Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T02:56:43.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variability in L2 phonemic learning originates from speech-specific capabilities: An MMN study on late bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2015

BEGOÑA DÍAZ Open the ORCID record for BEGOÑA DÍAZ [Opens in a new window] ,
HOLGER MITTERER ,
MIRJAM BROERSMA ,
CARLES ESCERA  and
NÚRIA SEBASTIÁN-GALLÉS
BEGOÑA DÍAZ*
Affiliation:
Center for Brain and Cognition, Department of Technology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
HOLGER MITTERER
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
MIRJAM BROERSMA
Affiliation:
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
CARLES ESCERA
Affiliation:
Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior (IR3C), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Cognitive Neuroscience Research Group, Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychobiology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
NÚRIA SEBASTIÁN-GALLÉS
Affiliation:
Center for Brain and Cognition, Department of Technology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
*
Address for correspondence: Begoña Díaz, Dept. Technology, C. Roc Boronat 138, 08018 Barcelona, Spain[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

People differ in their ability to perceive second language (L2) sounds. In early bilinguals the variability in learning L2 phonemes stems from speech-specific capabilities (Díaz, Baus, Escera, Costa & Sebastián-Gallés, 2008). The present study addresses whether speech-specific capabilities similarly explain variability in late bilinguals. Event-related potentials were recorded (using a design similar to Díaz et al., 2008) in two groups of late Dutch–English bilinguals who were good or poor in overtly discriminating the L2 English vowels /ε-æ/. The mismatch negativity, an index of discrimination sensitivity, was similar between the groups in conditions involving pure tones (of different length, frequency, and presentation order) but was attenuated in poor L2 perceivers for native, unknown, and L2 phonemes. These results suggest that variability in L2 phonemic learning originates from speech-specific capabilities and imply a continuity of L2 phonemic learning mechanisms throughout the lifespan.

Keywords

mismatch negativityevent-related potentialsbilingualismindividual differencesL2 phoneme perception
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 5 , November 2016 , pp. 955 - 970
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

*

This work was supported by the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under REA grant agreement n° 32867 and a postdoctoral fellowship from the Spanish Government (Juan de la Cierva fellowship) to B.D., a Veni grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) to M.B., a grant from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013): ERG grant agreement number 323961 (UNDER CONTROL) and Collaborative grant FP7-2013-613465 (ATHEME) to N.S.G. and by grants from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (PSI 2012 – 34071; SEJ2009-09072) and the Catalan Government (SGR 2014–1210; SGR2009-11) awarded to N.S.G. and C.E. N.S.G. and C.E. received the prize ‘ICREA Acadèmia’ for excellence in research, funded by the Generalitat de Catalunya. The authors want to thank Xavier Mayoral for his technical support and Robert F. de Menezes for comments on the manuscript.

References

Amenedo, E., & Escera, C. (2000). The accuracy of sound duration representation in the human brain determines the accuracy of behavioural perception. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 12, 2570–2574.Google Scholar
Archila-Suerte, P., Bunta, F., & Hernandez, A. E. (in press). Speech sound learning depends on individuals’ ability, not just experience. International Journal of Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Atienza, M., Cantero, J. L., Grau, C., Gomez, C., Dominguez-Marin, E., & Escera, C. (2003). Effects of temporal encoding on auditory object formation: A mismatch negativity study. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 359–371.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, pp. 171–204. Baltimore: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Non-native and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Bohn, O. S., & Munro, M. J. (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege, pp. 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341–345.Google Scholar
Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in foreign language pronunciation: The case of very advanced late foreign language learners. In Birdsong, D. (ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis, pp. 133–159. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Broersma, M. (2005). Perception of familiar contrasts in unfamiliar positions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 3890–3901.Google Scholar
Broersma, M. (2012). Increased lexical activation and reduced competition in second-language listening. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 1205–1224.Google Scholar
Broersma, M., & Cutler, A. (2008). Phantom word activation in L2. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 36, 22–34.Google Scholar
Broersma, M., & Cutler, A. (2011). Competition dynamics of second-language listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 74–95.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Yeni-Komshian, G., Zurif, E., & Carbone, E. (1973). The acquisition of a new phonological contrast: The case of stop consonants in French-English bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 54, 421–428.Google Scholar
Corbera, S., Corral, M. J., Escera, C., & Idiazábal, M. A. (2005). Abnormal speech sound representation in developmental stuttering. Neurology, 65, 1246–1252.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., Smits, R., & Cooper, N. (2004). Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3668–3678.Google Scholar
Deouell, L. Y. (2007). The frontal generator of the mismatch negativity revisited. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 188–203.Google Scholar
Díaz, B., Baus, C., Escera, C., Costa, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Brain potentials to native phoneme discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 16083–16088.Google Scholar
Díaz, B., Mitterer, H., Broersma, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2012). Individual differences in late bilinguals’ L2 phonological processes: From acoustic-phonetic analysis to lexical access. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 680–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escera, C., Alho, K., Winkler, I., & Näätänen, R. (1998). Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 590–604.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience, pp. 233–272. Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Giard, M. H., Perrin, F., Pernier, J., & Bouchet, P. (1990). Brain generators implicated in the processing of auditory stimulus deviance: A topographic event-related potential study. Psychophysiology, 27, 627–640.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (2007). A complementary-systems approach to abstract and episodic speech perception. In Trouvain, J., & Barry, W. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 49–54. Dudweiler: Pirrot.Google Scholar
Golestani, N., Molko, N., Dehaene, S., LeBihan, D., & Pallier, C. (2007). Brain structure predicts the learning of foreign speech sounds. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 575–582.Google Scholar
Golestani, N., Paus, T., & Zatorre, R. J. (2002). Anatomical correlates of learning novel speech sounds. Neuron, 35, 997–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golestani, N., & Zatorre, R. J. (2009). Individual differences in the acquisition of second language phonology. Brain and Language, 109, 55–67.Google Scholar
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “l” and “r”. Neuropsychologia, 9, 317–323.Google Scholar
Hara, K., Ohta, K., Miyajima, M., Hara, M., Iino, H., Matsuda, A., Watanabe, S., Matsushima, T., Maehara, T., & Matsuura, M. (2012). Mismatch negativity for speech sounds in temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 23, 335–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, S., & Stevens, K. N. (1985). Acoustic and perceptual correlates of the non-nasal-nasal distinction for vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 1560–1575.Google Scholar
Indefrey, P. (2006). A meta-analysis of hemodynamic studies on first and second language processing: Which suggested differences can we trust and what do they mean? Language Learning, 56, 279–304.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, I. P., Pekkonen, E., Hirvonen, J., Sillanaukee, P., & Näätänen, R. (1996). Mismatch negativity subcomponents and ethyl alcohol. Biological Psychology, 43, 13–25.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar
Kim, K., Relkin, N., Lee, K. M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388, 171–174.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971–995.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F. M., & Liu, H. M. (2003). Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 9096–9101.Google Scholar
Kujala, T., & Näätänen, R. (2010). The adaptive brain: a neurophysiological perspective. Progress in Neurobiology, 91, 55–67.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 254–294.Google Scholar
Lavikainen, J., Huotilainen, M., Pekkonen, E., Ilmoniemi, R. J., & Näätänen, R. (1994). Auditory stimuli activate parietal brain regions: a whole-head MEG study. NeuroReport, 6, 182–184.Google Scholar
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. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 3757–3768.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O’Reilly, R. C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neo-cortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionists models of learning and memory. Psychological Review, 102, 419–457.Google Scholar
Mitterer, H., & McQueen, J. M. (2009). Foreign subtitles help but native-language subtitles harm foreign speech perception. PLoS ONE, 4, e7785.Google Scholar
Näätänen, R. (1990). The role of attention in auditory information processing as revealed by event-related potentials and other brain measures of cognitive function. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 201–288.Google Scholar
Näätänen, R. (2001). The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology, 38, 1–21.Google Scholar
Näätänen, R., Gaillard, A. W. K., Mäntysalo, S. (1978). Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychologica, 42, 313–29.Google Scholar
Näätänen, R., Lehtokoski, A., Lennes, M., Cheour, M., Huotilainen, M., Iivonen, A., Vainio, M., Alku, P., Ilmoniemi, R., Luuk, A., Allik, J., Sinkkonen, J. & Alho, K. (1997). Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385, 432–434.Google Scholar
Nenonen, S., Shestakova, A., Huotilainen, M., & Näätänen, R. (2005). Speech-sound duration processing in a second language is specific to phonetic categories. Brain and Language, 92, 26–32.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.Google Scholar
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a non-native phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguitic Research, 5, 261–285.Google Scholar
Paavilainen, P., Mikkonen, M., Kilpeläinen, M., Lehtinen, R., Saarela, M., & Tapola, L. (2003). Evidence for the different additivity of the temporal and frontal generators of Mismatch Negativity: A human auditory event-related potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 349, 79–82.Google Scholar
Pallier, C., Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception. Cognition, 64, B9–B17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pallier, C., Colomé, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science, 12, 445–449.Google Scholar
Patkowski, M. S. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30, 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perani, D., & Abutalebi, J. (2005). The neural basis of first and second language processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 202–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Bettinardi, V., Cappa, S., Fazio, F., & Mehler, J. (1998). The bilingual brain - proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain, 121, 1841–1852.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., & Schumann, J. H. (1994). Neurobiological mechanisms of language acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 681–734.Google Scholar
Reinisch, E., & Sjerps, M. J. (2013). The uptake of spectral and temporal cues in vowel perception is rapidly influenced by context. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 101–116.Google Scholar
Rietveld, T., & van Heuven, V. (1997). Algemene fonetiek [general phonetics]. Bussum: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Sato, Y., Hirooki, Y., Tomiharu, H., Takeyuki, S., Naoko, S., Tadayoshi, N., & Sunao, K. (2000). The effect of deviant stimulus probability on the human mismatch process. NeuroReport, 11, 3703–3708.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Baus, C. (2005). On the relationship between perception and production in L2 categories. In Cutler, A. (ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones, pp. 279–292. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Díaz, B. (2012). First and second language speech perception: Graded learning. Language Learning, 62, 131–147.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Echeverría, S., & Bosch, L. (2005). The influence of initial exposure on lexical representation: Comparing early and simultaneous bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 240–255.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Soriano-Mas, C., Baus, C., Díaz, B., Ressel, V., Pallier, C., Costa, A., & Pujol, J. (2012). Neuroanatomical markers of individual differences in native and non-native vowel perception. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25, 150–162.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Soto-Faraco, S. (1999). Online processing of native and non-native phonemic contrasts in early bilinguals. Cognition, 72, 111–123.Google Scholar
Shalgi, S., & Deouell, L. Y. (2007). Direct evidence for differential roles of temporal and frontal components of auditory change detection. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1878–1888.Google Scholar
Sussman, E., & Winkler, I. (2001). Dynamic sensory updating in the auditory system. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 431–439 Google Scholar
Tremblay, K., Kraus, N., & McGee, T. (1998). The time course of auditory perceptual learning: Neurophysiological changes during speech-sound training. Neuroreport, 9, 3557–3560.Google Scholar
Tricomi, E., Delgado, M. R., McCandliss, B. D., McClelland, J. L., & Fiez, J. A. (2006). Performance feedback drives caudate activation in a phonological learning task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1029–1043.Google Scholar
Wartenburger, I., Heekeren, H. R., Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S. F., Villringer, A., & Perani, D. (2003). Early setting of grammatical processing in the bilingual brain. Neuron, 37, 159–170.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 1–25.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specialization for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.Google Scholar
Winkler, I., Kujala, T., Tiitinen, H., Sivonen, P., Alku, P., Lehtokoski, A., Czigler, I., Csépe, V., Ilmoniemi, R. J., & Näätänen, R. (1999). Brain responses reveal the learning of foreign language phonemes. Psychophysiology, 36, 638–642.Google Scholar
Wong, P. C., Perrachione, T. K., & Parrish, T. B. (2007). Neural characteristics of successful and less successful speech and word learning in adults. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 995–1006.Google Scholar
Wong, P. C., Warrier, C. M., Penhune, V. B., Roy, A. K., Sadehh, A., Parrish, T. B., & Zatorre, R. J. (2008). Volume of left Heschl's gyrus and linguistic pitch learning. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 828–836.Google Scholar
Yago, E., Escera, C., Alho, K., & Giard, M. H. (2001). Cerebral mechanisms underlying orienting of attention towards auditory frequency changes. Neuroreport, 12, 2583–2587.Google Scholar