Abstract
Objective: Word recognition is a basic component in a comprehensive hearing evaluation, but data are lacking for listeners speaking two languages. This study obtained such data for Russian natives in the US and analysed the data using the perceptual assimilation model (PAM) and speech learning model (SLM). Design: Listeners were randomly presented 200 NU-6 words in quiet. Listeners responded verbally and in writing. Performance was scored on words and phonemes (word-initial consonants, vowels, and word-final consonants). Study sample: Seven normal-hearing, adult monolingual English natives (NM), 16 English-dominant (ED), and 15 Russian-dominant (RD) Russian natives participated. ED and RD listeners differed significantly in their language background. Results: Consistent with the SLM, NM outperformed ED listeners and ED outperformed RD listeners, whether responses were scored on words or phonemes. NM and ED listeners shared similar phoneme error patterns, whereas RD listeners’ errors had unique patterns that could be largely understood via the PAM. RD listeners had particular difficulty differentiating vowel contrasts /i-I/, /æ-ε/, and /ɑ-Λ/, word-initial consonant contrasts /p-h/ and /b-f/, and word-final contrasts /f-v/. Conclusions: Both first-language phonology and second-language learning history affect word and phoneme recognition. Current findings may help clinicians differentiate word recognition errors due to language background from hearing pathologies.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all volunteers who participated in this study. The authors would also like to thank Drs. Sylvia Yúdice Walters and Laura Koenig for their help throughout the project, and Drs. Richard Wilson and Rachel McArdle for providing their recording of the NU-6 words. This project was partial fulfillment for the second author's MS degree. Portions of this work were presented at the 2010 and 2011 CitationAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and San Diego, California, respectively.
Declaration of interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.