PERCEPÇÃO DE SONS DE LÍNGUA ESTRANGEIRA PELO MODELO DE ASSIMILAÇÃO PERCEPTUAL
Resumo
A percepção de sons é hoje uma das variáveis de investigação nos estudos de aprendizagem do sistema fonológico de língua estrangeira. Nas últimas décadas, diversas teorias ou modelos foram propostos na tentativa de explicar o quanto a experiência linguística com a língua materna afeta tanto a percepção quanto a produção de fala não nativa. Este artigo apresenta um dos modelos de percepção de sons de língua estrangeira mais influentes nos estudos de fonética e fonologia, o Modelo de Assimilação Perceptual, proposto por Best em 1995. Em 2007, Best e Tyler ampliaram o modelo abrangendo a aprendizagem perceptual. Além da apresentação dos dois modelos, o artigo também propõe sugestões de como utilizá-los empiricamente.Downloads
Referências
BEST, C. T. Discovering messages in the medium: Speech perception and the prelinguistic
infant. In: FITZGERALD, H. E., LESTER, B., YOGMAN, M. (Eds.). Advances in pediatric
psychology. New York: Plenum, 1984. p. 97-145.
______ The Emergence of Cerebral Asymmetries in Early Human Development: A Literature
Review and a Neuroembryological Model. In: MOLFESE, D. L., SEGALOWITZ, S. J. (Eds.).
Brain Lateralization in Children. The Guilford Press: New York, 1988. p. 5–34.
______ Adult perception of nonnative contrasts differing in assimilation to native phonological
categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88 (1), 177-178, 1990.
______ Emergence of language-specific constraints in perception of non- native speech: A
window on early phonological development. In: BOYSSON-BARDIES, B. DE, SCHONEN, S.
DE, JUSCZYK, P., MCNEILAGE, P., MORTON, J. (Eds.). Developmental neurocognition:
Speech and face processing in the first year of life. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1993. p. 289-304.
______ Learning to Perceive the Sound Pattern of English. In: ROVEE-COLLIER, C., LIPSITT,
L. P. (Eds.). Advances in Infancy Research. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corporation, 1994a. p.217-304.
______The Emergence of Native-Language Phonological Influences in Infants: A Perceptual
Assimilation Model. In: GOODMAN, J. C., NUSBAUM, H. C. (Eds.). The Development of
Speech Perception: The Transition from Speech Sounds to Spoken Words, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1994b. p.167-224.
______ Perception de Parole de Differentes Langues par le Bebe. In : G. KONOPCZYSNKI,
G., Vinter, S. (Eds.). Le Developpement Langagier: Une Prediction Precoce Est-Elle
Possible?. Paris: Ortho Editions,1995a. p. 22-29.
______ A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In: STRANGE, W. (Ed.).
Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience. Baltimore, MD: York Press, 1995b. p.
-200.
______ Development of language-specific influences on speech perception and production
in pre-verbal infancy. In: Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic
Sciences, 1999. San Francisco, CA. p.1261-1264.
______ Revealing the mother tongue’s nurturing effects on the infant ear. Infant Behavior
& Development, 25, p.134-139, 2002.
______ Conceptualising the development of the native listener: What are infants attuning to
when they become perceptually tuned to the “sound patterns” of native speech? Presentation
at ConCom05 - Conceptualising Communication: Building Cross-disciplinary
Understanding in Human Communication Science. Armidale, Australia: University of
New England, 8-9 December 2005.
______ Direct realism in speech perception: Perceiving vocal tract actions and postures.
Abstract presentation for HCSNet - Human Communication Science Network
Perception and Action Workshop. Sydney, July 10- 11, 2008.
BEST, C. T.; AVERY, R.A. Left-hemisphere advantage for click consonants is determined by
linguistic significance and experience. Psychological Science, 10, 65-69, 1999.
BEST, C. T.; JONES, C. Stimulus alternation preference procedure to test infant speech
discrimination. Infant Behavior and Development 21, 295, 1998.
BEST, C. T.; MCROBERTS, G. W. Infant perception of non-native consonant contrasts that
adults assimilate in different ways. Language and Speech, 46, (2-3), 183-216, 2003.
BEST, C. T.; QUEEN, H. F. Baby, It’s in Your Smile: Right Hemiface Bias in Infant Emotional
Expressions. Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 264-276,1989.
BEST, C. T.; STRANGE, W. Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language
perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 305-330, 1992.
BEST, C. T.; FABER, A.; LEVITT, A. G. Perceptual assimilation of non-native vowel contrasts
to the American English vowel system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
, 2602, 1996.
BEST, C. T.; HALLE, P.; BOHN, O. S.; FABER, A. Cross-language perception of nonnative
vowels: Phonological and phonetic effects of listeners’ native vowels: Phonological and
phonetic effects of listeners’ native languages. Proceedings of the 15th International
Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona, Spain. August 3-9, 2003.
BEST, C. T.; HALLE, P.A.; PARDO, J. S. English and French Speakers’ Perception of Voicing
Distinctions in Non-Native Lateral consonant Syllable Onsets. Interspeech 2007, Aug. 27-
, Antwerp Belgium, International Speech Communication Association.
BEST, C. T.; HOFFMAN H.; GLANVILLE B. B. Development of infant ear asymmetries for
speech and music. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 75-85, 1982.
BEST, C. T.; MCROBERTS, G. W.; SITHOLE, N. M. 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, 1988.
BEST, C. T.; MCROBERTS, G. W.; LAFLEUR, R.; SILVER-ISENSTADT, J. Divergent developmental
patterns for infants’ perception of two nonnative consonant contrasts. Infant Behavior and
Development, 18, 339-3508, 1995.
BEST, C. T.;MCROBERTS, G.W.; GOODWELL, E. 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, 2001.
BEST, C. T.; MORRONGIELLO, B.; ROBSON, R. Perceptual equivalence of acoustic cues
in speech and nonspeech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 191-211, 1981.
BEST, C. T.; STUDDERT-KENNEDY, M.; MANUEL, S.; RUBIN-SPITZ, J. Discovering phonetic
coherence in acoustic patterns. Perception & Psychophysics, 45(3), 237-250, 1989.
BEST, C. T.; TYLER, M. D. Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities
and complementarities. In: BOHN, O.-S., Munro, M. J. (Eds.). Second language speech
learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. p. 13–34.
BEST, C. T.; TYLER, M.D.; GOODING, T.N.; ORLANDO, C.B.; QUANN, C.A. Development
of Phonological Constancy. Psychological Science, 20(5), 539-542, 2009.
BEST, C. T.; WOMER, J. S.; QUEEN, H. F. Hemispheric Asymmetries in Adults’ Perception of
Infant Emotional Expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 20(4), 751-765, 1994.
BLEVINS, J. New perspectives on English Sound Patterns: “Natural” and “unnatural” in
Evolutionary Phonology. Journal of English Linguistics, 34(1), 6-25, 2006.
BRANNEN, K. The R ole of Perception in Differential Substitution. Canadian Journal of
Linguistics, 47, 1-46, 2002.
BROWMAN, C.P.; GOLDSTEIN, L. Towards an articulatory phonology. In: EWEN, C.;
ANDERSON, J. (Eds.). Phonology Yearbook 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. p. 219-252.
BROWN, C. Acquisition of segmental structure: consequences for speech perception
and second language acquisition. Doctoral Dissertation. Montreal: McGill Universtiy, 1997
______. The role of the L1 grammar in the L2 acquisition of segmental structure. Second
Language Research 14, 136-193, 1998.
______. The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant
to adult. In: ARCHIBALD, J. (Ed.) Second Language Acquisition. 2000, p. 4-63.
BYNON, T. Historical linguistics. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
CHIPLEY, M. R. Does the conceptual similarity of sounds affect the usefulness of cues
to perceived relative distance? Unpublished dissertation. NCSU Libraries, 2008.
DEHAENE-LAMBERTZ, G.; HERTZ-PANNIER, L.; DUBOIS, J.; MERIAUX, S.; ROCHE,
A.; SIGMAN, M.; DEHAENE, S. Functional organization of perisylvian activation during
presentation of sentences in preverbal infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA, 103, 14240-14245, 2006.
EYSENCK, M. W. KEANE, M. T. Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (5th Edition).
London: Psychology Press. 2005.
FLEGE, J.E. 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, 1995. p. 233-272.
GASSER, M. How Language Works (3rd Ed.). University in Bloomington, Indiana, 2009.
GIBSON, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
GRIESER, D.; KUHL, P. K. Categorization of speech by infants: Support for speechsound
prototypes. Developmental Psychology, 25, 577-588, 1989.
GUION, S.; FLEGE, J.; AKAHANE-YAMADA, R.; PRUITT J. An investigation of current models
of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English
consonants. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America (107), 2711-2724, 2000.
HANCIN-BHATT, B. J. Phonological transfer in second language perception and
production. Doctoral dissertation. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1994.
HARNSBERGER, J. D. On the relationship between identification and discrimination of nonnative
nasal consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 489-503,
HAYWARD, K. Experimental phonetics. Harlow: Longman, 2000.
HOLT, L. L. Speech Perception: Adult. In:. SQUIRE, L. R (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Neuroscience,
Oxford Academic Press, 2008, p. 219-226.
KREUTZER, M. L.; DOOLING, R. J.; BROWN, S. D.; OKANOYA, K. A comparison of
song syllable perception by five species of birds. International Journal of Comparative
Psychology, 4, 141-155, 1991.
KUHL, P. K. Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect”
for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception & Psychophysics,
, 93-107, 1991.
______. Early Linguistic experience and phonetic perception: Implications for
theories of developmental speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 125-
, 1993a.
______. Innate predispositions and the effects of experience in speech perception:
The native language magnet theory. In: BOYSSON-BARDIES, B. DE; SCHONEN,
S. DE; JUSCZYK, P.; MCNEILAGE, P.; MORTON, J. (Eds.). Developmental neurocognition:
Speech and face processing in the first year of life. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993b, p. 259-274.
______. A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science. 97(22), 11850-11857, 2000a.
______. Language, mind, and brain: Experience alters perception. In:. GAZZANIGA, M. S
(Ed.). The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000b, p.
-115.
______. Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 5, 831-843, 2004.
______. Psychoacoustics and speech perception: internal standards, perceptual anchors,
and prototypes. In: WERNER, L. A.; RUBEL, E. W. (Eds.). Developmental psychoacoustics.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1992. p. 293–332.
______. Learning and representation in speech and language. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 4,
–822, 1994.
______. A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, n. 97, p. 11850-11857, 2000.
KUHL, P. K.; WILLIAMS, K. A.; LACERDA, F.; STEVENS, K. N.; LINDBLOM, B. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255, 606-
, 1992.
KUHL, P. K.; IVERSON, P. Linguistic experience and the “perceptual magnet effect”. In:
STRANGE, W. (Ed.). Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in crosslanguage
research. Baltimore: York Press, p. 121-154, 1995.
LADEFOGED, P. A course in Phonetics, (4th Ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. 2001.
LAMBACHER, S.; MARTEN, W.; NELSON, B.; BERMAN, J. Perception of English Voiceless
Fricatives by Native Speakers of Japanese. New Sounds 97: Proceedings of the Third
International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-Language Speech. University of
Klagenfurt Press, Klagenfurt, Austria, 1997. p. 186–195.
LOTTO, A. J.; SULLIVAN, S. C. Spee
ch as a sound source. In: YOST, W. A.; FAY, R. R.; POPPER, A. N. (Eds.). Springer
Handbook
of Auditory Research: Auditory Perception of Sound Sources. Chicago: Loyola
University
Chicago, 2007.
MAJOR, R.C. Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.
MCQUEEN, J. M. Speech perception. In: LAMBERTS K., GOLDSTONE, R. (Eds.). The
Handbook of Cognition. London: Sage Publications, p. 255-275, 2004.
MELTZOFF, A. N., KUHL, P. K., MOVELLAN, J., SEJNOWSKI, T. J.. Foundations for a New
Science of Learning. Science, 325, 284-288, 2009.
MICHAELS, C. F. ; CARELLO C. Direct Perception. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1981.
REIS, M. S. The perception and production of the English voiceless interdental fricative
/T/ by speakers of European French and Brazilian Portuguese. 2010. Tese (Doutorado
em Letras). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis. 2010.
ROSENBLUM, L. D. Perceiving articulatory events: Lessons for an ecological psychoacoustics.
In: NEUHOFF, J. G. (Ed.). Ecological Psychoacoustics. San Diego: Elsevier, 2004. p. 219-
STERNBERG, R., MIO, J. Cognitive Psychology. (5th Ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, 2009.
STERNBERG, R. J. Cognitive Psychology. (3rdEd.). Belmont: Thompson Wadsworth, 2003.
STRANGE, W. Cross-language studies of speech perception: A historical view. In: STRANGE,
W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research.
Timonium, MD: York Press, 1995. p.3-45.
WALLEY, A. Speech Learning, lexical reorganization and the development of word recognition
by native and non-native English speakers. In: Munro, M.M., Bohn, O.S. (Eds.). Language
Experience in Second Language Speech Learning. In honor of James Emil Flege. .
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2007. p. 315-330.
WAYLAND, R. P. The relationship between identification and discrimination in cross-language
perception: The case of Korean and Thai. In: BOHN, O.-S.; MUNRO, M.J. (Eds.). Language
Experience in Second Language Speech Learning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 2007. p. 201–218.
WEINBERGER, S.H. Minimal segments in second language phonology. In: JAMES, A.;
LEATHER, J. (Eds.). Second-language speech: structure and process. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 1997. p. 263-312.
WESTER, F., GILBERS, D., LOWIE, W. M. Substitution of dental fricatives in English by Dutch
L2 speakers. Language Sciences, 29 (2-3), 477-491, 2007.
ZHANG, Y.; KUHL, P. K.; IMADA, T.; KOTANI, M.; TOHKURA, Y. Effects of language experience:
Neural Commitment to language-specific auditory patters. NeuroImage, 26, 703-720, 2005.
