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: 2024-12-25T15:36:58.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - The Perceptual Assimilation Model: Early Bilingual Adults and Developmental Foundations

from Part II - Theoretical Models of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2024

By
Michael D. Tyler  and
Catherine T. Best
Edited by
Mark Amengual
Mark Amengual
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Get access

Summary

The Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM) accounts for how native-language (L1) experience shapes speech perception. According to PAM, infants develop phonological categories by attuning to the critical phonetic features that set phonological categories apart (phonological distinctiveness) and to the phonetic variability that defines each category (phonological constancy).The effects of L1 attunement on perception can also be seen in adults. PAM generates predictions about discrimination accuracy for non-native contrasts by comparing how the non-native phones are perceived in terms of L1 phonological categories. The extent to which perception might be altered further by experience with a second language (L2) is outlined by PAM-L2. While PAM has focused on L1 attunement in monolinguals, and PAM-L2 on L2 acquisition in adulthood, their principles also apply to early bilingual language acquisition. In this chapter, we will consider the various contexts of acquisition and language use in early bilinguals to sketch out how experience with more than one native language shapes perception and how childhood L2 acquisition might modify the emerging phonological system.

Keywords

cross-language speech perceptionperceptual assimilationearly bilingualslanguage acquisitionphonological development
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology , pp. 147 - 172
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

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

Albareda-Castellot, B., Pons, F., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2011). The acquisition of phonetic categories in bilingual infants: New data from an anticipatory eye movement paradigm. Developmental Science, 14(2), 395–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amengual, M. (2016a). The perception and production of language-specific mid-vowel contrasts: Shifting the focus to the bilingual individual in early language input conditions. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(2), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amengual, M. (2016b). The perception of language-specific phonetic categories does not guarantee accurate phonological representations in the lexicon of early bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(5), 1221–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, M. (2018). Speech perception. In Grosjean, F. & Byers-Heinlein, K., eds., The Listening Bilingual. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2013). Focusing the lens of language experience: Perception of Ma’di stops by Greek and English bilinguals and monolinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(4), 2397–2411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., & Kroos, C. (2011). Inter-language interference in VOT production by L2-dominant bilinguals: Asymmetries in phonetic code-switching. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 558–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antoniou, M., Liang, E., Ettlinger, M., & Wong, P. C. M. (2015). The bilingual advantage in phonetic learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 683–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, M., Tyler, M. D., & Best, C. T. (2012). Two ways to listen: Do L2-dominant bilinguals perceive stop voicing according to language mode? Journal of Phonetics, 40(4), 582–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, C. T. (1988). The emergence of cerebral asymmetries in early human development: A literature review and a neuroembryological model. In Molfese, D. L., ed., Brain Lateralization in Children. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 5–34.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W., ed., Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 171–204.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (2015). Devil or angel in the details? Perceiving phonetic variation as information about phonological structure. In Romero, J. & Riera, M., eds., Phonetics–Phonology Interface: Representations and Methodologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T. (2017). Speech perception in infants: Propagating the effects of language experience. In Fernández, E. M. & Cairns, H. S., eds., The Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 470–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., Goldstein, L. M., Nam, H., & Tyler, M. D. (2016). Articulating what infants attune to in native speech. Ecological Psychology, 28(4), 216–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, C. T. & McRoberts, G. W. (2003). Infant perception of non-native consonant contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways. Language and Speech, 46(2–3), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & 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(2), 775–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., LaFleur, R., & Silver-Isenstadt, J. (1995). Divergent developmental patterns for infants’ perception of two nonnative consonant contrasts. Infant Behavior & Development, 18(3), 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 345–360.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., Traill, A., Carter, A., Harrison, K. D., & Faber, A. (2003). !Xóõ click perception by English, Isizulu, and Sesotho listeners. In Solé, M. J., Recasens, D., & Romero, J., eds., Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: Causal Productions, pp. 853–856.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., Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In Honor of James Emil Flege. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., Gooding, T. N., Orlando, C. B., & Quann, C. A. (2009). Development of phonological constancy: Toddlers’ perception of native-and Jamaican-accented words. Psychological Science, 20(5), 539–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., Emmorey, K., & Pylkkänen, L. (2018). Language switching decomposed through MEG and evidence from bimodal bilinguals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(39), 9708–9713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohn, O.-S. (2017). Cross-language and second language speech perception. In Fernández, E. M. & Cairns, H. S., eds., The Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., Best, C. T., Avesani, C., & Vayra, M. (2011). Perceiving through the lens of native phonetics: Italian and Danish listeners’ perception of English consonant contrasts. In Lee, W.-S. & Zee, E., eds., Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, pp. 336–339.Google Scholar
Bosch, L. & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). Evidence of early language discrimination abilities in infants from bilingual environments. Infancy, 2(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, L. & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2003). Simultaneous bilingualism and the perception of a language-specific vowel contrast in the first year of life. Language and Speech, 46(2–3), 217–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2011). Vocabulary size is associated with second-language vowel perception performance in adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 433–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, T. C., Yoshida, K. A., Hill, K., & Werker, J. F. (2007). The development of phonetic representation in bilingual and monolingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 455–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers-Heinlein, K. (2018). Speech perception. In Grosjean, F. & Byers-Heinlein, K., eds., The Listening Bilingual. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A. & Yeni-Komshian, G. H. (1974). Voice onset time in two French dialects. Journal of Phonetics, 2(3), 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casillas, J. V. & Simonet, M. (2018). Perceptual categorization and bilingual language modes: Assessing the double phonemic boundary in early and late bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J., Antoniou, M., & Best, C. T. (2023). Phonological and phonetic contributions to perception of non-native lexical tones by tone language listeners: Effects of memory load and stimulus variability. Journal of Phonetics, 96, 101199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, W., Tong, X., & Samuel, A. G. (2019). Better than native: Tone language experience enhances English lexical stress discrimination in Cantonese-English bilingual listeners. Cognition, 189, 188–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, F. & Palethorpe, S. (2007). Australian English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 37(3), 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtin, S., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2011). Bilingual beginnings as a lens for theory development: PRIMIR in focus. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Houwer, A. (2021). Bilingual Development in Childhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faris, M. M., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2016). An examination of the different ways that non-native phones may be perceptually assimilated as uncategorized. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(1), EL1–EL5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faris, M. M., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2018). Discrimination of uncategorised non-native vowel contrasts is modulated by perceived overlap with native phonological categories. Journal of Phonetics, 70, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferjan Ramírez, N., Ramírez, R. R., Clarke, M., Taulu, S., & Kuhl, P. K. (2017). Speech discrimination in 11-month-old bilingual and monolingual infants: A magnetoencephalography study. Developmental Science, 20(1), e12427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W., ed., Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 233–276.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. & Bohn, O.-S. (2021). The revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r). In Wayland, R., ed., Second Language Speech Learning: Theoretical and Empirical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Sierra, A., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Percaccio, C. R., et al. (2011). Bilingual language learning: An ERP study relating early brain responses to speech, language input, and later word production. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 546–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2014). Bilingualism matters: One size does not fit all. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(4), 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child Language, 16(1), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzales, K., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Lotto, A. J. (2019). How bilinguals perceive speech depends on which language they think they’re hearing. Cognition, 182, 318–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzales, K. & Lotto, A. J. (2013). A bafri, un pafri: Bilinguals’ pseudoword identifications support language-specific phonetic systems. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2135–2142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J. L., ed., One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Höhle, B., Bijeljac-Babic, R., & Nazzi, T. (2020). Variability and stability in early language acquisition: Comparing monolingual and bilingual infants’ speech perception and word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. K. (2018). Putting the terms “monolingual” and “bilingual” under the microscope. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(4), 753–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khatiwada, R. (2009). Nepali. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 39(3), 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., et al. (2006). Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9(2), F13–F21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L. & Kager, R. (2015). Bilingual exposure influences infant VOT perception. Infant Behavior and Development, 38, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L. & Kager, R. (2016). Perception of a native vowel contrast by Dutch monolingual and bilingual infants: A bilingual perceptual lead. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(3), 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L., Peter, V., & Tyler, M. D. (2023). Understanding the neural mechanisms for infants’ perception of native and non-native speech. Brain and Language, 242, 105279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 167–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melguy, Y. V. (2018). Exploring the bilingual phonological space: Early bilinguals’ discrimination of coronal stop contrasts. Language and Speech, 61(2), 173–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nazzi, T. & Bertoncini, J. (2003). Before and after the vocabulary spurt: Two modes of word acquisition? Developmental Science, 6(2), 136–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallier, C., Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception. Cognition, 64, B9–B17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petitto, L. A., Berens, M. S., Kovelman, I., et al. (2012). The “Perceptual Wedge Hypothesis” as the basis for bilingual babies’ phonetic processing advantage: New insights from fNIRS brain imaging. Brain and Language, 121(2), 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polka, L., Colantonio, C., & Sundara, M. (2001). A cross-language comparison of /d/-/ð/ perception: Evidence for a new developmental pattern. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(5 Pt 1), 2190–2201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rallo Fabra, L., Achichaou, M., & Tyler, M. D. (2022). Perceptual assimilation of Tashlhiyt consonants by Spanish-dominant bilinguals. In Blecua, B., Cicres, J., Espejel, M., & Machuca, M. J., eds., Propuestas en fonética experimental: Enfoques metodológicos y nuevas tecnologías. Girona, Spain: Universitat de Girona, pp. 229–233.Google Scholar
Rallo Fabra, L. & Tyler, M. D. (2023). Predicting discrimination difficulty of Californian English vowel contrasts from L2-to-L1 categorization. Ampersand, 10, 100109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N. & Bosch, L. (2009). Developmental shift in the discrimination of vowel contrasts in bilingual infants: Is the distributional account all there is to it? Developmental Science, 12(6), 874–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, V. L., Yu, Y. H., & Datta, H. (2011). The development of English vowel perception in monolingual and bilingual infants: Neurophysiological correlates. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 527–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shafer, V. L., Yu, Y. H., & Garrido-Nag, K. (2012). Neural mismatch indices of vowel discrimination in monolingually and bilingually exposed infants: Does attention matter? Neuroscience Letters, 526(1), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonet, M. (2016). The phonetics and phonology of bilingualism. In Oxford Handbooks Editorial Board, ed., Oxford Handbook Topics in Linguistics [online ed.]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.72.Google Scholar
Singh, L., Loh, D., & Xiao, N. G. (2017). Bilingual infants demonstrate perceptual flexibility in phoneme discrimination but perceptual constraint in face discrimination. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strange, W. (2011). Automatic selective perception (ASP) of first and second language speech: A working model. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. & Goldstein, L. (2003). Launching language: The gestural origin of discrete infinity. In Christiansen, M. H. & Kirby, S., eds., Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundara, M. & Polka, L. (2008). Discrimination of coronal stops by bilingual adults: The timing and nature of language interaction. Cognition, 106(1), 234–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundara, M., Polka, L., & Molnar, M. (2008). Development of coronal stop perception: Bilingual infants keep pace with their monolingual peers. Cognition, 108(1), 232–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundara, M. & Scutellaro, A. (2011). Rhythmic distance between languages affects the development of speech perception in bilingual infants. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, M. D. (2019). PAM-L2 and phonological category acquisition in the foreign language classroom. In Nyvad, A. M., Hejná, M., Højen, A., Jespersen, A. B., & Sørensen, M. H., eds., A Sound Approach to Language Matters – In Honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn. Aarhus: Aarhus University, Department of English, School of Communication & Culture, pp. 607–630.Google Scholar
Tyler, M. D. (2021a). Perceived phonological overlap in second-language categories: The acquisition of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese native listeners. Languages, 6(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6010004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, M. D. (2021b). Phonetic and phonological influences on the discrimination of non-native phones. In Wayland, R., ed., Second Language Speech Learning: Theoretical and Empirical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, M. D., Ball, C. C., & Best, C. T. (2024). Listening and speech perception. In E. Wagner, A. O. Batty, & E. Galaczi, eds., Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Listening. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 29–41. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003219552-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, M. D., Best, C. T., Goldstein, L. M., & Antoniou, M. (2014). Investigating the role of articulatory organs and perceptual assimilation in infants’ discrimination of native and non‐native fricative place contrasts. Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 210–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werker, J. F., Yeung, H. H., & Yoshida, K. A. (2012). How do infants become experts at native-speech perception? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 221–226.CrossRefGoogle 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
×