Book contents
- Second Language Speech Learning
- Second Language Speech Learning
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Theoretical Progress
- Chapter 1 The Revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r)
- Chapter 2 The Revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r) Applied
- Chapter 3 New Methods for Second Language (L2) Speech Research
- Chapter 4 Phonetic and Phonological Influences on the Discrimination of Non-native Phones
- Chapter 5 The Past, Present, and Future of Lexical Stress in Second Language Speech Production and Perception
- Part II Segmental Acquisition
- Part III Acquiring Suprasegmental Features
- Part IV Accentedness and Acoustic Features
- Part V Cognitive and Psychological Variables
- Index
- References
Chapter 3 - New Methods for Second Language (L2) Speech Research
from Part I - Theoretical Progress
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- Second Language Speech Learning
- Second Language Speech Learning
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Theoretical Progress
- Chapter 1 The Revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r)
- Chapter 2 The Revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r) Applied
- Chapter 3 New Methods for Second Language (L2) Speech Research
- Chapter 4 Phonetic and Phonological Influences on the Discrimination of Non-native Phones
- Chapter 5 The Past, Present, and Future of Lexical Stress in Second Language Speech Production and Perception
- Part II Segmental Acquisition
- Part III Acquiring Suprasegmental Features
- Part IV Accentedness and Acoustic Features
- Part V Cognitive and Psychological Variables
- Index
- References
Summary
The lack of appropriate methodology creates an obstacle to progress in L2 speech research. Specific suggestions are provided here regarding how to obtain samples of L1 and L2 speech production that are representative of bilinguals’ typical productions of L1 and L2 speech sounds. Recommendations are made regarding methods that might be used to assess the perception of L2 speech sounds, to determine when a new phonetic category has been formed, and to obtain more accurate estimates of percentage L1 and L2 use. Finally, a new technique is unveiled for measuring the quantity and quality of L2 input to which learners have been exposed. The new technique provides a way to determine, for the first time, what kinds of L2 input distributions promote the formation of new phonetic categories for L2 sounds.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Second Language Speech LearningTheoretical and Empirical Progress, pp. 119 - 156Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., & 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.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.Google Scholar
Bohn, O. S., & Flege, J. E. (1993). Perceptual switching in Spanish/English bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 21(3), 267–290.Google Scholar
Bos, M., Schoevers, R. A., & ann het Rot, M. (2015). Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment studies in psychopharmacology: A systematic review. European Neuropharmacology. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dmitrieva, O., Llanos, F., Shultz, A. A., & Francis, A. L. (2015). Phonological status, not voice onset time, determines the acoustic realization of onset f0 as a secondary voicing cue in Spanish and English. Journal of Phonetics, 49, 77–95.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1982). Laryngeal timing and phonation onset in utterance-initial English stops. Journal of Phonetics, 10, 177–192.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2003). A method for assessing the perception of vowels in a second language. In Fava, E & Mioni, A (Eds.), Issues in clinical linguistics (pp. 19–44). Padvoa: Unipress.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2005). Origins and development of the Speech Learning Model. Paper presented at the 1st Acoustical Society of America Workshop in L2 speech Learning, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.10181.19681.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (2009). Give input a chance! In Piske, T & Young-Scholten, M (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 175–190). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2019). A non-critical period for second-language speech learning. In Nyvad, A. M., Hejná, M et al. (Eds.), A sound approach to language matters – In honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn (pp. 501–541). Aarhus: Department of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Aoyama, K., & Bohn, O.-S. (2020). The revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r) applied. In Wayland, R (Ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1988). Imitation of a VOT continuum by native speakers of Spanish and English: Evidence for phonetic category formation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 729–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J. E., & MacKay, I. R. (2004). Perceiving vowels in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Schmidt, A. M., & Wharton, G. (1996). Age of learning affects rate-dependent processing of stops in a second language. Phonetica, 53, 143–161.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Wayland, R. (2019). The role of input in native Spanish Late learners’ production and perception of English phonetic segments. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, J., Tenenbaum, J., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277.Google Scholar
Heron, K. E., Everhart, R. S., McHale, S. M., & Smyth, J. M. (2017). Using mobile-technology-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods with youth: A systematic review and recommendations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 42(10), 1087–1107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3099–3111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experience sampling method. In. Resi, H. T. (Ed.), Naturalistic approaches to studying social interactions: New directions for methodology of social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 15, pp. 41–56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
MacKay, I. A. R., Meador, D., & Flege, J. E. (2001). The identification of English consonants by native speakers of Italian. Phonetica, 58, 103–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meador, D., Flege, J. E., & MacKay, I. R. (2000). Factors affecting the recognition of words in a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(1), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sancier, M. L., & Fowler, C. A. (1997). Gestural drift in a bilingual speaker of Brazilian Portuguese and English. Journal of Phonetics, 25(4), 421–436.Google 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.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by