Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part I Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part II Theoretical Models of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part III The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bilingual Child
- Part IV The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bilingual Adult
- Part V The Diversity of Bilingual Speakers
- Part VI Variables and Outcomes of Bilingual Speech
- 29 Language Dominance Effects in the Phonetics and Phonology of Bilinguals
- 30 Code-Switching and Language Mode Effects in the Phonetics and Phonology of Bilinguals
- 31 Orthographic Effects in the Phonetics and Phonology of Second Language Learners and Users
- 32 Phonetic and Phonological L1 Attrition and Drift in Bilingual Speech
- 33 Bilingual Speech Intelligibility
- 34 Using a Characteristic Speech Production (CSP) Procedure to Elicit Monolingual and Bilingual Speech
- 35 Bridging the Gap between Bilingual Phonetic Research and Pronunciation Teaching
- Index
- References
34 - Using a Characteristic Speech Production (CSP) Procedure to Elicit Monolingual and Bilingual Speech
from Part VI - Variables and Outcomes of Bilingual Speech
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 November 2024
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part I Approaches to Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part II Theoretical Models of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology
- Part III The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bilingual Child
- Part IV The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bilingual Adult
- Part V The Diversity of Bilingual Speakers
- Part VI Variables and Outcomes of Bilingual Speech
- 29 Language Dominance Effects in the Phonetics and Phonology of Bilinguals
- 30 Code-Switching and Language Mode Effects in the Phonetics and Phonology of Bilinguals
- 31 Orthographic Effects in the Phonetics and Phonology of Second Language Learners and Users
- 32 Phonetic and Phonological L1 Attrition and Drift in Bilingual Speech
- 33 Bilingual Speech Intelligibility
- 34 Using a Characteristic Speech Production (CSP) Procedure to Elicit Monolingual and Bilingual Speech
- 35 Bridging the Gap between Bilingual Phonetic Research and Pronunciation Teaching
- Index
- References
Summary
Many have expressed concerns regarding the replicability of scientific research. However, little of this ongoing discussion has focused on research examining the production of vowels and consonants or the many important choices that researchers must make in pre-analysis phases of speech production research. The literature reviewed here indicates that not all speech production studies have been replicated, and that how speech is elicited may affect the results that are obtained. Many different elicitation techniques are in current use, but none represents a gold standard. The new Characteristic Speech Production (CSP) technique presented here aims to augment replicability by obviating the need for participants to accommodate their speech to that of others or adopt a particular speaking style as they give meaningful answers to meaningful questions. Given the novelty of the CSP technique, the chapter provides a protocol that is designed to test its efficacy. If the CSP technique can be shown to yield speech samples that are more representative of individuals’ speech than a standard list-reading technique, a change in how speech is elicited for production research will be warranted.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology , pp. 767 - 790Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Anderson, S. F. & Maxwell, S. E. (2017). Addressing the “Replication Crisis”: Using original studies to design replication studies with appropriate statistical power. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52, 305–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. T., & Kroos, C. (2010). Language context elicits native-like stop voicing in early bilinguals’ productions in both L1 and L2. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 640–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bak, T. (2016). Cooking pasta in La Paz: Bilingualism, bias and the replication crisis. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6, 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. & Hazan, V. (2011). DiapixUK: Task materials for the elicitation of multiple spontaneous speech dialogs. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 761–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. (2001). Back in style: Reworking audience design. In Eckert, P. & Rickford, J., eds., Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–169.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2003). Authenticité de prononciation en français L2 chez des apprenants tardifs anglophones: Analyses segmentales e globales. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère, 18, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, Z. S. & Moore, T. J. (1994). A note on the acoustic-phonetic characteristics of inadvertently clear speech. Speech Communication, 14, 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Blasingame, M., & Lee, K. (2018). Language independent talker specificity in bilingual speech intelligibility: Individual traits persist across first-language and second-language speech. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 9(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayards, M. (2018). Individual talkers and token covariation in the production of multiple cues to stop voicing. Phonetica, 75, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clopper, C. G., Pisoni, D. B., & de Jong, K. (2005). Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of six regional varieties of American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1661–1676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coretta, S., Casillas, J. V., Roessig, S., et al. (2023). Multidimensional signals and analytic flexibility: Estimating degrees of freedom in human speech analyses. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docherty, G. J. (2022). Sociophonetics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Baciero, A., Antoniou, K. et al. (2022). The multilingual picture database. Scientific Data, 9, 431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feest, U. (2019). Why replication is overrated. Philosophy of Science, 86, 895–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1991). Age of learning affects the authenticity of voice-onset time (VOT) in stop consonants produced in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2009). Give input a chance! In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M., eds., Input Matters in SLA. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 175–190.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2019). A non-critical period for second-language speech learning. In Nyvad, A. M., Hejná, M., Højen, A., Jespersen, A. B., & Sørensen, M. H., eds., A Sound Approach to Language Matters – In Honour of Ocke-Schwen Bohn. Aarhus: Department of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University, pp. 501–541.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2021). New methods for second language (L2) speech research. In Wayland, R., ed., Second Language Speech Learning, Theoretical and Empirical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Aoyama, K., & Bohn, O.-S. (2021). The revised speech learning model (SLM-r), applied. In Wayland, R., ed., Second Language Speech Learning, Theoretical and Empirical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. & Bohn, O.-S. (2021). The revised speech learning model (SLM-r). In Wayland, R., ed., Second Language Speech Learning, Theoretical and Empirical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Frieda, E. M., Walley, A. C., & Randazza, L. A. (1998). Lexical factors and segmental accuracy in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 155–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 527–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995a). Factors affecting strength of perceived foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3125–3134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995b). Effects of age of second-language learning on the production of English consonants. Speech Communication, 16, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1995). Japanese adults can learn to produce English /r/ and /l/ accurately. Language and Speech, 38, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1996). Lexical familiarity and English-language experience affect Japanese adults’ perception of /r/ and /l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1161–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawne, L. & Styles, S. (2022). Situating linguistics in the Social Sciences data movement. In Berez-Kroeker, A. L., McDonnell, B., Koller, E., & Collister, L. B., eds., The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management. Boston, MA: MIT Press, pp. 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N., eds., Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Keyes, L., & Yung, Y. F. (2001). Ability in perceiving nonnative contrasts: Performance on natural and synthetic speech stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 746–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J., ed., One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Han, J.-I., Kim, J.-Y., & Tsukada, K. (2023). Foreign accent in L1 (first language): Case of Korean immigrants in North America. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22028.han.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. B., Drager, K., & Warren, P. (2009). Careful who you talk to: An effect of experimenter identity on the production of the NEAR/SQUARE merger in New Zealand English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, V., Tuomainen, O., Kim, J., Davis, C., & Brungart, D. (2018). Clear speech adaptations in spontaneous speech produced by young and older adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143, 1331–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herd, W. (2020). Sociophonetic voice onset time variation in Mississippi English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147, 596–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Idemaru, K., Holt, L. L., & Seltman, H. (2012). Individual differences in cue weights are stable across time: The case of Japanese stop lengths. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132, 3950–3964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacewicz, E. & Fox, R. A. (2020). Perception of local and non-local vowels by adults and children in the South. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147, 627–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1984). Field methods of the Project on Linguistic Change and Variation. In Baugh, J. & Sherzer, J., eds., Language in Use, Readings in Sociolinguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 28–53.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2014). The sociophonetic orientation of the language learner. In Celata, C. & Calamai, S., eds., Advances in Sociophonetics. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, J., Tjaden, K., & Wilding, G. (2012). Acoustics of clear speech: Effect of instruction. Journal of the Speech Language and Hearing Research, 55, 807–821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson-Hall, J. (2006). What does more time buy you? Another look at the effects of long-term residence on production accuracy of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese speakers. Language and Speech, 49, 521–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laws, K. R. (2016). Psychology, replication & beyond. BMC Psychology, 4, 30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luk, G. & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 605–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hegarty, B. (2012). Replication in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7, 537–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, S. E. (2004). The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods, 9, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mielke, J. & Nielsen, K. (2018). Voice onset time in English voiceless stops is affected by following postvocalic liquids and voiceless onsets. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144, 2166–2177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Flege, J. E. (1999). Canadians in Alabama: A perceptual study of dialect acquisition in adults. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. J. (2016). The role of code-switching and language context in bilingual phonetic transfer. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 46, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 1–8.Google Scholar
Oyama, S. (1982). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. In Krashen, S. D., Scarcella, R. C., & Long, M. H., eds., Child-Adult Differences in Second language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 20–38.Google Scholar
Piccini, P. & Arvaniti, A. (2015). Voice onset time in Spanish-English spontaneous code switching. Journal of Phonetics, 53, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roettger, T. B. & Baer-Henny, D. (2019). Toward a replication culture: Speech production research in the classroom. Phonological Data & Analysis, 1, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schertz, J., Carbonell, K., & Lotto, A. J. (2020). Language specificity in phonetic cue weighting: Monolingual and bilingual perception of the stop voicing contrast in English and Spanish. Phonetica, 77, 186–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schertz, J., Cho, T., Lotto, A., & Warner, N. (2015). Individual differences in phonetic cue use in production and perception of a non-native sound contrast. Journal of Phonetics, 52, 183–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shport, I. & Herd, W. (2020). Sounding Southern: Identities expressed through language. Acoustics Today, 16, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society of Open Science, 3, 160384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smiljanić, R. & Bradlow, A. R. (2005). Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1677–1688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smiljanić, R. & Bradlow, A. R. (2009). Speaking and hearing clearly: Talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Linguistics and Language Compass, 3(1), 236–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sönning, L. & Werner, V. (2021). The replication crisis, scientific revolutions, and linguistics. Linguistics, 59, 1179–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodore, R., Miller, J., & DeSteno, D. (2009). Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time: Contextual influences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3974–3982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tobin, S., Nam, H., & Fowler, C. A. (2017). Phonetic drift in Spanish-English bilinguals: Experiment and a self-organizing model. Journal of Phonetics, 65, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uchanski, R. M. (2005). Clear speech. In Pisoni, D. B. & Remez, R. E., eds., The Handbook of Speech Perception. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, L., Lai, W., & Tamminga, M. (2021). The reliability of individual differences in VOT imitation. Language and Speech, 64, 576–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, A. (2020). Voiced stops in the command performance of Southern English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147, 606–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Flege, J. E., & Liu, S. (2000). Pronunciation proficiency in the first and second languages of Korean-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar