Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:13:57.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mimicry of Non-distinctive Phonetic Differences Between Language Varieties*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

James Emil Flege  and
Robert M. Hammond
James Emil Flege
Affiliation:
University of Alabama, Birmingham
Robert M. Hammond
Affiliation:
Miami-Dade Community College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A delayed mimicry paradigm was used to assess speakers′ awareness of non-distinctive phonetic differences which in part distinguish languages. The notion of “phonological filtering” implies that second language learners may not be able to perceive phonetic differences between their native language and a foreign language unless the phonetic differences are linguistically relevant in the native language. If cross-language phonetic differences are in fact perceived poorly, it is unlikely that phonetic modification will occur in the course of naturalistic second language acquisition. In this study native English speakers familiar with Spanish-accented English attempted to read sentences with a Spanish accent. Acoustic measurements showed that two phonetic characteristics of English—the long VOT values associated with /p, t, k/ and final-syllable lengthening—were altered in the direction of Spanish and Spanish-accented English. These results provide tentative evidence that non-distinctive phonetic differences between languages are detectable by language learners and thus do not present an insuperable barrier to phonetic learning in second language acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Fall 1982 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, A. and Lisker, L.. 1970. Discriminability along the voicing continuum: Cross-language tests. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 569–573. Prague, 1967. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Abramson, A. and Lisker, L.. 1973. Voice timing perception in Spanish word-initial stops. Journal of Phonetics 1.1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Brennan, E., Ryan, E., and Dawson, W.. 1975. Scaling of apparent accentedness by magnitude estimation and sensory modality matching. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4.27–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brière, E. 1966. An investigation of phonological interference. Language 42.768–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, R., Granström, B., and Klatt, D.. 1979. Some notes on the perception of temporal patterns in speech. Frontiers in speech communication research, ed. by Lindblom, B. and Ohman, S., 233–243. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Carney, A., Widen, G., and Viemeister, N.. 1977. Noncategorical perception of stop consonants differing in VOT. Journal Acoustical Society of America 62.961–970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delattre, P. 1966. A comparison of syllable length conditioning among languages. International Review of Applied Linguistics 4.183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27.315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1981. On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning 31.195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilers, R. and Oller, D.K.. 1976. The role of speech discrimination in developmental sound substitutions. Journal of Child Language 3.319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J., Diehl, R., and Buchwald, S.. 1977. Perceptual switching in bilinguals. Journal Acoustical Society of America 62.971–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. 1980. Phonetic approximation in second language acquisition. Language Learning 30.117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. 1981. The phonological basis of foreign accent. TESOL Quarterly 15.443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. and Port, R.. 1981. Cross-language phonetic interference: Arabic to English. Language and Speech 24.125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, V. 1979. Persistant questions concerning distinctive features. Frontiers of speech communication research, ed. by Lindblom, B. and Ohman, S.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. and Levin, H.. 1975. The psychology of reading. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jones, D. 1948/1972. An outline of English phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kewley-Port, D. and Preston, M.. 1974. Early apical stop production. Journal of Phonetics 2.195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, P. 1980. What are linguistic sounds made of? Language 56.485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures: applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, A., Harris, K., Hoffman, H. and Griffith, B.. 1957. The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54.358–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lisker, L. 1978a. Rabid vs. rapid: A catalogue of acoustic features that may cue the distinction. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR-54.127–132.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. 1978b. Speech across a linguistic boundary: Category naming and phonetic description. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR-54.105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisker, L., and Abramson, A.. 1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word 20.384–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisker, L. 1971. Distinctive features and laryngeal control. Language 47.767–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovins, J. 1975. Loanwords and the phonological structure of Japanese. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
McAllister, R. and Jonasson, J.. 1972. Foreign accent and timing: An instrumental phonetic study. Papers from the Institute of Linguistics. University of Stockholm 14.11–40.Google Scholar
Monsen, R. 1976. The production of English stop consonants in the speech of deaf children. Journal of Phonetics 4.29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monsen, R. 1978. Toward measuring how well hearing impaired children speak. Journal Speech and Hearing Research 21.197–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moulton, W. 1962. Towards a classification of pronunciation errors. Modern Language Journal 46.101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oller, D.K. 1973. The effect of position in utterance on speech segment duration in English. Journal Acoustical Society of America 54.1235–1247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oller, D.K. 1977. Syll timing in Spanish, English, and Finnish. Current issues in the phonetic sciences, ed. by Hollein, H. and Hollein, P., 331–345. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pinkerton, S. 1973. The learning of English suprasegmental rules for stress and final syllables by Spanish speakers. Paper presented at the Mid-America Conference on Linguistics, University of Iowa, October, 1973. ED 098 786.Google Scholar
Port, R. 1976. The influence of speaking tempo on the duration of stressed vowel and medial stops in English trochee words. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Port, R., and Rotunno, R.. 1979. Relation between voice-onset-time and vowel duration. Journal Acoustical Society of America. 66.654–662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, W. 1968. On the explanation of phonic interference. Language Learning 18.183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y. 1959. Some allophones can be important. Language Learning 9.7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. 1978. Temporal aspects of English speech production: A developmental perspective. Journal of Phonetics 6.37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R. and Bowen, J.. 1965. The sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Strange, W. and Jenkins, J.. 1978. The role of linguistic experience in the perception of speech. Perception and experience, ed. by. Walk, R. and Pick, H. Jr., 125–169. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, A.Q. 1975. How a full account of segmental perception depends on prosody and vice-versa. Structure and process in speech perception, ed. by Cohen, A. and Nooteboom, S., 51–66. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. 1969. Principles of phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in contact, findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weismer, G. 1979a. Sensitivity of voice-onset time (VOT) measures to certain segmental features in speech production. Journal of Phonetics 7.197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weismer, G. 1979b. Control of the voicing distinction for intervocalic stops and fricatives: Some data and theoretical considerations. Journal of Phonetics 8.427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. 1977. The voicing contrast in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 5.169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. 1979. The modification of speech perception and production in second-language learning. Perception & Psychophysics 26.95–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed