1887
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1931
  • E-ISSN: 2215-194X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This investigation compared adult sequential bilinguals and native speakers (NSs) with the intention of determining if bilinguals are an appropriate comparison group for second language (L2) learners in L2 phonetic research. To that end, 16 Spanish-English bilinguals were compared to 20 NSs of English on their perception and production of two English vowels. In perception, both groups had a similar category boundary and acoustic cue weighting. In production, both groups produced distinct vowels that were highly intelligible, although the bilinguals produced the phonemes closer together in the vowel space and had more variable performance than the NSs. The inspection of these two participant groups reveals that bilinguals have the ability to perceive and produce a difficult L2 phonemic contrast, with slight and inconsequential differences when compared to NSs. Thus, I argue that bilinguals who have acquired a target structure are an apt comparison group in L2 phonetic experiments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.00002.sak
2018-05-31
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Birdsong, D. , & Gertken, L. M.
    (2013) In faint praise of folly: A critical review of native/non-native speaker comparisons, with examples from native and bilingual processing of French complex syntax. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 4(2), 107–133. doi: 10.1075/lia.4.2.01bir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.4.2.01bir [Google Scholar]
  2. Bley-Vroman, R.
    (1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1983.tb00983.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00983.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Braida, L. D. , Lim, J. S. , Berliner, J. E. , Durlach, N. I. , Rabinowitz, W. M. , & Purks, S. R.
    (1984) Intensity perception. XIII. Perceptual anchor model of context-coding. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76(3), 722–731. doi: 10.1121/1.391258
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.391258 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cebrian, J.
    (2006) Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel categorization. Journal of Phonetics, 34(3), 372–387. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cenoz, J. , & García Lecumberri, L.
    (1999) The effect of training on the discrimination of English vowels. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 261–275. doi: 10.1515/iral.1999.37.4.261
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1999.37.4.261 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cook, V. J.
    (1992) Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557–591. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1992.tb01044.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01044.x [Google Scholar]
  7. (1997) The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp.279–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1999) Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. doi: 10.2307/3587717
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587717 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2014) Learning the grammar of a second language. In V. J. Cook & D. Singleton (Eds.), Key topics in second language acquisition (pp.58–71). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Crowther, D. , Trofimovich, P. , Isaacs, T. , & Saito, K.
    (2015) Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility?The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 80–95.10.1111/modl.12185
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12185 [Google Scholar]
  11. Davies, M.
    (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
  12. Derwing, T. M. , & Munro, M. J.
    (1997) Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1017/S0272263197001010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001010 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2005) Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–397. doi: 10.2307/3588486
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588486 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dickerson, W. B.
    (1975) The WH question of pronunciation: An answer from spelling and generative phonology. TESOL Quarterly, 9(3), 299–309. doi: 10.2307/3585961
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3585961 [Google Scholar]
  15. Escudero, P.
    (2001) The role of the input in the development of L1 and L2 sound contrasts: language-specific cue weighting for vowels. InProceedings of the 25th annual Boston University conference on language development (pp.250–261). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Flege, J. E. , Bohn, O. S. , & Jang, S.
    (1997) Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25(4), 437–470. doi: 10.1006/jpho.1997.0052
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1997.0052 [Google Scholar]
  17. Garcia, P.
    (2014) Perception of American English vowels by adult Spanish-English bilingual listeners(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order Number 3620218)
    [Google Scholar]
  18. García Lecumberri, M. L. , & Cenoz, J.
    (1997) Identification by L2 learners of English vowels in different phonetic contexts. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-Language Speech: New Sounds 97. Klagenfurt, Austria: University of Klagenfurt.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gnevsheva, K.
    (2015) Style-shifting and intra-speaker variation in the vowel production of nonnative speakers of New Zealand English. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(2), 135–156. doi: 10.1075/jslp.1.2.01gne
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.1.2.01gne [Google Scholar]
  20. Hansen Edwards, J. G.
    (2008) Social factors and variation in production in L2 phonology. In J. G. Edwards & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp.251–279). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.36.12han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.36.12han [Google Scholar]
  21. Hillenbrand, J. M. , Clark, M. J. , & Houde, R. A.
    (2000) Some effects of duration on vowel recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(6), 3013–3022. doi: 10.1121/1.1323463
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1323463 [Google Scholar]
  22. Iverson, P. , & Evans, B. G.
    (2009) Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems II: Auditory training for native Spanish and German speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(2), 866–877. doi: 10.1121/1.3148196
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3148196 [Google Scholar]
  23. Iverson, P. , & Kuhl, P. K.
    (1995) Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 553–562. doi: 10.1121/1.412280
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.412280 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jaeger, T. F. , & Tily, H.
    (2011) On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 323–335.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson, D. E.
    (2015) Quantifying vowel overlap with Bhattacharyya’s affinity. New Ways of Analyzing Variation 44. Toronto, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kewley-Port, D. , & Watson, C. S.
    (1994) Formant-frequency discrimination for isolated English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 485–496. doi: 10.1121/1.410024
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.410024 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kohler, K. J.
    (1990) Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: Phonological facts and phonetic explanations. Speech Production and Speech Modelling, 55, 69–92. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2037‑8_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_4 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kondaurova, M. V. , & Francis, A. L.
    (2010) The role of selective attention in the acquisition of English tense and lax vowels by native Spanish listeners: Comparison of three training methods. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 569–587. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Konopka, K. , & Pierrehumbert, J.
    (2008) Vowels in contact: Mexican heritage English in Chicago. Proceedings fromThe Sixteenth Annual Symposium about Language and Society-Austin. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Levis, J. M.
    (2005) Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. Tesol Quarterly, 39(3), 369–377. doi: 10.2307/3588485
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485 [Google Scholar]
  31. Levis, J. M. , & Moyer, A.
    (Eds.) (2014) Social dynamics in second language accent. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9781614511762
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511762 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindblom, B.
    (1990) Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp.403–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2037‑8_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lindemann, S. , Litzenberg, J. , & Subtirelu, N.
    (2014) Problematizing the dependence on L1 norms in pronunciation teaching: Attitudes toward second-language accents. In J. Levis & A. Moyer (Eds.), Social dynamics in second language accent (pp.171–194). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9781614511762.171
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511762.171 [Google Scholar]
  34. Linguistic Society of America
    Linguistic Society of America (1997) Resolution on the Oakland “Ebonics” issue. Retrieved from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/lsa-resolution-oakland-ebonics-issue.
  35. Macmillan, N. A. , & Creelman, C. D.
    (1991) Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. McCrocklin, S.
    (2012) Effect of audio vs. video on aural discrimination of vowels. TESL-EJ, 16(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mora, J. C. , & Levkina, M.
    (2017) Task-based pronunciation teaching and research: Key issues and future directions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 381–399.10.1017/S0272263117000183
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000183 [Google Scholar]
  38. Morrison, G. S.
    (2008) Perception of synthetic vowels by monolingual Canadian-English, Mexican-Spanish, and Peninsular-Spanish listeners. Canadian Acoustics, 36(4), 17–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Munro, M. J. , & Derwing, T. M.
    (2008) Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58(3), 479–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00448.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00448.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Ortega, L.
    (2014) Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp.32–53). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Perkell, J. S. , Matthies, M. L. , Svirsky, M. A. , & Jordan, M. I.
    (1995) Goal-based speech motor control: A theoretical framework and some preliminary data. Journal of Phonetics, 23(1), 23–35. doi: 10.1016/S0095‑4470(95)80030‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(95)80030-1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Piantadosi, S. T. , Tily, H. , & Gibson, E.
    (2012) The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3), 280–291. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  43. Saito, K.
    (2011) Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and comprehensible pronunciation development: An instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology. Language Awareness, 20(1), 45–59. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2010.540326
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.540326 [Google Scholar]
  44. Saito, K. , & Hanzawa, K.
    (2016) Developing second language oral ability in foreign language classrooms: The role of the length and focus of instruction and individual differences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 813–840.10.1017/S0142716415000259
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000259 [Google Scholar]
  45. Salminen, N. H. , Tiitinen, H. , & May, P. J. C.
    (2009) Modeling the categorical perception of speech sounds: A step toward biological plausibility. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(3), 304–313. doi: 10.3758/CABN.9.3.304
    https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.9.3.304 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tarone, E. , & Parrish, B.
    (1988) Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language learning, 38(1), 21–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1988.tb00400.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00400.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Thomson, R. I. , & Derwing, T. M.
    (2015) The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326–344. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu076
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu076 [Google Scholar]
  48. Weinberger, Steven
    (2015) Speech Accent Archive. George Mason University. Retrieved from accent.gmu.edu.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wolfram, W.
    (2015) Social varieties of American English. In C. A. Ferguson , E. Finegan , S. B. Heath , & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century (pp.58–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.00002.sak
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.00002.sak
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error