Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:58:51.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part V - Cognitive and Psychological Variables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

Edited by
Ratree Wayland
Ratree Wayland
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Second Language Speech Learning
Theoretical and Empirical Progress
 , pp. 397 - 502
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Amichetti, N. M., Stanley, R. S., White, A. G., & Wingfield, A. (2013). Monitoring the capacity of working memory: Executive control and effects of listening effort. Memory and Cognition, 41(6), 839–849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. New York, NY: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Bent, T., Baese-Berk, M., Borrie, S. A., & McKee, M. (2016). Individual differences in the perception of regional, nonnative, and disordered speech varieties. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(5), 3775–3786.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Retrieved from www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Bosker, H. R., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & Jong, N. H. (2014). The perception of fluency in native and nonnative speech. Language Learning, 64(3), 579–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, L. (2011). Phonetic, phonemic, and phonological factors in cross-language discrimination of phonotactic contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 270–282.Google Scholar
Deese, J. (1980). Pauses, prosody, and the demands of production in language. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 69–84). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379–397.Google Scholar
Deschamps, A. (1980). The syntactical distribution of pauses in English spoken as a second language by French students. In Dechert, H & Raupach, M (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 255–262). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, B. (2016). A model of auditory-cognitive processing and relevance to clinical applicability. Ear and Hearing, 37, 85S–91S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floccia, C., Butler, J., Goslin, J., & Ellis, L. (2009). Regional and foreign accent processing in English: Can listeners adapt? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 379–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freed, B. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In Freed, B (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123–148). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garcia Lecumberri, M. L., Cooke, M., & Cutler, A. (2010). Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review. Speech Communication, 52(11), 864–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gevins, A., & Cutillo, B. (1993). Neuroelectric evidence for distributed processing in human working memory. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 87, 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginther, A., Dimova, S., & Yang, R. (2010). Conceptual and empirical relationships between temporal measurements of fluency. Language Testing, 27, 379–399.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haatveit, B. C., Sundet, K., Hugdahl, K., Ueland, T., Melle, I., & Andreassen, O. A. (2010). The validity of d prime as a working memory index: results from the “Bergen n-back task.” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(8), 871–880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, S., & Staveland, L. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock, P & Meshkati, N (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland Press.Google Scholar
Heald, S., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2014). Speech perception as an active cognitive process. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J., Xu, J., Cox, R., & Pendergraft, P. (2015). A comparison of two methods for measuring listening effort as part of an audiologic test battery. American Journal of Audiology, 24(3), 419–431.Google Scholar
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.Google Scholar
Le, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P. (1984). Retelling a story in English. In Dechert, H, Möhle, D, & Raupach, M (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 50–68). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. (1990). The advanced learner at large in the L2 community: Developments in the spoken performance. Interaction Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 28, 309–321.Google Scholar
Lenth, R., Singmann, H., Love, J., Buerkner, P., & Herve, M. (2018). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means (R package Version 1.2.3). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeansGoogle Scholar
Lunner, T. (2010). Designing HA signal processing to reduce demand on working memory. The Hearing Journal, 63, 29–31.Google Scholar
Mackersie, C., MacPhee, I. X., & Heldt, E. W. (2015). Effects of hearing loss on heart rate variability and skin conductance measured during sentence recognition in noise. Ear and Hearing, 36(1), 145–154.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N., & Creelman, C. (1990). Response bias: Characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and nonparametric indexes. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, D. J., Baese-Berk, M. M., Bent, T., Borrie, S. A., & Van Engen, K. J. (2018). Coping with adversity: Individual differences in the perception of noisy and accented speech. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 80(6), 1559–1570.Google Scholar
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38, 289–306.Google Scholar
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1998). The effects of speaking rate on listener evaluation of native and foreign-accented speech. Language Learning, 48, 159–182.Google Scholar
Owen, A., McMillan, K., Laird, A., & Bullmore, E. (2005). N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 25, 46–59.Google Scholar
Peelle, J. E. (2017). Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear and Hearing, 39(2), 204–214.Google Scholar
Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2006). Perceptual effort and apparent cognitive decline: Implications for audiologic rehabilitation. Seminars in Hearing, 27(4), 284–293.Google Scholar
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M. A., Edwards, B., Hornsby, W. Y., Humes, L. E., … Wingfield, A. (2016). Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL). Ear and Hearing, 37, 5S–27S.Google Scholar
Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In Dechert, H & Raupach, M (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 263–271). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Raupach, M. (1984). Formulae in second language speech production. In Dechert, H & Möhle, D & Raupach, M (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 114–137). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Riazantseva, A. (2001). Second language proficiency and pausing: A study of Russian speakers of English. SSLA, 23, 497–526.Google Scholar
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Towards an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Analysis, 14, 423–443.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson, H., Lyxell, B., … Rudner, M. (2013). The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, 31.Google Scholar
Rudner, M., Lunner, T., Behren, T., Thoren, E. S., & Ronnberg, J. (2012). Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 23, 577–589.Google ScholarPubMed
Sajavaara, K. (1987). Second language speech production factors affecting fluency. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 45–65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Schmid, P., & Yeni-Komshian, G. (1999). The effects of speaker accent and target predictability on perception of mispronunciations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 56–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Van Engen, K., & Peelle, J. (2014). Listening effort and accented speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wingfield, A. (2016). Evolution of models of working memory and cognitive resources. Ear and Hearing, 37, 35S–43S.Google Scholar
Wood, D. (2001). In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teaching it? Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 571–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zekveld, A., Kramer, S., & Festen, J. (2011). Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: The influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear and Hearing, 32, 498–510.Google Scholar

References

Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62(2), 49–78.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., Allen, R. J., & Hitch, G. J. (2010). Investigating the episodic buffer. Phychologica Belgica, 50(3&4), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. A. (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., & Kempe, V. (2013). Individual differences in adult foreign language learning: The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory and Cognition, 41(2), 281–296.Google Scholar
Burnham, D., & Mattock, K. (2007). The perception of tones and phones. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. S. (1959). Modern language aptitude test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Cedrus Corporation. (2008). SuperLab 4.0 [Computer software]. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Retrieved from www.superlab.com/Google Scholar
Cooper, A., & Wang, Y. (2012). The influence of linguistic and musical experience on Cantonese word learning. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 131(6), 4756–4769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62(2), 189–200.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). Individual differences and second language learning. In The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 643–724). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1166–1183.Google Scholar
Golestani, N., & Zatorre, R. J. (2009). Individual differences in the acquisition of second language phonology. Brain and Language, 109(2–3), 55–67.Google Scholar
Goss, S. J., & Tamaoka, K. (2019). Lexical accent perception in highly-proficient L2 Japanese learners: The roles of language-specific experience and domain-general resources. Second Language Research, 35(3), 351–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, S. G., & Pederson, E. (2007). Investigating the role of attention in phonetic learning. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning (pp. 57–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hanulíková, A., Dediu, D., Fang, Z., Bašnaková, J., & Huettig, F. (2012). Individual differences in the acquisition of a complex L2 phonology: A training study. Language Learning, 62(s2), 79–109.Google Scholar
Hao, Y.-C. (2018). Second language perception of Mandarin vowels and tones. Language and Speech, 61(1), 135–152.Google Scholar
Heaton, R. K., Akshoomoff, N., Tulsky, D., Mungas, D., Weintraub, S., Dikmen, S., … Gershon, R. (2014). Reliability and validity of Composite Sores from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery in adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 20(6), 588–598.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (2011). Tone: Is it different? In Goldsmith, J, Riggle, J, & Yu, A (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (2nd ed., pp. 197–239). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh (Version 25.0). Armonk, NY: Author.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169.Google Scholar
Kirby, J. P. (2011). Illustration of the IPA: Vietnamese (Hanoi Vietnamese). Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 41(3), 381–392.Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14, 389–433.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maddox, W. T., & Chandrasekaran, B. (2014). Tests of a dual-system model of speech category learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 709–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 379–413.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. C. M. (2014). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 56–72.Google Scholar
Necka, E., Machera, M., & Miklas, E. (1992). Incidental learning, intelligence, and verbal ability. Learning and Instruction, 2(2), 141–153.Google Scholar
National Institute of Health & Northwestern University. (2006–2012). NIH Toolbox: Cognition. Retrieved from www.assessmentcenter.net/Google Scholar
Pajak, B., Creel, S. C., & Levy, R. (2016). Difficulty in learning similar-sounding words: A developmental stage or a general property of learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(2), 1377–1399.Google Scholar
Pallier, C., Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception. Cognition, 64(3), B9–B17. Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y. Y, & Wong, P. C. M. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 461–472.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 62(2), 172–188.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47(1), 45–99.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serafini, E. J., & Sanz, C. (2016). Evidence for the decreasing impact of cognitive ability on second language development as proficiency increases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 607–646.Google Scholar
Shport, I. A. (2008). Acquisition of Japanese pitch accent by American learners. In Heinrich, P & Sugita, Y (Eds.), Japanese as foreign language in the age of globalization (Vol. 43, pp. 165–187). Munich, Germany: Iudicium.Google Scholar
Shport, I. A. (2015). Perception of acoustic cues to Tokyo Japanese pitch-accent contrasts in native Japanese and naïve English listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138(1), 307–318.Google Scholar
Shport, I. (2016). Perceptual assimilation and discrimination of falling, level, and rising lexical tones by native English speakers. In Barnes, J, Brugos, A, Shattuck-Hufnagel, S, & Veilleux, N (Eds.), Speech Prosody 2016 (pp. 533–537). Boston: Boston University.Google Scholar
Shport, I. A. (2019). Perception of Vietnamese back vowels contrasting in rounding by English listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 73, 8–23.Google Scholar
Silbert, N., Smith, B. K., Jackson, S. R., Campbell, S. G., Hughes, M. M., & Tare, M. (2015). Non-native phonemic discrimination, phonological short working memory, and word learning. Journal of Phonetics, 50, 99–119.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275–298.Google Scholar
Slotkin, J., et al. (2012). NIH Toolbox: Scoring and interpretation manual. National Institute of Health & Northwestern University. Retrieved from www.healthmeasures.net/images/nihtoolbox/Training-Admin-Scoring_Manuals/NIH_Toolbox_Scoring_and_Interpretation_Manual_9-27-12.pdfGoogle Scholar
So, C. K., & Best, C. T. (2010). Cross-language perception of non-native tonal contrasts: Effects of native phonological and phonetic influences. Language and Speech, 53(2), 273–293.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In Tulving, E & Donaldson, W (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1), 37–69.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Weintraub, S., et al. (2013). Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology, 80, S54–S64.Google Scholar
Wong, P. C. M., & Perrachione, T. K. (2007). Learning pitch patterns in lexical identification by native English-speaking adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(4), 565–585.Google Scholar

References

Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues in cross-language speech research (pp. 167–200). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Munro, M. J. & Bohn, O. S. (Eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341–345.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 977–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A., Pisoni, D., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callan, D. E., Tajima, K., Callan, A. M., Kubo, R., Masaki, S., & Akahane- Yamada, R. (2003). Learning-induced neural plasticity associated with improved identification performance after training of a difficult second-language phonetic contrast. NeuroImage, 19, 113–124.Google Scholar
Clopper, C. G., Pisoni, D. B., & de Jong, K. (2005). Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of six regional varieties of American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1661–1676.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E., Blumstein, S. E., & Nigro, G. (1975). Articulatory effects on speech perception: A preliminary report. Journal of Phonetics, 3, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W. E., & Lauritsen, M. R. (1974). Feature processing in the perception and production of speech. Nature, 252, 121–123.Google Scholar
D’Ausilio, A., Pulvermuller, F., Salmas, P., Bufalari, I., Begliomini, C., & Fadiga, L. (2009). The motor somatotopy of speech perception. Current Biology, 19, 381–385.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1981). Effects of frequency-shifted feedback on the pitch of vocal productions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 45–50.Google Scholar
Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., Buccino, G., & Rizzollati, G. (2002). Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: A TMS study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 399–402.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1991). Age of learning affects the authenticity of voice-onset time (VOT) in stop consonants produced in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 395–411.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1993). Production and perception of a novel, second-language phonetic contrast. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 1589–1608.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1997). English vowel production by Dutch talkers: More evidence for the “new” vs “similar” distinction. In James, A & Leather, J (Eds.), Second-language speech: Structure and process (pp. 11–52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1999). The relation between L2 production and perception. In Ohala, J, Hasegawa, Y, Ohala, M, Granveille, D, & Bailey, A (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetics Sciences (pp. 1273–1276). Berkeley: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. In Schniller, N & Meyer, A (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 319–355). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2007). Language contact in bilingualism: Phonetic system interactions. In Cole, J & Hualde, J. I. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 9 (pp. 353–382). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987). Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 67–83.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 3–28.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, J. M., & Clark, M. J. (2000). Some effects of duration on vowel recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 3013–3022.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099–3111.Google Scholar
Hirata, Y., & Whiton, J. (2005). Effects of speaking rate on the single/geminate stop distinction in Japanese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1647–1660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houde, J. F., & Jordan, M. I. (1998). Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science, 279, 1213–1216.Google Scholar
Jackson, A., & Morton, J. (1984). Facilitation of auditory word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 12, 568–574.Google Scholar
Jones, J. A., & Munhall, K. G. (2005). Remapping auditory-motor representations in voice production. Current Biology, 15, 1768–1772.Google Scholar
Kawahara, H. (1998). Hearing voice: Transformed auditory feedback effects on voice pitch control. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Workshop on computational auditory scene analysis (pp. 335–349). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kondaurova, M., & Francis, A. L. (2008). The relationship between native allophonic experience with vowel duration and perception of the English tense/lax vowel contrast by Spanish and Russian listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 3959–3971.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (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, 979–1000.Google Scholar
Li, X., & Xu, B. (2005). Formant comparison between whispered and voiced vowels in Mandarin. ACTA Acustica United with Acustica, 91, 1079–1085.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1–36.Google Scholar
Meister, I., Wilson, S. M., Deblieck, C., Wu, A. D., & Iacoboni, M. (2007). The essential role of premotor cortex in speech perception. Current Biology, 17, 1692–1696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81–108.Google Scholar
Nearey, T. M., & Assmann, P. (1986). Modeling the role of vowel inherent spectral change in vowel identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 1297–1308.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K. Y. (2007). The interaction between spontaneous imitation and linguistic knowledge. University of California Working Papers in Phonetics, 105, 125–137.Google Scholar
Ojanen, V., Möttönen, R., Pekkola, J., Jääskeläinen, I. P., Joensuu, R., Autti, T., & Sams, M. (2005). Processing of audiovisual speech in Broca’s area. Neuroimage, 25, 333–338.Google Scholar
Pilotti, M., Bergman, E. T., Gallo, D. A., Sommers, M., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2000). Direct comparison of auditory implicit memory tests. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 347–353.Google Scholar
Porter, R. J., & Castellanos, F. X. (1980). Speech-production measures of speech perception: Rapid shadowing of VCV syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 1349–1356.Google Scholar
Porter, R. J., & Lubker, J. F. (1980). Rapid reproduction of vowel-vowel sequences: Evidence for a fast and direct acoustic-motoric linkage in speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 593–602.Google Scholar
Purcell, D. W., & Munhall, K. G. (2006a). Adaptive control of vowel formant frequency: Evidence from real-time formant manipulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 966–977.Google Scholar
Purcell, D. W., & Munhall, K. G. (2006b). Compensation following real-time manipulation of formants in isolated vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2288–2297.Google Scholar
Rochet, B. L. (1995). Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience (pp. 379–410). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Roy, A. C., Craighero, L., Fabbri-Destro, M., & Fadiga, L. (2008). Phonological and lexical motor facilitation during speech listening: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Physiology–Paris, 102, 101–105.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W. (2006). English in North America. In Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y, & Nelson, C. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of world Englishes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schneiderman, E., Bourdages, J., & Champagne, C. (1988). Second-language accent: The relationship between discrimination and perception in acquisition. Language Learning, 38, 1–19.Google Scholar
Shiller, D. M., Sato, M., Gracco, V. L., & Baum, S. R. (2009). Perceptual recalibration of speech sounds following speech motor learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 1103.Google Scholar
Skipper, J. I., van Wassenhove, V., Nusbaum, H. C., & Small, S. L. (2007). Hearing lips and seeing voices: How cortical areas supporting speech production mediate audiovisual speech perception. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 2387–2399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, K. A., & Wiley, E. (2008). Response priming patterns differ with interstimulus interval duration. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 22, 475–490.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. I. (2008). L2 English vowel learning by Mandarin speakers: Does perception precede production? Canadian Acoustics, 36, 134–135.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. I., Nearey, T. M., & Derwing, T. M. (2009). A modified statistical pattern recognition approach to measuring the crosslinguistic similarity of Mandarin and English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 1447–1460.Google Scholar
Tilsen, S. (2009). Subphonemic and cross-phonemic priming in vowel shadowing: Evidence for the involvement of exemplars in production. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 276–296.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, H. (1990). Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 97–100.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P. (2005). Spoken-word processing in native and second languages: An investigation of auditory word priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 479–504.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in processing L2 Spanish words: Implications for pronunciation instruction. Modern Language Journal, 90, 519–535.Google Scholar
Villacorta, V. M., Perkell, J. S., & Guenther, F. H. (2007). Sensorimotor adaptation to feedback perturbations of vowel acoustics and its relation to perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 2306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, X. (1997). The acquisition of English vowels by Mandarin ESL learners: A study of production and perception. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Wang, X., & Munro, M. (2004). Computer-based training for learning English vowel contrasts. System, 32, 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (2003). Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1033–1044.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Sereno, J. A., Jongman, A., & Hirsch, J. (2003). fMRI evidence for cortical modification during learning of mandarin lexical tone. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 1019–1027.Google Scholar
Watkins, K., & Paus, T. (2004). Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception: The role of Broca’s area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 978–987.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. M., Saygin, A. P., Sereno, M. I., & Iacoboni, M. (2004). Listening to speech activates motor areas involved in speech production. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 701–702.Google Scholar

References

Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Yamada, T. (2004). Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese/r/and English /l/ and /r. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 233–250.Google Scholar
Aoyama, K., Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., Yamada, T., & Akahane-Yamada, R. (2008). The first years in an L2-speaking environment: A comparison of Japanese children and adults learning American English. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 46, 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (R package Version 1.1-9). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4Google Scholar
Best, C., & McRoberts, G. (2003). Infant perception of nonnative contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways. Language and Speech, 46, 183–216.Google Scholar
Best, C., McRoberts, G., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 775–794.Google Scholar
Best, C., & Tyler, M. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Munro, M. J. & Bohn, Ocke-Schwen (Eds.), Second language speech learning (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341–345.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1991). Perception and production: The relevance of phonetic input to L2 phonological learning. In Huebner, T & Ferguson, C (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories (pp. 249–289). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Forrest, K., Weismer, G., Milenkovic, P., & Dougall, R. N. (1988). Statistical analysis of word-initial voiceless obstruents: Preliminary data. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funatsu, S. (1995). Cross language study of perception of dental fricatives in Japanese and Russian. In Elenius, K & Branderud, P (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 124–127).Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Stevens, K. N. (1997). The postalveolar fricatives of Polish. In Hajime, H, Kiritani, S, & Fujisaki, H (Eds.), Speech production and language: In honor of Osamu Fujimura (pp. 176–191). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.Google Scholar
Jongman, A., Wayland, R., & Wong, S. (2000). Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(3), 1252–1263.Google Scholar
Julien, H., & Munson, B. (2012). Modifying speech to children based on their perceived phonetic accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1836–1849.Google Scholar
Kang, S., Johnson, K., & Finley, G. (2016). Effects of native language on compensation for coarticulation. Speech Communication, 77, 84–100.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2013). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package) (R package Version 1.1-0). Retrieved from http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.htmGoogle Scholar
Labov, W., Ash, S., & Boberg, C. (2008). The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Li, F. (2012). Language-specific developmental differences in speech production: A cross-language acoustic study. Child Development, 83, 1303–1315.Google Scholar
Li, F., Edwards, J., & Beckman, M. E. (2009). Contrast and covert contrast: The phonetic development of voiceless sibilant fricatives in English and Japanese toddlers. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 111–124.Google Scholar
Li, F., & Munson, B. (2016). The development of voiceless sibilant fricatives in Putonghua-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59, 699–712.Google Scholar
Li, F., Munson, B., Edwards, J., Yoneyama, K., & Hall, K. (2011). Language specificity in the perception of voiceless sibilant fricatives in Japanese and English: Implications for cross-language differences in speech-sound development. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129, 999–1011.Google Scholar
Maniwa, K., Jongman, A., & Wade, T. (2009). Acoustic characteristics of clearly spoken English fricatives. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3962–3973.Google Scholar
Mann, V. A., & Repp, B. H. (1981). Influence of preceding fricative on stop consonant perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 548–558.Google Scholar
Munson, B. (2007). The acoustic correlates of perceived sexual orientation, perceived masculinity, and perceived femininity. Language and Speech, 50, 125–142.Google Scholar
Munson, B. (2011). The influence of actual and imputed talker gender on fricative perception, revisited. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 2631–2634.Google Scholar
Munson, B., & Coyne, A. C. (2010). The influence of apparent vocal-tract size, contrast type, and implied sources of variation on the perception of American English voiceless lingual fricatives. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan, 14, 48–59.Google Scholar
Munson, B., Crocker, L., Pierrehumbert, J. B., Owen-Anderson, A., & Zucker, K. J. (2015). Gender typicality in children’s speech: A comparison of boys with and without gender identity disorder. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137, 1995–2003.Google Scholar
Munson, B., Jefferson, S. V., & McDonald, E. C. (2006). The influence of perceived sexual orientation on fricative identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2427–2437.Google Scholar
Munson, B., Lackas, N., & Koeppe, K. (2019). The longitudinal development of gendered speech production in children: Patterns and predictors. Paper presented at the 2019 Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Munson, B., McDonald, E. C., DeBoe, N. L., & White, A. R. (2006). Acoustic and perceptual bases of judgments of women and men’s sexual orientation from read speech. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 202–240.Google Scholar
Munson, B., Ryherd, K., & Kemper, S. (2017). Implicit and explicit gender priming in English lingual sibilant fricative perception. Linguistics, 55, 1073–1108.Google Scholar
Samal, A., Subramani, V., & Marx, D. (2007). Analysis of sexual dimorphism in human face. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 18, 453–463.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N., Li, Z., Lee, C., & Keyser, S. J. (2004). A note on Mandarin fricatives and enhancement. In Fujisaki, H, Fant, G, Cao, J, and Xu, Y (Eds.), From traditional phonology to modern speech processing (pp. 393–403). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Strand, E., & Johnson, K. (1996). Gradient and visual speaker normalization in the perception of fricatives. In Gibbon, D (Ed.), Natural language processing and speech technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS conference, Bielfelt (pp. 14–26). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, J. (2007). Empirical evidence for gendered speech production: /s/in Glaswegian. In Cole, J & Hualde, J. I. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 9 (pp. 65–86). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Bezooijen, R. (1995). Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Language and Speech, 38, 253–265.Google Scholar
Winn, M., Rhone, A., Chatterjee, M., & Idsardi, W. (2013). The use of auditory and visual context in speech perception by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with cochlear implants. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 824.Google Scholar

References

Baese-Berk, M. M. (2019). Interactions between speech perception and production during learning of novel phonemic categories. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81(4), 981–1005.Google Scholar
Baese-Berk, M. M., & Samuel, A. G. (2016). Listeners beware: Speech production may be bad for learning speech sounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 23–36.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 19–58.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. A., & Humes, L. E. (1997). Identification of multidimensional stimuli containing speech cues and the effects of training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2297–2310.Google Scholar
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101.Google Scholar
Delancey, S. (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language, 57, 626–657.Google Scholar
Forrest, L. B. (1996). Discourse goals and attentional processes in sentence production: The dynamic construal of events. Conceptual structure, discourse and language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Francis, A. L., Baldwin, K., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2000). Effects of training on attention to acoustic cues. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 62, 1668–1680.Google Scholar
Francis, A. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2002). Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 349–366.Google Scholar
Gandour, J. (1983). Tone perception in Far Eastern languages. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 149–175.Google Scholar
Gandour, J. (1984). Tone dissimilarity judgments by Chinese listeners. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 12, 235–261.Google Scholar
Gildea, S. (2012). The referential hierarchy and attention. Faits de Langues, 39, 33–47.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G., & Pederson, E. (2007). Investigating the role of attention in phonetic learning. In Bohn, O. S. & Munro, M (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning (pp. 57–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y., Kettermann, A., & Siebert, C. (2003). A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87, 47–57.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (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: Biological Sciences, 363(1493), 979–1000.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., & Iverson, P. (1995). Linguistic experience and the perceptual magnet effect. In Strange, W (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 121–154). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., Thompson, D., Scheepers, C., & Garrod, S. (2011). Visual attention and structural choice in sentence production across languages. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(2), 95–107.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., Tomlin, R. S., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Attention and empirical studies of grammar. The Linguistic Review, 22, 347–364.Google Scholar
Pederson, E., & Guion-Anderson, S. (2010). Orienting attention during phonetic training facilitates learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127, 54–59.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Long-term memory in speech perception: Some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate and perceptual learning. Speech Communication, 13, 109–125.Google Scholar
Polka, L. (1992). Characterizing the influence of native language experience on adult speech perception. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 52, 37–52.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 2–25.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Peterson, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (2011). Automatic selective perception (ASP) of first and second language speech: A working model. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 456–466.Google Scholar
Strange, W., & Shafer, V. L. (2008). Speech perception in second language learners: The re-education of selective perception. In Edwards, J. G. H. & Zampini, M. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 153–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1995). Focal attention, voice, and word order. In Downing, P & Noonan, M (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 517–552). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1997). Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. In Nuyts, J & Pederson, E (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 162–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Spence, M. M., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (1999). Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3649–3658.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 1866–1878.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×