Attentional weighting of Polish and Taiwanese Mandarin sibilant perception

Polish and Taiwanese Mandarin are two languages well known for the three-way distinction of sibilant fricatives (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996): apical dental [s], laminal1 flat post-alveolar (retroflex) [ù], and laminal palatalized postalveolar (alveolo-palatal) [C]. Although these two languages are historically unrelated, their sibilants share a lot of auditory similarities (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996). These auditory similarities result from similar articulatory gestures as well as different articulatory gestures, depending on sibilants; the alveolo-palatal [C] in both languages requires a tensed tongue, spread lips, and a similar constriction of post-alveolar region of the palate; lip-rounding in PL retroflex [ù] and sublingual cavity in TM retroflex [ù] have similar acoustic effects. These articulatory gestures contribute to different acoustic properties which are influential in fricative perception. As proposed by earlier research, the acoustic cues, particularly formant transitions and frication noise, have been considered as most influential in frication perception (Nittrouer and Whalen 1989; Nowak 2003; Wagner, Ernestus, and Cutler 2006). Given the auditory similarities of sibilants in Polish and Taiwanese Mandarin, the present study investigates what acoustic cues distinguish one sibilant from another and what kind of role the acoustic cues play in perception. The three way contrasts of sibilants in these two languages contribute to different historical changes. Polish sibilants as well as Russian sibilant underwent two phases of sound change, as argued by Padgett and Żygis (2007: 292):