, reading, and writing. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Wendy & Pavel Trofimovich. 2005. Interaction of native and second language vowel systems in early and late bilinguals. Language and Speech 48. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309050480010101.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Wendy & Pavel Trofimovich. 2006. Perceptual paths to accurate production of L2 vowels: The role of individual differences. IRAL 44. 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2006.010.Search in Google Scholar

Best, Catherine T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Winifred Strange (ed.), In speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, 107–126. Baltimore: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Best, Catherine T. & Michael Douglas Tyler. 2007. Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Murray J. Munro & Ocke-Schwen Bohn (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.17.07besSearch in Google Scholar

Bohn, Ocke-Schwen & James Emil Flege. 1997. Perception and production of a new vowel category by adult second language learners. In Jonathan Leather & Allan James (eds.), Second-language speech: Structure and process, 51–71. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Bradlow, Ann, David Pisoni, Reiko Akahane-Yamada & Yoh’ichi Tohkura. 1997. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(4). 2299–2310. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418276.Search in Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, Donna M. Brinton Marianne & Janet M. Goodwin. 2010. Teaching pronunciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cho, Mi-Hui. 2008. Asymmetries in the perception and production of the English incomplete off-gliding diphthongs by Korean speakers. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 14(3). 483–499. https://doi.org/10.17959/sppm.2008.14.3.483.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. & Barbara Frant Hecht. 1983. Comprehension, production, and language acquisition. Annual Reviews of Psychology 34. 325–349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.34.020183.001545.Search in Google Scholar

Cowie, Islay & Sun-Ah Jun. 1991. Interference for “new” versus “similar” vowels in Korean speakers of English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89. 1936. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2029576.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, 233–272. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil. 1999. Age of learning and second language speech. In David Birdsong (ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis, 101–131. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil & Ocke-Schwen Bohn. 2021. The revised speech learning model (SLM-r). In Ratree Wayland (ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress, 3–83. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108886901.002Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil, Ocke-Schwen Bohn & Sunyoung Jang. 1997. Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics 25. 437–470. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1997.0052.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil, Grace H. Yeni-Komshian & Serena Liu. 1999a. Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Phonetics 25. 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2638.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil, Ian R. A. MacKay & Diane Meador. 1999b. Native Italian speakers’ perception and production of English vowel. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(5). 2973–2987. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428116.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil & Ian R. A. MacKay. 2011. What accounts for ‘age’ effects on overall degree of foreign accent? In Magdalena Wrembel, Małgorzata Kul & Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (eds.), Achievements and perspectives in SLA of speech: New sounds 2010, vol. 2, 65–82. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil & Anna Marie Schmidt. 1995. Native speakers of Spanish show rate-dependent processing of English stop consonants. Phonetica 52. 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1159/000262062.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil & Serena Liu. 2001. The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23. 527–552. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263101004041.Search in Google Scholar

Guion, Susan, James Emil Flege, Reiko Akahane-Yamada & Jesica Pruitt. 2000. An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107. 2711–2724. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428657.Search in Google Scholar

Hao, Yen-Chen & Ken de Jong. 2016. Imitation of second language sounds in relation to L2 perception and production. Journal of Phonetics 54. 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.10.003.Search in Google Scholar

Holbrook, Anthony & Grant Fairbanks. 1962. Diphthong formants and their movements. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 5. 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.0501.38.Search in Google Scholar

Houde, John F. & Michael I. Jordan. 1998. Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science 279. 1213–1216. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5354.1213.Search in Google Scholar

Ioup, Georgette. 2008. Exploring the role of age in the acquisition of a second language phonology. In Jette Hansen Edwards & Mary L. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition, 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.36.04iouSearch in Google Scholar

Iverson, Paul. & Bronwen G. Evans. 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(2). 866–877. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3148196.Search in Google Scholar

Kartushina, Natalia & Ulrich H. Frauenfelder. 2014. On the effects of L2 perception and of individual differences in L1 production on L2 pronunciation. Frontiers in Psychology 5. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01246.Search in Google Scholar

Kato, Misaki & Melissa Michaud Baese-Berk. 2020. The effect of input prompts on the relationship between perception and production of non-native sounds. Journal of Phonetics 79. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2020.100964.Search in Google Scholar

Kuznetsova, Alexandera, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). 1–26.10.18637/jss.v082.i13Search in Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics, 5th edn. Boston: Thomson.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Shinsook & Mi-Hui Cho. 2018a. Predicting L2 vowel identification accuracy from cross-language mappings between L2 English and L1 Korean. Language Sciences 66. 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.09.006.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Shinsook & Mi-Hui Cho. 2018b. The interface between perception and production in L2 English vowels. The Journal of Studies in Language 34(3). 425–438. https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.34.3.201811.425.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Shinsook & Mi-Hui Cho. 2020. The impact of L2-learning experience and target dialect on predicting English vowel identification using Korean vowel categories. Journal of Phonetics 82. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2020.100983.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Shinsook, Jaekoo Kang & Hosung Nam. 2022. Identification of English vowels by non-native listeners: Effects of listeners’ experience of the target dialect and talkers’ language background. Second Language Research 38(3). 449–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320965648.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Sun-Young, Jiyeong Kim, Ki-Chun Nam, Hyeon-Ae Jeon & Youngjoo Kim. 2018. Neurocognitive study on the ongoing merge of Korean vowel /e/ and /ɛ/: Comparing MMNs of younger and older generations. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 24(2). 209–224. https://doi.org/10.17959/sppm.2018.24.2.209.Search in Google Scholar

Llompart, Garcia Miguel & Eva Reinisch. 2019. Imitation in a second language relies on phonological categories but does not reflect the productive usage of difficult sound contrasts. Language and Speech 62(3). 594–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918803978.Search in Google Scholar

Oyama, Susan. 1976. A sensitive period of the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5. 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01067377.Search in Google Scholar

Park, Hanyong & Ken de Jong. 2008. Perceptual category mapping between English and Korean prevocalic obstruents: Evidence from mapping effects in second language identification skills. Journal of Phonetics 36. 706–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2008.06.002.Search in Google Scholar

Park, Hanyong & Ken de Jong. 2017. Perceptual category mapping between English and Korean obstruents in non-CV positions: Prosodic location effects in second language identification skills. Journal of Phonetics 62. 12–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.01.005.Search in Google Scholar

Peperkamp, Sharon & Camillia Bouchon. 2011. The relation between perception and production in L2 phonological processing. In Conference: INTERSPEECH 2011, 12th annual conference of the international speech communication association, Florence, Italy, August 27–31.10.21437/Interspeech.2011-72Search in Google Scholar

Rochet, Bernard L. 1995. Perception and production of L2 speech sounds by adults. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, 379–410. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Schiller, Niels & Antje Myer. 2003. Introduction to the relation between speech comprehension and production. In Niels Schiller & Antje Meyer (eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production, 1–8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895094.1Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Anna Marie. 1996. Cross-language identification of consonants. Part I. Korean perception of English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99. 3201–3211. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.414804.Search in Google Scholar

Schmitz, Judith, Begona Díaz, Karla Fernández Rubio & Nuria Sebastian-Galles. 2018. Exploring the relationship between speech perception and production across phonological processes, language familiarity, and sensory modalities. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(5). 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1390142.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Laura Catharine. 2001. L2 acquisition of English liquids: Evidence for production independent from perception. In Xena Bonch-Bruevich, William J. Crawford, John Hellermann, Christina Higgins, & Hanh Nguyen (eds.), The past, present, and future of second language research, 3–22. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stevens, Kenneth N. and Sheila E. Blumstein. 1981. The search for invariant acoustic correlates of phonetic features. In Peter D. Eimas & Joanne L. Miller (eds.), Perspectives on the Study of Speech. 1–38. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Strange, Winifred. 1995. Phonetics of second-language acquisition: Past, present, future. ICPhS 95(Stockholm). 76–83.Search in Google Scholar

Strange, Winifred. 2007. Cross-language phonetic similarity of vowels: Theoretical and methodological issues. In Ocke-Schwen Bohn & Murray J. Munro (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning, 35–55. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.17.08strSearch in Google Scholar

Wells, John Corson. 1982. Accents of English, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611759Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Byonggon. 1996. A comparative study of American English and Korean vowels produced by male and female speakers. Journal of Phonetics 24. 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1996.0013.Search in Google Scholar

Zampini, Mary L. 1998. The relationship between the production and perception of L2 Spanish stops. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education 3. 85–100.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-07-25
Accepted: 2021-12-13
Published Online: 2023-04-24
Published in Print: 2023-06-27

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 13.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/psicl-2023-2003/pdf
Scroll to top button