Costa rican spanish speakers’ Phonetic discrimination
Keywords:
Costa Rican Spanish, Voicing, Intervocalic /s/, Phonetic discrimination, Allophony, PerceptionAbstract
Costa Rican Spanish listeners associate intervocalic [z] with specific social attributes in a matched-guise test (Chappell 2016) but experience difficulty when explicitly asked to produce or even comment on the variant. Given this perception-production discrepancy, the present study seeks to determine how successfully listeners discriminate between allophonic differences like intervocalic [s] and [z] compared to other allophone pairs, phonemic contrasts, and identical stimuli. 106 Costa Rican listeners completed similarity rating and AX discrimination tasks in which they evaluated word pairs that were identical or differed only in one phoneme or allophone. Statistical analyses fitted to 2,862 tokens in the similarity rating task and 3,604 tokens from the AX discrimination task indicate that listeners perceive phonemic contrasts more successfully than allophonic differences, which, in turn, are perceived as more distinct than identity pairs. Interestingly, the [s] ~ [z] distinction is less successfully perceived than other allophone pairs including [n] ~ [ŋ] and [d] ~ [ð]. I contend that allophonic differences that encode linguistic information, e.g. the variable’s position within the word, or are less expected given their low frequency are heard more successfully than [s] ~ [z]. However, even the least salient phonetic variants like [s] ~ [z] can encode local social meaning and contribute to listeners’ evaluations of speakers’ social qualities.
References
BARNES, S. (2015): «Perceptual salience and social categorization of contact features in Asturian Spanish», Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 8(2), pp. 213-241.
BARR, D. J., R. LEVY, C. SCHEEPERS and H. J. TILY (2013): «Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal», Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), pp. 255-278.
BATES, D. M. (2010): Lme4: Mixed-Effects Modeling with R, New York, Springer.
BENNETT, D. C. (1968): «Spectral form and duration as cues in the recognition of English and German vowels», Language and Speech, 11, pp. 65-85.
BEST, C. T. (1994a): «Learning to perceive the sound pattern of English», in C. Rovee-Collier and L. P. Lipsitt (eds.): Advances in Infancy Research IX, Hillsdale, Ablex, pp. 217-304.
BEST, C. T. (1994b): «The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model», in H. C. Nusbaum (ed.): The Development of Speech Perception: The Transition from Speech Sounds to Spoken Words, Cambridge, MIT Press.
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, Timonium, York Press, pp. 171-204.
BEST, C. T. and W. STRANGE (1992): «Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception on approximants», Journal of Phonetics, 20, pp. 305–330.
BOERSMA, P. and D. WEENINK (2013): Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer, Version 5.3.56. http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ [15/09/2013]
BOOMERSHINE, A., K. C. HALL, E. HUME and K. JOHNSON (2008): «The impact of allophony vs. contrast on speech perception», in P. Avery, E. Dresher and K. Rice (eds): Phonological Contrast: Perception and Acquisition, The Hague, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 146-172.
CAMPBELL-KIBLER, K. (2007): «Accent, (ING) and the social logic of listener perceptions», American Speech, 82(1), pp. 32-64.
CAMPBELL-KIBLER, K. (2008): «I’ll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ING)», Language in Society, 27(5), pp. 637-659.
CAMPBELL-KIBLER, K. (2009): «The nature of sociolinguistic perception», Language Variation and Change, 21, pp. 135-156.
CAMPBELL-KIBLER, K. (2010): «Sociolinguistics and perception», Language and Linguistics Compass, 4, pp. 377-389.
CAMPOS-ASTORKIZA, R. (2014): «Sibilant voicing assimilation in Peninsular Spanish as gestural blending», in M. H. Côte, E. Mathieu and S. Poplack (eds.): Variation Within and Across Romance Languages, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Press, pp. 17-38.
CARRASCO, P. (2008): An Acoustic Study of Voiced Stop Allophony in Costa Rican Spanish, PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign.
CARRASCO, P., J. I. HUALDE and M. SIMONET (2012): «Dialectal differences in Spanish voiced obstruent allophony: Costa Rican vs. Iberian Spanish», Phonetica, 69, pp. 149-179.
CHAPPELL, W. (2011): «The Intervocalic Voicing of /s/ in Ecuadorian Spanish», in J. Michnowicz and R. Dodsworth (eds.): Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, Somerville, Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 57-64.
CHAPPELL, W. (2016): «On the social perception of intervocalic /s/ voicing in Costa Rican Spanish», Language Variation and Change, 28, pp. 357-378.
CHAPPELL, W. and C. GARCÍA (in press): «Variable production and indexical social meaning: On the potential physiological origin of intervocalic /s/ voicing in Costa Rican Spanish», Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics.
CLOPPER, C. G. and D. B. PISONI (2004): «Some acoustic cues for the perceptual categorization of American English regional dialects», Journal of Phonetics, 32, pp. 111-140.
DAHAN, D., S. J. DRUCKER and R. A. SCARBOROUGH (2008): «Talker adaptation in speech perception: Adjusting the signal or the representations?», Cognition, 108, pp. 710-718.
DERWING, B. L., T. M. NEAREY and M. L. DOW (1986): «On the phoneme as the unit of the ‘second articulation’», Phonology Yearbook, 3, pp. 45-69.
DRAGER, K. (2010): «Sensitivity to grammatical and sociophonetic variability in perception», Laboratory Phonology, 1(1), pp. 93-120.
DUPOUX, E., C. PALLIER, N. SEBASTIAN GALLES and J. MEHLER (1997): «A destressing ‘deafness’ in French? », Journal of Memory and Language, 36, pp. 406-421.
ERNESTUS, M. (2006): «Statistically gradient generalizations for contrastive phonological features», The Linguistic Review, 23, pp. 217-233.
ERNESTUS, M. and W. M. MAK (2005): «Analogical effects in reading Dutch verb forms», Memory and Cognition, 33(7), pp. 1160-1173.
FLAGG, E. J., J. E. ORAM CARDY and T. P. ROBERTS (2006): «MEG detects neural consequences of anomalous nasalization in vowel-consonant pairs», Neuroscience Letters, 397, pp. 263-268.
FLEGE, J. E. (1988): «The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds», In H. Winitz (ed.): Human Communication and its Disorders: A Review, Norwood, Ablex, pp. 224-401.
FLEGE, J. E. (1990): «Perception and production: The relevance of phonetic input to L2 language learning», in C. Ferguson and T. Heubner (eds.): Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theories, Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 249-289.
FLEGE, J. E. (1995): «Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems», in W. Strange (ed.): Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Speech Research, Timonium, York Press, pp. 233-272.
FOWLER, C. A. and J. M. BROWN (2000): «Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels», Perception & Psychophysics, 62(1), pp. 21-32.
FOX, R. A., J. E. FLEGE and M. J. MUNRO (1995): «The perception of English and Spanish vowels by native English and Spanish listeners: A multidimensional scaling analysis», Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(4), pp. 2540-2551.
FRANCIS, A. and H. NUSBAUM (2002): «Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories», Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(2), pp. 349-366.
FRIDLAND, V., K. BARTLETT and R. KREUZ (2004): «Do you hear what I hear? Experimental measurement of the perceptual salience of acoustically manipulated vowel variants by Southern speakers in Memphis, TN», Language Variation and Change, 16, pp. 1-16.
GARCÍA, C. (2015): Production and Perception of Highland Ecuadorian Spanish, PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University.
GOTO, H. (1971): «Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds ‘l’ and ‘r’», Neuropsychologia, 9, pp. 317-323.
GOTTFRIED, T. L. and P. S. BEDDOR (1988): «Perception of temporal and spectral information in French vowels», Language and Speech, 31, pp. 57-75.
GRIESER, D. and P. K. KUHL (1989): «Categorization of speech by infants: Support for speech-sound prototypes», Developmental Psychology, 25(4), pp. 577-588.
HALLÉ, P. A., J. SEGUI, U. FRAUENFELDER and C. MEUNIER (1998): «Processing of illegal consonant clusters: A case of perceptual assimilation?», Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, pp. 592-608.
HALLÉ, P. A., C. T. BEST and A. G. LEVITT (1999): «Phonetic vs. phonological influences on French listeners’ perception of American English approximants», Journal of Phonetics, 27, pp. 281-306.
HARNSBERGER, J. (2001): «The perception of Malayalam nasal consonants by Marathi, Punjabi, Tamil, Oriya, Bengali, and American English listeners: A multidimensional scaling analysis», Journal of Phonetics, 29, pp. 303-327.
HUALDE, J. I. (1989): «Silabeo y estructura morfémica en español», Hispania, 72(4), pp. 821-831.
HUALDE, J. I. (1991): «On Spanish syllabification», in H. Campos and F. Martínez-Gil (eds.): Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics, Washington, Georgetown University Press, pp. 475-494.
HUALDE, J. I. and P. PRIETO (2014): «Lenition of intervocalic alveolar fricatives in Catalan and Spanish», Phonetica, 71(2), pp. 109-127.
HUME, E. and K. JOHNSON (2003): «The impact of partial phonological contrast on speech perception», Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 2385-2388.
INGRAM, J. C. and S. G. PARK (1998): «Language, context, and speaker effects in the identification and discrimination of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese and Korean listeners», Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, pp. 1161-1174.
JAEGER, J. J. (1980): «Testing the psychological reality of phonemes», Language and Speech, 23, pp. 233-253.
JOHNSON, K. and M. BABEL (2010): «On the perceptual basis of distinctive features: Evidence from the perception of fricatives by Dutch and English speakers», Journal of Phonetics, 38, pp. 127-136.
KAZANINA, N., C. PHILLIPS and W. J. IDSARDI (2006): «The influence of meaning on the perception of speech sounds», Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(30), pp. 11381-11386.
KUHL, P. K., K. A. WILLIAMS, F. LACERDA, K. N. STEVENS and B. LINDBLOM (1992): «Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age», Science, 255(5044), pp. 606-608.
KUHL, P. K., B. T. CONBOY, S. COFFEY-CORINA, D. PADDEN, M. RIVERA-GAXIOLA and T. NELSON. (2008): «Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e)», Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, pp. 979-1000.
LADEFOGED, P. (2003): Phonetic Data Analysis: An Introduction to Fieldwork and Instrumental Techniques, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
LARKEY, L. S., J. WALD and W. STRANGE (1978): «Perception of synthetic nasal consonants in initial and final syllable position», Perception & Psychophysics, 23, pp. 299-312.
LIPSKI, J. M. (1994): Latin American Spanish, New York, Longman Group.
MACKAIN, K., C. T. BEST and W. STRANGE (1981): «Categorical perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese bilinguals», Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, pp. 369-390.
MARTÍNEZ-GIL, F. (1991): «The insert/delete parameter, redundancy rules, and neutralization processes in Spanish», in H. Campos and F. Martínez-Gil (eds.): Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics, Washington, Georgetown University Press, pp. 495-572.
MCQUEEN, J. and M. A. PITT (1996): «Transitional probability and phoneme monitoring», International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 4, pp. 2502-2505.
MOCHIZUKI, M. (1981): «The identification of /r/ and /l/ in natural and synthesized speech», Journal of Phonetics, 9, pp. 283-303.
MORGAN, T. A. (2010): Sonidos en Contexto: Una Introducción a la Fonética del Español con Especial Referencia a la Vida Real, New Haven, Yale University Press.
PISONI, D. B. and S. E. LIVELY (1995): «Variability and invariance in speech perception: a new look at some old problems in perceptual learning», in W. Strange (ed.): Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research, Baltimore, York Press, pp. 433-458.
PLICHTA, B. and D. R. PRESTON (2005): «The /ay/s have it: The perception of /ay/ as a North-South stereotype in US English», Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 37, pp. 107-130.
POLKA, L. and J. F. WERKER (1994): «Developmental changes in perception of non-native vowel contrasts», Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, pp. 421-435.
PRUITT, J. S. (1995): The Perception of Hindi Dental and Retroflex Stop Consonants by Native Speakers of Japanese and American English. PhD dissertation, University of South Florida.
QUILIS, A. (1993): Tratado de Fonología y Fonética Españolas, Madrid, Gredos.
ROBINSON, K. (1979): «On the Voicing of Intervocalic S in the Ecuadorian Highlands», Romance Philology, 33(1), 137-43.
ROHENA-MADRAZO, M. (2011): Sociophonetic Variation in the Production and Perception of Obstruent Voicing in Buenos Aires Spanish. PhD dissertation, New York University.
SAFFRAN, J. R., R. N. ASLIN and E. L. NEWPORT (1996): «Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants», Science, 274(5294), pp. 1926-1928.
SCHMIDT, L. B. and E. W. WILLIS (2011): «Systematic Investigation of Voicing Assimilation of Spanish /s/ in Mexico City», in S. M. Alvord (ed.): Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Romance Phonology, Somerville, Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 1-20.
STRANGE, W. (1995): «Cross-language studies of speech perception: A historical review», in W. Strange (ed.): Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience, Baltimore, York Press, pp. 3-45.
STRYCHARCZUK, P., M. VAN’T VEER, M. BRUIL and K. LINKE (2013): «Phonetic evidence on phonology-morphosyntax interactions», Journal of Linguistics, 50(2), pp. 403-452.
SZAKAY, A. (2008): «Social networks and the perceptual relevance of rhythm: A New Zealand case study», University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 14(2), pp. 148-156.
TORREIRA, F. and M. ERNESTUS (2012): «Weakening of intervocalic /s/ in the Nijmegen Corpus of Casual Spanish», Phonetica, 69(3), pp. 124-48.
TRUBETZKOY, N. S. (1939): Grundzüge der Phonologie, Prague, Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague/Ministère de l’Instruccion Publique de la République Tchéco-slovaque.
VANEK, C. and S. MCDANIEL (2006): SurveyGizmo, Widgix, LLC.
WALKER, A. (2007): «The effect of phonetic detail on perceived speaker age and social class», in J. Trouvain and W. J. Barry (eds.): Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Dudweiler, Pirrot, pp. 1453-1456.
WALKER, A., C. GARCÍA, Y. CORTÉS and K. CAMPBELL-KIBLER (2014): «Comparing social meanings across listeners and speaker groups: The indexical field of Spanish /s/», Language Variation and Change, 26, pp. 169-189.
WHALEN, D. H., C. T. BEST and J. R. IRWIN (1997): «Lexical effects in the perception and production of American English /p/ allophones», Journal of Phonetics, 25(4), pp. 501-528.
YONEYAMA, K. and K. JOHNSON (1998): «An instance-based model of Japanese speech recognition by native and non-native listeners», Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, p. 3090.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published online by Estudios de Fonética Experimental are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED), unless otherwise noted. Estudios de Fonética Experimental is an open access journal. Estudios de Fonética Experimental is hosted by RCUB (Revistes Científiques de la Universitat de Barcelona), powered by Open Journal Systems (OJS) software. The copyright is not transferred to the journal: authors hold the copyright and publishing rights without restrictions. The author is free to use and distribute pre and post-prints versions of his/her article. However, preprint versions are regarded as a work-in-progress version used as internal communication with the authors, and we prefer to share postprint versions.
