Numerous studies conducted in the last three decades have shown that our ability to discriminate non-native phonemic contrasts can be improved thanks to specific laboratory training procedures (e.g., Bradlow et al., 1999; Bradlow et al., 1997; Jamieson and Morosan, 1986, 1989; Lively et al., 1994; Lively et al., 1993; Logan et al., 1991; Sadakata and McQueen, 2013). For example, Bradlow et al. (1997) showed that the forced-choice identification of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese speakers significantly improved after several weeks of intensive training using stimuli produced by multiple speakers of General American English. The improvements in /r/–/l/ identification generalized to novel stimuli produced by new speakers, and were maintained 3 months
…show more content…
During the pre-test, participants performed a primed lexical decision task with both minimal and identical pairs. This phase allowed us to assess the perception of the /e/-/ε/ contrast by our speakers before training. As in Dufour et al. (2007, 2010), we expected to find a priming effect on both identical and minimal pairs, that is, shorter RTs for both /epe/ and /epε/ forms when either the word /epe/ or the word /epε/ was presented first. During the training phase, participants were exposed to the orthographic representations of words forming /e/-/ε/ minimal pairs. They thus learned that when the word final vowel is pronounced /e/ as in piquer /pike/ “to sting,” the spelled forms is “ER,” while when the word final vowel is pronounced /ε/ as in piquet /pikε/ “stake,” the spelled forms is …show more content…
If such training proves to be efficient in modifying the way in which /e/-/ε/ ending words are processed and represented, no repetition priming effect should be observed on the minimal pairs of words after training, since there should no longer be an exact match between the phonological representations associated with the two members of the minimal pairs. To examine the transfer of the knowledge acquired during training to words that participants had not been exposed to in the training phase, half of the minimal pairs used in the pre-test were not used in the training. To examine the persistence of the training, the post-test was administered not only immediately after the training, but also one day
During the pre-test, participants performed a primed lexical decision task with both minimal and identical pairs. This phase allowed us to assess the perception of the /e/-/ε/ contrast by our speakers before training. As in Dufour et al. (2007, 2010), we expected to find a priming effect on both identical and minimal pairs, that is, shorter RTs for both /epe/ and /epε/ forms when either the word /epe/ or the word /epε/ was presented first. During the training phase, participants were exposed to the orthographic representations of words forming /e/-/ε/ minimal pairs. They thus learned that when the word final vowel is pronounced /e/ as in piquer /pike/ “to sting,” the spelled forms is “ER,” while when the word final vowel is pronounced /ε/ as in piquet /pikε/ “stake,” the spelled forms is …show more content…
If such training proves to be efficient in modifying the way in which /e/-/ε/ ending words are processed and represented, no repetition priming effect should be observed on the minimal pairs of words after training, since there should no longer be an exact match between the phonological representations associated with the two members of the minimal pairs. To examine the transfer of the knowledge acquired during training to words that participants had not been exposed to in the training phase, half of the minimal pairs used in the pre-test were not used in the training. To examine the persistence of the training, the post-test was administered not only immediately after the training, but also one day