Second Language Speech Learning Theory , Findings , and Problems

By James Emil Flege. 2006

2,436 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b3ed4f4c16e391e027ecf2904762baf63f062e78

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN L2 SPEECH PERCEPTION RESEARCH AND PHONOLOGICAL THEORY (2004, background): “Spanish listeners with those of the two groups of native English listeners+ More than half of the Spanish listeners with a Southern English target relied mainly on duration, a pattern not found in either of the L1 groups+ For what it is worth in this case of a bimodal distribution, two-tailed Kolmog”
Vocabulary size matters: The assimilation of second-language Australian English vowels to first-language Japanese vowel categories (2011, background): “Unfortunately, it is not clear how this change in perception (and production) occurs, and the underlying mechanisms have not been adequately addressed by the two primary theoretical models of L2 production and perception: the speech learning model (SLM; Flege, 1995), which focuses on experienced L2 ”
The development of phonetic representation in bilingual and monolingual infants (2007, background): “The first is that bilinguals have a single phonetic representation that is the same for both languages and unlike that of a monolingual (Flege, 1987, 1995; Flege, Munro, & MacKay, 1995).”
The effects of identification training on the identification and production of American English vowels by native speakers of Japanese (2005, methodology): “The SLM (Flege, 1995a) can help account for the changes that occur during the acquisition of L2 speech by adults.”
Neural network vs. HMM speech recognition systems as models of human cross-linguistic phonetic perception (2018, unknown): “Best, 1995; Flege, 1995).”
Development of the ability to lexically encode novel second language phonemic contrasts (2008, methodology): “the Perceptual Assimilation Model (Best, 1995); the Speech Learning Model (Flege, 1995); the Similarity Differential Rate Hypothesis (Major and Kim, 1999); the Native Language Magnet Model (Kuhl and Iverson, 1995); see also Boersma et al.”
The bilingual advantage in phonetic learning* (2014, background): “Secondly, it is often suggested that closely related languages might be easier to learn than others, possibly due to the effects of native language (L1) transfer (Lado, 1957; Major, 2008; Odlin, 1989; Weinreich, 1953) or cross-language phonetic similarity (Best & Tyler, 2007; Flege, 1995).”
VOCABULARY SIZE IS ASSOCIATED WITH SECOND-LANGUAGE VOWEL PERCEPTION PERFORMANCE IN ADULT LEARNERS (2011, background): “…processes and mechanisms that children use when learning their L1 remain intact and accessible in later SLA—for example, the speech learning model (Flege, 1995 ); PAM-L2 (Best, 1994 , 1995 ; Best & Tyler, 2007 ); natural referent vowel framework (Bohn & Polka, 2001 ; Polka & Bohn, 1996 , 2003 );…”
Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: the case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/ (2004, background): “The SLM (e.g., Flege, 1995, 1999, 2002) makes the prediction that the earlier in life that L2 learning begins, the more likely L2 learners will be to establish new phonetic categories.”
What makes pronunciation teaching work? Testing for the effect of two variables: socially constructed metalanguage and critical listening (2011, methodology): “The technique of CL (Fraser, 2000a) was seen to help in the adaptation of phonetic systems to allow for English phonological boundaries (Flege, 1995).”
Nonnative and second-language speech perception : commonalities and complementarities (2007, methodology): “The two models that are most frequently cited this way are the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM: e.g., Best, 1994a, 1994b, 1995) and the Speech Learning Model (SLM: e.g., Flege, 1995, 1999, 2002).”
Analyzing dynamic phonetic data using generalized additive mixed modeling: A tutorial focusing on articulatory differences between L1 and L2 speakers of English (2018, unknown): “Consequently, with respect to prominent speech learning models (Best, 1995; Flege, 1995), Dutch speakers, at least if highly educated, do not appear to have completely merged the two sounds.”