Resea ch A icle
The impac o o hog aphic o ms on speech p oduc ion and pe cep ion: An
a ificial owel-lea ning s udy
An je S oeh
a,
*
, Cla a D. Ma in
a,b
a
Basque Cen e on Cogni ion, B ain and Language, 20009 Donos ia-San Sebas ián, Spain
b
Ike basque, Basque Founda ion o Science, 48013 Bilbao, Spain
a icle in o
A icle his o y:
Recei ed 22 Oc obe 2021
Recei ed in e ised o m 27 July 2022
Accep ed 29 July 2022
Keywo ds:
Non-na i e owel lea ning
G apheme-phoneme co espondences
Incong uen o hog aphic o ms
No el o hog aphic o ms
Speech pe cep ion
Speech p oduc ion
abs ac
This s udy in es iga es he e ec o o hog aphic o ms on phone ic aspec s o isola ed speech sound p oduc ion
and pe cep ion. Th ee g oups o 25 L1-Spanish speake s we e exposed o /y/ and /e/ in a mul i-session lea ning
s udy. They hea d he same owels p esen ed wi h: L1-incong uen o hog aphic o ms, no el o hog aphic o ms,
o wi hou o hog aphic o ms. A e h ee exposu e sessions, pa icipan s we e es ed on owel p oduc ion in an
elici ed p oduc ion ask and owel pe cep ion in a mul iple o ced choice ask. All g oups es ablished new /y/ and /
e/ p oduc ion and pe cep ion ca ego ies. Incong uen o hog aphic o ms led o less a ge -like ca ego y posi ions
o /y/ bu no /e/ in p oduc ion and pe cep ion. No el o hog aphic o ms only acili a ed mo e a ge -like pe cep ion
o /y/. In a ou h session, Audi o y-only pa icipan s we e exposed o incong uen o hog aphy o /y/ and no el
o hog aphy o /e/. Sequen ial exposu e o incong uen o hog aphy caused less a ge -like p oduc ion and pe -
cep ion ca ego y posi ions, while sequen ial exposu e o no el o hog aphy al e ed nei he . Toge he hese esul s
sugges ha o hog aphic o ms a ec isola ed speech sounds and a e encoded a he speech sound le el.
Incong uen g apheme- o-phoneme mappings om L1 o la e -lea ned languages may c i ically a ec he phone ic
cha ac e is ics o non-na i e speech sounds, bu lea ning ou comes depend on specific L1-L2 ca ego y con as s.
Ó2022 The Au ho (s). Published by Else ie L d. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY license (h p://
c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/).
1. In oduc ion
I is well es ablished ha o eign language (he ea e , L2,
i espec i e o acquisi ion o de ) lea ne s ha dly, i e e ,
achie e a na i elike p onuncia ion, due o he influence o fi s
language (L1) phonological and phone ic sys ems (B ennan,
Ryan & Dawson, 1975; Fe guson & Ga nica, 1975; Flege,
1980, 1981, 1995; Flege, Bi dsong, Bialys ok, Mack, Sung &
Tsukada, 2006; Piske, MacKay, & Flege, 2001; Sai o, 2015;
Sco el, 1969; S oeh , Bende s, an Hell & Fikke , 2017).
O hog aphy, which is omnip esen in o mal L2 ins uc ion
and may also con ibu e o o eign accen edness in L2, had
ecei ed su p isingly li le a en ion un il ecen ly ( o a ecen
e iew, see Hayes-Ha b & Ba ios, 2021). C ucially, mis-
ma ches in g apheme-phoneme co espondences (GPCs)
a e equen among languages ha use he same sc ip . The
g apheme <u>, o example, co esponds o /y/ in F ench bu
o /u/ in Spanish. I L1-Spanish speake s lea n F ench as an
L2, hey a e con on ed wi h wo challenging asks: lea ning
o pe cei e and p oduce /y/ accu a ely and o e coming he
L1 GPC be ween <u> and /u/. These asks may be e en mo e
challenging when an L2 sound is pe cep ually close o an L1
sound. L1-Spanish speake s, o ins ance, find i no o iously
di ficul o disc imina e F ench o Ca alan /e/ om na i e /e/
in p oduc ion and pe cep ion (Ka ushina & F auen elde ,
2014; Ka ushina & Ma in, 2019; Pallie , Bosch & Sebas ián-
Gallés, 1997; Sebas ián-Gallés, Eche e ía & Bosch, 2005;
Sebas ián-Gallés, Rod íguez-Fo nells, de Diego-Balague &
Diaz, 2006; Sebas ián-Gallés, Ve a-Cons án, La sson, Cos a
& Deco, 2009). The pe cep ually small di e ence be ween /e/
and /e/ may be u he educed by hei join o hog aphic o m
<e>.
Despi e eme ging e idence o o hog aphy-based misp o-
nuncia ion o L2 wo ds (Basse i, 2017; Basse i & A kinson,
2015; Basse i, Sokolo ić-Pe o ić, Mai ano & Ce ni, 2018;
Bü ki, Welby, Clémen & Spinelli, 2019; Ce ni, Basse i &
Mas e son, 2019; Nimz & Kha ab, 2020; Ra a , 2015; Welby,
Spinelli & Bü ki, 2021; Young-Schol en & Lange , 2015)i
has p o ed di ficul o isola e he e ec o o hog aphic o ms
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101180
0095-4470/Ó2022 The Au ho (s). Published by Else ie L d.
This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/).
*
Co esponding au ho .
E-mail add ess: [email p o ec ed] (A. S oeh ).
Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
Jou nal o Phone ics
jou nal homepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/Phone ics
on p onuncia ion e o s. Class oom lea ne s a e equen ly
exposed o non-na i e inpu om pee s and eache s, which
may ein o ce o hog aphy-based misp onuncia ions. Fo
ins ance, L1-Spanish lea ne s o F ench migh p oduce he
F ench wo d /myl/ <mule> slippe mo e like [mul] due o a
GPC misma ch: he g apheme <u> co esponds o /y/ in
F ench and /u/ in Spanish. Al e na i ely, hese e ec s could
a ise om equen exposu e o such misp onuncia ions
among non-na i e F ench eache s and classma es. In he la -
e case, audi o y exposu e o misp onounced o ms could
ha e led o he o e es ima ion o o hog aphic e ec s in s ud-
ies on L2 speech sound lea ning. The p esen s udy imple-
men s a con olled owel-lea ning pa adigm ha a oids his
con ound and isola es he e ec s o o hog aphy on speech
sound lea ning.
1.1. P e ious esea ch on o hog aphic e ec s in L2 p oduc ion and
pe cep ion
P e ious s udies on he o hog aphic e ec s o he L1 on he
L2 ha e ocused hea ily on wo d p oduc ion. These s udies
ha e p o ided s ong e idence o o hog aphically influenced
misp onuncia ions in he L2 when he e is an L1-L2 GPC mis-
ma ch (Basse i, 2017; Basse i & A kinson, 2015; Basse i
e al., 2018; Bü ki e al., 2019; Ce ni e al., 2019; Nimz &
Kha ab, 2020; Ra a , 2015; Welby e al., 2021; Young-
Schol en & Lange , 2015). Misma ched L1 and L2 GPCs
may lead o less a ge -like phone ic cha ac e is ics, including:
owel o man s shi ed owa ds he o hog aphically-linked L1
owel (Bü ki e al., 2019; Nimz & Kha ab, 2020; Ra a , 2015;
Welby e al., 2021); p oduc ion di e ences be ween homopho-
nous wo ds wi h di e en spellings, such as <sun> e sus
<son> which sha e he a ge p onuncia ion /sʌn/ (Basse i &
A kinson, 2015); p oduc ion o leng h con as s be ween iden-
ical owels o consonan s w i en ei he as single ons o dia-
g aphs, such as <scene> e sus <seen> o <ci y> e sus
<ki y> (Basse i, 2017; Basse i & A kinson, 2015; Basse i
e al., 2018; Ce ni e al., 2019; Nimz & Kha ab, 2020); com-
ple e sound subs i u ions, such as Ge man <Sonne> /zɔnə/
p onounced as [sɔnə](Ra a , 2015; Young-Schol en &
Lange , 2015); and p oduc ion o silen le e s, such as <lamb>
/læm/ p onounced as [læmb](Basse i & A kinson, 2015).
These e ec s appea o be obus : hey ha e been obse ed
in L2 speake s wi h a ious p oficiency le els, anging om
no ice lea ne s (Ra a , 2015) o highly p oficien L2 speake s
(Basse i e al., 2018) and ac oss lea ning con ex s om lab-
based lea ning (Bü ki e al., 2019; Ra a , 2015; Welby e al.,
2021) o L2 imme sion (Basse i e al., 2018; Young-Schol en
& Lange , 2015). Only when a highly p oficien L2 is acqui ed
in ea ly childhood be o e lea ning o ead, L2 wo d p oduc ion
appea s esis an o misma ched L1-L2 GPCs (S oeh &
Ma in, 2022).
Mos p e ious esea ch has in es iga ed o hog aphic
e ec s on L2 p oduc ion, wi h only a small numbe o s udies
ocused on L2 pe cep ion. One o hese s udies showed ha
misma ched L1-L2 GPCs nega i ely a ec ed Spanish-
Basque ea ly bilinguals’wo d and syllable pe cep ion (S oeh
& Ma in, 2022). This s udy demons a ed ha an o hog aphic
link can be e oac i ely o ged be ween wo dis inc L1 and L2
sounds ha we e bo h acqui ed be o e lea ning o ead, show-
ing inc eased e o s in wo d pe cep ion and slowe disc imina-
ion speeds o meaningless syllables in highly p oficien L2
speake s. O he pe cep ion s udies, p ima ily dedica ed o
o hog aphic e ec s on no el wo d lea ning, ha e shown
mixed esul s (e.g., Escude o, Simon & Mulak, 2014;
Ma hieu, 2016; Py lyk, 2011; Showal e & Hayes-Ha b, 2015;
Simon e al., 2010). L1-English speake s lea ning F ench
wo ds con aining he owel con as /u/ <ou> and /y/ <u> we e
nei he aided no hinde ed by he p esence o o hog aphic
o ms (Simon e al., 2010). A nuanced pa e n also eme ged
when L1-Spanish speake s pe o med a Du ch owel disc im-
ina ion ask: he specific GPCs in ol ed, and he di ficul y o
he sound con as s accoun ed o pe cep ual acui y
(Escude o & Wan ooij, 2010). Taken oge he hese esul s
sugges ha whe he o hog aphy hinde s, has no e ec on,
o acili a es L2 pe cep ion, depends on he di ficul y o specific
L1-L2 sound con as s and he specific GPCs used. The p e-
sen s udy sys ema ically es s i building an associa ion
be ween L1-incong uen o hog aphic o ms and newly lea ned
speech sounds wi h di e en le els o pe cep ual di ficul y hin-
de s a ge -like p oduc ion and pe cep ion.
The impac o o hog aphy on L2 lea ning may be unda-
men ally di e en when L2 and L1 sc ip s di e , educing o
e en elimina ing he po en ial o misma ched L1-L2 GPCs.
Se e al s udies ha e in es iga ed he e ec o unknown o ho-
g aphic o ms on L2 wo d lea ning and syllable disc imina ion,
showing acili a ion (Hayes-Ha b & Cheng, 2016; Showal e &
Hayes-Ha b, 2013), no e ec (Hayes-Ha b & Hacking, 2015;
Py lyk, 2011; Showal e , 2018; Showal e & Hayes-Ha b,
2015), o hind ance (Ma hieu, 2016). I appea s ha lea ning
ou comes a e influenced by he di ficul y o he sound con as ,
he sc ip , and he ask. The p esen s udy also es s whe he
lea ning associa ions be ween no el o hog aphic o ms and
newly lea ned speech sounds o a ying di ficul y acili a es
a ge -like p oduc ion and pe cep ion.
To summa ize, p e ious esea ch has ocused almos
exclusi ely on lexical i ems and sugges s ha wo d spelling
a ec s bo h p oduc ion and pe cep ion. Only wo s udies ha e
explo ed he e ec s o o hog aphy on speech sound pe cep-
ion in he absence o lexical con ex (Escude o & Wan ooij,
2010;S oeh and Ma in, 2022). These s udies p o ide e i-
dence ha dis inc o hog aphic o ms may acili a e disc imi-
na ion whe eas misma ched L1-L2 GPCs may ha m
disc imina ion. The e ec o no el o hog aphic o ms on L2
speech sound lea ning in ei he p oduc ion o pe cep ion
emains unknown. The e is some e idence, mo eo e , ha
e en when an L2 is acqui ed be o e eading acquisi ion, mis-
ma ched L1-L2 GPCs can con inue o a ec speech pe cep ion
in adul hood in highly p oficien L2 speake s (S oeh & Ma in,
2022). The e is no e idence as ye o such e oac i e o ho-
g aphic e ec s on speech p oduc ion and pe cep ion in lea n-
e s who a e li e a e in hei L1 and who s a lea ning an L2 in
he audi o y modali y be o e being exposed o o hog aphic
o ms.
1.2. Isola ing he e ec o o hog aphic o ms on L2 speech sound
p oduc ion and pe cep ion
The p esen s udy implemen s a con olled speech sound
lea ning pa adigm o es whe he L1-incong uen (he ea e ,
2A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180
conflic ing) o no el o hog aphic o ms a ec he p oduc ion
and pe cep ion o isola ed speech sounds in e ms o ca ego y
o ma ion and posi ion. These possible e ec s a e add essed
in lea ning condi ions ha in ol e ei he simul aneous o
sequen ial exposu e o o hog aphic o ms. This con olled
lea ning pa adigm allows us o isola e he e ec s o o ho-
g aphic o ms on speech p oduc ion and pe cep ion since he
p esence and ype o o hog aphic o ms is he only ask di e -
ence be ween lea ning g oups. Mo eo e , in con as o p e i-
ous wo k wi h lexical i ems, he p esen s udy es s he
p oduc ion and pe cep ion o single speech sounds o asce -
ain whe he o hog aphic o ms a ec p onuncia ion a he
speech sound le el as well as a he lexical le el, as has been
p e iously epo ed. I his is he case, i would ha e c ucial
implica ions. Fi s , i would show ha he misma ch be ween
L1-L2 GPCs may p edic L2 lea ne s’p onuncia ion. This
would ha e impo an implica ions o L2 speech sound p o-
duc ion and pe cep ion models, which do no ye inco po a e
o hog aphy as a ac o influencing L2 acquisi ion ou comes.
Second, i speech sounds a e a ec ed by o hog aphic o ms,
i may sugges ha p e iously ound o hog aphic e ec s a he
lexical le el a e no exclusi ely d i en by co-ac i a ion o L1
o hog aphic o ms du ing L2 wo d p ocessing. Ins ead, o ho-
g aphically influenced misp onuncia ions o L2 wo ds may also
be d i en by dis o ed L2 speech sound ep esen a ions.
1.3. Models on L2 speech p oduc ion and pe cep ion
The Speech Lea ning Model (SLM; Flege, 1995) and he
Pe cep ual Assimila ion Model o L2 lea ning (PAM-L2; Bes
& Tyle , 2007) p o ide c ucial heo e ical backg ound o he
p esen s udy. Al hough he SLM and PAM-L2 di e in many
espec s, bo h models assume ha L2 speake s ha e a com-
mon phone ic space ha accommoda es bo h L1 and L2 ca e-
go ies. This space emains somewha flexible h oughou li e,
enabling he o ma ion o new ca ego ies. I a new sound is
pe cei ed o be su ficien ly di e en om he lea ne ’s exis ing
owel ca ego ies, he SLM and PAM-L2 bo h p edic a new ca -
ego y will be o med, al hough i may di e om he ca ego y a
na i e speake o he a ge language has o ha same sound.
The o ma ion o new ca ego ies depends on how dis inc
newly encoun e ed sounds a e pe cei ed o be om exis ing
ca ego ies: I a new sound is no pe cei ed o be su ficien ly
di e en om he closes exis ing L1 ca ego y, i is likely o
be classified as belonging o his al eady exis ing sound ca e-
go y and no new ca ego y will be o med. This p ocess is
known as equi alence classifica ion in he SLM amewo k
and as pe cep ual assimila ion in he PAM-L2 amewo k.
1.4. The p esen s udy
In he p esen s udy, L1-Spanish speake s lea ned he close
an e io ounded owel /y/ and he open-mid an e io
un ounded owel /e/ du ing h ee exposu e sessions. Bo h
sounds a e epo edly di ficul o Spanish speake s bu o a
di e en ex en . /y/ alls wi hin an unoccupied a ea o he Span-
ish owel space, and Spanish leane s o F ench can p oduce /
y/ wi h o man s ha di e om hose o L1 owels, al hough
hei p onuncia ion is s ill no na i elike (Racine & De ey,
2019). /e/ may be conside ed an allophone o /e/, al hough e i-
dence is deba able (see, e.g., de Anda, 2013; Mo ison, 2004;
Na a o Tomás, 1918, 1965). Impo an ly, /e/ alls wi hin he
owel space occupied by Spanish /e/ (Meunie , F enck-
Mes e, Leleko -Boissa d & Le Besne ais, 2003), and L1-
Spanish lea ne s o F ench o Ca alan find i no o iously di fi-
cul o dis inguish /e/ om /e/ in p oduc ion and pe cep ion
(Ka ushina & F auen elde , 2014; Ka ushina & Ma in, 2019;
Pallie e al., 1997; Sebas ián-Gallés e al., 2005, 2006, 2009).
Acco ding o he p edic ions made by bo h he SLM and
PAM-L2, he non-na i e owel /y/ migh o m i s own ca ego y
i i is pe cei ed o be su ficien ly di e en om he closes
Spanish na i e ca ego ies /i/ (/y/ is ounded while /i/ is
un ounded) and /u/ (/y/ is an e io [= on ] while /u/ is pos e io
[=back]). I so, /y/ would coun as new phone in SLM e ms and
as unca ego ized sound using PAM-L2 e minology. In con-
as , he non-na i e owel /e/ migh be subjec o equi alence
classifica ion/pe cep ual assimila ion, since /e/ is epo edly di -
ficul o L1-Spanish speake s o disc imina e om na i e /e/ in
bo h p oduc ion and pe cep ion (Ka ushina & F auen elde ,
2014; Ka ushina & Ma in, 2019; Pallie e al., 1997;
Sebas ián-Gallés e al., 2005, 2006, 2009). Nei he he SLM
no he PAM-L2 make specific p edic ions abou he ole o
o hog aphy, al hough he PAM-L2 acknowledges ha a
sha ed o hog aphic link be ween wo simila L1 and L2
sounds may con ibu e o pe cep ual assimila ion. Gi en he
p edic ions o hese wo models and he esea ch in o o ho-
g aphic e ec s on p oduc ion and pe cep ion epo ed abo e,
he p esen s udy in es iga es whe he conflic ing and no el
o hog aphic o ms influence he lea ning o owel ca ego ies
and ca ego y posi ions in p oduc ion and pe cep ion.
To add ess hese ques ions, pa icipan s we e di ided in o
wo expe imen al g oups, plus a con ol g oup o compa e pe -
o mance. The Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup simul aneously
hea d he owels and saw he espec i e L1 g aphemes, <u>
and <e>, on sc een; he No el O hog aphy g oup simul ane-
ously hea d he owels and saw no el o hog aphic symbols
on sc een. The con ol g oup, Audi o y-only, hea d he owels
bu did no ecei e any isual inpu . A e he hi d exposu e
session, pa icipan s we e es ed on hei p oduc ion and pe -
cep ion o he newly lea ned owels. Ou p ecise p edic ions
ega ding ca ego y o ma ion o /y/ and /e/ sounds a e delin-
ea ed below.
Rega ding /y/, we p edic ed ha pa icipan s in all g oups
would o m new /y/ ca ego ies in p oduc ion and pe cep ion
gi en he conside able acous ic di e ences be ween /y/ and
he su ounding na i e owels /i/ and /u/. Howe e , we p e-
dic ed he posi ion o his ca ego y would di e depending on
whe he GPCs we e conflic ing o no el. Specifically, we p e-
dic ed ha he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup would o m p o-
duc ion and pe cep ion ca ego ies o /y/ a a mo e pos e io
posi ion, co esponding o smalle F2 alues, compa ed o he
Audi o y-only con ol g oup. This would be due o in e e ence
om he pos e io L1 owel /u/, which sha es he g apheme
<u> wi h he newly lea ned owel /y/. We u he hypo hesized
ha he No el O hog aphy g oup would benefi om he link o
a no el g apheme, which may ein o ce he dis inc ion be ween
/y/ and L1 owels. I so, his would esul in mo e p ecise p o-
duc ion and pe cep ion o /y/ wi h mo e an e io p oduc ion
and pe cep ion ca ego ies, co esponding o g ea e F2 alues,
compa ed o he Audi o y-only con ol g oup.
A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180 3
Fo /e/, we p edic ed ha he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup
would be s ongly influenced by he o hog aphic link <e>
be ween /e/ and Spanish /e/, which we hypo hesized would
lead pa icipan s in his g oup o map /e/ on o /e/, blocking
new ca ego y o ma ion. Consequen ly, we p edic ed p oduc-
ion and pe cep ion ca ego ies o be a a highe posi ion, wi h
smalle F1 alues, han hose o he Audi o y-only con ol
g oup. We u he p edic ed ha he No el O hog aphy g oup
would be able o acqui e a dis inc ca ego y o /e/ in p oduc ion
and pe cep ion because he link o a no el g apheme would
help pa icipan s dis inguish /e/ om he acous ically simila
na i e owel /e/. We p edic ed ha he link o a no el g a-
pheme would, mo eo e , help he No el O hog aphy g oup
o p oduce and pe cei e /e/ mo e p ecisely, leading o lowe
ca ego y posi ions in p oduc ion and pe cep ion, wi h g ea e
F1 alues, compa ed o he Audi o y-only con ol g oup. These
hypo heses a e summa ized in Table 1.
Pa icipan s in he Audi o y-only (con ol) g oup e u ned o
a ou h session, o assess whe he sequen ial exposu e o
conflic ing and no el o hog aphic o ms modula es lea ning
ou comes in p oduc ion and pe cep ion. They we e exposed
o a conflic ing GPC o /y/ and no el o hog aphy o /e/. The
exposu e o conflic ing and no el o hog aphy was no coun e -
balanced because, as explained abo e, we p edic ed he la -
ges impac o conflic ing o hog aphy on /y/ and he la ges
impac o no el o hog aphy on /e/. Subsequen ly, hese pa ic-
ipan s we e e es ed on owel p oduc ion and pe cep ion.
We hypo hesized ha sequen ial exposu e o conflic ing
o hog aphic o ms du ing he ou h session would b ing p o-
duc ion and pe cep ion ca ego ies o /y/ o a mo e pos e io
posi ion, wi h smalle F2 alues, ela i e o he p oduc ion
and pe cep ion es s pe o med ea lie wi hou o hog aphic
inpu . This could be a ibu ed o he influence o he L1 owel
/u/, wi h which /y/ sha es he g apheme <u>, in he ou h ses-
sion. In addi ion, we p edic ed ha sequen ial exposu e o
no el o hog aphic o ms would acili a e a ge -like lea ning.
I his is he case, p oduc ion and pe cep ion ca ego ies o /
e/ should mo e o a lowe posi ion, co esponding o g ea e
F1 alues, compa ed o he ea lie audi o y-only p oduc ion
and pe cep ion es s.
2. Me hod
2.1. Pa icipan s
Se en y-fi e emale L1 speake s o Spanish (M
age
=22
yea s, SD
age
= 2.6 yea s, ange
age
=18–31 yea s) we e
di ided in o h ee g oups o 25. All pa icipan s had g own up
in Spanish-speaking households and epo ed some knowl-
edge o Basque and English, which a e compulso y languages
in he school sys em in he Basque Au onomous Communi y in
Spain whe e he s udy was conduc ed. Knowledge o Basque
and English we e no expec ed o influence he esul s o he
p esen s udy o wo easons: Fi s , Spanish and Basque
a e iden ical in e ms o owel in en o y and owel spelling;
second, pa icipan s’ ela i ely low English skills (Table 2)
and lack o exposu e o na i e English speake inpu made i
unlikely ha hey had ull command o English phonology. Ne -
e heless, o accoun o any possible e ec s o Basque o
English, he g oups we e ma ched on Basque and English p o-
ficiency (Table 2). Pa icipan s we e ec ui ed om he subjec
pool o he Basque Cen e on Cogni ion, B ain and Language
(BCBL), which allowed us o ma ch he h ee g oups p io o
es ing on age, educa ion, IQ (Kau man B ie In elligence Tes ;
Kau man & Kau man, 2004), and bo h Basque and English age
o acquisi ion and p oficiency as measu ed by he Basque,
English and Spanish es (BEST; de B uin, Ca ei as &
Duñabei ia, 2017). The BEST es s Basque, English, and
Spanish p oficiency using pic u e naming asks comp ising
65 non-cogna e wo ds pe language, semi-s uc u ed in e -
iews conduc ed by linguis s, and he LexTALE es o ocab-
ula y size (Lemhö e & B oe sma, 2012). As pa o he p esen
s udy, pa icipan s we e addi ionally es ed on hei eading
skills (Lallie , Galpa so o, Redondo & Ca ei as, 2022) and
inhibi o y skills (Da cy, Mo a & Daidone, 2016; Le -A i &
Pepe kamp, 2013) o ensu e ha he g oups did no di e on
hese po en ially impo an a iables (see Appendix A o mo e
de ails on hese measu es). All a iables ma ched ac oss
g oups a e p esen ed in Table 2. Ano he nine pa icipan s
we e es ed bu we e excluded om he analyses due o ech-
nical p oblems esul ing in da a loss (n= 3), expe imen e e o
(n= 2), inabili y o comple e all expe imen al sessions (n= 2),
o exposu e o a ou h language (n= 2). Pa icipan s ecei ed
mone a y compensa ion o hei ime and ga e w i en,
in o med consen p io o s a ing he expe imen s. The expe -
imen s had p e iously been app o ed by he BCBL E hics
Commi ee.
2.2. S imuli
2.2.1. Exposu e s imuli
Du ing he exposu e phase, pa icipan s lis ened o 18
okens each o /y/ and /e/. Six emale L1 speake s o F ench,
he ea e alke s, eco ded he isola ed owels. Talke s 1–3
each p o ided six /y/ s imuli and alke s 4–6 each p o ided 6
/e/ s imuli. Talke s o each owel we e selec ed based on
he dis ibu ion o hei p oduc ion o ensu e ha he okens
o each owel o med a unimodal dis ibu ion (Fig. 1). Table 3
displays he mean o man alues and owel du a ions by
alke and owel.
Table 1
Hypo heses o p oduc ion and pe cep ion ou comes by g oup and owel ela i e o he Audi o y-only con ol g oup.
Conflic ing o hog aphy No el o hog aphy
/y/ Acquisi ion o new ca ego y yes yes
Ca ego y posi ion influenced by /u/ ?pos e io (smalle F2) p ecise ?an e io (g ea e F2)
/e/ Acquisi ion o new ca ego y no ?me ged wi h /e/ yes
Ca ego y posi ion influenced by /e/ ?highe (=smalle F1) p ecise ?lowe (=g ea e F1)
4A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180
2.2.2. Pe cep ion s imuli
S imuli o he owel pe cep ion asks we e syn hesized in
P aa so wa e (Boe sma & Weenink, 2017) using a undamen-
al equency o 120 Hz. Vowel okens we e sampled om he
F1-F2 plane in psychoacous ically equidis an s eps along he
Mel scale, ollowing a simila p ocedu e as desc ibed in
Chládko á and Escude o (2012). The F1 was sampled in 32
s eps om 200 Hz o 1000 Hz, and he F2 was sampled in
24 s eps anging om 500 Hz o 3000 Hz. Combina ions o
F1 and F2 wi h F1 equal o o highe han F2 we e excluded.
Tokens wi h e y high F1 and F2 alues ha ell ou side he
ange o he possible human owel space we e also excluded.
This p ocedu e esul ed in 613 unique F1-F2 owel okens
(Fig. 2). Tokens wi h F2 below 1500 Hz had F3 se o
2500 Hz; okens wi h F2 highe han 1500 Hz had F3 se o
1000 Hz highe han F2. All o man s we e s eady-s a e
h oughou owel p oduc ion. Vowel du a ion was 200 ms.
All exposu e and pe cep ion s imuli we e scaled o 70 dB,
digi ized a 44,100 Hz, and sa ed as.wa files. Fi y millisec-
onds o silence we e added o he beginning o each audio file
o allow o su ficien loading ime in he expe imen al so wa e
wi hou any isk o losing audi o y in o ma ion.
2.3. Appa a us and p ocedu e
Pa icipan s we e es ed indi idually in sound-a enua ing
chambe s a he BCBL sa elli e labo a o y a he Uni e si y o
he Basque Coun y in Donos ia-San Sebas ián. The expe i-
men s we e un on a desk op compu e . Open Sesame so -
wa e ( e sion 3.2.8; Ma hô , Sch eij, & Theeuwes, 2012) was
used o he exposu e phases, he speech p oduc ion es ,
and he inhibi ion and eading con ol asks; P aa so wa e
(Boe sma & Weenink, 2017) was used o he pe cep ion es .
S imuli we e p esen ed binau ally o e Sennheise GSP 350
headphones.
Pa icipan s came o he labo a o y on h ee sepa a e days
wi hin an a e age pe iod o 4 days ( ange 3–8 days) o allow
o lea ning benefi s associa ed wi h sleep consolida ion
(Da is, Di Be a, Macdonald & Gaskell, 2009; Dumay &
Gaskell, 2007). Du ing he fi s session, pa icipan s we e ini-
ially es ed on L1 owel p oduc ion and pe cep ion. They hen
comple ed he fi s exposu e phase o he non-na i e owels.
Du ing he second session, pa icipan s comple ed he second
Table 2
Pa icipan -specific a iables by g oup.
Conflic ing O hog aphy No el O hog aphy Audi o y-only p
Age (yea s) 22.32 (2.34) 21.88 (3.06) 22.08 (3.11) 0.862
Educa ion
1
2.56 (0.77) 2.48 (1.05) 2.17 (0.96) 0.304
Ve bal IQ 101.6 (9.39) 99.28 (9.73) 102.17 (7.43) 0.488
Ma ix IQ 109.92 (8.16) 108.48 (9.73) 108.83 (9.69) 0.848
Combined IQ 104.4 (8.86) 102.12 (9.16) 104.29 (8.30) 0.590
Reading skills 225/278 (31.23) 221/278 (30.39) 219/278 (32.86) 0.772
Inhibi o y skills 1.03 (0.52) 0.96 (0.47) 0.84 (0.47) 0.352
Basque In e iew
2
3.24/5 (1.20) 3.32/5 (1.55) 3.16/5 (0.99) 0.903
Pic u e naming 37.52/65 (19.44) 39.36/65 (22.40) 39.68/65 (15.78) 0.914
LexTALE 79.36% (13.51) 77.92% (17.04) 79.48% (12.70) 0.915
AoA (yea s) 2.76 (1.67) 2.68 (4.47) 3.28 (3.36) 0.828
English In e iew 3.2/5 (0.82) 2.84/5 (0.78) 2.92/5 (0.70) 0.201
Pic u e naming 40.52/65 (10.26) 39.8/65 (11.85) 41.16/65 (10.38) 0.907
LexTALE 62.9% (11.29) 63.75% (5.51) 66.2% (11.37) 0.485
AoA (yea s) 5.04 (1.90) 5.56 (2.50) 5.68 (2.27) 0.564
Educa ion: 1 = high school; 2 = p o essional aining; 3 = uni e si y; 4 = pos g adua e deg ee.
2
In e iew sco es: 1 = speake s a e ha dly able o communica e in he es ed language and mos ly p oduce isola ed wo ds o memo ized o ms. 2 = speake s can communica e in
simple sen ences wi h equen pauses and e o s in he es ed language, which may make hem di ficul o unde s and. 3 = speake s a e fluen in he es ed language, able o speak a
leng h wi h a wide ange o ocabula y and a e gene ally easy o unde s and hough hey make some mis akes. 4 = speake s a e highly fluen in he es ed language and a e able o alk
abou a wide ange o opics, wi h occasional e o s du ing long and di ficul sen ences. 5 = na i e speake compe ence.
Fig. 1. Exposu e owel okens in he F1-F2 space.
Table 3
Mean o man alues and du a ion o he exposu e owel okens by alke .
Vowel Talke Numbe o okens F1 in Hz (SD) F2 in Hz (SD) Du a ion in ms (SD)
[y] 1 6 328 (15) 2142 (50) 236 (14)
2 6 327 (8) 2026 (31) 270 (18)
3 6 323 (17) 2101 (43) 213 (11)
[e] 4 6 650 (26) 2065 (54) 219 (18)
5 6 650 (22) 2094 (25) 171 (18)
6 6 655 (22) 2076 (60) 233 (12)
A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180 5
exposu e phase. A e wa ds, hey we e es ed on hei inhibi-
o y skills using he Spanish adap a ion o Le -A i and
Pepe kamp’s (2013) e ie al-induced inhibi ion ask (Da cy
e al., 2016). They hen pe o med he Alond a eading es
(Lallie e al., 2022), which is he Spanish adap a ion o he
o iginal F ench Aloue e eading es (Le a ais, 1967, 2005).
Bo h asks a e desc ibed in de ail in Appendix A. The hi d ses-
sion s a ed wi h he hi d exposu e phase, ollowed by p oduc-
ion and pe cep ion es s o he newly lea ned owels.
A e wa ds, pa icipan s we e e- es ed on hei p oduc ion
and pe cep ion o hei na i e owels o a di e en p ojec .
The fi s and second sessions each las ed 1.5 h and he hi d
session las ed 2 h. Pa icipan s in he Audi o y-only g oup
e u ned o he labo a o y o a ou h session on a e age
wo days a e he hi d session ( ange 1–6 days). Du ing he
ou h session, hey we e exposed o o hog aphic o ms du -
ing an addi ional exposu e phase. This was ollowed by a es
o hei p oduc ion and pe cep ion o he newly lea ned owels.
A e wa ds, hey comple ed L1 p oduc ion and pe cep ion es s
o a di e en p ojec . The ou h session las ed app oxima ely
2.5 h.
2.3.1. Exposu e
Du ing all sessions, he exposu e phases we e blocked.
Hal o he pa icipan s in each g oup s a ed wi h /y/, and
he o he hal s a ed wi h /e/. Du ing exposu e, pa icipan s
lis ened o a sequence o h ee di e en okens o he same
owel wi h an in e s imulus in e al o 1000 ms. These h ee
owel okens we e andomly selec ed om he pool o 18
okens o each owel. Du ing he audi o y p esen a ion o
he owels, hei o hog aphic o ms we e shown on sc een.
Fo he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup, /y/ was ep esen ed
as <u> and /e/ as <e>. In Spanish he g apheme <u> co e-
sponds o /u/ and <e> o /e/, hus, he Conflic ing O hog a-
phy g oup was aced wi h misma ched GPCs o he newly
lea ned owels and L1. Fo he No el O hog aphy g oup,
he o hog aphic o m o /y/ was <a> and /e/ was ep esen ed
by <ʚ>. The Audi o y-only con ol g oup did no iew any
o hog aphic o ms. The las owel oken in he iad was ol-
lowed by 2000 ms o silence, a e which an audi o y beep –
and addi ionally in he case o he Conflic ing and No el
O hog aphy g oups, he o hog aphic symbol u ning ed –
p omp ed he pa icipan s o p oduce he owel. A he
momen hese cues we e p esen ed, he eco ding was ini i-
a ed, and emained ac i e o 1500 ms. A e an in e ial
in e al o 1000 ms, he nex ial s a ed. We op ed o include
a p oduc ion componen in he exposu e phase o wo ea-
sons. Fi s , o mimic mo e na u al lea ning condi ions in which
language lea ne s gene ally s a o p oduce sounds and
wo ds om he ini ial lea ning s ages; second, o make he
exposu e phase mo e engaging. Du ing he fi s and hi d
sessions, he exposu e phase consis ed o 150 ials each
including h ee owel a ian s, gi ing exposu e o 450 okens
pe owel, and las ed 18.5 min. Du ing he second session
and he ou h session ( he la e adminis e ed exclusi ely o
he Audi o y-only g oup), he exposu e phase o each owel
consis ed o 300 ials each including h ee owel a ian s, o
a o al exposu e o 900 okens pe owel, and las ed 37 min.
To ensu e ha pa icipan s we e paying a en ion o he o ho-
g aphic o ms p o ided on he sc een du ing exposu e, 10%
o he ials con ained ca ch ials, du ing which an as e isk
sho ly appea ed on he sc een. Pa icipan s we e ins uc ed
o p ess he space ba whene e he as e isk appea ed. I
pa icipan s ailed o do so, a buzz-sound was played a he
end o he ial. These ca ch ials we e also adminis e ed
o he audi o y-only g oup.
2.3.2. Vowel p oduc ion
Each pa icipan comple ed sepa a e owel p oduc ion
asks bo h in hei L1 and wi h he newly lea ned owels.
The L1 p oduc ion asks we e adminis e ed du ing he fi s ses-
sion be o e exposu e o he non-na i e owels, and du ing he
hi d and ou h (Audi o y-only g oup) sessions a e he non-
na i e owel p oduc ion ask. All fi e na i e Spanish owels /
i/, /e/, /a/, /o/, /u/ we e included in he L1 asks. In his s udy,
he esul s o /i/, /e/ and /u/ elici ed in he fi s session a e
Fig. 2. Dis ibu ion o he pe cep ion s imuli in he F1-F2 space.
6A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180
epo ed; /a/ and /o/ we e elici ed o a di e en s udy. The ow-
els we e elici ed in owel-specific blocks, which we e p e-
sen ed in andomized o de . In con as o he exposu e
phases, no audi o y owel exempla s we e p o ided du ing
he p oduc ion es . Ins ead, he o hog aphic o m o he owel
appea ed on sc een, and pa icipan s we e ins uc ed o p o-
duce he owel as soon as he o hog aphic o m u ned ed,
which occu ed a e a ji e ed in e al anging om 1500 o
2000 ms. A he momen ha he o hog aphic o m u ned
ed, an audi o y beep was also played, and he eco ding
was ini ia ed. The eco de emained ac i e o 2000 ms. A e -
wa ds, a blank sc een appea ed o 500 ms be o e he nex
ial s a ed. Each o he fi e owel blocks con ained 25 ials,
esul ing in a o al o 125 p oduc ions pe pa icipan .
The non-na i e owel p oduc ion ask was adminis e ed in
he hi d and ou h (Audi o y-only g oup) sessions be o e he
second and hi d L1 p oduc ion ask. A he beginning o he
non-na i e owel p oduc ion ask, pa icipan s lis ened o h ee
okens o he owel hey would be p omp ed o p oduce. The
Conflic ing and No el O hog aphy g oups hen ollowed he
same p ocedu es as in he L1 p oduc ion ask wi h he o ho-
g aphic o m o he newly lea ned owel on sc een. The
Audi o y-only g oup ecei ed no o hog aphic inpu as only a
fixa ion c oss appea ed on sc een. In each g oup, hal o he
pa icipan s p oduced /y/ fi s while he o he hal o he pa ic-
ipan s fi s p oduced /e/. Each owel was p oduced 25 imes,
esul ing in a o al o 50 p oduc ions by each pa icipan .
2.3.3. Vowel pe cep ion
Vowel pe cep ion was es ed using a mul iple o ced choice
ask. The L1 owel pe cep ion ask was adminis e ed du ing
he fi s session and again in he hi d and ou h (Audi o y-
only g oup) sessions, a e he non-na i e owel pe cep ion
ask. Fo L1 owel pe cep ion, pa icipan s saw he o ho-
g aphic o ms o he fi e Spanish owels <a>, <e>, <i>, <o>,
<u> on sc een. In addi ion, pa icipan s we e gi en he op ion
o esponding “none o he choices”(ninguna de las opciones).
Pa icipan s lis ened o one owel a a ime and hen had o
click on he co esponding esponse op ion on he sc een.
The nex ial began 500 ms a e pa icipan s ga e hei
esponse. A e e e y 62 ials, pa icipan s we e gi en he
op ion o ake a sho b eak, esul ing in 9 possible b eaks
be o e hey had ca ego ized all 613 owel okens. The L1 pe -
cep ion ask las ed app oxima ely 30 min. The expe imen was
p eceded by a p ac ice phase, which had been se up in he
same way as he main expe imen . The p ac ice phase con-
sis ed o 20 ials ha we e andomly selec ed om he 613
expe imen al s imuli o each pa icipan .
The non-na i e owel pe cep ion ask was c ea ed in line
wi h he L1 owel pe cep ion ask. Pa icipan s lis ened o he
same 613 owel okens, bu hey we e only gi en h ee
esponse op ions. All g oups had he op ion o espond “none
o he choices”. In addi ion, he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup
had <u> and <e> as esponse op ions, while he No el O hog-
aphy g oup saw he esponse op ions <a> and <ʚ>. The
Audi o y-only g oup was gi en he esponse op ions “sound
1”(sonido 1) and “sound 2”(sonido 2), co esponding o he
o de in which hey had lea ned he sounds ac oss all h ee
exposu e sessions. P io o s a ing he non-na i e owel pe -
cep ion ask, he expe imen e ensu ed ha he pa icipan s in
he Audi o y-only g oup emembe ed ha lea ning o de . As in
he L1 owel pe cep ion ask, 20 p ac ice ials we e included.
2.4. Acous ic measu emen s
All 10 625 owels p oduced in his s udy we e labeled using
he Tex G id (silences) unc ion in P aa so wa e (Boe sma &
Weenink, 2017). All au oma ically inse ed in e als we e
checked by he fi s au ho . In his s ep, noisy p oduc ions we e
labeled so hey could la e be excluded om he analyses. Fo
each owel oken, F1, F2, and F3 we e measu ed using a
modified e sion o he Op imized Fo man Ceiling algo i hm
p oposed by Escude o, Boe sma, Schu Raube and Bion
(2009) o accoun o indi idual di e ences in ocal ac
leng h. Ins ead o using he de aul alue o 5500 Hz as a max-
imum ceiling o emale speake s, o man s we e measu ed a
a ious maximum ceilings, anging om 4500 Hz o 6500 Hz in
s eps o 100 Hz. The op imal ceiling o a speake was de e -
mined as ollows: Fi s , he s anda d de ia ion o each o man
o each owel was calcula ed a each measu emen poin .
Then, he s anda d de ia ions o F1, F2, and F3 o each
owel we e combined a each measu emen poin . Nex , hese
combined s anda d de ia ions we e a e aged ac oss all L1
and newly lea ned owels measu ed a he same ceiling o
each speake . The ceiling ha yielded he lowes mean s an-
da d de ia ion o all owels combined was selec ed as he
op imal ceiling o a speake . The mean ceilings pe g oup
we e 5800 Hz (SD 405 Hz) o he Conflic ing O hog aphy
g oup, 5735 Hz (SD 512 Hz) o he No el O hog aphy g oup,
and 5684 Hz (SD 456 Hz) o he Audi o y-only g oup.
3. Resul s
This sec ion p esen s wo se s o main analyses: fi s , anal-
yses o es ablish whe he o hog aphic o ms du ing exposu e
influenced he o ma ion ( ela i e o L1) and posi ion o new
owel ca ego ies in bo h p oduc ion and pe cep ion; second,
analyses o es o any e ec s o sequen ial exposu e o fi s
audi o y-only hen audi o y-o hog aphic inpu .
Da a we e analyzed o owel o man s wi h linea mixed-
e ec s models using he lme4 package e sion 1.1–29
(Ba es, Mächle , Bolke & Walke , 2015) in RS udio e sion
IDE (RS udio Team, 2022) un on R e sion 4.2.0 (R Co e
Team, 2022). The p- alues o -s a is ics we e ob ained using
he lme Tes package e sion 3.1–3(Kuzne so a, B ockho , &
Ch is ensen, 2017). Da a we e isualized using he ggplo 2
package e sion 3.3.6 (Wickham, 2016). Significan findings
a e p esen ed below; comple e model ou pu s a e a ailable
in he Appendix (Tables B1-B8).
In o al, 99.2% o he p oduc ion da a (10 540 p oduc ions)
we e included in analyses. Eigh y-fi e p oduc ions we e
excluded because o noisy eco dings, o example, due o
an echo in he mic ophone o pa icipan - ela ed noise, such
as coughing o yawning. The pe cep ion da a comp ised 19
952 okens ha we e ca ego ized as ei he /y/ (6983) o /e/
(12 969). Table 4 shows he dis ibu ion o ca ego iza ions by
g oup and owel. One pa icipan in he No el O hog aphy
g oup and one pa icipan in he Audi o y-only g oup we e
excluded om pe cep ion analyses because hey con used
he esponse op ions du ing he ca ego iza ion ask.
A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180 7
3.1. O hog aphic e ec s on non-na i e owel lea ning and ca ego y
posi ion
3.1.1. The owel /y/
Gi en he acous ic di e ences be ween /y/ and he su -
ounding na i e owels /i/ and /u/, we p edic ed ha pa ici-
pan s in all g oups would p oduce and pe cei e /y/ o be
dis inc om L1 owel ca ego ies. We u he hypo hesized ha
he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup would p oduce a less a ge -
like /y/ wi h smalle (mo e pos e io ) F2 alues and pe cei e
okens wi h smalle F2 alues o be /y/ in con as o he
Audi o y-only con ol g oup. This could be a ibu ed o in e e -
ence om L1 /u/, which sha es he g apheme <u> wi h he
newly lea ned owel. In addi ion, we p edic ed ha he link o
a no el g apheme would help he No el O hog aphy g oup
p oduce and pe cei e /y/ mo e accu a ely, leading o g ea e
(mo e an e io ) F2 compa ed o he Audi o y-only con ol
g oup.
To es whe he he g oups p oduced and pe cei ed /y/ dis-
inc ly om su ounding na i e owels, one linea mixed-e ec s
model was conduc ed pe modali y. The p oduc ion model
e alua ed he F2 o /y/ ela i e o he F2 o /i/ and /u/. The pe -
cep ion model e alua ed he F2 o okens ca ego ized as /y/
ela i e o he F2 o okens ca ego ized as /i/ o /u/. Fo he
h ee-le el a iables G oup and Vowel, we used de ia ion cod-
ing o c ea e wo con as s o in e es each. Fo G oup, he fi s
con as compa ed he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup [coded
as 1] o he Audi o y-only con ol g oup [coded as 1], and
he second con as compa ed he No el O hog aphy g oup
[coded as 1] o he Audi o y-only con ol g oup [coded as
1]. Fo Vowel, he fi s con as compa ed /y/ [coded as 1]
o /i/ [coded as 1], and he second con as compa ed /y/
[coded as 1] o /u/ [coded as 1]. The p oduc ion and pe cep-
ion models had Vowel and G oup as fixed e ec s including an
in e ac ion e m. Random in e cep s o Pa icipan and by-
Pa icipan andom slopes o Vowel we e included (model R
code: F2 Vowel * G oup + (1 + Vowel | Pa icipan )).
The p oduc ion model showed ha /y/ was p oduced wi h a
smalle F2 han /i/, ep esen ing a mo e pos e io posi ion
(b=791.430 SE = 20.150, =39.280, p< 0.001); /y/ p o-
duc ions also exhibi ed a g ea e F2 han /u/, ep esen ing a
mo e an e io posi ion (b= 1096.030, SE = 27.750,
= 39.490, p< 0.001). The model, u he mo e, de ec ed a sig-
nifican di e ence be ween he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup
and he Audi o y-only g oup (b=70.710, SE = 26.770,
=2.641, p= 0.010) and a significan in e ac ion be ween
G oup (Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup s Audi o y-only g oup)
and Vowel (/y/ s /i/; b=74.130, SE = 28.490, =2.601,
p= 0.011). The main e ec o G oup and he in e ac ion
be ween G oup and Vowel show ha he Conflic ing O hog a-
phy g oup and he Audi o y-only g oup di e ed in e ms o he
F2 o /y/ which he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup p oduced
wi h a smalle F2, a a mo e pos e io posi ion, han he
Audi o y-only g oup, indica ing o hog aphic in e e ence
e ec s. The No el O hog aphy g oup did no de ec ably di e
om he Audi o y-only g oup in /y/ p oduc ion; no o he signi -
ican e ec s o in e ac ions we e obse ed (Appendix,
Table B1).
Simila ly, he pe cep ion model de ec ed ha okens ca ego-
ized as /y/ had a smalle F2, co esponding o a mo e pos e-
io posi ion, han okens ca ego ized as /i/ (b=695.100,
SE = 20.200, =34.413, p< 0.001), and a g ea e F2, co e-
sponding o a mo e an e io posi ion, han okens ca ego ized
as /u/ (b= 829.600 SE = 20.000, = 41.487, p< 0.001). A sig-
nifican di e ence be ween he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup
and he Audi o y-only g oup (b=81.830, SE = 23.380,
=3.500, p< 0.001), and significan in e ac ions be ween
G oup (Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup s Audi o y-only g oup)
and Vowel (/y/ s /i/; b=112.410, SE = 28.480, =3.948,
p< 0.001; /y/ s /u/; b=64.070, SE = 28.130, =2.278,
p= 0.026) indica e ha he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup ca -
ego ized okens wi h a smalle F2, a a mo e pos e io posi ion,
as /y/ han he Audi o y-only con ol g oup, bu he wo g oups
did no di e in e ms o F2 on okens ca ego ized as /i/ o /u/.
Mo eo e , a significan di e ence be ween he No el O hog a-
phy G oup and he Audi o y-only g oup (b= 61.610,
SE = 23.650, = 2.605, p= 0.011), and a significan in e ac ion
be ween G oup (No el O hog aphy g oup s Audi o y-only
g oup) and Vowel (/y/ s /u/; b= 74.690, SE = 28.440,
= 2.626, p= 0.011) demons a e ha he No el O hog aphy
g oup ca ego ized okens wi h g ea e F2, a a mo e an e io
posi ion, as /y/ han he Audi o y-only con ol g oup, bu he
wo g oups did no de ec ably di e in e ms o F2 on okens
ca ego ized as /u/. No significan in e ac ion was obse ed
be ween G oup (No el O hog aphy g oup s Audi o y-only
g oup) and Vowel (/y/ s /i/; b= 55.280, SE = 28.700,
= 1.926, p= 0.058; Appendix, Table B2).
Taken oge he , hese esul s demons a e ha all g oups
acqui ed new /y/ ca ego ies wi h dis inc F2 om hei L1 /i/-
and /u/-ca ego ies in p oduc ion and pe cep ion (Fig. 3). Mo e-
o e , he p esence o conflic ing o hog aphic o ms du ing
exposu e caused mo e pos e io (less a ge -like) ca ego y
posi ions in p oduc ion and pe cep ion, whe eas he p esence
o no el o hog aphic o ms led o a mo e an e io –and hus
a ge -like –posi ion o /y/ in pe cep ion bu no in p oduc ion.
3.1.2. The owel /e/
We p edic ed ha he p esence o Conflic ing O hog aphy
would hinde dis inc p oduc ion and pe cep ion o /e/ and /e/,
leading o p oduc ion and pe cep ion o smalle F1 alues co -
esponding o a highe posi ion o /e/ compa ed o he
Audi o y-only con ol g oup. Con e sely, we p edic ed he
associa ion be ween a no el g apheme and /e/ would acili a e
lea ning, causing pa icipan s in he No el O hog aphy g oup
o p oduce and pe cei e /e/ mos dis inc ly om /e/. Conse-
quen ly, we p edic ed he No el O hog aphy g oup would p o-
duce and pe cei e /e/ wi h g ea e F1, co esponding o a lowe
posi ion, han he Audi o y-only con ol g oup.
To es whe he he g oups acqui ed a new ca ego y o /e/in
p oduc ion and pe cep ion, one linea mixed-e ec s model pe
modali y was ca ied ou . The p oduc ion model had F1 p o-
Table 4
Numbe o okens ca ego ized as /y/ and /e/ by g oup.
G oup Vowel Numbe o ca ego iza ions
Conflic ing O hog aphy /y/ 2495
/e/ 4575
No el O hog aphy /y/ 2073
/e/ 4208
Audi o y-only /y/ 2415
/e/ 4186
8A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180
duc ion as dependen a iable while he pe cep ion model had
he F1 o okens ca ego ized as /e/ and /e/ as dependen a i-
able. As fixed e ec s, bo h models had Vowel (de ia ion coded
as /e/ 1; /e/ 1) and G oup (using de ia ion coding o compa e
he Conflic ing O hog aphy g oup [coded as 1] o he Audi o y-
only con ol g oup [coded as 1], and he No el O hog aphy
g oup [coded as 1] o he Audi o y-only con ol g oup [coded
as 1]). An in e ac ion e m be ween Vowel and G oup was
included. The model had andom in e cep s o Pa icipan
and by-Pa icipan andom slopes o Vowel (model R code:
F1 Vowel * G oup + (1 + Vowel | Pa icipan )).
The p oduc ion model showed ha /e/ was p oduced wi h
g ea e F1, and, he e o e, a a lowe posi ion, han /e/
(b=45.213, SE = 5.091, =8.881, p< 0.001). No o he signi -
ican e ec s o in e ac ions we e obse ed (Appendix;
Table B3). In line wi h p oduc ion, he pe cep ion model
de ec ed ha okens ca ego ized as /e/ had g ea e F1 han
okens ca ego ized as /e/ (b=16.140, SE = 2.978, =5.420,
p< 0.001). No o he significan e ec s o in e ac ions we e
obse ed (Appendix, Table B4). The combined p oduc ion
and pe cep ion esul s show ha agains ou p edic ion and
despi e he simila i y o non-na i e /e/ and L1 /e/, pa icipan s
we e able o p oduce and pe cei e hese owels dis inc ly,
independen o hei exposu e condi ions. Fig. 4 shows he
F1 o /e/ and /e/ in p oduc ion and pe cep ion by g oup.
3.2. Sequen ial exposu e o o hog aphic o ms
Pa icipan s in he Audi o y-only g oup we e es ed on hei
owel p oduc ion and pe cep ion wice. The fi s es occu ed
du ing he hi d session, a e h ee sessions in which hey had
been exposed o he owels wi hou any isual inpu , se ing
as con ols o he o hog aphic g oups. Du ing he ou h ses-
sion, hey we e exposed o conflic ing o hog aphy o /y/ (<u>)
Fig. 3. /y/ p oduc ion ( op) and /y/ pe cep ion (bo om). The boxes show he fi s and hi d qua iles, he line indica es he median, he squa e shows he mean, and each do ep esen s
an indi idual pa icipan .
A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180 9
Re e ences
Basse i, B. (2017). O hog aphy a ec s second language speech: Double le e s and
gemina e p oduc ion in English. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning,
Memo y, and Cogni ion, 43(11), 1835–1842. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/xlm0000417.
Basse i, B., & A kinson, N. (2015). E ec s o o hog aphic o ms on p onuncia ion in
expe ienced ins uc ed second language lea ne s. Applied Psycholinguis ics, 36(1),
67–91. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0142716414000435.
Basse i, B., Sokolo ić-Pe o ić, M., Mai ano, P., & Ce ni, T. (2018). O hog aphy-induced
leng h con as s in he second language phonological sys ems o L2 speake s o
English: E idence om minimal pai s. Language and Speech, 61(4), 577–597.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0023830918780141.
Ba es, D., Mächle , M., Bolke , B., & Walke , S. (2015). Fi ing linea mixed-e ec s
models using lme4. Jou nal o S a is ical So wa e, 67(1), 1–48. h ps://doi.o g/
10.18637/jss. 067.i01.
Bes , C. T., & Tyle , M. D. (2007). Nonna i e and second-language speech pe cep ion:
Commonali ies and complemen a i ies. In M. J. Mun o & O.-S. Bohn (Eds.),
Language expe ience in second language speech lea ning: In hono o James Emil
Flege (pp. 13–34). Benjamins. 10.1075/lll .17.07bes.
Boe sma, P., & Weenink, D. (2017). P aa : Doing phone ics by compu e . Ve sion 6.0.24.
[compu e p og am]. A ailable om h p://www.p aa .o g/.
B ennan, E., Ryan, E., & Dawson, W. (1975). Scaling o appa en accen edness by
magni ude es ima ion and senso y modali y ma ching. Jou nal o Psycholinguis ic
Resea ch, 4(1), 27–36. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/BF01066988.
Bü ki, A., Welby, P., Clémen , M., & Spinelli, E. (2019). O hog aphy and second
language wo d lea ning: Mo ing beyond “ iend o oe”?Jou nal o he Acous ical
Socie y o Ame ica, 145(4), EL265–EL271. h ps://doi.o g/10.1121/1.5094923.
Ce ni, T., Basse i, B., & Mas e son, J. (2019). E ec s o o hog aphic o ms on he
acquisi ion o no el spoken wo ds in a second language. F on ie s Communica ion,
4, A icle 31. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ comm.2019.00031.
Chládko á, K., & Escude o, P. (2012). Compa ing owel pe cep ion and p oduc ion in
Spanish and Po uguese: Eu opean e sus La in Ame ican dialec s. Jou nal o he
Acous ical Socie y o Ame ica, 131(2), EL119–EL125. h ps://doi.o g/10.1121/
1.3674991.
Da cy, I., Mo a, J. C., & Daidone, D. (2016). The ole o inhibi o y con ol in second
language phonological p ocessing. Language Lea ning, 66(4), 741–773. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1111/lang.12161.
Da is, M. H., Di Be a, A. M., Macdonald, M. J., & Gaskell, M. G. (2009). Lea ning and
consolida ion o no el spoken wo ds. Jou nal o Cogni i e Neu oscience, 21(4),
803–820. h ps://doi.o g/10.1162/jocn.2009.21059.
de Anda, R. G. (2013). Acous ic analysis o he allophones o he Spanish mid- on
owel/e [unpublished doc o al disse a ion]. The Uni e si y o Texas a El Paso.
de B uin, A., Ca ei as, M., & Duñabei ia, J. A. (2017). The BEST da ase o language
p oficiency. F on ie s in Psychology, 8.h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2017.00522
522.
Dumay, N., & Gaskell, M. G. (2007). Sleep-associa ed changes in he men al
ep esen a ion o spoken wo ds. Psychological Science, 18(1), 35–39. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01845.x.
Escude o, P., Boe sma, P., Schu Raube , A., & Bion, R. A. H. (2009). A c oss-dialec
acous ic desc ip ion o owels: B azilian and Eu opean Po uguese. Jou nal o he
Acous ical Socie y o Ame ica, 126(3), 1379–1393. h ps://doi.o g/10.1121/
1.3180321.
Escude o, P., Simon, E., & Mulak, K. E. (2014). Lea ning wo ds in a new language:
O hog aphy doesn’ always help. Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion, 17(2),
384–395. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1366728913000436.
Escude o, P., & Wan ooij, K. (2010). The e ec o L1 o hog aphy on non-na i e owel
pe cep ion. Language and Speech, 53(3), 434–465. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
0023830910371447.
Fe guson, C., & Ga nica, O. (1975). Theo ies o phonological de elopmen . In E. H.
Lennebe g & E. Lennebe g (Eds.), Founda ions o language de elopmen
(pp. 153–180). Academic P ess.
Flege, J. E. (1980). Phone ic app oxima ion in second language acquisi ion. Language
Lea ning, 30(1), 117–134. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980. b00154.x.
Flege, J. E. (1981). The phonological basis o o eign accen : A hypo hesis. TESOL
Qua e ly, 15(4), 443–445. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/3586485.
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech lea ning: Theo y, findings, and p oblems.
In W. S ange (Ed.), Speech pe cep ion and linguis ic expe ience: Issues in c oss-
language esea ch (pp. 233–277). Yo k P ess.
Flege, J. E., Bi dsong, D., Bialys ok, E., Mack, M., Sung, H., & Tsukada, K. (2006).
Deg ee o o eign accen in English sen ences p oduced by Ko ean child en and
adul s. Jou nal o Phone ics, 34(2), 153–175. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/
j.wocn.2005.05.001.
Hayes-Ha b, R., & Ba ios, S. (2021). The influence o o hog aphy in second language
phonological acquisi ion. Language Teaching. Ad anced online publica ion.h ps://
doi.o g/10.1017/S0261444820000658.
Hayes-Ha b, R., & Cheng, H.-W. (2016). The influence o he Pinyin and Zhuyin w i ing
sys ems on he acquisi ion o Manda in wo d o ms by na i e English speake s.
F on ie s in Psychology, 7, A icle 785. 10.3389/ psyg.2016.00785.
Hayes-Ha b, R., & Hacking, J. F. (2015). The influence o w i en s ess ma ks on na i e
English speake s’acquisi ion o Russian lexical s ess con as s. Sla ic and Eas
Eu opean Jou nal, 59(1), 91–109. h ps://doi.o g/10.30851/59.1.005.
Ka ushina, N., & F auen elde , U. H. (2014). On he e ec s o L2 pe cep ion and o
indi idual di e ences in L1 p oduc ion on L2 p onuncia ion. F on ie s in Psychology,
5, A icle 1246. 10.3389/ psyg.2014.01246.
Ka ushina, N., & Ma in, C. D. (2019). Talke and acous ic a iabili y in lea ning o
p oduce nonna i e sounds: E idence om a icula o y aining. Language Lea ning,
69(1), 71–105. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/lang.12315.
Kau man, A. S., & Kau man, N. L. (2004). Kau man b ie in elligence es KBIT-2.
Pea son.
Lallie , M., Galpa so o, N., Redondo, M., & Ca ei as, M. (2022). Spanish adap a ion o
he F ench Aloue e es (Le a ais, 1967). Manusc ip in p epa a ion.
Le a ais, P. (1967). Tes de l’aloue e: manuel. Les édi ions du cen e de psychologie
appliquée.
Le a ais, P. (2005). Aloue e-R. Les édi ions du cen e de psychologie appliquée.
Kuzne so a, A., B ockho , P. B., & Ch is ensen, R. H. B. (2017). lme Tes Package:
Tes s in Linea Mixed E ec s Models. Jou nal o S a is ical So wa e, 82(13), 1–26.
h ps://doi.o g/10.18637/jss. 082.i13.
Lemhö e , K., & B oe sma, M. (2012). In oducing LexTALE: A quick and alid Lexical
Tes o Ad anced Lea ne s o English. Beha io Resea ch Me hods, 44(2),
325–343. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0.
Le -A i, S., & Pepe kamp, S. (2013). Low inhibi o y skill leads o non-na i e pe cep ion
and p oduc ion in bilinguals’na i e language. Jou nal o Phone ics, 41(5), 320–331.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.wocn.2013.06.002.
Table B4
/e/ pe cep ion model.
bSE p
(In e cep ) 531.938 4.388 121.230 <0.001
Vowel 16.140 2.978 5.420 <0.001
G oup (Conflic ing s Audi o y-only) 3.012 6.162 0.489 0.626
G oup (No el s Audi o y-only) 0.623 6.227 0.100 0.921
Vowel * G oup (Conflic ing s Audi o y-only) 1.061 4.181 0.254 0.800
Vowel * G oup (No el s Audi o y-only) 0.706 4.226 0.167 0.868
Table B5
/y/ p oduc ion be o e and a e exposu e o conflic ing o hog aphy.
bSE p
(In e cep ) 2325.460 67.890 34.254 <0.001
Time 45.590 19.840 2.297 0.031
Table B6
/y/ pe cep ion be o e and a e exposu e o conflic ing o hog aphy.
bSE p
(In e cep ) 1791.220 90.950 19.694 <0.001
Time 109.450 33.830 3.235 0.004
Table B7
/e/ p oduc ion be o e and a e exposu e o conflic ing o hog aphy.
bSE p
(In e cep ) 616.582 16.309 37.807 <0.001
Time 6.271 6.960 0.901 0.377
Table B8
/e/ pe cep ion be o e and a e exposu e o conflic ing o hog aphy.
bSE p
(In e cep ) 552.670 10.780 51.282 <0.001
Time 2.860 3.850 0.743 0.464
16 A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180
Ma hieu, L. (2016). The influence o o eign sc ip s on he acquisi ion o a second
language phonological con as . Second Language Resea ch, 32(2), 145–170.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0267658315601882.
Ma hô , S., Sch eij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-sou ce, g aphical
expe imen builde o he social sciences. Beha io Resea ch Me hods, 44(2),
314–324. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7.
Meunie , C., F enck-Mes e, C., Leleko -Boissa d, T., & Le Besne ais, M. (2003). In
P oduc ion and pe cep ion o o eign owels: Does he densi y o he sys em play a
ole? (pp 723–726). Au onomous Uni e si y o Ba celona.
Mo ison, G.-S. (2004). An acous ic and s a is ical analysis o Spanish mid- owel
allophones. Es udios de Foné ica Expe imen al, 13,12–37.
Na a o Tomás, T. (1918). Manual de p onunciación española. Mad id: Publicaciones de
la e is a de filología española.
Na a o Tomás, T. (1965). Re iew o acous ic owel loops o wo Spanish idiolec s.
Nue a Re is a Filológica Hispánica, 14, 342–345.
Nimz, K., & Kha ab, G. (2020). On he ole o o hog aphy in L2 owel p oduc ion: The
case o Polish lea ne s o Ge man. Second Language Resea ch, 36(4), 623–652.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0267658319828424.
Pallie , C., Bosch, L., & Sebas ián-Gallés, N. (1997). A limi on beha io al plas ici y in
speech pe cep ion. Cogni ion, 64(3), B9–B17. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/S0010-0277
(97)00030-9.
Piske, T., MacKay, I., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Fac o s a ec ing deg ee o o eign accen in
an L2: A e iew. Jou nal o Phone ics, 29(2), 191–215. h ps://doi.o g/10.1006/
jpho.2001.0134.
Py lyk, C. (2011). Sha ed o hog aphy: Do sha ed w i en symbols influence he
pe cep ion o L2 sounds? The Mode n Language Jou nal, 95(4), 541–557. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01244.x.
R Co e Team (2022). R: A language and en i onmen o s a is ical compu ing (Ve sion
4.2.0) [Compu e so wa e]. Vienna, Aus ia. R-p ojec .o g/: R Founda ion o
S a is ical Compu ing.
Racine, I., & De ey, S. (2019). P oduc ion o F ench close ounded owels by Spanish
lea ne s: A co pus-based s udy. In M. Gibson & J. Gil Fe nandez (Eds.), Romance
phone ics and phonology (pp. 381–394). Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1093/oso/9780198739401.003.0019.
Ra a , Y. (2015). The in e ac ion o acous ic and o hog aphic inpu in he acquisi ion o
Spanish assibila ed/ ica i e ho ics. Applied Psycholinguis ics, 36(1), 43–66. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1017/s0142716414000423.
RS udio Team (2022). RS udio: In eg a ed De elopmen En i onmen o R. RS udio
(Ve sion IDE) [Compu e so wa e]. PBC. h p://www. s udio.com/.
Sai o, K. (2015). The ole o age o acquisi ion in la e second language o al p oficiency
a ainmen . S udies in Second Language Acquisi ion, 37(4), 713–743. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1017/S0272263115000248.
Sco el, T. (1969). Fo eign accen , language acquisi ion and ce eb al dominance.
Language Lea ning, 19(3–4), 245–254. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1969.
b00466.x.
Sebas ián-Gallés, N., Eche e ía, S., & Bosch, L. (2005). The influence o ini ial
exposu e on lexical ep esen a ion: Compa ing ea ly and simul aneous bilinguals.
Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 52(2), 240–255. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
jml.2004.11.001.
Sebas ián-Gallés, N., Rod íguez-Fo nells, A., de Diego-Balague , R., & Diaz, B. (2006).
Fi s -and second-language phonological ep esen a ions in he men al lexicon.
Jou nal o Cogni i e Neu oscience, 18(8), 1277–1291. h ps://doi.o g/10.1162/
jocn.2006.18.8.1277.
Sebas ián-Gallés, N., Ve a-Cons án, F., La sson, J. P., Cos a, A., & Deco, G. (2009).
Lexical plas ici y in ea ly bilinguals does no al e phoneme ca ego ies: II.
Expe imen al e idence. Jou nal o Cogni i e Neu oscience, 21(12), 2343–2357.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1162/jocn.2008.21152.
Showal e , C. E. (2018). Impac o Cy illic on na i e English speake s’phono-lexical
acquisi ion o Russian. Language and Speech, 61(4), 565–576. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1177/0023830918761489.
Showal e , C. E., & Hayes-Ha b, R. (2013). Un amilia o hog aphic in o ma ion and
second language wo d lea ning: A no el lexicon s udy. Second Language Resea ch,
29(2), 185–200. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0267658313480154.
Showal e , C. E., & Hayes-Ha b, R. (2015). Na i e English speake s lea ning A abic: The
influence o no el o hog aphic in o ma ion on second language phonological
acquisi ion. Applied Psycholinguis ics, 36(1), 23–42. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/
S0142716414000411.
Simon, E., Chambless, D., & Al es, U. K. (2010). Unde s anding he ole o o hog aphy
in he acquisi ion o a non-na i e owel con as . Language Sciences, 32(3),
380–394. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.langsci.2009.07.001.
S oeh , A., Bende s, T., an Hell, J. G., & Fikke , P. (2017). Second language a ainmen
and fi s language a i ion: The case o VOT in imme sed Du ch-Ge man la e
bilinguals. Second Language Resea ch, 33(4), 483–518. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
0267658317704261.
S oeh , A., & Ma in, C. D. (2022). O hog aphy a ec s L1 and L2 speech pe cep ion bu
no p oduc ion in ea ly bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion, 25(1),
108–120. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1366728921000523.
Welby, P., Spinelli, E., & Bü ki, A. (2021). Spelling p o ides a p ecise (bu some imes
misplaced) phonological a ge . O hog aphy and acous ic a iabili y in second
language wo d lea ning. a Xi :2109.03490. 2109.03490
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplo 2: Elegan g aphics o da a analysis. Sp inge .
Young-Schol en, M., & Lange , M. (2015). The ole o o hog aphic inpu in second
language Ge man: E idence om na u alis ic adul lea ne s’p oduc ion. Applied
Psycholinguis ics, 36(1), 93–114. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0142716414000447.
A. S oeh , C.D. Ma in / Jou nal o Phone ics 94 (2022) 101180 17
