Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:59:09.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Now you hear it, now you don't: Malleable illusory vowel effects in Spanish–English bilinguals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2018

MATTHEW T. CARLSON
MATTHEW T. CARLSON*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
*
Address for correspondence: 442 Burrowes Bldg., Dept. of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 16802[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spanish speakers tend to perceive an illusory [e] preceding word-initial [s]-consonant sequences, e.g., perceiving [stið] as [estið] (Cuetos, Hallé, Domínguez & Segui, 2011), but this illusion is weaker for Spanish speakers who know English, which lacks the illusion (Carlson, Goldrick, Blasingame & Fink, 2016). The present study aimed to shed light on why this occurs by assessing how a brief interval spent using English impacts performance in Spanish auditory discrimination and lexical decision. Late Spanish–English bilinguals’ pattern of responses largely matched that of monolinguals, but their response times revealed significant differences between monolinguals and bilinguals, and between bilinguals who had just completed tasks in English vs. Spanish. These results suggest that late bilinguals do not simply learn to perceive initial [s]-consonant sequences veridically, but that elements of both their phonotactic systems interact dynamically during speech perception, as listeners work to identify what it was they just heard.

Keywords

bilingualismphonotacticsspeech perceptionillusory vowel effects
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , November 2019 , pp. 1101 - 1122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The research reported here was funded through a grant from the National Science Foundation (OISE-0968369). I also gratefully acknowledge the help of Alex McAllister and Manuel Pulido Azpíroz in the construction of stimuli, Teresa Bajo for providing lab space in Granada, and Giuli Dussias, Matt Goldrick, Mike Putnam, Katharina Schuhmann, and Frances Blanchette for their invaluable help and feedback.

References

Abrahamsson, N. (1999). Vowel Epenthesis of /sC(C)/ Onsets in Spanish/Swedish Interphonology: A Longitudinal Case Study. Language Learning, 49, 473–508. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00097Google Scholar
Altenberg, E. P. (2005). Judgment, perception, and production of consonant clusters in a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 53–80. doi: 10.1191/0267658305sr250oaGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, E. P., & Cairns, H. S. (1983). The effects of phonotactic constraints on lexical processing in bilingual and monolingual subjects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 174–188. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90134-2Google Scholar
Amengual, M. (2012). Interlingual influence in bilingual speech: Cognate status effect in a continuum of bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 517–530. doi: 10.1017/S1366728911000460Google Scholar
Anisfeld, M., Anisfeld, E., & Semogas, R. (1969). Cross-influences between the phonological systems of Lithuanian-English bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 257–261. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80072-1Google Scholar
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., & Kroos, C. (2010). Language context elicits native-like stop voicing in early bilinguals’ productions in both L1 and L2. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 640–653. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.09.005Google Scholar
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., & Kroos, C. (2011). Inter-language interference in VOT production by L2-dominant bilinguals: Asymmetries in phonetic code-switching. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 558–570. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.03.001Google Scholar
Apfelbaum, K. S., Bullock-Rest, N., Rhone, A. E., Jongman, A., & McMurray, B. (2014). Contingent categorisation in speech perception. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 1070–1082. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.824995Google Scholar
Apfelbaum, K. S., & McMurray, B. (2014). Relative cue encoding in the context of sophisticated models of categorization: Separating information from categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 916–943. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0783-2Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P., Bylund, E., Montero-Melis, G., Damjanovic, L., Schartner, A., Kibbe, A., Riches, N., & Thierry, G. (2015). Two Languages, Two Minds Flexible Cognitive Processing Driven by Language of Operation. Psychological Science, 26, 518–526. doi: 10.1177/0956797614567509Google Scholar
Balukas, C., & Koops, C. (2015). Spanish–English bilingual voice onset time in spontaneous code-switching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 423–443. doi: 10.1177/1367006913516035Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01Google Scholar
Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1600–1610. doi: 10.1121/1.1603234Google Scholar
Berent, I., & Lennertz, T. (2010). Universal constraints on the sound structure of language: Phonological or acoustic? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 212–223. doi: 10.1037/a0017638Google Scholar
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., & Rosselli, M. (2012). Universal linguistic pressures and their solutions: Evidence from Spanish. The Mental Lexicon, 7, 275–305. doi: 10.1075/ml.7.3.02berGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Smolensky, P., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2009). Listeners’ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology, 26, 75. doi: 10.1017/S0952675709001729Google Scholar
Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., & Vaknin, V. (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition, 104, 591–630. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.015Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.40, retrieved 30 June 2018 from http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Yeni-Komshian, G., & Zurif, E. B. (1974). Bilingual switching: The phonological level. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 28, 310–318.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. S. (1991). The Influence of Environment on Vowel Epenthesis in Spanish/English Interphonology. Applied Linguistics, 12, 76–95. doi: 10.1093/applin/12.1.76Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. S. (1999). The Modification of Onsets in a Markedness Relationship: Testing the Interlanguage Structural Conformity Hypothesis. Language Learning, 49, 59–93. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-8254.2003.03701.x-i1Google Scholar
Carlson, M. T. (2018). Making room for L2 phonotactics: Effects of L2 learning and environment on L1 speech perception. Language and Speech, doi: 10.1177/0023830918767208. Published online by Sage, April 9, 2018Google Scholar
Carlson, M. T., Goldrick, M., Blasingame, M., & Fink, A. (2016). Navigating conflicting phonotactic constraints in bilingual speech perception. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 939–954. doi: 10.1017/S1366728915000334Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. (2012). Rapid and multifaceted effects of second-language learning on first-language speech production. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 249–268. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.10.007Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. (2013). A novelty effect in phonetic drift of the native language. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 520–533. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2013.09.006Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. (2016). Bilingual perceptual benefits of experience with a heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 791–809. doi: 10.1017/S1366728914000261Google Scholar
Chang, C. B., & Mishler, A. (2012). Evidence for language transfer leading to a perceptual advantage for non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132, 2700–2710. doi: 10.1121/1.4747615Google Scholar
Cohen, S. P., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1967). The comparative skills of monolinguals and bilinguals in perceiving phoneme sequences. Lanugage and Speech, 10, 159–168.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for Multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557–591. InGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J., & Wei, L. (eds.). (2016). The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuetos, F., Hallé, P. A., Domínguez, A., & Segui, J. (2011). Perception of prothetic /e/ in #sC utterances: Gating data. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 540–543).Google Scholar
Cuetos Vega, F., Glez Nosti, M., Barbón Gutiérrez, A., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). SUBTLEX-ESP: Spanish word frequencies based on film subtitles. Psicológica: Revista de metodología y psicología experimental, 32, 133–143.Google Scholar
Dahan, D., Drucker, S. J., & Scarborough, R. A. (2008). Talker adaptation in speech perception: Adjusting the signal or the representations? Cognition, 108, 710–718. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.003Google Scholar
Daland, R., & Norrmann-Vigil, I. (2015). Toward a generative theory of language transfer: Experiment and modeling of sC prothesis in L2 Spanish. Open Linguistics, 1. doi: 10.1515/opli-2015-0024Google Scholar
Davidson, L. (2011). Phonetic, phonemic, and phonological factors in cross-language discrimination of phonotactic contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 37, 270–282. doi: 10.1037/a0020988Google Scholar
Davidson, L., & Shaw, J. A. (2012). Sources of illusion in consonant cluster perception. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 234–248. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.11.005Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., van Jaarsveld, H., & ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 51–66. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000121Google 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, 1568–1578. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1568Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Kakehi, K., & Mehler, J. (2001). New Evidence for Prelexical Phonological Processing in Word Recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 491–505. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000191Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Mehler, J. (1997). A Destressing “Deafness” in French? Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 406–421. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.2500Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Parlato, E., Frota, S., Hirose, Y., & Peperkamp, S. (2011). Where do illusory vowels come from? Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 199–210.Google Scholar
Durvasula, K., & Kahng, J. (2015). Illusory vowels in perceptual epenthesis: The role of phonological alternations. Phonology, 32, 385–416. doi: 10.1017/S0952675715000263Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., & Gunter, T. C. (2008). Fine-tuned: Phonology and Semantics Affect First- to Second-language Zooming In. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 180–196. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21015Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 57–70. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.007Google Scholar
English Language Institute. (2001). MELICET-GCVR user's manual. Ann Arbor, MI: English Language Institute, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Ernestus, M., Kouwenhoven, H., & van Mulken, M. (2017). The direct and indirect effects of the phonotactic constraints in the listener's native language on the comprehension of reduced and unreduced word pronunciation variants in a foreign language. Journal of Phonetics, 62, 50–64. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2017.02.003Google Scholar
Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., & Morgan, J. L. (2009). The influence of categories on perception: Explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychological Review, 116, 752–782. doi: 10.1037/a0017196Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. In Schiller, N. O. & Meyer, A. S. (eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities, pp. 319–355. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2007). Language contact in bilingualism: Phonetic system interactions. Laboratory phonology, 9, 353–382.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987). Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 67–83.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A., Sramko, V., Ostry, D. J., Rowland, S. A., & Hallé, P. (2008). Cross language phonetic influences on the speech of French–English bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 649–663. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2008.04.001Google Scholar
Freeman, M. R., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2016). Phonotactic Constraints Are Activated across Languages in Bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00702Google Scholar
Ganong, W. F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 110–125.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M. G. (2001). Phonological variation and its consequences for the word recognition system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 723–729. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000128Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., Putnam, M., & Schwarz, L. (2016). Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 857–876. doi: 10.1017/S1366728915000802Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., Runnqvist, E., & Costa, A. (2014). Language switching makes pronunciation less nativelike. Psychological Science, 25, 1031–1036. doi: 10.1177/0956797613520014Google Scholar
Gonzales, K., & Lotto, A. J. (2013). A bafri, un pafri: Bilinguals’ pseudoword identifications support language-specific phonetic systems. Psychological Science, 24, 2135–2142. doi: 10.1177/0956797613486485Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Miller, J. L. (1994). Going in and out of languages: An example of bilingual flexibility. Psychological Science, 5, 201–206.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 220–240. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml013Google Scholar
Hallé, P. A., Dominguez, A., Cuetos, F., & Segui, J. (2008). Phonological mediation in visual masked priming: Evidence from phonotactic repair. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 177–192. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.177Google Scholar
Hallé, P. A., Segui, J., Dominguez, A., & Cuetos, F. (2013). Special es especial pero stuto no es astuto: La percepción de una /e/ protética en el habla y la escritura de hablantes de español. In Jaichenco, V. & Sevilla, Y. (eds.), Psicolingüística en español: Homenaje a Juan Segui, pp. 31–47. Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Hanulíková, A., Mitterer, H., & McQueen, J. M. (2011). Effects of first and second language on segmentation of non-native speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 506–521.Google Scholar
Hanulíková, A., & Weber, A. (2012). Sink positive: Linguistic experience with th substitutions influences nonnative word recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 613–629. doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0259-7Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is Syntax Separate or Shared Between Languages? Psychological Science, 15, 409–414. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.xGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., Drager, K., & Warren, P. (2010). Short-term Exposure to One Dialect Affects Processing of Another. Language and Speech, 53, 447–471. doi: 10.1177/0023830910372489Google Scholar
Hay, J., Nolan, A., & Drager, K. (2006). From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review, 23, 351–379. doi: 10.1515/TLR.2006.014Google Scholar
Heald, S. L. M., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2014). Speech perception as an active cognitive process. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00035Google Scholar
Kabak, B., & Idsardi, W. J. (2007). Perceptual Distortions in the Adaptation of English Consonant Clusters: Syllable Structure or Consonantal Contact Constraints? Language and Speech, 50, 23–52. doi: 10.1177/00238309070500010201Google Scholar
Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627Google Scholar
Kleinschmidt, D. F., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review, 122, 148–203. doi: 10.1037/a0038695Google Scholar
Kraljic, T., Brennan, S. E., & Samuel, A. G. (2008). Accommodating variation: Dialects, idiolects, and speech processing. Cognition, 107, 54–81. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.013Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 119–135. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002483Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Gollan, T. H. (2014). Speech planning in two languages: What bilinguals tell us about language production. In Goldrick, M., Ferreira, V., & Miozzo, M. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production, pp. 165–181. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lauro, J., & Schwartz, A. I. (2017). Bilingual non-selective lexical access in sentence contexts: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 217–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.06.010Google Scholar
Lentz, T. O., & Kager, R. W. J. (2015). Categorical phonotactic knowledge filters second language input, but probabilistic phonotactic knowledge can still be acquired. Language and Speech, 58, 387–413. doi: 10.1177/0023830914559572Google Scholar
Li, P., Zhang, F., Tsai, E., & Puls, B. (2014). Language history questionnaire (LHQ 2.0): A new dynamic web-based research tool. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 673–680. doi: 10.1017/S1366728913000606Google Scholar
Llanos, F., & Francis, A. L. (2017). The Effects of Language Experience and Speech Context on the Phonetic Accommodation of English-accented Spanish Voicing. Language and Speech, 60, 3–26.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Chabal, S., & Shook, A. (2012). CLEARPOND: Cross-Linguistic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities. PLoS ONE, 7, e43230. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043230Google Scholar
Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport of Spain. (2006). Diploma de español como lengua extranjera (Diploma of Spanish as a Second Language) Examination.Google Scholar
Molnar, M., Ibáñez-Molina, A., & Carreiras, M. (2015). Interlocutor identity affects language activation in bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 91–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.01.002Google Scholar
Namjoshi, J., Tremblay, A., Spinelli, E., Broersma, M., Martínez-García, M. T., Connell, K., Cho, T., & Kim, S. (2015). Speech segmentation is adaptive even in adulthood: Role of the linguistic environment. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (paper no. 0676). Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2016). Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 4–18. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1081703Google Scholar
Olson, D. J. (2013). Bilingual language switching and selection at the phonetic level: Asymmetrical transfer in VOT production. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 407–420. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2013.07.005Google Scholar
Olson, D. J. (2016a). The gradient effect of context on language switching and lexical access in bilingual production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 725–756. doi: 10.1017/S0142716415000223Google Scholar
Olson, D. J. (2016b). The role of code-switching and language context in bilingual phonetic transfer. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 46, 263–285. doi: 10.1017/S0025100315000468Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6, 281–307. doi: 10.1515/applirev-2015- 0014Google Scholar
Parlato-Oliveira, E., Christophe, A., Hirose, Y., & Dupoux, E. (2010). Plasticity of illusory vowel perception in Brazilian-Japanese bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127, 3738–3848. doi: 10.1121/1.3327792Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A. (1998). Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 941–951. doi: 10.3758/BF03211930Google Scholar
Polivanov, E. (1931). La perception des sons d'une langue étrangère [Perception of sounds of a foreign language]. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, 4, 79–96.Google Scholar
Core Team, R. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Samuel, A. G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 474–494.Google Scholar
Samuel, A. G., & Larraza, S. (2015). Does listening to non-native speech impair speech perception? Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 51–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.01.003Google Scholar
Sancier, M. L., & Fowler, C. A. (1997). Gestural drift in a bilingual speaker of Brazilian Portuguese and English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 421–436. doi: 10.1006/jpho.1997.0051Google Scholar
Simonet, M. (2014). Phonetic consequences of dynamic cross-linguistic interference in proficient bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 43, 26–37. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.01.004Google Scholar
Spinelli, E., & Gros-Balthazard, F. (2007). Phonotactic constraints help to overcome effects of schwa deletion in French. Cognition, 104, 397–406. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.002Google Scholar
Tice, M., & Woodley, M. (2012). Paguettes & bastries: Novice French learners show shifts in native phoneme boundaries. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report, 72–75.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2006). First-language phonotactics in second-language listening. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 597–607. doi: 10.1121/1.2141003Google Scholar