In our work, we work with a variety of populations. These populations of talkers and listeners have expanded in recent years, and we are always excited to take our work in new directions. We are actively working to collaborate with other researchers to investigate other language varieties to increase the scope of psycholinguistic and phonetic research. Below, we briefly summarize some of the groups we work with.

• Learners acquiring languages as adults

  • We work with language learners from a variety of language backgrounds who are acquiring a variety of target languages. Current projects examine native speakers of Spanish, English, Japanese, and Mandarin and investigate their acquisition of languages including Basque, English, Hindi, and Thai.

  • Language learners have a variety of experience with the language, ranging from significant experience to no experience at all (i.e., naïve learners).

• Native speakers processing speech in their native languages

  • Projects in this domain fall in two sub-categories: speech perception and production between speakers who share a language background and those who do not (i.e., perception of speech from talkers whose native language is not the target language).

• Spanish Heritage Speakers

  • We examine perception and production of Spanish and English speech by individuals who have a cultural connection to Spanish (i.e., Spanish Heritage Speakers). Cecelia Staggs leads projects in this area.

It is important to note that in much of our work we use the terms “native” and “non-native”. These terms are not without problems, and we actively work to use alternative terms when those are appropriate and accurate. However, we also refer the reader to a footnote in a paper from the lab (Baese-Berk, McLaughlin, & McGowan, 2020; emphasis here by MMBB):
”We acknowledge that the term “non-native” is inherently biased and that the use of L2, as an abbreviation for second language, is inaccurate as it is often used to refer to a speaker’s third, fourth, and so on language (see Dewaele, 2017 for a clear discussion of this issue and the problems surrounding this terminology). We choose to use “non-native” because we feel it maintains coherence with long-standing usage in the field. We have also avoided the use of L1 or L2 as abbreviations, as these seem to entail an inherent hierarchy among speakers. It should be noted, though, that as is so often the case with these sorts of labels, that the label itself is not the real problem. The problem is an ideology that leads a reader (both academic and general public) to think of “native” or “L1” as being synonymous with “superior” and “non-native” or “L2” as being inferior. This manuscript is intended to provide a rebuke to this general ideology by investigating and describing both sides of native and non-native communication, rather than focusing solely on the non-native speaker.”