Mark Antoniou COC Final

Effects of linguistic context on bilingual speech production and perception
Confirmation of Candidature Proposal
Mark Antoniou
Student ID: 11018517
Supervisor: Professor Catherine T. Best
MARCS Auditory Laboratories
University of Western Sydney

Table of Contents
1. Overview 4
2. Theories of bilingualism 4
2.1 The Bilingual’s Language Modes 5
2.2 The Inhibitory Control model 6
2.3 Modeling phonological and phonetic abilities of bilinguals 6
3. Extending theories of cross-language speech production and perception to

bilinguals 7
3.1 The Speech Learning Model 8
3.2 The Perceptual Assimilation Model 11
3.3 PAM-L2 16
4. Bilingual speech perception and production research 17
4.1 The bilingual as a constantly changing perceiver-producer 21
4.2 Manipulating the linguistic context in bilingual research 22
5. The proposed research 30
5.1 Target languages 31
5.1.1 Australian English phonology 31
5.1.2 Greek phonology 33
5.1.3 Xhosa Phonology 36
5.2 Rationale 37
5.3 The Perceptual Assimilation Model of Early Bilinguals (PAM-EB) 38
6. Experiments: Investigating the effects of language of presentation on bilingual

speech production and perception 40
6.1 Ethics approval 40
6.2 Experiment 1: Production of Greek and AusE stop voicing: /p, t, k/ vs. /b, d, g/ 40
6.2.1 Aim 41
2
6.2.2 Study design 41
6.2.3 Predictions 43
6.2.4 Participants and recruitment 45
6.3 Experiments 2A-2C – Perception of Greek and AusE stop voicing distinctions 45
6.3.1 Aims 46
6.3.2 Study design 46
6.3.3 Experiment 2A – Word-initial position CV 47
6.3.4 Experiment 2B – Word-medial position ˈVCV 48
6.3.5 Experiment 2C – Word-medial position VˈCV 49
6.4 Study 3 – Perception of nonnative Xhosa bilabial stop distinctions 50
6.4.1 Aims 51
6.4.2 Study Design 51
6.4.3 Predictions 51
7. Anticipated impact 53
8. Timeline 55
9. References 57
Appendix A. Language background information sheet 63
Appendix B. Πληροφόριση γλωσσικής καταγωγής 67
3
Linguistic context and bilingual speech
1. Overview
The present proposal will investigate the effects of linguistic context on the production
and perception of stop consonants by Greek-Australian English early sequential
bilinguals. Contextual effects have been addressed in theories of bilingual word selection,
code switching, and other aspects of language use, but not by theories of phonetics and
phonology, which address the system of spoken consonants, vowels, and other sound
patterns used by a language. Moreover, only a small number of cross-language studies
have investigated the influence that linguistic context can exert on bilingual speech
perception and production. A new theoretical framework will be presented that combines
the principles of existing theories of bilingual language selection with those of cross-
language speech performance, to account for effects of linguistic context on speech
production and perception in bilinguals. Within this approach, the systematic
manipulation of linguistic context within the laboratory will be referred to as the
language of presentation.
2. Theories of bilingualism
Theoretical models of bilingualism have described language modes, language activation,
and lexical inhibition to account for variability in the performance of bilinguals in their
two languages. Note that these models focus mainly on lexical (knowledge of and mental
access of words) and/or grammatical tasks, rather than specifically on the bilingual’s
phonological system.
4
2.1 The Bilingual’s Language Modes
Grosjean’s (1989; 1998; 2001) Language Mode framework postulates that at any time,
bilinguals are in language modes that correspond to points on a monolingual-bilingual
continuum. A language mode is a state of activation of the bilingual’s languages and
language processing mechanisms (Grosjean, 2001). Bilinguals may be in monolingual
mode when interacting with monolingual speakers of one of their languages. In this case,
the other language is said to be deactivated (although never completely). Bilinguals will
be in bilingual mode when interacting with a bilingual speaker of the same two
languages. Under these circumstances, both languages are activated but one is used for
processing language and is therefore more active than the other. According to Grosjean,
the bilingual’s language mode affects both language comprehension and performance.
Any number of factors can position a bilingual speaker or listener at a particular point on
the language mode continuum: the person(s) being spoken or listened to, the situation, the
form and content of the message, the function of the language act, and specific research
factors (does the participant know the aims of the study taking place?). Even hinting at
the bilingual abilities of a bilingual participant may put them into bilingual mode
(Grosjean, 1998). Movement along the continuum can happen at any time depending on
the factors mentioned above, usually unconsciously, smoothly and effortlessly. This may
be akin to a monolingual’s automatic, smooth change of speech style or register based on
changes in context and/or interlocutor, e.g., child-directed speaking register versus adult-
directed register.
5
2.2 The Inhibitory Control model
While Grosjean’s Language Modes provide a framework for examining bilingual
performance across a range of linguistic tasks, the Inhibitory Control model (Green,
1998) attempts to explain how bilinguals are able to select the correct word (i.e., lexical
item) in the correct language. The Inhibitory Control model assumes that the two (or
more) languages of an individual are subsets of the language system as a whole. Lexical
selection is achieved through competition between lemmas. A lemma is a lexical
representation including its semantic (meaning), syntactic (grammatical), phonological
(consonant-vowel structure), and phonetic (spoken form) properties. All lemmas are
tagged with a language label (language A or language B). A language task schema alters
the activation levels of representations within a given language system. Lemmas with
incorrect language tags are inhibited by the language task schemas. The activation of
specific lemmas requires input either from an external source (heard or read words) or
from the conceptual system, and is therefore reactive. In this way, word candidates in
both languages can be differentially inhibited top-down on the basis of language.
2.3 Modeling phonological and phonetic abilities of bilinguals
Unfortunately, the Language Mode and Inhibitory Control models are inadequate for
guiding research at the phonological and phonetic levels. They were designed to address
lexical and syntactic aspects of language use, rather than the sound structure aspects.
These models are not capable, in their current form, of putting forth any testable
predictions and hypotheses in cross-language speech perception and production. Thus,
although interesting, merely knowing that bilinguals can move between language modes
6
is not yet sufficiently developed to make predictions about how the language of
presentation could influence a bilingual’s perception or production of speech. The
proposed research will be the first systematic investigation of linguistic context on early
bilingual speech perception and production at the phonetic and phonological levels. In the
present research, an important distinction is made between people who are actively
acquiring a second language (L2) – L2 learners – and those who have acquired their
languages and achieved a level of language stability – bilinguals. It is the latter group
which will serve as the focus of the proposed research. Existing theories of cross-
language speech production and perception have focused on L2 learners (Flege, 1995)
and nonnative listeners (Best, 1995), but have not addressed the performance of fluent,
stable bilinguals.
3. Extending theories of cross-language speech production and perception to
bilinguals
Cross-language speech research aims to understand how language experience influences
the perception and production of speech. Language experience shapes perception so that
information relevant to the native language is picked up from the speech stream while
other information is ignored, which in turn affects speech production. The majority of
cross-language research has focused on monolinguals. However, about two thirds of the
world’s population is estimated to be bilingual (Grosjean, 1982). Bilingual populations
present a special opportunity to test the predictions of the theoretical models of nonnative
speech perception and production as they possess more than one language.
7
Bilingual research attempts to understand whether bilinguals integrate their languages or
keep their languages separate (Flege & Eefting, 1987b; Pallier, Colome & Sebastian-
Gallés, 2001; Mack, 1989). Bilinguals rarely possess an equal command of both
languages. This is because each language serves different social functions. Each language
is used with different people, in different places, for different purposes (Grosjean, 1982;
1989). However, researchers have often ignored the linguistic context in which the
research has been conducted. Evidence exists that bilinguals are able to shift their
production and perception along a continuum to adjust to the linguistic context (Grosjean,
1989; 1998; 2001; Green, 1998). This implies that bilinguals are able to select language-
specific information from the speech stream and that this selectivity in attention to
phonetic details may vary depending on the linguistic context. Obviously, this ability to
shift between languages is unique to people who speak more than one language. Less
fluent people who are still acquiring their second language (L2 learners) may not be able
to shift their language mode yet, and this may contribute to their difficulties in correctly
perceiving and producing many L2 phones. If fluent bilinguals are able to shift their
perception and production of speech according to the linguistic context, then it is
necessary to provide a theoretical explanation of how this occurs and to examine what
this means for bilingual perception of phonological and phonetic information.
3.1 The Speech Learning Model
The Speech Learning Model (SLM: Flege, 1995) attempts to explain age-related
limitations on nonnative accentedness in speech production (and secondarily, in
perception). By first predicting whether first language (L1) and L2 phones will be
8
differentiated, SLM makes predictions of whether L2 learners will eventually produce
specific L2 phones without an accent.
During L1 acquisition, speech perception becomes attuned to the contrastive phonetic
elements of the L1, guiding proper production of those L1 elements. It is assumed that
these speech-learning mechanisms remain intact throughout life. This does not
necessarily mean that native-like L2 production will ever be achieved, especially by late
L2 learners, because there are ongoing changes throughout life in the way that the L1 and
L2 phonetic systems interact. Fewer L2 sounds will be pronounced accurately as age of
learning, and proficiency in the L1, increases.
SLM predicts that production and perception difficulties arise from L1/L2 phonetic
similarity. L2 learners may fail to discriminate between two L2 sounds, or an L2 and L1
sound. This leads to one of the central assumptions of SLM, that many (although not all)
L2 production errors result from native versus nonnative differences in segmental
(consonant or vowel) perception. Put simply, the accuracy with which L2 segments are
perceived will limit how accurately they will be produced.
According to SLM, L2 learners possess one phonological system. This one system
contains phonological categories from both of the L2 learner’s languages. Cross-language
interference is assumed to be bidirectional. A foreign accent is the result of this language
interference. It is predicted that as an L2 learner approaches the phonetic norm for an L2
phone, production of the corresponding L1 phone will move away from the L1 phonetic
norm. L2 learners often begin by producing L2 words using unmodified L1 phonetic
segments, but they typically approximate L2 phonetic norms for certain L2 phonetic
9
segments more closely over time as they gain experience in the L2. This may, however,
lead to an increased degree of nonnative accentedness in the L1.
SLM predicts that L2 phonetic segments and contrasts that are very different from any L1
phonetic category will come to be perceived and produced relatively accurately, whereas
L2 phonetic segments that are more similar to L1 segments will continue to be
misperceived and mispronounced. However, some L2 phones will be too similar to L1
phones for new category formation to occur. It is predicted that early L2 learners will be
more likely to establish new phonetic categories for L2 speech sounds.
Initially, learners will perceptually relate positional allophones (similar phones perceived
by native speakers as belonging to the same phonological category in that language) in
the L2 to the closest positionally defined allophone in the L1. If an L2 phone sounds
sufficiently similar to an L1 phone, it will be perceptually assimilated (“equivalence
classified” in Flege’s original terms) into the existing L1 category. Sounds that are
perceptually linked to one another across L1 and L2 are called diaphones, and come to
resemble each other in production. Despite audible differences between the L2 phone and
the closest L1 phone, a new category may fail to be established. This is called category
assimilation and results in a merged L1/L2 phonetic category, which may be unlike that
of a monolingual speaker of either language. In this instance, a single, merged L1/L2
phonetic category will be used to produce corresponding speech sounds in the L1 and L2.
SLM would predict that discrimination of these L1 and L2 phones would be difficult, and
production would be accented. The proposed research will investigate whether Greek-
Australian English bilinguals are able to make such distinctions of stop consonants in
10
their two languages, and whether they are systematically affected by the syllable position
of those stop consonants (positional allophones).
With experience, L2 learners may gradually discriminate between certain L2 sounds and
the closest L1 sound. When this occurs, a phonetic category representation may be
established for the new L2 sound that is independent of representations established
previously for L1 sounds. The likelihood of a category being formed for an L2 phone
increases with the degree of perceived dissimilarity from the closest L1 phone. If the L2
phone is very different from any L1 phonetic category, then it will not be assimilated to
any L1 phonetic category, and will establish a new, unique phonetic category. A newly
established L2 phonetic category and the nearest L1 phonetic category will shift away
from one another in the phonetic space, called phonetic category dissimilation. SLM
posits that category dissimilation occurs because L2 learners strive to maintain phonetic
contrast between all of the L1 and L2 phonetic categories in the common phonetic space.
A phonetic category established by an L2 learner for an L2 phone may be deflected away
from an L1 phone and will therefore differ from a native speaker’s phonetic category for
the same L2 phone.
In summary, according to SLM, some L2 phonemes will acquire their own phonetic
category while others will not, and this will have implications for both L1 and L2
perception and production. However, SLM offers no explanation as to why or how
bilingual perception or production may shift according to the linguistic context, nor even
any predictions that it will do so.
3.2 The Perceptual Assimilation Model
11
Like SLM, the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM: Best, 1993; 1994; 1995) of
nonnative speech perception proposes that perceivers possess one phonological system.
PAM also argues that nonnative speech segments are categorised according to their
perceived similarities to, or differences from, the phonetic segments in the native
phonological system. The PAM framework is built upon direct realist principles. Direct
realism is a philosophy that posits that we know the external world directly, without
cognitive or non-cognitive mediation. Information about the world is conveyed through
informational media, such as air and light, to our perceptual systems. These informational
media are structured by distal events in the external world. For speech, the acoustic and
optical signal of the talker is structured by the gestures of their vocal tract, which are then
perceived through lawful changes in air pressure and the reflection of light. Therefore,
when we perceive speech, we directly perceive the vocal tract gestures – the distal event.
The most notable difference between PAM and SLM is PAM’s assumption that there is
both a phonetic (physical, gradient) and a phonological (abstract, categorical) level of
speech perception, while SLM proposes only a phonetic level. Traditionally, it has been
assumed that speech has both a physical structure and an abstract, or cognitive, structure.
However, PAM is based upon direct realist metatheoretical assumptions. How can PAM
account for these two seemingly different (physical and abstract) structures of speech?
This is made possible through the framework of articulatory phonology.
In articulatory phonology (Browman & Goldstein, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2000;
Goldstein & Browman, 1986), these seemingly different domains are the macroscopic
(phonological) and microscopic (phonetic) levels of a single, complex system. The
degree of resolution differs at these two levels. The microscopic (phonetic) level captures
12
much more of the detailed articulatory properties – much more detail than is needed to
distinguish words. This is the level of gradient physical details. The macroscopic
(phonological) level captures details in terms of contrastive, rule-bound functions. This
level is only concerned with the details needed to make phonemic distinctions (used to
differentiate words). This is a global level in which the structure is more abstract. The
perceptual primitives of both phonetics and phonology are articulatory gestures.
Traditionally, phonemes have been defined as sets of static features – targets that do not
change over time. By defining phonemes as static feature bundles, it is difficult to explain
historical language changes, phonological patterning (the way sounds function within a
language or across languages) and coarticulation (the assimilation of the place of
articulation of one speech segment to that of an adjacent segment). In articulatory
phonology, a gesture is dynamically defined and consists of a formation and release of a
constriction in the vocal tract. By defining gestures dynamically, it is possible to link the
macroscopic and microscopic elements of speech, and explain language change and
coarticulation. A gestural constellation is a set of coordinated gestures, i.e., defined by the
phasing of gestures relative to each other. A linguistic utterance is a constellation that can
be broken down into a number of primitives (gestures) in a certain spatio-temporal
configuration. Two speech segments will contrast if the gestural constellations differ, e.g.
if a gesture is absent in one segment, if there are differences in the degree of constriction
among gestures, or if gestures are ordered or phased differently (Browman & Goldstein,
1992). Gestures are dynamic physical events that occur in space and time, and can
overlap. Overlap may occur because several gestures can be active in the vocal tract at
13
any point in time. This overlap may result in microscopic (phonetic-acoustic) variations
that have been traditionally called coarticulation effects.
According to PAM, the native phonological system, as well as phonetic details – even
within a phonological category – influences a listener’s ability to identify and
discriminate nonnative speech segments. In articulatory phonology terms, perception of
nonnative minimal contrasts (differing in only one gesture) is guided by perceived
gestural similarities and dissimilarities between nonnative phones (speech gestures
considered as physical events) and native phonological categories.
Perceivers can assimilate nonnative segments into native phonological categories, used to
distinguish words (e.g. native /b/ vs. native /p/). However, perceivers may also be
sensitive to gradient phonetic information, allowing them to perceive within-category
differences (e.g. accented vs. unaccented consonants and vowels). Nonnative segments
may be:
1) Assimilated to a native category as:
(a) a good exemplar of that category;
(b) an acceptable but not ideal exemplar of that category; or
(c) a notably deviant exemplar of that category;
2) Perceived as a speech sound that does not fit into any single existing native
category; or
3) Heard as a non-speech sound, e.g. a cork popping.
14
When a nonnative listener attempts to discriminate between two nonnative speech
segments, the possibilities are:
1. Two-category assimilation (TC) in which the nonnative segments are assimilated into
different native phonological categories, and discrimination is predicted to be
excellent;
2. Category-Goodness Difference (CG) in which both nonnative segments are
assimilated to the same native phonological category, but they differ in that one
segment is a good exemplar of that native category while the other is deviant, and
discrimination should be moderate to very good depending on how big the difference
of category-goodness is;
3. Single-Category Assimilation (SC) in which both nonnative segments are assimilated
to the same native phonological category but are equally discrepant from the native
ideal, and discrimination should be poor;
4. Uncategorised versus Categorised (UC) in which one nonnative segment is
assimilated to a native phonological category, whilst the other falls within the
phonetic space but not into any native phonological category, and discrimination
should be very good.
For a full description of possible perceptual assimilations see Best (1993; 1995).
PAM predicts that listeners will discriminate nonnative phones in reference to the
phonological categories of their native language. PAM was not originally designed to
15
predict L2 learning. However, the original PAM framework has been extended to account
for L2 perceptual learning.
3.3 PAM-L2
PAM-L2 (Best & Tyler, in press) attempts to predict how extended L2 experience will
change a phonological system that has developed based on native language input. PAM-
L2 predicts that L2 learners will learn to perceive L2 segments with varying degrees of
success. When L2 learners encounter L2 minimal contrasts, they may:
1) Only perceive one of the two L2 phonological categories as equivalent (perceptually
assimilated) to an L1 phonological category. The learner would have little difficulty
discriminating minimal contrasts for these distinctions.
2) Perceive both L2 phonological categories as equivalent to the same L1 phonological
category, but one is perceived as being more deviant than the other. The deviant phone
would initially be learned as a new L2 phonetic variant of the L1 phonological category.
With experience, the learner should develop a new phonological category for the deviant.
3) Perceive both L2 phonological categories as equivalent to the same L1 phonological
category, but as equally good or poor instances of that category. The learner will have
trouble discriminating these L2 phones, which would be assimilated both phonetically
and phonologically to the single L1 category. Minimally contrasting L2 words would be
perceived as homophones (identical pronunciation).
4) Perceive both L2 phones as speech segments, but not assimilate either of them to any
L1 phonological categories. The phones may be heard as speech segments; but not as
16
clear examples of L1 categories. As a result, the learner may form one or two new L2
phonological categories.
The predictions put forth by PAM-L2 will be tested by the present research, applied to
fluent Greek-Australian English early sequential bilinguals. However, the early bilinguals
who will be tested in the present research had far less L1 exposure when they began
acquiring their L2, as compared to the adult L2 learners that PAM-L2 was designed for.
The results of the present research are expected to extend the principles of PAM-L2 – and
of SLM – to explain performance of fluent early bilinguals.
4. Bilingual speech perception and production research
The research proposed in this thesis aims to improve our understanding of the structure of
the bilingual phonological system(s) and their finer-grained phonetic details. Research
involving bilingual participants has yielded mixed results regarding the nature of their
phonological system(s).
It is difficult to characterise the findings in the bilingual literature because some authors
only describe differences at the phonetic level while others address differences at both the
phonetic and phonological levels. This distinction is not always made clear and can lead
to ambiguity and misinterpretation. Moreover, results within individual studies
sometimes present seemingly ambiguous data. For example, bilinguals may appear to
have merged categories in one experiment, but may appear to maintain separate
categories in the following experiment. Part of this ambiguity can be attributed to the
complicated nature of research involving bilinguals. For these reasons, it is necessary to
interpret the results of bilingual studies with caution.
17
Voice onset time (VOT) has long been established as a useful measure for characterising
cross-language differences in the production of voicing distinctions (vibrating vocal folds
= voiced; spread vocal folds = voiceless) between stop consonants which involve
complete closure of the articulators at some position in the vocal tract, temporarily
stopping the airflow (Lisker & Abramson, 1964). VOT is defined as the timing between
the release of the closure and the onset of vibration of the vocal folds (Lisker &
Abramson, 1964). It distinguishes voiced and/or prevoiced from voiceless stops within
most languages (e.g. /b/ vs. /p/), and provides a common basis for describing certain
cross-language differences in the acoustic-phonetic realisation of voicing contrasts. VOT
is especially interesting in cases where the bilingual’s two languages make phonological
distinctions at different phonetic points along the VOT continuum, as in Greek versus
English.
If bilinguals produce values intermediate to those of monolingual speakers of the two
languages, this is taken as evidence of merged L1-L2 phonetic categories that are used by
both languages. For example, Spanish-American English bilinguals produced /p, t, k/
with significantly longer VOT values in English words than in Spanish words, however,
their English word VOT values were significantly shorter than those of American English
(AmE) monolinguals (Flege & Eefting, 1987b). Note that Spanish /p, t, k/ are
implemented with short lag unaspirated VOT in utterance-initial position, while English
/p, t, k/ have long lag aspirated VOTs. In a separate task, the Spanish bilinguals’ category
boundaries of /da/-/ta/ were at significantly shorter values than those of AmE
monolinguals, consistent with the VOT differences between the languages (Flege &
Eefting, 1987b).
18
Failure to identify a language-specific phonological contrast that exists in one language
but not the other is interpreted as evidence of a merged phonological category. Numerous
studies involving Spanish-Catalan bilinguals in Barcelona have demonstrated that
Spanish-dominant early sequential bilinguals who have learned Catalan assimilate the
Catalan-specific /e/ and /ε/ vowels to the Spanish /e/ phonological category (Pallier,
Bosch & Sebastian-Gallés, 1997; Sebastian-Gallés & Soto-Faraco, 1999; Sebastian-
Gallés, Echeverria & Bosch, 2005). In a repetition priming task, Spanish-dominant
bilinguals responded faster for pairs of words that only differed in a Catalan-specific
contrast, which indicated that they thought they had encountered the word for a second
time because they failed to discriminate the Catalan contrast, having treated the two
words as homophones (Pallier, Colome & Sebastian-Gallés, 2001). Catalan-dominant
bilinguals did not respond faster for these minimal pairs, meaning that they discriminated
the two words because they had separate phonological categories of Catalan /e/ and /ε/
(Pallier, Colome & Sebastian-Gallés, 2001). It appears that the L1 shapes the perceptual
system at early stages of development in a way that determines the perception of
nonnative phonemic contrasts, even if there is early and prolonged exposure to the L2.
These findings provide strong evidence that early sequential bilinguals have an integrated
phonological system containing phonetic and phonological categories used by both of
their languages, and may be dominated by the L1.
In spite of evidence that bilinguals have a phonological system with merged categories
(Flege & Eefting, 1987b; Pallier, Colome & Sebastian-Gallés, 2001), there is other
evidence suggesting that bilinguals maintain separate categories for their two languages.
Performance that is equal to that of monolinguals of either language is interpreted as
19
evidence of separate L1 and L2 phonetic and phonological categories. For example,
AmE-Frenchbilinguals were almost indistinguishable from English monolinguals in their
discrimination of /d/-/t/ and /i/-/ɪ/ continua, the location of category boundary for /d/-/t/,
and the slope and fit of /i/-/ɪ/ regression lines (Mack, 1989). Note that French /d/ is
produced with voicing lead, /t/ is short lag unaspirated, and /ɪ/ does not exist in French. In
addition, the two groups were similar in their productions with respect to VOT, vowel
duration, and almost all spectral features associated with vowels (Mack, 1989). Note that
/i/ is one of the longest vowels in English, but one of the shortest in French. These
findings suggested that AmE-French bilinguals maintained a monolingual-like AmE
perceptual system – not affected by their L2, French.
Thus, studies are inconclusive with regard to the phonological systems of bilinguals. On
the one hand, some evidence exists that suggests that bilinguals possess one phonological
system containing merged phonetic and phonological categories from both languages
(Flege & Eefting, 1987b; Pallier, Colome and Sebastian-Gallés, 2001). However, it has
been suggested that bilinguals may keep their L1 and L2 categories separate (Mack,
1989). As a consequence, this issue remains unresolved and warrants further scientific
investigation.
Nevertheless, it is possible to draw some general conclusions from the existing literature.
There is strong evidence that bilinguals are uniquely configured as a result of their
language experience. In direct realist terms, language experience should result in a
perceptual attunement so that bilinguals are able to pick up contextual information from
the environment which affords them selective use of their two languages. If this is
20
correct, then a shift in linguistic context should cause a corresponding shift in the
phonetic and phonological information that a bilingual uses in speech perception and
production.
4.1 The bilingual as a constantly changing perceiver-producer
Compatible with that notion, change in language use and language setting results in
changes of a bilingual's production of both L1 and L2 stop consonants (Sancier &
Fowler, 1997). A Brazilian Portuguese-AmE late bilingual participant traveled between
the United States and Brazil several times over the course of a year. Brazilian Portuguese
voiceless stops are short lag unaspirated, whereas in AmE, they tend to be long lag
aspirated. During her 4.5 and 4-month stays in the United States, the participant mainly
spoke AmE, and immediately upon her return to Brazil, native Brazilian Portuguese
listeners rated her Portuguese voiceless stops as significantly more explosive or
American-sounding than recordings before her trip to the United States. Acoustic
measurements confirmed that the speaker’s voiceless stop VOT values in her native
language, Portuguese, had increased toward the longer values of English after her stay in
the United States (Sancier & Fowler, 1997). After a 2.5 month stay in Brazil, during
which she mainly spoke Portuguese, the participant returned to the United Sates.
Acoustic measures indicated that the speaker’s /p/ and /t/ in both languages had shifted
just as much, this time toward the shorter Portuguese VOT values (Sancier & Fowler,
1997). The speaker had experienced “gestural drift” in both of her languages towards the
VOTs of the language environment. These findings strongly suggest that a bilingual
possesses an interdependent L1/L2 phonological system containing L1/L2 categories that
are merged or at least linked. Given that productions in both languages were affected
21
when only one language was used for a period of a few months, the L1 and L2
phonological systems cannot possibly be independent, at least not in production. In
addition, learning appears to be an ongoing process that may result in temporary and
context-dependent changes in speech production well into adulthood. In this sense, the
bilingual speaker is in a constant state of change.
4.2 Manipulating the linguistic context in bilingual research
Linguistic context may provide a potentially important account for some of the
ambiguous findings in research involving bilinguals (Flege & Eefting, 1987b; Pallier,
Colome, & Sebastian-Gallés, 2001; Mack, 1989). Researchers should heed language
mode at all times, as it may influence the results of a bilingual study, and if a researcher
does not wish to make such a manipulation, then it must be controlled for (Grosjean,
1998). Theories of speech perception (PAM; PAM-L2) and production (SLM) have not
considered the role that linguistic context can play in the performance of bilingual
participants. Similarly, researchers studying bilingual populations have usually ignored
language mode in their methodological designs. Some of the most influential speech
perception studies involving bilinguals have been those from researchers at the
Universitat de Barcelona. In almost a decade of research on Spanish-Catalan bilinguals,
no study has manipulated the language of presentation. Remarkably, in the studies
conducted by the Barcelona group, the language used by the experimenter has not been
reported at all (Pallier, Bosch, & Sebastian-Gallés, 1997; Sebastian-Gallés & Soto-
Faraco, 1999; Pallier, Colome, & Sebastian-Gallés, 2001; Sebastian-Gallés, Echeverria,
& Bosch, 2005). This suggests that the researchers have not considered the role played by
the linguistic setting in which research takes place. This lack of interest is puzzling when
22
one considers that the majority of the few studies that have manipulated the language of
presentation have yielded significant results.
One reason why linguistic context has been overlooked by researchers may be because
the initial two studies which attempted to put bilinguals in a monolingual mode yielded
results that suggested that the language of presentation did not exert a significant
influence on bilinguals’ perception. The first study to manipulate the language of
presentation examined the perception and production of stop consonants in bilingual
Canadian French-Canadian English speakers (Caramazza, Yeni-Komshian, Zurif, &
Carbone, 1973). The researchers tested the bilingual group using an English experimenter
in an English university and a French experimenter in a French high school. All stimuli,
materials and instructions were in the language of the experimenter. The bilinguals
produced French VOTs almost identical to French monolinguals. When producing
English words, the bilinguals’ VOTs shifted, but did not completely match the English
monolinguals. These results indicate that the two languages are not separate but inter-
dependent in bilinguals, and provide some (albeit limited) evidence that language mode
can influence bilingual production. However, the bilinguals’ perception scores were in
between the two groups of monolinguals. It seemed that bilinguals were able to adapt
their production mechanisms, but not their perceptual mechanisms, to the second
language. In perception, the stimulus, rather than the language mode, seemed to
determine the type of analysis to be performed (Caramazza et al., 1973).
Language of presentation was manipulated in a similar fashion in a VOT study of the
perception and production of Spanish-English bilinguals (Williams, 1977). The
productions made by bilinguals in both languages were similar to the results obtained
23
from monolingual speakers of each language. However, in perception, the bilinguals
divided a synthetic VOT continuum into voiced and voiceless domains at a compromise
point in between the Spanish or English monolingual groups. Language of presentation
did not appear to influence the bilinguals’ perception.
However, upon closer inspection, a number of methodological issues can be identified
that question the validity of Williams’ data. The bilingual group contained some
participants who were English-dominant and others who were Spanish-dominant.
Language dominance may exert a stronger effect than language of presentation (Hazan &
Boulakia, 1993), and therefore, may have confounded any potential linguistic context
effect. Furthermore, the manipulation of language of presentation employed by Williams
(like Caramazza et al., 1973) was not sufficient to keep the bilingual listeners in a
monolingual mode. Providing instructions in one language will only determine what the
base language will be but will not deactivate the other language and keep participants in a
monolingual mode (Grosjean, 1998). Some of the stimuli would have been heard several
minutes after the language-specific instructions had been given, thereby reducing the
effectiveness of the language of presentation. Consequently, the bilinguals produced
intermediate results between those of the two monolingual groups in both language
presentation conditions. Had these researchers used natural tokens and provided constant
language-specific reminders (such as filler words or carrier phrases), the manipulation
might have been effective.
The most carefully designed manipulation of language of presentation in speech
production was conducted by Magloire and Green (1999) who examined the effect of
speaking rate on VOT of Spanish and English voiced and voiceless bilabial stops.
24
Initially, bilingual participants were tested in an English presentation condition – they
were contacted, instructed, and spoken to only in English. The experimenter made no
mention of their bilingual status during the testing procedure. During the debriefing, the
experimenter pointed out that an item on the questionnaire indicated that the participant
spoke Spanish, and then asked the participant to participate in a future Spanish study.
Participants were kept naive of the fact that the two experiments were part of the same
study. Spanish-English bilinguals produced VOT values in each language that were
nearly identical to their monolingual counterparts, even when their articulation was
stressed under very fast and slow speaking rates (Magloire & Green, 1999).
The first perceptual study which firmly established its participants in a monolingual
language mode was conducted by Elman, Diehl and Buchwald (1977). Naturally
produced stimuli were preceded by a carrier phrase in each language (Spanish and
English). In addition, same-language filler words were placed between test items. The
five test syllables had VOT values of -69, +15, +19, +26, and +66 milliseconds. In a pilot
study, both English monolinguals and Spanish monolinguals identified the - 69 stimulus
as /b/ and the +66 stimulus as /p/. The three intermediate stimuli were ambiguous in the
sense that English monolinguals heard them as /b/, whereas Spanish monolinguals heard
them as /p/. Bilinguals perceived the ambiguous stimuli as English, or as Spanish,
depending on the language of presentation (Elman, Diehl, & Buchwald, 1977). The
natural stimuli, the carrier sentence and the filler words provided constant language-
specific information which activated one language much more than the other and kept the
bilinguals at the monolingual end of the continuum (Grosjean, 2001). Bilinguals
25
processed the stimuli in a more monolingual-like fashion, both in Spanish and English,
and this resulted in a language-specific boundary shift.
Of all the studies that have manipulated the language of presentation, only one was
designed with the sole purpose of examining the effect of the language of presentation on
bilingual perception and production (Flege & Eefting, 1987a). Dutch-English bilinguals
were compared to British English native speakers in their identification of a /d/-/t/
continuum. Note that Dutch /t/ is short lag unaspirated and /d/ is prevoiced. The Dutch-
English bilinguals had begun learning English at the age of 12. Instead of carrier phrases,
language-specific questions were inserted between blocks of trials which participants
were required to answer. This required that participants concentrate during the task.
Surprisingly, recorded instructions were used and the experimenter minimised his contact
with participants. The reason for this was to reduce the possibility of psychosocial and
sociolinguistic effects (Flege & Eefting, 1987a). This reasoning is somewhat
contradictory, as any effect of language mode must surely involve some interaction with
human speakers. Despite the facts that participants were made aware of the researchers'
interest in their bilingualism, and the minimal experimenter interaction, Dutch-English
bilinguals' category boundaries occurred at longer values in the English presentation than
in the Dutch (Flege & Eefting, 1987a). This finding directly contradicts those of previous
language of presentation studies that used synthetic stimuli yet failed to find perceptual
effects of language mode (Caramazza et al., 1973; Williams, 1977). This may have been
because the procedures used in this study were more effective (e.g. questions between
trial blocks), and the synthetic stimuli were more natural-sounding (Flege & Eefting,
1987a). The cross-language difference in VOT seen in speech production was larger than
26
the perceptual category boundary shift between /d/-/t/. Despite their ability to shift VOT
in Dutch and English, Dutch-English bilinguals produced English /t/ with shorter VOTs
(60ms) than native speakers of English (90ms). Interestingly, Dutch-English bilinguals
with the best English accents produced Dutch /t/ with shorter VOTs than bilinguals with
stronger nonnative accents. It appeared that learning English had influenced their
productions of stops in their native language.
Given the findings of Elman et al. (1977) and Flege & Eefting (1987a), it appeared that a
shift in bilinguals’ perception could occur if language of presentation was adequately
manipulated. French-British English bilinguals were tested in their production and
identification of edited natural /bεn/-/pεn/ tokens (Hazan & Boulakia, 1993). Separate test
sessions were conducted in French and English: all conversations, instructions and
questionnaires were only in one language. Each stimulus was preceded by the word
“repeat” (English) or “répétez” (French). A clear effect of language of presentation was
found in production – English-dominant bilinguals produced VOT values similar to
monolinguals in the respective language modes. French-dominant bilinguals produced
monolingual-like VOTs in French words, but only intermediate VOT values in English
words. However, these were significantly different from their French productions. In
addition, small but significant perceptual shifts in phoneme boundaries were found for
bilinguals in identification. Stronger bilinguals – rated as having native-like accents –
showed greater evidence of boundary shifts in perception. These results indicate that
bilingual production and perception can vary depending on language mode.
27
If language mode can shift perception of L1 and L2 segments, then it follows that it
should also influence the perception of nonnative contrasts. The perceptual abilities of
Caribbean Spanish-English bilinguals were investigated in discrimination and
identification tasks using bilabial stop voicing contrasts from Xhosa (Calderon & Best,
1996). Bilinguals were divided into Spanish or English language presentation groups,
meaning that all contact and instructions were given in only one of the bilingual’s
languages throughout the course of the study. The Spanish presentation condition, but not
the English condition had a negative effect on performance with the Xhosa prevoiced
implosive /ɓ/- prenasalised plosive /mb/ contrast. Note that neither of these consonants
occur in Spanish or English. The VOT values of Xhosa /ɓ/ and /mb/ (-60ms and -109ms,
respectively) are located towards the prevoiced Spanish /b/ (-130ms). The VOT range of
Spanish /b/ may have impeded the bilinguals’ ability to discriminate this Xhosa
distinction. Bilinguals in the English presentation condition discriminated the Xhosa /ɓ/-
/mb/ contrast because the prenasalised consonant /mb/ can be heard in English as an m+b
cluster, which differs phonologically from b, the English consonant to which the
implosive /ɓ/ was assimilated. The language of presentation put bilinguals into Spanish or
English monolingual mode, which affected the way that their phonological system
constrained their perception of the nonnative /ɓ/-/mb/ contrast. These findings provide
strong evidence indicating that bilinguals are sensitive to linguistic context, even when
perceiving unfamiliar nonnative contrasts.
While no study that has manipulated the language of presentation has involved Greek-
Australian English bilinguals, Greek-Australian English bilinguals have been compared
28
to Australian English (AusE) monolinguals in their production of bilabial stops and
perception of nonnative Thai bilabial stop voicing contrasts (Beach, Burnham &
Kitamura, 2001). Because the Greek-AusE bilinguals produced stops in both languages,
this study is useful for hypothesising how Greek-Australian English bilinguals will
perform in our proposed research. Greek-AusE bilinguals and AusE monolinguals
produced almost identical VOTs for AusE [ph], 76ms and 75ms respectively. Greek-
AusE bilinguals produced shorter VOT values for the unaspirated voiceless Greek /p/
(38ms) than their production of the long lag aspirated AusE [ph] (76ms). AusE [b] was
more prevoiced by the Greek-AusE bilinguals (-56ms) compared to the AusE
monolinguals (-13ms). The Greek bilinguals produced Greek [b] (-102ms) with more
voicing lead than their production of AusE [b] (-56ms). This suggested that Greek-AusE
bilinguals had separate phonetic categories for Greek [b] and AusE [b]. In a second
production task, participants imitated a native Thai speaker’s productions of Thai bilabial
stops. Greek-AusE bilinguals produced VOTs that were more extreme (more negative for
voiced, more positive for voiceless) than the Thai model’s and the AusE monolinguals’.
In an AX discrimination task, participants were presented three nonnative Thai contrasts:
/ba/-/pha/, /pa/-/pha/, and /ba/-/pa/. The VOT values of the Thai stops are /ba/ (-103ms),
/pa/ (7.8ms), and /pha/ (71.9ms). Greek-Australian bilinguals were more successful at
discriminating the Thai /ba/-/pa/ contrast than AusE monolinguals. Interestingly, a link
was found between production and perception: Greek-AusE bilinguals who exaggerated
their productions of Greek versus English VOT discriminated Thai /ba/-/pa/ like Thai
native speakers (Beach, Burnham and Kitamura, 2001). However, the researchers did not
manipulate the language of presentation, language dominance differed within the
29
bilingual group, two of the participants were simultaneous bilinguals, and no Greek
monolingual data were collected. There was a high degree of individual variation in the
Greek-AusE bilinguals’ productions which may have been reduced if the bilinguals had
the same language dominance, and had acquired their languages in the same order and at
similar ages. The present research will address all of these shortcomings.
In all, the evidence presented here indicates that the effect of language mode on both
perception and production warrants further investigation and theoretical explanation. As
has been argued, no author has presented a theoretical account of how and why language
mode effects occur in bilingual speech production and perception. Providing such an
explanation is a central goal of the present proposal.
5. The proposed research
The proposed study will systematically examine the effects of language of presentation
on early bilingual perception and production of stop voicing contrasts at the phonetic
level of gradient physical details. With the exception of Flege and Eefting (1987a), past
studies that have manipulated the language of presentation have had other primary aims
(Caramazza et al. 1973; Williams, 1977; Elman, Diehl & Buchwald, 1977; Hazan &
Boulakia, 1993; Calderon & Best, 1996; Magloire & Green, 1999), and have included a
language of presentation manipulation as a secondary goal. Note also that the Dutch-
English bilinguals in the Flege and Eefting (1987a) study had acquired their L2 late, at
the age of 12. Our research will focus on the production and perception of stop
consonants by Greek-AusE bilinguals who have acquired their L2 English much earlier,
by 4-5 years of age. Recall that Beach, Burnham and Kitamura (2001) tested Greek-AusE
30
bilinguals. In the present research, the performance of the English (L2) dominant, Greek-
AusE early sequential bilinguals will be compared to that of groups of AusE and Greek
monolinguals.
5.1 Target languages
The proposed study will involve acoustic analyses of Greek and AusE stop consonant
productions, as well as the identification and discrimination of AusE, Greek, and Xhosa
stop consonants in a variety of contexts. Most bilingual research has examined Spanish-
Catalan, French-English, or Spanish-English language pairs. Greek and English are more
distant languages with less historical contact and fewer structural similarities than these
other language pairs (Algeo & Pyles, 1993). While English contains Greek borrowings,
they are largely restricted to scientific terms, and are typically pronounced according to
English phonology and phonetics, not Greek. For these reasons, Greek and English are
useful languages for testing the predictions of SLM, PAM and PAM-L2 extended to
bilinguals. We have decided to investigate stop consonants that differ in voicing because,
as with past research conducted on Spanish-English and French-English, Greek and
English differ in the phonetic settings of VOT used for stop voicing distinctions.
However, importantly, Greek and English also differ in the phonological status of voiced
versus voiceless stop consonants in ways that are not evident in the other languages that
have been compared in bilinguals, as will now be explained.
5.1.1 Australian English phonology
Australian English (AusE) is a non-rhotic dialect of English, spoken by most (but not all)
native-born Australians. It differs from other varieties of English primarily by its vowel
31
phonology. AusE contains 12 monophthongal vowels – 6 short vowels /ɪ, e, æ, ɐ, ɔ, ʊ/
and 6 long vowels /iː, eː, ɐː, oː, ʉː, ɜː/ – and 6 diphthongs /æɪ, ɑe, ɔɪ, əʉ, æɔ, ɪə/ (Cox,
2006). AusE contains 24 consonant phonemes. The consonant system of AusE does not
differ greatly from most other dialects of English. The proposed research is concerned
with stop consonants, so I will only describe the AusE stop consonants.
AusE contains three voiceless (plosive) stops: the bilabial /p/, the alveolar /t/, and the
velar /k/. Voiceless stops may be long lag aspirated VOT (where there is a delay between
the release of the consonantal constriction and the beginning of voicing) or short lag
unaspirated VOT (where voicing begins at the time of the release or shortly afterwards)
depending on the context in which they occur. Voiceless stops are aspirated in word-
initial position and in stressed syllable-initial position (e.g. “push” [phʊʃ], “support”
[sɐˈphoːt], “tin” [thɪn], “factorial” [ˌfækˈthoːrɪʲəɬ], “cow” [khæɔ], and “accord” [əˈkhoːd]:
Cox & Palethorpe, in press). At the beginning of an unstressed syllable, voiceless stops
are usually shorter-VOT and weakly aspirated (e.g. “beeper” [ˈbiːpə], “looking” [ˈlʊkɪŋ]).
Voiceless stops are always unaspirated when preceded by [s] within the same syllable
(e.g. “spin” [spɪn], “stop” [stɔp̚], and “skin” [skɪn]; Cox & Palethorpe, in press).
AusE contains three voiced (plosive) stops: the bilabial /b/, the alveolar /d/, and the velar
/g/. Voiced stops have short lag unaspirated VOT in word -initial position, where /b/, /d/,
and /g/ are realised as [p], [t] and [k], e.g. “back” [pæk̚], “dig” [tɪg]), “go” [kəʉ]. But in
intervocalic (between-vowel) stress-initial position they are realized as fully voiced (e.g.
“abort” [ɐˈboːt̚], “adore” [ɐˈdoː], “again” [ɐˈgen]; Cox & Palethorpe, in press).
32
Note that the alveolar stops /t/ and /d/ may, in some contexts, be realised as taps
(Tollfree, 2001; Cox & Palethorpe, in press). Alveolar stops may be realised as an
alveolar tap [ɾ] at the beginning of an unstressed syllable that is not at the beginning of a
word (e.g. “lighter” [ˈlɑeɾɐ], and “ladder” [ˈlæɾɐ]).
Thus, in general, AusE VOT values become more extreme (voiced – negative, voiceless –
positive) in stress-initial position.
5.1.2 Greek phonology
Greek is an independent branch of the Indo-European language family. Over its 3,300
year written history, the Greek language has undergone a number of changes, however,
its dialects have never developed into mutually incomprehensible languages. Standard
Modern Greek, the official language of the Hellenic Republic of Greece, is spoken by
approximately 15 million people in Greece, Cyprus, Albania, Bulgaria, the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Italy and Turkey. There are also many Greek emigrant
communities around the world including the United States, Canada, Germany, and
Australia.
Standard Modern Greek (henceforth MG) contains the same 24 letters in its writing
system as Classical (Ancient) Greek. However, there is no universally accepted list of
MG phonemes in spoken Greek. Generally speaking, MG is said to contain between 15 to
26 phonemes, with most accounts ranging from 20 (Newton, 1961; Warburton, 1970;
Holton, Mackridge, and Philippaki-Warburton, 1997) to 23 (Koutsoudas & Koutsoudas,
1962; Householder, Kazazis, and Koutsoudas, 1964; Setatos, 1974; Mackridge, 1985). It
33
is uncontested that there are only five vowels in MG: /a, e, i, o, u/. Vowel length is not a
distinctive feature, although vowels are slightly longer when stressed. Where there is
disagreement is about the number of consonants. MG contains 26 consonant phones,
however, the phonological status of a number of these phones is the subject of
longstanding academic debate.
The present proposal will investigate the production and perception of Greek stop
consonants, so I will therefore limit my discussion here to MG stop consonants. MG
contains the voiceless stops bilabial /p/, dental /t/, and dorso-velar /k/. The VOTs of
voiceless stops are always short-lag unaspirated in MG, regardless of stress or syllable
position. The phonological status of each of the voiceless stops is widely accepted by
Greek linguists.
Over the past fifty years, however, one of the most passionately debated aspects of Greek
phonology has been the status of voiced stops in MG. There is no denying that the voiced
stops [b, d, g] occur phonetically in MG. However, the phonological status of these
segments remains unclear.
There are two sources of voiced stops in MG. Historically, most voiced stops came from
Classical Greek sequences of nasal + voiceless stop. This provides an intuitive and
uncomplicated method of predicting the occurrence of voiced stops by rule. This rule is
doubly tempting when one examines Greek orthography, where voiced stops are
represented by a digraph consisting of a nasal and a stop. For example, b = μπ (/m/+/p/),
d = ντ (/n/+/t/), and g = γκ. In the Athenian dialect of MG, word-initial position voiced
stops are pronounced as [b, d, g]. In word-medial position, they are prenasalised [mb, nd,
34
n
g], except when following a liquid (i.e., /r/ or /l/). Note also that prenasalised voiceless
stops [mp, nt, nk] do not occur in MG.
However, voiced stops also entered the MG language through foreign loan words,
particularly during the period of Turkish occupation (1453-1829) and also from the
Venetian dialect of Italian. Both of these languages contain voiceless and voiced stops as
contrastive segments. This is where the tension arises, between elegant simplicity and
empirical completeness (Viechnicki, 1995). The reality is that loan words have been
accepted into the Greek language and must be accounted for. Loan words exist in
everyday MG that do not follow the Greek phonotactic (phoneme-sequencing) rules
outlined above. For example, words such as σαμπάνια [sampanja] (‘champagne’) or
κομπιούτερ [kompjuter] (‘computer’) are pronounced as nasals + voiceless stops.
To further complicate matters, when variations in dialect, idiolect, rate of speech, and
social register are taken into account, the variation in pronunciation is tremendous. For
example, the word άντρας ('man') would be pronounced [andras] in the Peloponnese,
[adras] in Crete, and [andras] in Athens with [d] slightly prenasalised (Viechnicki, 1995).
There have been reports that more prenasalisation occurs in slow speech, and also that it
varies according to context, possibly with an emphatic function. Variation also exists
with some words, in some dialects, that permit the use of prenasalisation of a voiced stop
in word-initial position.
So far, I have only discussed individual words. Nasals and voiceless stops may also
combine across word boundaries, resulting in prenasalised voiced stops. For example, if
35
the accusative article τον [ton] is followed by the name Πέτρο [Petro], this may be
pronounced [tombetro].
A number of proposals have attempted to account for voiced stops in MG, however, none
can address all these factors. A common argument for the recognition of [b, d, g] as
separate phonemes is the existence of minimal pairs such as μπετό [beˈto] - πετώ [peˈto],
κάπως [ˈkapos] – κάμπος [ˈkampos], and Τίνος [ˈtinos] - Ντίνος [ˈdinos]. To complicate
things even more, the notion of prenasalisation in MG is controversial in itself. Some
linguists do not use the term at all, and those who do use it describe different things.
When it comes to the phonological status of MG voiced stops there is anything but
consensus.
Regardless of the phonemic status of the MG sounds [p, t, k] and [b, d, g], they
incontestably exist as phonetic categories in Greek. Given that these are phonemes in
AusE, but that they are produced with different VOTs than those of MG, questions
regarding the production and perception of voiced and voiceless stops of both languages
by Greek-AusE bilinguals must be addressed.
5.1.3 Xhosa Phonology
Xhosa sounds have been chosen for perceptual tests of nonnative stop voicing contrasts
in Experiment 3 because they are expected to be perceptually assimilated differently by
our different groups of listeners. Also, participants are unlikely to have had previous
experience with this language.
36
Xhosa is a South African language spoken by people of Bantu origin. The three bilabial
Xhosa sounds relevant to this research will now be described. The implosive /ɓ/ is
produced with voicing lead (-60ms), which is presumably similar to the Greek /b/.
Voiced implosives require the larynx to be lowered during the oral closure, while the
vocal folds are vibrating. The voiced plosive /b/ is produced with short lag VOT (+9ms),
which is similar to English /b/, and presumably Greek /p/. The prenasalised /mb/ (-109ms)
contains a full murmured pre-voicing period, thus similar to initial voiced /b/ or medial
prenasalised /mb/ in Greek. The nasalisation of /mb/ is a result of the velum being lowered
during the articulation of the plosive segment.
5.2 Rationale
One central goal of the proposed research is to combine principles of SLM, PAM, and
PAM-L2 with language mode and inhibitory control, to account for how linguistic
context affects a bilingual’s performance in perception and production tasks. Existing
models of bilingualism have demonstrated the importance of linguistic context in
bilingual language use. Bilinguals may effortlessly move along a monolingual-bilingual
continuum and/or change their base language (Grosjean, 1989, 1998, 2001). The
language-specific input (heard or read words) of the linguistic context will inhibit words
that have different language tags, enabling bilingual word selection (Green, 1998). Given
that cross-linguistic research has demonstrated that bilinguals are sensitive to the
linguistic context when producing speech (Flege & Eefting, 1987a; Hazan & Boulakia
1993; Magloire & Green, 1999), perceiving native phones (Elman, Diehl, & Buchwald,
1977; Flege & Eefting, 1987a; Hazan & Boulakia, 1993), and perceiving nonnative
37
phones (Calderon & Best, 1996), any theory attempting to account for bilingual speech
perception and production must address the effect of linguistic context.
Existing cross-linguistic models have attempted to predict how naive listeners will
perceive nonnative contrasts (PAM), how people who are acquiring an L2 will
discriminate L2 contrasts (PAM-L2), and produce L1 and L2 phones (SLM). L2
experience changes a person’s phonological system, and some L2 contrasts will be
perceived correctly, while others will not (Best & Tyler, in press). If L2 phones are
perceived inaccurately speech may be accented, particularly by late L2 learners (Flege,
1995). However, fluent bilinguals are not actively acquiring either of their languages.
They have reached a level of language stability and are comfortable using both of their
languages every day, often interchangeably. This, of course, does not imply that they do
not have a dominant language. It is argued that bilinguals always have a dominant
language (be it the L1 or the L2). Nor does it imply that bilinguals ever stop learning. On
the contrary, any effect of linguistic context is evidence that bilinguals are able to learn
and adapt. However, this learning differs from L2 acquisition, and for this reason fluent
bilinguals are not L2 learners. In order to predict the performance of fluent early
bilinguals in perceptual and production tasks, a new framework is required – one which
combines the principles of the existing theories outlined above.
5.3 The Perceptual Assimilation Model of Early Bilinguals (PAM-EB)
The aim of the proposed PAM-EB framework is to explain and predict early bilinguals’
performance in perception and production relative to monolinguals of each language.
Consistent with the assumptions of PAM (Best, 1995) and PAM-L2 (Best & Tyler, in
38
press), PAM-EB assumes that bilinguals possess an integrated phonological system. This
integrated system will contain L1, L2, and merged phonetic and phonological categories,
which have been formed as a direct result of the bilingual’s linguistic experience.
The core tenet of PAM-EB is that fluent bilinguals are sensitive to the linguistic context,
and are able to shift their perception and production when in different language modes.
These shifts are reliable, and directly depend upon the linguistic context. These shifts are
possible because phonetic categories are tagged with a language label. It is hypothesised
that speech will be assimilated to categories with the same language tag as the language
of presentation (or context). From a direct realist perspective, the systematic
manipulation of language of presentation can bring about short term perceptual
reattunement. This can be thought of as analogous to selective attention in the
mainstream cognitive sciences. The effects of this reattunement are that bilinguals will be
sensitive to language-specific gestural information in the speech stream. Based on shifts
in performance in these different language modes, it is possible to draw inferences
concerning the phonological systems of bilinguals.
It is hypothesised that fluent bilinguals are able to produce L2 phones approaching the
productions of monolingual speakers if the L1 and L2 phones are perceived as dissimilar.
When a phonological category is produced with a different place of articulation in the L1
and L2 (e.g. AusE /t/ alveolar vs. Greek /t/ dental), fluent bilinguals will shift the place of
articulation when producing phones in the different languages.
When bilinguals fail to identify differences in the gestural constellations of L1-L2 phones
(e.g. AusE /b/ vs. Greek /b/ which differ in their phasing of laryngeal gesture to bilabial
39
release gesture), the production of L2 phones will be unlike that of monolinguals.
Language specific contrasts (L1-L1 or L2-L2) will be best discriminated in that language
mode (monolingual L1 or L2 mode), however, discrimination will be impeded in the
wrong language mode (e.g. [b] vs. [p] will be discriminated in Greek mode, but not in
English mode). Nonnative contrasts predicted to be successfully discriminated by
speakers of one of the bilingual’s languages (according to PAM) will be discriminated in
the appropriate language mode. However, discrimination of nonnative contrasts will be
impeded if the bilingual is in a language mode in which the nonnative phones do not
contrast.
6. Experiments: Investigating the effects of language of presentation on bilingual
speech production and perception
6.1 Ethics approval
In accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving
Humans of June 1999, UWS requires that all PhD students obtain their own ethics
approval from the University of Western Sydney’s Human Research Ethics Committee.
This application, including the necessary attachments (participant information statement,
consent form etc.) is in preparation. No research will commence until the Ethics
Application has been approved. Separate ethics applications will be prepared for testing
that will occur in Greece and in Australia. This is indicated in the research timeline.
Submission of the Ethics Application for the research in Australia is expected to happen
in time for the next HREC application deadline of 2nd February 2007.
6.2 Experiment 1: Production of Greek and AusE stop voicing: /p, t, k/ vs. /b, d, g/
40
6.2.1 Aim
The aim of Experiment 1 is to acoustically measure the productions of stop consonants in
initial and medial (stressed and unstressed) contexts. No comprehensive investigation of
stop consonant production has ever been conducted on Greek speakers. It is required to
measure Greek monolinguals’ productions of stops as these measures will provide
invaluable information for deriving hypotheses in subsequent perceptual experiments.
The productions of AusE monolinguals will also be acoustically analysed. Experiment 1
will also examine the effects of language of presentation on Greek-Australian bilinguals’
stop consonant production.
6.2.2 Study design
Participants will be required to produce stop consonants in three contexts:
1. Word-initial CV /pa, ta, ba, da/
2. Word-medial ˈVCV /ˈapa, ˈata, ˈaba, ˈada,
with stress on the first syllable ˈampa, ˈanta, ˈamba, ˈanda/
3. Word-medial VˈCV /aˈpa, aˈta, aˈba, aˈda,
with stress on the second syllable aˈmpa, aˈnta, aˈmba, aˈnda/
41
The reason for using these three word contexts is that stress has been shown to result in
longer VOT values in English (Cooper, 1991). Note that in the word-medial contexts,
some stops are nasalised to test the effects of Greek phonotactic rules on Greek listeners’
production and perception. In addition, the rationale for including stops from two places
of articulation is that VOT values increase as the place of closure moves further back into
the oral cavity, in English (Dorman & Raphael, 1980). We need to assess whether this
effect also occurs in Greek. Furthermore, Greek and AusE differ in the place of
articulation for /t/ and /d/ (AusE – alveolar, Greek – dental) and we plan to examine
whether this occurs systematically in the productions of our monolinguals and bilinguals.
The Greek and AusE monolinguals will be tested in their respective languages. Greek-
AusE bilinguals will be tested in the language of presentation (either Greek or AusE).
This means that all contact, instructions, stimuli, sheets, feedback and conversations will
only be in one language. For example, the carrier phrases for the respective languages
will be: “say (word) again” or << λεει (λέξη) αλλο>>.
Participants will have time to familiarise themselves with the words on a sheet before
they are recorded. Participants will be instructed to produce the words at a normal
speaking rate, as though they are speaking to a friend.
Three productions of each stop consonant in each context will be recorded. This will
generate a total of 1920 utterances for acoustic analysis (3 productions x 20 word
contexts x 32 speakers). Target words will be excised from the recordings using PRAAT.
Acoustic measurements will be made for acoustic variables known to cue the voicing
distinction: target VOTs, F0 contour, F1 onset, and F1 cutback (Lisker, 1978).We will
42
measure formant onset frequencies or other acoustic measures of place of articulation to
determine whether place of articulation differs between Greek and English /d/-/t/ but not
/b/-/p/. We will also attempt to measure nasalisation in voiced stops in all positions.
6.2.3 Predictions
While the exact VOT values produced by Greek monolinguals are not yet known, it has
been claimed that Greeks produce voiced stops with voicing lead and voiceless stops with
short lag (Beach, Burnham, & Kitamura, 2001). Recall that AusE monolinguals produce
stress-initial voiced stops with short lag and voiceless stops with long lag. Based on these
cross-language differences, it is possible to put forth the following predictions from PAM
for monolinguals:
1. AusE monolinguals will produce longer word-initial VOTs than Greek
monolinguals for both voiced and voiceless stops;
2. AusE monolinguals will produce more extreme VOTs (more positive – voiceless,
more negative – voiced) in medial stops when the syllable beginning with the stop
is stressed than when it is unstressed.
3. Given that we do not yet know the effects that syllabic stress has on Greek VOT,
we cannot make a specific prediction regarding how stress will affect the Greek
monolinguals’ productions.
Consistent with the proposed PAM-EB framework, the language of presentation will
result in a shift in Greek-AusE bilinguals’ production of VOT:
43
4. Greek-AusE bilinguals in the English language of presentation condition will
produce longer word-initial VOTs than Greek-AusE bilinguals in the Greek
presentation condition;
5. For the voiceless stops [ph] and [th], Greek-AusE bilinguals in the English
presentation will produce word-initial VOTs equal to those of AusE
monolinguals;
6. For prevoiced stops [b] and [d], Greek-AusE bilinguals in the Greek presentation
will produce word-initial VOTs equal to those of Greek monolinguals;
7. Greek-AusE bilinguals in the English presentation will produce more extreme
intervocalic VOTs when the syllable containing the stop is stressed;
8. It is not yet known what effect syllabic stress has on Greek VOTs, but it can be
predicted that if there is a cross-linguistic difference, then bilinguals in the Greek
presentation will produce Greek-like VOTs for prevoiced stops.
9. The coronal stops /d/-/t/ will be more fronted (dental) in the Greek presentation
and more backed (alveolar) in the AusE presentation. This will be indicated in the
formant onset frequency measures.
Note that SLM would predict that Greek-AusE bilinguals’ productions would not be
equal to that of Greek monolinguals (Greek predictions 5 and 7) due to their extended
experience with their L2 – AusE. Moreover, SLM would predict that Greek-AusE
bilinguals’ productions of English long lag aspirated stops would be equal to AusE
monolinguals’ (AusE predictions 4 and 6) because long lap stops are very different from
44
any L1 (Greek) phonetic category, i.e., “new” L2 categories should be formed in these
cases.
6.2.4 Participants and recruitment
The AusE monolingual group (n = 8) will be recruited from the student population at
UWS. They will be monolingual native speakers of AusE, between 20-40 years of age,
with no history of speech, language or hearing disorders.
The Greek monolingual group (n = 8) will be recruited from the student population at the
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. They will be native speakers of Greek
with limited proficiency and exposure to English, aged between 20-40 years, with no
history of speech, language or hearing disorders. Ethics approval will be obtained before
recruitment and testing begin.
The Greek-AusE bilinguals (n = 16) will be recruited from within the UWS student
population, the Greek societies of other universities within Sydney, and the Greek
community of Sydney in general – possibly through newspaper advertisements and
pamphlets/posters. To be eligible, they must have been exposed to, and acquired, Greek
since birth and have acquired English by the age of five. In addition, bilinguals must be
highly fluent in both languages and use both every day.
All participants will be asked to complete a language background information sheet.
Language background information sheets will be provided in the language of presentation
(see Appendix A and B).
6.3 Experiments 2A-2C – Perception of Greek and AusE stop voicing distinctions
45
6.3.1 Aims
Experiment 2 will test the discrimination predictions of PAM-EB (adapted from PAM-
L2) concerning perceptual shifts brought about by the language of presentation effects in
Greek-English bilinguals. Predictions made by PAM will be tested by the monolinguals’
perception of nonnative phones (Greek monolinguals – AusE stops, AusE monolinguals –
Greek stops). New groups from the same participant populations described above will be
recruited and tested on an identification task with ratings (testing for assimilation to
native language phonemes or to language of presentation for bilinguals) and also an AXB
discrimination task, for all stimulus contrasts described below. Both tasks are necessary,
as the combined results will provide the information needed to determine how the sounds
were perceptually assimilated and discriminated. Experiment 2 will be divided into three
sub-experiments, based on positional context: word-initial, word-medial stressed, and
word-medial unstressed.
6.3.2 Study design
If the results of Experiment 1 show that Greek-AusE bilinguals (in the respective
language presentations) shift their VOTs towards those of monolinguals, the speech of
four Greek-AusE bilingual speakers will be recorded to be used as stimuli in Experiment
2. If the bilinguals fail to shift their VOTs, four Greek and four AusE monolingual
speakers will be recorded instead (this possibility has been anticipated in the timeline).
Three tokens will be recorded of each speaker producing each stop in each context. Note
that if the speech of monolingual speakers is recorded, tokens from different speakers
46
will be used to make up the triads of tokens for the AXB discrimination task. This will
ensure that listeners will not be using speaker-specific cues to make their responses.
The target sounds /p/-/b/ and /t/-/d/ will be presented in both languages in three word
contexts. Testing will only involve within-language pairings. Note that while the short lag
unaspirated phonetic entities are similar in AusE and Greek, the phonological categories
of the respective monolingual groups will differ (e.g. [p] is an allophone of AusE word-
initial /b/ but of Greek /p/).
As in Experiment 1, Greek and AusE monolinguals will be tested in their respective
languages. Greek-AusE bilinguals will be tested in the language of presentation (either
Greek or AusE). For example, their answer sheet will indicate “tick what you hear” or
<<μαρκαρισε ότι που ακούς>>.
6.3.3 Experiment 2A – Word-initial position CV
Predictions
Based on the phonological distinctions made in AusE and in Greek, it is predicted
from PAM that for monolinguals:
1. AusE monolinguals will discriminate word-initial long lag aspirated stops (e.g.
[ph]) from short lag unaspirated and voicing lead stops. AusE listeners will be
unable to distinguish the voicing lead stops from the short lag unaspirated stops –
both are predicted to be assimilated to a single category, an AusE voiced stop
(e.g. [b] and [p] both = /b/ in AusE).
47
2. Greek monolinguals will discriminate stops produced with voicing lead from
short lag unaspirated and long lag aspirated. Greeks may distinguish short lag
unaspirated stops from long lag aspirated, as they should be perceptually
assimilated as good (short lag) versus poor (long lag) exemplars to the same
phonological category, a Greek voiceless stop.
Based on the hypotheses of PAM-EB, it is anticipated that bilinguals will shift their
perception and assimilate to Greek or English depending on the language of presentation:
3. Bilinguals in the English presentation will discriminate long lag aspirated stops
from short lag unaspirated, but will not distinguish the voicing lead stops from the
short lag unaspirated;
4. Bilinguals in the Greek presentation will discriminate voicing lead stops from
short lag unaspirated. They will distinguish the short lag unaspirated stops from
long lag aspirated – as a category-goodness assimilation.
6.3.4 Experiment 2B – Word-medial position ˈVCV
Note that Experiment 2B-2C predictions concerning Greek stops may change depending
on the results of Experiment 1.
Predictions
Based on the predictions of PAM for monolinguals:
1. AusE monolinguals will discriminate unstressed intervocalic long lag aspirated
stops (e.g. AusE [ph]) from the short lag unaspirated (e.g. AusE [p]);
48
2. AusE monolinguals will discriminate voiceless and voiced stops from nasalised
stops, as they phonologically contrast in AusE (e.g. ‘daddy’ vs. ‘dandy’ and
‘dapper’ vs. ‘damper’).
Due to Greek phonology and phonotactics:
3. Greek monolinguals will not be able to discriminate AusE nasal + voiceless stop
vs. nasal + voiced stop because prenasalised voiceless stops are phonotactically
illegal in Greek;
4. Greek monolinguals will discriminate voiceless but not voiced oral stops from
nasalised voiced stops due to Greek phonotactic rules.
Based on the hypotheses of PAM-EB:
5. Bilinguals in the English presentation will discriminate voicing of prenasalised
stops by assimilating them to the English-tagged categories;
6. Bilinguals in the Greek presentation will show poorer discrimination for non-
nasalised voiced stops vs. prenasalised stops, as the Greek linguistic context will
hinder their discrimination.
6.3.5 Experiment 2C – Word-medial position VˈCV
Predictions
According to PAM, the predictions for monolinguals are:
49
1. AusE monolinguals will discriminate stressed intervocalic long lag aspirated stops
from the short lag unaspirated and voicing lead stops. AusE listeners will not be
able to distinguish the voicing lead stops from the short lag unaspirated;
2. AusE monolinguals will discriminate voiced stops from nasalised voiced stops;
3. Greek monolinguals will discriminate better than in the ˈVCV context, because
the stressed context will increase aspiration, maximizing the dissimilarity between
AusE /p/ and /b/, allowing for a category-goodness assimilation;
4. Greek monolinguals will discriminate voiceless but not voiced stops from
prenasalised voiced stops due to Greek phonotactic rules.
According to the PAM-EB framework:
5. Bilinguals in the English presentation will discriminate prenasalised stops by
assimilating them to the English-tagged voiced or voiceless stop categories with a
preceding nasal consonant;
6. Bilinguals in the Greek presentation will be unable to discriminate non-nasalised
voiced stops from prenasalised stops.
Participants will be recruited using the same methods outlined in Experiment 1. Each
group will contain 20 participants who will complete the perceptual tasks.
6.4 Study 3 – Perception of nonnative Xhosa bilabial stop distinctions
50
6.4.1 Aims
The aim of Experiment 3 is to test the predictions of nonnative speech perception made
by PAM with both monolinguals and bilinguals. Predictions of PAM-EB will be
investigated by examining the effects of language of presentation on bilingual perception
of nonnative contrasts.
6.4.2 Study Design
The two Xhosa contrasts that have been chosen are the implosive prevoiced /ɓ/ (-60ms)
vs. short lag voiced plosive /b/ (+9ms), and the implosive prevoiced /ɓ/ (-60ms) vs.
prenasalised /mb/ (-109ms). These contrasts will be recorded from three male, native
Xhosa speakers in both word-initial and word-medial positions. Xhosa consonants will be
presented in word-initial position and word-medial unstressed position, which is
consistent with Xhosa phonology and provides the greatest phonetic dissimilarity.
As in Experiment 2, participants will complete an identification task with ratings and an
AXB discrimination task.
Greek and AusE monolinguals will be tested in their respective languages. Greek-AusE
bilinguals will be tested in the language of presentation (either Greek or AusE).
6.4.3 Predictions
The following are based on the predictions made by PAM concerning the perception of
nonnative contrasts by monolinguals:
1. The implosive prevoiced /ɓ/ vs. short lag voiced plosive /b/ contrast:
51
a. AusE monolinguals are expected to be unable to distinguish these two
Xhosa stops, and make a single category assimilation to the AusE /b/
phonological category;
b. In all positional contexts, the /ɓ/ - /b/ contrast will be assimilated by Greek
monolinguals to two-categories, Greek /b/ vs. /p/, and discrimination will
be excellent.
As expected by PAM-EB:
c. Greek-AusE bilinguals in the Greek presentation will also discriminate
/ɓ/-/b/;
d. Greek-AusE bilinguals’ discrimination will be impeded by the English
presentation and they will make a category-goodness assimilation.
2. The implosive prevoiced /ɓ/ vs. prenasalised /mb/ contrast:
a. AusE monolinguals are expected to successfully discriminate the two
nonnative phones in all positional contexts by making a two-category
assimilation to the AusE /b/ phonological category and /m/+/b/ cluster;
b. Similarly, the Greek-AusE bilinguals in the English presentation are
expected to distinguish the /ɓ/-/mb/ contrast;
c. Greek monolinguals and Greek-AusE bilinguals in the Greek presentation
are expected to be unsuccessful with the word-initial /ɓ/-/mb/ contrast,
52
making a single-category assimilation to Greek /b/ because /b/ and /m/+/b/
do not phonologically contrast in word-initial position in Greek.
d. In word-medial position, it is expected that the latter two groups will make
a category-goodness assimilation to Greek /b/ because Greek /b/ is
prenasalised in intervocalic position.
Participants will be recruited as in Experiment 2.
7. Anticipated impact
The proposed series of experiments will be the first systematic exploration of the
linguistic context effect of language of presentation on early bilingual speech perception
and production of stop voicing contrasts. Models of nonnative speech production (SLM)
and perception (PAM; PAM-L2) will be extended to explain bilingual production and
perception. PAM-EB will be the first model to address the bilingual ability to shift
perception and production of speech dependent on linguistic context, and will provide a
significant theoretical contribution to an area that has been largely overlooked by most
researchers.
The proposed studies will also provide insights into existing ambiguous findings in the
research literature on bilinguals’ phonological systems. Studies claiming that bilinguals
merge phonetic (Flege & Eefting, 1987b) and phonological categories (Pallier, Colome &
Sebastian-Gallés, 2001), or maintain separate categories (Mack, 1989), but have ignored
the linguistic context in which the research occurred, should be interpreted with caution.
53
Future research must control for language of presentation if no such manipulation is
required to avoid confounding the results.
The data from this series of experiments also has the potential to address the longstanding
linguistic question concerning the phonological status of voiced stops in Modern Greek.
Differences in Greek listeners’ perception of word-initial versus word-medial (stressed
and unstressed) nasalised vs. non-nasalised stop consonants may provide insight as to
what information is phonologically relevant in their native language. If Greek
monolinguals are unable to perceive word medial AusE /p/-/b/ when following a nasal,
this would indicate that word-medial Greek [b] is an allophone of Greek /p/. If Greek-
AusE bilinguals in the AusE presentation can make this distinction, but bilinguals in the
Greek presentation cannot, this would provide additional support that the word-medial
/p/-/b/ phonological contrast is specific to English.
54
8. Timeline
6 November 2006 – 17 January 2007

CoC amendments, preparation of Ethics Application
Present poster on this proposed research at HCSNet SummerFest 2006
Begin revising literature review
18 January 2007 – 25 February 2007

Submit ethics application, deadline 2 February 2007
Prepare Experiment 1 materials (word lists etc.)
Begin writing Method section for Experiment 1
26 February 2007 – 10 October 2007

Begin recruitment of Greek-AusE bilinguals
Begin search for Xhosa native speakers – possibly contact South African university
Submit ethics application to Greek ethics committee
Run Experiment 1: record productions of AusE monolinguals and Greek-AusE bilinguals
Recruit and record three Xhosa native speakers (needed for Experiment 3)
Prepare stimuli for Experiment 3 – nonnative Xhosa contrasts
Run Experiment 3 with AusE monolinguals and Greek-AusE bilinguals
Create AusE stimuli for Experiment 2
Begin analysis of AusE monolinguals’ and Greek-AusE bilinguals’ production data
Enter Experiment 3 data into spreadsheet, ready for later analysis
11 October 2007 – 20 February 2008

Travel to Greece
Run Experiment 1 with Greek monolinguals
Prepare Greek stimuli for Experiment 2
Begin writing up Method sections for Experiments 2 and 3
Begin analysing Greek monolinguals’ production data
55
Return to Australia
Upon return to Australia, apply for ethics approval - UWS
21 February 2008 – 31 July 2008

Add Greek monolinguals’ Experiment 3 data to spreadsheet and conduct analysis
Run Experiment 2 with AusE monolinguals and Greek-AusE bilinguals
Present at EPC 2008
1 August 2008 – November 2008

Complete analysis of all data
Write up results and discussion sections of individual experiments
Present at Interspeech 2008, Brisbane, Australia, 22-26 September 2008
Present at the Acoustical Society of America conference, Paris, France November 2008
December 2008 – March 2009

Polish writing of all sections
Submit thesis
56
9. References
Algeo, J., & Pyles, T. (2004). The Origins and Development of the English Language.
Boston: Heinle.
Beach, E., Burnham, D., & Kitamura, C. (2001). Bilingualism and the relationship
between perception and production: Greek/English bilinguals and Thai bilabial
stops. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(2), 221-235.
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In
W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and
methodological issues in cross-language speech research (pp. 167-200).
Timonium MD: York Press.
Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants:
A perceptual assimilation model. In J. Goodman & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), The
development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken
words. Cambridge MA: MlT Press.
Best, C. T. (1993). Emergence of language-specific constraints in perception of non-
native speech: A window on early phonological development. In B. d. Boysson-
Bardies, S. d. Schonen, P. Jusczyk, P. Mac-Neilage & J. Morton (Eds.),
Developmental Neurocognition: Speech and Face Processing in the First Year of
Life. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (in press). Nonnative and second-language speech perception:
Commonalities and complementarities.
57
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (2000). Competing constraints on intergestural
coordination and self-organization of phonological structures. Bulletin de la
Communication Parlée, 5, 25-34.
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1995). Gestural syllable position effects in American
English. In F. Bell-Berti & L. J. Raphael (Eds.), Producing speech:
Contemporary issues (pp. 19-33). Woodbury, NY: AIP Press.
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1993). Dynamics and articulatory phonology. In Status
Reports on Speech Research (Vol. SR-113, pp. 51-62). New Haven: Haskins
Laboratories.
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview.
Phonetica, 49, 155-180.
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units.
Phonology, 6(2), 201-251.
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. In C. Ewan
& J. Anderson (Eds.), Phonology Yearbook 3 (pp. 219-252). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Calderon, J., & Best, C. T. (1996). Effects of bilingualism on non-native phonetic
contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(4), 2602.
Caramazza, A., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Zurif, E. B., & Carbone, E. (1973). The
acquisition of a new phonological contrast: The case of stop consonants in
58
French-English bilinguals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
54(2), 421-428.
Cooper, A., M. (1991). Laryngeal and oral gestures in English /p, t, k/. Actes Du XII
Congres International Des Sciences Phonetiques, 2, 50-53.
Cox, F. M. (2006). The acoustic characteristics of /hVd/ vowels in the speech of some
Australian teenagers. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 26, 147-179.
Cox, F. M., & Palethorpe, S. (in press). Australian English. Journal of the International
Phonetic Association.
Dorman, M. F., & Raphael, L. J. (1980). Distribution of acoustic cues for stop consonant
place of articulation in VCV syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 67(4), 1333-1335.
Elman, J., Diehl, R., & Buchwald, S. (1977). Perceptual switching in bilinguals. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62, 971-974.
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In
W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and
methodological issues in cross-language speech research (pp. 233-277).
Timonium MD: York Press.
Flege, J.E., & Eefting, W. (1987a). Cross-language switching in stop consonant
perception and production by Dutch speakers of English. Speech Communication,
6, 185-202.
59
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987b). Production and perception of English stops by native
Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 67-83.
Green, D. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 1, 67-81.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. In J. L. Nicol & T. D. Langendoen
(Eds.), Language processing in the bilingual. Oxford: Blackwell.
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition(1), 131-149.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists beware: The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one
person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hazan, V. L., & Boulakia, G. (1993). Perception and production of a voicing contrast by
French-English bilinguals. Language and Speech, 36(1), 17-38.
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., & Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1997). Greek: A comprehensive
grammar of the modern language. London: Routledge.
Householder, F. W., Kazasis, K., & Koutsoudas, A. (1964). Reference grammar of
Literary Dhimotiki. The Hague: Mouton.
Koutsoudas, A., & Koutsoudas, O. (1962). A contrastive analysis of the segmental
phonemes of Greek and English. Language Learning, XII(3), 211-230.
60
Lisker, L. (1978). Rapid vs. Rabid. A catalogue of acoustic features that may cue the
distinction. Haskins Laboratory Status Report on Speech Research, 54, 127-132.
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops:
acoustical measurements. Word, 20, 384-422.
Mack, M. (1989). Consonant and vowel perception and production: Early English-French
bilinguals and English monolinguals. Perception and Psychophysics, 46(2), 187-
200.
Mackridge, P. (1985). The Modern Greek language: A descriptive analysis of standard
Modern Greek. London: Oxford University Press.
Magloire, J., & Green, K. P. (1999). A cross-language comparison of speaking rate
effects on the production of voice onset time in English and Spanish. Phonetica,
56, 158-185.
Newton, B. E. (1961). The rephonemicization of Modern Greek. Lingua, 10, 275-284.
Pallier, C., Bosch, L., & Sebastian-Gallés, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in
speech perception. Cognition, 64(3), B9-B17.
Pallier, C., Colome, A., & Sebastian-Gallés, N. (2001). The Influence of Native-language
Phonology on Lexical Access: Exemplar-Based Versus Abstract Lexical Entries.
Psychological Science, 12(6), 445-449.
Sancier, M. L., & Fowler, C. A. (1997). Gestural drift in a bilingual speaker of Brazilian
Portuguese and English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 421-436.
61
Sebastian-Gallés, N., & Soto-Faracao, S. (1999). Online processing of native and non-
native phonemic contrasts in early bilinguals. Cognition, 72, 111-123.
Sebastian-Gallés, N., Echeverria, 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.
Setatos, M. (1974). Φωνολογία της Κοινής Νεοελληνικής [Phonology of Standard
Modern Greek]. Athens: Papazisis.
Tollfree, L. (2001). Variation and change in Australian English consonants: Reduction of
/t/. In D. Blair & P. Collins (Eds.), English in Australia (pp. 45-67). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Viechnicki, P. (1995). The problem of voiced stops in Modern Greek: A non-linear
approach. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 16, 59-71.
Warburton, I. (1970). On the verb in Modern Greek. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Publications.
Williams, L. (1977). The perception of stop consonant voicing by Spanish-English
bilinguals. Perception & Psychophysics, 21(4), 289-297.
62
Appendix A. Language background information sheet
Participant ID:_____________
Date:____________
1. Age: ___________
2. Gender: □ MALE □ FEMALE
3. Do you currently have any hearing problems? □ YES □ NO

If YES, what is the nature of the problem? __________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
4. Did/do you or any of your immediate family members have any special problems
with language development (e.g. delayed language onset, serious difficulties in
learning new words or remembering the names of objects)? □ YES □ NO
If YES, who has/had the problem and what is/was the nature of the problem? At what
age did it occur? Did it/does it require a language therapist? ____________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5. Did/do you or any of your family members have any special problem with speaking
(e.g. stuttering lisping, etc.)? □ YES □ NO
If YES, who? What type of problem? At what age did it occur? Did/does it require a
speech therapist? ______________________________________________________
63
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
6. Did/do you or any immediate family members have any special problems with
learning to read (e.g. confusing certain sounds or letters, dyslexia)?
□ YES □ NO
If YES, who? What type of problem? At what age did it occur? Did/ does I require
special education or reading tutoring?______________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
7. Where were you born? __________________________________________________
8. If outside Sydney, when did you move to Sydney? ____________________________
9. Where are your parents from?
Father: ______________________________________________________________
Mother: ______________________________________________________________
10. What countries have you lived in, for how long and during what age range?
Country Length of residence Age range
64
11. What languages do you know, how long you have used or studied them, at what age
did you start learning each one, and how well you speak, read and write them?
Language Age at Number of Indicate your level of ability

which you years you
began to have used 1= very little, 5=very well
learn that that
language language
speaking reading writing understand
12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345
12. Please estimate to the nearest 10% how much you speak any English in these places
or situations. Try to base your estimate on your use of English over the past 5 years.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
While at home
Visiting family
At work
At church
Visiting friends
While on vacation
While shopping
At parties/social gatherings
65
Note: this page is to be completed by bilingual participants after the experiment has
been conducted
13. How did you learn your languages (e.g. from parents, friends, school)? Specify.
Greek: _______________________________________________________________
English: ____________________________________________________________
14. Please estimate to the nearest 10% how much you speak any Greek in these places or
situations. Try to base your estimate on your use of Greek over the past 5 years.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
While at home
Visiting family
At work
At church
Visiting friends
While on vacation
While shopping
At parties/social gatherings
66
Appendix B. Πληροφόριση γλωσσικής καταγωγής
Ταυτότητα συμμετέχων:_____________
Ημερομηνία:____________
1. Ηλικία: ___________
2. Γένος: □ ΑΡΣΕΝΙΚΟ □ ΘΗΛΙΚΟ
3. Έχετε ακουστικό πρόβλημα; □ ΝΑΙ □ ΟΧΙ

Εαν ΝΑΙ, ποιο είναι το πρόβλημα σας; ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
4. Μήπως εσείς ή κάποιος στην οικογένεια σας έχει δυσκολία στην εκμάθηση της
γλώσσας; □ ΝΑΙ □ ΟΧΙ
Εαν ΝΑΙ, ποιος έχει τη δυσκολία; Σε ποια ηλικία συνέβη αυτό; Χρειάστηκε ιδικός
θεραπευτής γλώσσας; __________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5. Μήπως εσείς ή κάποιος στην οικογένεια σας έχει δυσκολία ομιλίας;

□ ΝΑΙ □ ΟΧΙ
Εαν ΝΑΙ, ποιος έχει τη δυσκολία; Σε ποια ηλικία συνέβη αυτό; Χρειάστηκε ιδικός
θεραπευτής γλώσσας; __________________________________________________
67
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
6. Μήπως εσείς ή κάποιος στην οικογένεια σας έχει δυσκολία να διαβάζετε;

□ ΝΑΙ □ ΟΧΙ
Εαν ΝΑΙ, ποιος έχει τη δυσκολία; Σε ποια ηλικία συνέβη αυτό; Χρειάστηκε
φροντιστής για το διάβασμα; _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
7. Που έχετε γεννηθεί; ____________________________________________________
8. Αν έχετε γεννηθεί εκτός Σύδνεϋ, πότε ήρθατε στο Σύδνεϋ: _____________________
9. Από που είναι οι γονείς σας;
Πατέρας: ____________________________________________________________
Μητέρα: _____________________________________________________________
10. Σε ποιες χώρες έχετε ζήσει; Για πόσο χρονικό διάστημα; Και σε ποια ηλικία;
Χώρα Πόσο καιρό Ηλικία
68
11. Ποιες γλώσσες μιλάτε, πόσο καιρό μιλατε αυτές τις γλώσσες, σε τι ηλικία αρχίσατε
να τις μιλάτε, και πόσο καλά μιλάτε, γράφετε κι διαβάζετε;
Γλώσσα Ηλικία που Πόσα Πόσο καλά γνωρίζετε τη γλώσσα:

μάθατε τη χρόνα
γλώσσα μιλάτε 1= πολύ λίγο, 5= πολύ καλά
αυτή τη
γλώσσα
ομιλία διάβασμα γράψιμο καταλαβαίνετε
12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345
12. Δώστε μας περίπου το ποσοστό που μιλάτε Ελληνικά για τα τελευταία πέντε χρόνια
σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Στο σπίτι
Επίσκεψη σε συγγενείς
Στη δουλειά
Στην εκκλησία
Με φίλους
Σε διακοπές
Στα μαγαζιά/ψώνια
Σε γιορτές/γενέθλια
69
13. Πως μάθατε αυτές τις γλώσσες (π.χ. από γωνείς, σε σχολείο);
Ελληνικά: ____________________________________________________________
Αγγλικά: _____________________________________________________________
14. Δώστε μας περίπου το ποσοστό που μιλάτε Αγγλικά για τα τελευταία πέντε χρόνια σε
αυτές τις περιπτώσεις:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Στο σπίτι
Επίσκεψη σε συγγενείς
Στη δουλειά
Στην εκκλησία
Με φίλους
Σε διακοπές
Στα μαγαζιά/ψώνια
Σε γιορτές/γενέθλια
70

Mark Antoniou COC Final

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mark Antoniou COC Final

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Effects of linguistic context on bilingual speech production and perception

Confirmation of Candidature Proposal

Student ID: 11018517

Supervisor: Professor Catherine T. Best

MARCS Auditory Laboratories

University of Western Sydney

2.1 The Bilingual’s Language Modes 5

2.2 The Inhibitory Control model 6

2.3 Modeling phonological and phonetic abilities of bilinguals 6

3. Extending theories of cross-language speech production and perception to

3.1 The Speech Learning Model 8

3.2 The Perceptual Assimilation Model 11

4. Bilingual speech perception and production research 17

4.1 The bilingual as a constantly changing perceiver-producer 21

4.2 Manipulating the linguistic context in bilingual research 22

5. The proposed research 30

5.1 Target languages 31

5.1.1 Australian English phonology 31

5.1.2 Greek phonology 33

5.1.3 Xhosa Phonology 36

5.3 The Perceptual Assimilation Model of Early Bilinguals (PAM-EB) 38

6. Experiments: Investigating the effects of language of presentation on bilingual

6.1 Ethics approval 40

6.2.4 Participants and recruitment 45

6.3.2 Study design 46

6.3.3 Experiment 2A – Word-initial position CV 47

6.3.4 Experiment 2B – Word-medial position ˈVCV 48

6.3.5 Experiment 2C – Word-medial position VˈCV 49

6.3.6 Participants and recruitment 50

6.4 Study 3 – Perception of nonnative Xhosa bilabial stop distinctions 50

6.4.2 Study Design 51

6.4.4 Participants and recruitment 53

Appendix A. Language background information sheet 63

Appendix B. Πληροφόριση γλωσσικής καταγωγής 67

and perception of stop consonants by Greek-Australian English early sequential

patterns used by a language. Moreover, only a small number of cross-language studies

language speech performance, to account for effects of linguistic context on speech

production and perception in bilinguals. Within this approach, the systematic

manipulation of linguistic context within the laboratory will be referred to as the

Theoretical models of bilingualism have described language modes, language activation,

2.1 The Bilingual’s Language Modes

bilinguals are in language modes that correspond to points on a monolingual-bilingual

continuum. A language mode is a state of activation of the bilingual’s languages and

language processing mechanisms (Grosjean, 2001). Bilinguals may be in monolingual

be akin to a monolingual’s automatic, smooth change of speech style or register based on

2.2 The Inhibitory Control model

While Grosjean’s Language Modes provide a framework for examining bilingual

selection is achieved through competition between lemmas. A lemma is a lexical

representation including its semantic (meaning), syntactic (grammatical), phonological

both languages can be differentially inhibited top-down on the basis of language.

2.3 Modeling phonological and phonetic abilities of bilinguals

predictions and hypotheses in cross-language speech perception and production. Thus,

presentation could influence a bilingual’s perception or production of speech. The

3. Extending theories of cross-language speech production and perception to

Cross-language speech research aims to understand how language experience influences

world’s population is estimated to be bilingual (Grosjean, 1982). Bilingual populations

Bilingual research attempts to understand whether bilinguals integrate their languages or

perception and production of speech according to the linguistic context, then it is

this means for bilingual perception of phonological and phonetic information.

3.1 The Speech Learning Model

limitations on nonnative accentedness in speech production (and secondarily, in

differentiated, SLM makes predictions of whether L2 learners will eventually produce

specific L2 phones without an accent.

During L1 acquisition, speech perception becomes attuned to the contrastive phonetic