title: Comparison of native and non-native phone imitation by English and Spanish speakers.
abstract: Experiments investigating phonetic convergence in conversation often focus on interlocutors with similar phonetic inventories. Extending these experiments to those with dissimilar inventories requires understanding the capacity of speakers to imitate native and non-native phones. In the present study, we tested native Spanish and native English speakers to determine whether imitation of non-native tokens differs qualitatively from imitation of native tokens. Participants imitated a [ba]-[pa] continuum that varied in VOT from -60 ms (prevoiced, Spanish [b]) to +60 ms (long lag, English [p]) such that the continuum consisted of some tokens that were native to Spanish speakers and some that were native to English speakers. Analysis of the imitations showed two critical results. First, both groups of speakers demonstrated sensitivity to VOT differences in tokens that fell within their native regions of the VOT continuum (prevoiced region for Spanish and long lag region for English). Secondly, neither group of speakers demonstrated such sensitivity to VOT differences among tokens that fell in their non-native regions of the continuum. These results show that, even in an intentional imitation task, speakers cannot accurately imitate non-native tokens, but are clearly flexible in producing native tokens. Implications of these findings are discussed with reference to the constraints on convergence in interlocutors from different linguistic backgrounds.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, State University of New York New Paltz, NY, USA.
authors.forename: Anne J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Olmstead
authors.forename: Navin
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Viswanathan
authors.forename: M Pilar
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Aivar
authors.forename: Sarath
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Manuel
keywords: Spanish; non-native speech; phonetic convergence; speech imitation; voice onset time (VOT)
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Aug;116(2):1184-97
references.pmid: 15376684
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Apr;97(4):2540-51
references.pmid: 7714272
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Apr;27(2):169-90; discussion 190-226
references.pmid: 15595235
references.citation: Lab Phonol. 2011 May 3;2(1):125-156
references.pmid: 23637712
references.citation: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1990 Dec;22(6):871-8
references.pmid: 2132745
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Jun;76(6):893-910
references.pmid: 10402679
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Nov;72(8):2254-64
references.pmid: 21097867
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Aug;36(4):1005-15
references.pmid: 20695714
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Apr;29(2):326-332
references.pmid: 12760618
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Oct;106(4 Pt 1):2031-9
references.pmid: 10530026
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1981 Feb;69(2):548-58
references.pmid: 7462477
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2004 Apr;66(3):422-9
references.pmid: 15283067
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Apr;119(4):2382-93
references.pmid: 16642851
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1988 Feb;83(2):729-40
references.pmid: 3351131