Cover not available
Part of
Spanish Learner Corpus Research: Current trends and future perspectives
Edited by Margarita Alonso-Ramos
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 78] 2016
► pp. 199–234

Chapter 8
Factors that can have an impact on the processes of perceiving Spanish/L2

 | Universidad de Alcalá
The present article aims to analyse the relationship between perception and production in foreign language acquisition, as well as to study the effects of three variables (gender, linguistic proficiency, and, especially, mother tongue) on phonic perception. To do so, we administered a perception test to 300 students (male and female), from 15 different countries and with different levels between A2 and C1 according to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). The resulting data – more than 61,200 answers – were included in the database of the corpus Fono.ele, and analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. We compared these data with those provided by the rest of the perception samples included in Fono.ele with the objective of building upon the already-drawn conclusions. The outcomes suggest that, even though they remain dependent, production and perception undergo different developmental processes. Moreover, they show that external factors exert a weak influence on perception.
Keywords: Spanish/L2, phonetic perception, influence of the mother tongue, socio-cultural variables
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Phonetic perception
  • 3.Phonetic perception of a foreign language
  • 4.Perception study
    • 4.1Study sample and variables
    • 4.2The perception test
    • 4.3Data analysis
      • 4.3.1Results by task
      • 4.3.2Results by gender
      • 4.3.3Results according to level of Spanish
      • 4.3.4Results according to native language
  • 5.Discussion of the results
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.78.08bla
References (50)
References
Abad, F.J., Garrido, J., Olea, J. & Ponsoda, V. 2006. Introducción a la Psicometría. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma.Google Scholar
Altman, H.B. 1980. Foreign language teaching: Focus on the learner. In Foreign Language Teaching: Meeting Individual Needs, H.B. Altman & C.V. James (eds), 1–16. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Best, C.T. 1984. Discovering messages in the medium: speech and the prelinguistic infant. In Advances in Pediatric Psychology, Vol. 2, H.E. Fitzgerald, B. Lester & M. Yogman (eds), 97–145. New York NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
1994. The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: a perceptual assimilation model. In The Development of Speech Perception: The Transition from Speech Sounds to Spoken Words, Nusbaum, H.C. (ed.), 167–224. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-Language Speech Research, Strange, W. (ed.), 171–203. Timonium MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Blanco Canales, A. 2012. Corpus oral para el estudio de la adquisición y aprendizaje del componente fónico del español como lengua extranjera. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 50 (2): 3–37.Google Scholar
2014. Adquisición y aprendizaje del componente fónico del español como lengua extranjera. In Fonética experimental, Educación Superior e Investigación, Y. Congosto Martín, M.L. Montero Curiel & A. Salvador Plans (eds), 179–198. Madrid: Arco-Libros.Google Scholar
Blumstein, S.E. 1986. On acoustic invariance in speech. In Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes, J.S. Perkell & D.H. Klatt (eds), 178–193. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. 1995. Cross-language speech perception in adults: First language transfer doesn’t tell it all. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Strange, W. (ed.), 273–304. Timonium MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. & Flege, J.E. 1990. Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics 11:303–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, C. 2000. The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. In Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, Archibald, J. (ed.), 4–63. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cano García, F. 2000. Diferencias de género en estrategias y estilos de aprendizaje. Psicothema 12(3): 360–367.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Miller, G.A. 1963. Introduction to formal analysis of natural languages. In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2, Luce, R.D., R. Bush & E. Galanter (eds), 269–321. New York NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cortés, M. 2001. Percepción y adquisición de la entonación española en enunciados de habla espontánea: el caso de los estudiantes taiwaneses. Estudios de Fonética Experimental XI: 89–119.Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Sebastian-Galles, N., Navarete, E. & Peperkamp, S. 2008. Persistent stress ‘deafness’: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition 106(2): 682–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F.R. & Iverson, G.K. 2013. The role of native language phonology in the production of L2 contrasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1): 67–92 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P.R. 2005. Linguistic Perception and Second Language Acquisition. Explaining the Attainment of Optimal Phonological Categorization. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Espinoza-Varas, B. 1987. Involvement of the critical band in the identification, perceived distance and discrimination of vowels. In The Psychophysics of Speech Perception, Schouten, M.E.H. (ed.), 306–313. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fant, G. 1962. Descriptive analysis of the acoustic aspects of speech. Logos 5:3–17.Google Scholar
Flege, J.E., Munro, M. & MacKay, I.R.A. 1995. Factors affecting the strength of perceived foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 3125–3134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J.E. 1980. Phonetic a pproximation in second language acquisition. Language Learning 27(1): 117–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. Speech learning in a second language. In Phonological Development: Models, Research, and Application, Ferguson, C.A., L. Menn & C. Stoel-Gammon (eds), 565–603. Timonium MD: York Press.Google Scholar
2003. Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. In Phonetics and Phonology in Language Comprehension and Production, A. Meyer & N.O. Schiller (eds), 319–355. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C.A. 1986. An even approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics 14:1–38.Google Scholar
García Moutón, P. 2000. Cómo hablan las mujeres. Madrid: Arco-Libros.Google Scholar
Howard, P.J. 1999. The Owner’s Manual for the Brain: Everyday Applications from Mind-Brain Research. Atlanta: Bard Press.Google Scholar
Iverson, P. & Kuhl, P.K. 1995. Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 553–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Influences of phonetic identification and category goodness on American listeners perception of /r/ and /l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99: 1130–1140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, A. 1996. Second language phonology. In Investigating Second Language Acquisition, Peter Jordaens & Josine Lalleman (eds), 293–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P.K. 1991. Human adults and human infants show a ‘perceptual magnetic effect’ for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception & Psychophysics 50: 93–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 97: 11850–11857. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1996. Principios del cambio lingüístico. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Liberman, A.M. 1982. On finding that speech is special. American Psychologist 37:148–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, A.M., Delattre, P.C. & Cooper, F.S. 1958. Some cues for the distinction between voiced and voiceless stops in initial position. Language and Speech 1: 153–167.Google Scholar
Liberman, A.M. & Mattingly, I.G. 1985. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21(1): 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1986. On the origin and purpose of discreteness and invariance in sound patterns. In Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes, J.S. Perkell & D.H. Klatt (ed.), 493–510. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1992. Phonological units as adaptive emergents of lexical development. In Phonological Development: Models, Research, Implications, Ferguson, C.A., L. Menn & C. Stoel-Gammon (eds), 131–163. Parkton MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Llisterri, J. 1995. Relationships between speech production and speech perception in a second language. In Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 4, K. Elenius & P. Branderud (eds), 92–99. Stockholm: KTH – Stockholm University.Google Scholar
López Bascuas, L.E. 1996. Las teorías de la percepción del habla: Un análisis crítico. Estudios de Psicología 56:45–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacNeilage, P.F. 1972. Parametric study of single motor unit waveforms in upper articulatory musculature. Journal of The Acoustical Society of America 52(1A): 124.Google Scholar
Major, R.C. 1987. Phonological similarity, markedness and rate of L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 63–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marrero, V. 2008. La fonética perceptiva: Trascendencia lingüística de mecanismos neuropsicofisiológicos. Estudios de Fonética Experimental XVII: 207–245.Google Scholar
McClelland, J.L. & Elman, J.L. 1986. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18:1–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J.L. & Jusczyk, P. W. 1989. Seeking the neurobiological basis of speech perception. Cognition 33:117–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mora, E., Courtois, F. & Cavé, C. 1997. Étude comparative de la perception par des sujets francophones et hispanophones de l’accent lexical en espagnol. Revue Parole 1: 75–86.Google Scholar
Moreno, F. 1990. Metodología sociolingüística. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Muñoz, M., Panissal, N., Billières, M. & Baqué, L. 2009. ¿La metáfora de la criba fonológica se puede aplicar a la percepción del acento léxico español? Estudio experimental con estudiantes francófonos. In La lingüística aplicada actual: Comprendiendo el lenguaje y la mente, C.M. Bretones Callejas, S. Salaberri Ramiro, E. García Sánchez, E. Cortés de los Ríos, S. Cruz Martínez, J.F. Fernández Sánchez & J.R. Ibañez Sánchez (eds), 489–99. Almería: Universidad de Almería – AESLA.Google Scholar
Repp, B.H. 1982. Phonetic trading relations and context effects: new experimental evidence for a phonetic mode of perception. Psychological Bulletin 92: 81–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K.N. & Blumstein, S.E. 1981. The search for invaríant ácoustic correlates of phonetic features. In Perspectives on the Study of Speech, P.D. Eimas & J.L. Miller (eds), 1–39. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wode, H. 1996. Speech perception and L2 phonologycal acquisition. In Investigating Second Language AcquisitionP. Jordaens & J. Lalleman (eds), 321–353. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar