Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:39:57.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nature, Nurture, and Age in Language Acquisition

The Case of Speech Perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Henning Wode
Henning Wode
Affiliation:
Kiel University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to draw attention to the research on speech perception and, second, to use the results for a reassessment of the contribution of innate capacities versus external stimulation in conjunction with age in first and second language acquisition. The theoretical framework is the universal theory of language acquisition. The focus is on the functional potential of the biological substrate rather than its anatomy.

Neonates are innately capable of two major modes of auditory perception, namely, categorical and continuous perception. The interaction of these two modes allows infants to develop the perceptual categories of their ambient language(s). The continuous mode functions as a monitoring device in shaping the categories of the target(s). Various kinds of evidence are reviewed that suggest that these original sensory abilities remain unchanged throughout an individual's lifespan, but they become difficult to access during later stages of life, such as in adult L2 acquisition, because of the way perceptual-phonological information is stored in memory and/or activated in language processing. There are no biologically based restrictions as to the number of languages that can be learned, or the age ranges during which this can happen.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 325 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Aslin, R. N., Pisoni, D. B., & Jusczyk, P. W. (1983). Auditory development and speech perception in infancy. In Haith, M. & Campos, J. (Eds.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology: Infancy and the biology of development (Vol. 2, pp. 573–687). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bailey, P., & Haggard, M. (1980). Perception-production relations in the voicing contrast for initial stops in 3-year-olds. Phonetica, 37, 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of perceptual reorganisation for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 345–360.Google Scholar
Borden, G. J., & Harris, K. S. (1984). Speech science primer. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Williams.Google Scholar
Burnham, D. K. (1986). Developmental loss of speech perception: Exposure to and experience with a first language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 207–240.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S. R. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern-day “wild child.” New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eilers, R. E., Gavin, W., & Wilson, W. (1979). Linguistic experience and phonemic perception in infancy: A cross-linguistic study. Child Development, 50, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilers, R. E., Wilson, W. R., & Moore, J. M. (1977). Developmental changes in speech discrimination in infants. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 766–780.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171, 303–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly, 8, 111–127.Google Scholar
Felix, S. W. (1981). On the (in)applicability of Piagetian thought to language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 179–192.Google Scholar
Felix, S. W. (1985). More evidence on competing cognitive systems. Second Language Research, 1, 47–72.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A., & Farwell, C. B. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition: English initial consonants in the first 50 words. Language, 51, 419–439.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1988). The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Human communication and its disorders: A review 1988 (pp. 244–401). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1992). Speech learning in a second language. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (Eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, implications (pp. 565–604). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (in press). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. Z. (1985). Linguistic and developmental effects on the production and perception of stop consonants. Phonetica, 43, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J., & Hillenbrand, J. (1984). Limits on pronunciation accuracy in adult foreign language speech production. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 76, 708–721.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1984). Development of speech perception and speech production in adult second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieser, D., & Kuhl, P. K. (1989). Categorization of speech by infants: Support for speech-sound prototypes. Developmental Psychology, 25, 577–588.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Howell, P., & Rosen, S. (1984). Natural auditory sensitivities as universal determiners of phonemic contrasts. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., & Dahl, Ö. (Eds.), Explanations for language universals (pp. 205–235). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. (1981). Infant speech perception: A critical appraisal. In Eimas, P. D. & Miller, J. L. (Eds.), Perspectives on the study of speech (pp. 113–164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. (1985). The high amplitude sucking technique as a methodological tool in speech perception research. In Gottlieb, G. & Krasnegor, N. A. (Eds.), Measurement of audition and vision in the first year of postnatal life: A methodological overview (pp. 195–221). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. (1992). Developing phonological categories from the speech signal. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (Eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, implications (pp. 17–64). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1985). Methods in the study of infant speech perception. In Gottlieb, G., Krasnegor, N., & Norma, A. (Eds.), Measurement of audition and vision in the first year of life: A methodological overview (pp. 224–251). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1987a). Perception of speech and sound in early infancy. In Salapatek, P. & Cohen, L. (Eds.), Handbook of infant perception (Vol. 2, pp. 275–381). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1987b). The special-mechanism debate in speech: Categorization tests on animals and infants. In Harnard, S. (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (pp. 355–386). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics, 50, 93–107.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1992). Speech prototypes: Studies on the nature, function, ontogeny and phylogeny of the “centers” of speech categories. In Tohkura, Y., Vatikiotis-Bateson, E., & Sagisaka, Y. (Eds.), Speech perception, production and linguistic structure (pp. 239–264). Tokyo: Ohmsha.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., & Miller, J. D. (1978). Speech perception by the chinchilla: Identification functions for synthetic VOT stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 63, 905–917.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lasky, R. E., Syrdal-Lasky, A., & Klein, R. E. (1975). VOT discrimination by four to six and a half year old infants from Spanish environments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 215–225.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S., & Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358–368.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P. (1984). The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P., & Blumstein, S. E. (1988). Speech physiology, speech perception, and acoustic phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustic measurements. Word, 20, 384–422.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1970). The voicing dimension: Some experiments in comparative phonetics. In Hala, B., Romportl, M., & Janota, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences 1967 (pp. 563–567). München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1987). Speech perception: New directions in research, theory and applications. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Human communication and its disorders (pp. 1–87). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Massaro, D. W. (1987). Speech perception by eye and by ear: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Massaro, D. W., & Oden, G. C. (1980). Speech perception: A framework for research and theory. In Lass, N. J. (Ed.), Speech and language: Advances in basic research and practice (Vol. 3, pp. 129–165). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. D., Wier, L., Pastore, R., Kelly, W., & Dooling, R. (1976). Discrimination and labeling of noise-buzz sequences with varying noise-lead times: An example of categorical perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 410–417.Google Scholar
Moffit, A. R. (1971). Consonant cue perception by twenty or twenty-four week old infants. Child Development, 42, 714–731.Google Scholar
Oden, G. C., & Massaro, D. W. (1978). Integration of feature information in speech perception. Psychological Review, 85, 172–191.Google Scholar
Oyama, S. C. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a primary language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patkowski, M. S. (1994). The critical age hypothesis and interlanguage phonology. In Yavas, M. (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 205–221). San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
Payne, A. (1980). Factors controlling the acquisition of the Philadelphia dialect by out-of-state children. In Labov, W. (Ed.), Locating language in time and space (pp. 143–178). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. (1977). Identification and discrimination of the relative onset time of two component tones: Implications for voicing perception in stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1352–1361.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B., Aslin, R. N., Perey, A. J., & Hennessy, B. L. (1982). Some effects of laboratory training on identification and discrimination of voicing contrasts in stop consonants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 297–314.Google Scholar
Polka, L. (1991). Cross-language speech perception in adults: Phonemic, phonetic, and acoustic contributions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 2961–2977.Google Scholar
Polka, L., & Werker, J. F. (1994). Developmental changes in perception of non-native vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 421–435.Google Scholar
Repp, B. H. (1984). Categorical perception: Issues, methods, findings. In Lass, N. (Ed.), Speech and language: Advances in basic research and practice (Vol. 10, pp. 243–335). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosansky, E. (1975). The critical period for the acquisition of language: Some cognitive developmental considerations. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 6, 10–23.Google Scholar
Samuel, A. G. (1982). Phonetic prototypes. Perception and Psychophysics, 31, 307–314.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). Age differences in second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. M. (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (1992). Learning non-native phoneme contrasts: Interactions among subject, stimulus, and task variables. In Tohkura, Y., Sagisaka, Y., & Vatikiotis-Bateson, E. (Eds.), Speech perception, production and linguistic structure (pp. 197–219). Tokyo: OHM.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (Ed.). (in press). Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Streeter, L. A. (1976). Kikuyu labial and apical stop discrimination. Journal of Phonetics, 4, 43–49.Google Scholar
Tees, R. C., & Werker, J. F. (1984). Perceptual flexibility: Maintenance or recovery of the ability to discriminate non-native speech sounds. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 579–590.Google Scholar
Tillmann, H. G., & Mansell, P. (1980). Phonetik: Lautsprachliche Zeichen, Sprachsignale und lautsprachlicher Kommunikationsprozeß. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Gilbert, J., Humphry, I., & Tees, R. (1981). Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Development, 52, 349–355.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Logan, J. S. (1985). Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 35–44.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Pegg, J. E. (1992). Infant speech perception and phonological acquisition. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (Eds.), Phonological development (pp. 285–311). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. (1983). Developmental changes across childhood in the perception of non-native speech sounds. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 278–286.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 1866–1878.Google Scholar
Williams, L. (1980). Phonetic variation as a function of second-language learning. In Yeni-Komshian, G., Kavanagh, J., & Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.), Child phonology: Perception (Vol. 2, pp. 185–216). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Winitz, H. (1981). Input considerations in the comprehension of first and second language. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Native and foreign language acquisition (pp. 296–308). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1977). The L2 acquisition of /r/. Phonetica, 34, 200–217.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1978). The beginnings of L2-phonological acquisition. IRAL, 16, 109–124.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1981). Learning a second language: An integrated view of language acquisition. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1984). Psycholinguistische Grundlagen sprachlicher Universalien: Möglichkeiten eines empirischen Paradigmas. Folia Linguistica, 18, 345–377.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1987). Einige Grundzüge des natürlichen L2-Erwerbs des Wortschatzes. In Melenk, H., Firges, J., Nold, G., Strauch, R., & Zeh, D. (Eds.), 11. Fremdsprachendidaktiker Kongreß (pp. 483–496). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1988). Einführung in die Psycholinguistik: Theorien, Methoden, Ergebnisse. Ismaning: Hueber.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1990). Continuity in the development of language acquisitional abilities. In Burmeister, H. & Rounds, P. L. (Eds.), Variability in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the 10th meeting of the Second Language Research Forum (Vol. 1, pp. 85–116). Eugene: University of Oregon, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1991). Speech perception: A developmental perspective. Kiel: Kiel University, English Department.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1992). Categorical perception and segmental coding in the ontogeny of sound systems: A universal approach. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (Eds.), Phonological Development (pp. 605–631). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1993). The development of phonological abilities. In Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg, A. (Eds.), Progression and regression in language: Sociocultural, neuropsychological and linguistic perspectives (pp. 415–438). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1994). Perzeption, Produktion und die Lernbarkeit von Sprachen. In Vater, H., Ramers, K. H., & Wode, H. (Eds.), Universale phonologische Strukturen (pp. 169–187). Wiesbaden: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Wode, H., Rohde, A., Gassen, F., Weiss, B., Jekat, M., & Jung, P. (1992). L1, L2, L3: Continuity vs. discontinuity in lexical acquisition. In Arnaud, P. J. L. & Béjoint, H. (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 52–61). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zlatin, M., & Koenigsknecht, R. (1975). Development of the voicing contrast: Perception of stop consonants. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18, 541–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zlatin, M., & Koenigsknecht, R. (1976). Development of the voicing contrast: A comparison of voice onset time in stop perception and production. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19, 93–111.Google Scholar