Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-vq995 Total loading time: 0.188 Render date: 2021-10-17T19:17:54.287Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Native dialect effects in non-native production: Cuban and Peninsular learners of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Irina Marinescu*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto

Abstract

This study investigates how learners with distinct native dialects, Cuban (CS) and Peninsular Spanish (PS), produce the English vowels æ, Λ, a/. Experiment 1 compares the native vowels along several acoustic parameters to determine the extent of the cross-dialectal differences, and Experiment 2 assesses the differences in L2 production of the same speakers who are also advanced learners of English. More fronted and shorter vowels are predicted for PS versus CS. As such, L2 /æ, A, a/ are expected to be more fronted in the interlanguage of PS learners as compared to CS learners. Dialect-specific patterns of assimilation are highlighted. PS learners produce æ, Λ, a/ with good spectral differences but with no duration differences whereas for CS learners /Λ, a/ overlap spectrally but are realized with different durations. Differences found in L2 production are caused by the conjoint effect of the native dialect, the input, and the learning experience.

Résumé

Résumé

Cette étude s’intéresse à la prononciation des voyelles æ, Λ, a en anglais par des apprenants avec des dialectes natifs distincts, l’espagnol cubain (EC) et l’espagnol péninsulaire (EP). La première expérience compare les voyelles des dialectes natifs selon plusieurs paramètres acoustiques afin de déterminer le degré des différences entre les dialectes. La seconde expérience évalue les différences dans la production de l’anglais langue seconde de ces apprenants. L’hypothèse est que les voyelles seront plus antérieures et plus courtes chez les apprenants EP par rapport aux apprenants EC. Ainsi, on prédit que les voyelles langue seconde æ, Λ, a seront plus antérieures et plus courtes dans l’interlangue des apprenants EP en comparaison avec celui des apprenants EC. Des règles d’assimilation spécifiques aux dialectes sont soulignées. Les apprenants EP produisent Ix, A, al avec de bonnes différences spectrales mais sans des différences de durée, alors que chez les apprenants EC, /Λ, a/ se chevauchent sur le plan spectral mais sont réalisés avec des différences de durée. Les différences établies dans la production de la langue seconde sont causées par le dialecte natif, l’input et l’expérience de l’acquisition.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

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

Adank, Patti, Smits, Roel, and Hout, Roeland van. 2004. A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116:30993107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohn, Ocke-Schwen and Louise, Rikke Bungaard-Nielsen. 2009. Second language speech learning with diverse inputs. In Input matters in SLA, ed. Piske, Thorsten and Young-Scholten, Martha, 207218. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Chládkova, Kateřina, Escudero, Paola, and Boersma, Paul. 2011. Context-specific acoustic differences between Peruvian and Iberian Spanish vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130:416428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler Anne, Roel Smits, and Cooper, Nicole. 2005. Vowel perception: Effects of non-native language vs. non-native dialect. Speech Communication 47:3242.Google Scholar
Escudero, Paola and Boersma, Paul. 2004. Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26:551585.Google Scholar
Flege, James E. 2002. Interactions between the native and second-language phonetic systems. In An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor ofHenning Wode, ed. Burmeíster, Petra, Piske, Thorsten, and Rohde, Andreas, 217244. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Flege, James E. 2009. Give input a chance! In Input matters in SLA, ed. Piske, Thorsten and Young-Scholten, Martha, 175190. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Flege, James E., Munro, Murray J., and Fox, Robert Allen. 1994. Auditory and categorical effects on cross-language vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95:36233641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, Robert Allen and McGory, Julie Tevis. 2007. Second language acquisition of a regional dialect of American English by native Japanese speakers. In Language experience in second language speech learning. In honor of James Emil Flege, ed. Bohn, Ocke-Schwen and Munro, Murray J., 117134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godinez, Manuel. 1978. A comparative study of some Romance vowels. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 41:319.Google Scholar
Guitart, Jorge M. 1996. On the source of variance among Hispanophones with regard to the way they perceive certain American English vowels. Paper presented at the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (AATSP) Biennial Northeast Regional Meeting, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Guitart, Jorge M. 1988. Perception of English vowels by Hispanic children of limited English proficiency. In Research issues and problems in United States Spanish, ed. Ornstein-Galicia, Jacob L., Green, George K., and Bixler-Márquez, Dennis J., 269280. Brownsville, TX: Pan American University.Google Scholar
Guitart, Jorge M. 1985. The resolution of phonological ambiguity in a simulated English-Spanish borrowing situation. In Selected papers from the XHIth linguistic symposium on Romance languages, Chapel Hill, N.C., 24–26 March 1983, ed. King, Larry D. and Maley, Catherine A., 117125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, Kyril T. and Nearey, Terrance M.. 1986. A preliminary report on three Russian dialects: Vowel perception and production. Russian Language Journal 40:321.Google Scholar
Ingram, John C.L. and Park, See-Gyoon. 1997. Cross-vowel perception and production by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics 25:343370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobanov, B.M. 1971. Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49:606608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinescu, Irina. 2011. How the native dialect shapes non-native perception: Cuban and Peninsular Spanish learners of English. In Achievements and perspectives in SLA of speech: New Sounds 2010, ed. Wrembel, Magdalena, Kul, Malgorzata, and Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna, 171182. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
McAllister, Robert, Flege, James E., and Piske, Thorsten. 2002. The influence of LI on the acquisition of Swedish quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics 30:229258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart. 2008. Perception of synthetic vowels by monolingual Canadian-English, Mexican-Spanish, and Peninsular-Spanish listeners. Canadian Acoustics 36:1723.Google Scholar
Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart and Escudero, Paola. 2007. A cross-dialect comparison of Peninsularand Peruvian-Spanish vowels. In Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarland University. Available at: www.icphs2007.de;ID1006. Access via ‘List of Authors’.Google Scholar
Munro, Murray J., Derwing, Tracey M., and Flege, James E.. 1999. Canadians in Alabama: A perceptual study of dialect acquisition in adults. Journal of Phonetics 27:385403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recasens, Daniel and Espinosa, Aina. 2006. Dispersion and variability of Catalan vowels. Speech Communication 48:645666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Native dialect effects in non-native production: Cuban and Peninsular learners of English
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Native dialect effects in non-native production: Cuban and Peninsular learners of English
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Native dialect effects in non-native production: Cuban and Peninsular learners of English
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *