Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:36:59.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Perception in Differential Substitution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Kathleen Brannen
Kathleen Brannen*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines differential substitution of the L2 English voiceless interdental fricative, [θ]. The L1s investigated in this study—European French, Québec French, and Japanese—have been reported to substitute [s], [t], and [s] respectively in production. Two main hypotheses are explored: 1) Transfer is perceptually based; 2) Substitution involves an assessment of non-contrastive in addition to contrastive features. Results of an AXB task show that advanced learners are unable to perceive certain non-contrastive distinctions; however, unlike Japanese listeners, French listeners do perceive Strident and Mellow, features which are non-contrastive in their L1. Results indicate a clear perceptual basis for the Japanese substitute. The difference between Québec and European French is less clear; however, there is a trend which suggests a perceptual basis for the European French substitute. Another finding is that confusion of [f] and [θ] is greater for French than it is for Japanese listeners. It is proposed that the composition of the L1 phonetic inventory influences which features listeners attend to during perception.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article examine la substitution différentielle de la fricative interdentale non-voisée, [θ], en anglais langue seconde. Les langues maternelles examinées dans cette étude, le français européen, le français québécois et le japonais, substituent en production [s], [t] et [s] respectivement. Deux hypothèses principales sont explorées: 1) le transfert est basé sur la perception; 2) la substitution implique une évaluation de traits non-contrastifs en plus de traits contrastifs. Les résultats d’un test AXB montrent que les apprenants avancés sont incapables de percevoir certaines distinctions non-contrastives; cependant, contrairement aux auditeurs japonais, les auditeurs français perçoivent les traits strident et moelleux, qui ne sont pas contrastifs dans leur Ll. Les résultats indiquent qu’il y a un fondement perceptuel pour le substitut japonais. Les différences entre le français québécois et européen sont moins nettes; cependant, il y a une tendance qui suggère que le substitut en français européen est basé sur la perception. Un autre résultat est que la confusion de [f] et [θ] est plus grande pour les auditeurs français que pour les auditeurs japonais. La notion que la composition de l’inventaire phonétique de la L1 a une influence sur les traits auxquels les auditeurs portent leur attention au cours de la perception est proposée.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 47 , Issue 1-2 , June 2002 , pp. 1 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2002

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

Angus, W. 1937. The Turk’s characteristic difficulties in learning English pronunciation. Quarterly Journal of Speech 23:238–243.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice S., and Gottfried, Terry L.. 1995. Methodological issues in cross-language speech perception research with adults. In Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, ed. Strange, Winifred, 207–232. Baltimore: York Press.Google Scholar
Berger, Marshall D. 1951. The American English pronunciation of Russian immigrants. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T., and Strange, Winifred. 1992. Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics 20:305–330.Google Scholar
Brannen, Kathleen. 1998. The acquisition of interdentals in L2. Paper read at the Montréal-Ottawa-Toronto Phonology Workshop, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Brown, Cynthia A. 1993. The role of the L1 grammar in the L2 acquisition of segmental structure. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 180–210.Google Scholar
Brown, Cynthia A. 1997. Acquisition of segmental structure: Consequences for speech perception and second language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea. 1988. Towards a theory of phonological alphabets. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Charbonneau, René, and Jacques, Benoît. 1972. [ts] et [dz] en français canadien. In Papers in linguistics and phonetics to the memory of Pierre Delattre, ed. Valdman, Albert, 77–90. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.D., MacWhinney, Brian, Flatt, Matthew, and Provost, Jefferson. 1993. PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 25:257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtin, Suzanne, Goad, Heather, and Pater, Joe. 1998. Phonological transfer and levels of representation: The perceptual acquisition of Thai voice and aspiration by English and French speakers. Second Language Research 14: 389–405.Google Scholar
Dart, Sarah N. 1991. Articulatory and acoustic properties of apical and laminal articulations. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 79:1–155.Google Scholar
Dickerson, Wayne. 1976. The psycholinguistic unity of language learning and language change. Language Learning 26:215–231.Google Scholar
Rege, James Emil. 1987. The production of ‘new’ and ‘similar’ phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics 15:47–65.Google Scholar
Flege, James Emil. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, ed. Strange, Winifred, 233–277. Baltimore: York Press.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward S. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, Elizabeth. 1983. Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech: A gradual diffusion model. In Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and related aspects, ed. Robinett, Betty Wallace and Schachter, Jacquelyn, 240–255. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [1978.]Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Phillip J. 1996. Phonetic constraints and markedness in the phonotactics of Australian aboriginal languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Hammarberg, Björn. 1997. Conditions on transfer in phonology. In Second-language speech: Structure and process, ed. James, Allan and Leather, Jonathan, 162–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, Barbara Jean. 1994a. Phonological transfer in second language perception and production. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, Barbara Jean. 1994b. Segment transfer: A consequence of a dynamic system. Second Language Research 10:241–269.Google Scholar
Hardison, Debra M. 1999. Bimodal speech perception by native and nonnative speakers of English: Factors influencing the McGurk Effect. In Phonological issues in language learning, ed. Leather, Jonathan, 213–283. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Johnson, Keith. 2001. A model of the interplay of speech perception and phonology. In The role of speech perception in phonology, ed. Hume, Elizabeth and Johnson, Keith, 3–26. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgette, and Weinberger, Steven H.. 1987. Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system. Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar, C. Fant, M., and Halle, Morris. 1967. Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
James, Allan R. 1986. Suprasegmental phonology and segmental form. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia. 1988. Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5:275–292.Google Scholar
Keel, William D. 1979. The acquisition of German as a second language. In Studies in first and second language acquisition, ed. Eckman, Fred and Hastings, A., 215–223. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Kisseberth, Charles. 1979. Generative phonology: Description and theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kruatrachue, Foongfuang. 1955. Thai and English: A comparative study of phonology for pedagogical applications. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Kučera, Henry, and Francis, Nelson. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene, and Prévost, Philippe. 1999. Le rôle de la langue maternelle et de l’enseignement dans l’acquisition des segments de l’anglais langue seconde par des apprenants francophones. Langues et linguistique 25:81–109.Google Scholar
Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 2000. Second language data and constraints on manner: Explaining substitutions for the English interdentals. Rutgers Optimality Archive 418–0900. http://roa.rutgers.edu/view.php3?roa=418 Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mester, R. Armin, and Ito, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65:258–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaels, David. 1973. Sinhalese sound replacements and feature hierarchies. Linguistics 107:14–22.Google Scholar
Miller, George A., and Nicely, P.A.. 1955. An analysis of perceptual confusion among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27:338–346.Google Scholar
Nemser, William. 1971. An experimental study of phonological interference in the English of Hungarians. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Peust, Carsten. 1996. Sum: th-substitution. The Linguist List 7.1108. http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-1108.html Google Scholar
Rice, Keren, and Avery, Peter. 1995. Variability in a deterministic model of language acquisition: A theory of segment acquisition. In Phonological acquisition and phonological theory, ed. Archibald, John, 23–42. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ritchie, William C. 1983. On the explanation of phonic interference. In Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and related aspects, ed. Robinett, Betty Wallace and Schachter, Jacquelyn, 73–86. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [1968]Google Scholar
Robinett, Betty Wallace, and Schachter, Jacquelyn, eds. 1983. Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and related aspects. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sangster, Catherine M. 2000. Lenition of alveolar stops in Liverpool English. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics: Philology and Phonetics 5:51–63.Google Scholar
Scovel, Thomas. 1988. A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Shadle, Christine H., Mair, S.J., and Carter, J.N.. 1996. Acoustic characteristics of the front fricatives [f, v, θ, ð]. Proceedings of the First ESCA Workshop on Speech Production Modeling, 193–196. European Speech Communication Association: Autrans.Google Scholar
Sheldon, Amy, and Strange, Winifred. 1982. The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics 3:243–261.Google Scholar
Someda, T. 1966. Ei, futsugo to no hikaku ni okem nihongo no chōon no ippanteki haikei ni tsuite. Onsei no Kenkyū 12:327–346.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1987. Redundant values. In Proceedings of the Regional Chicago Linguistic Society 23: Parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology, ed. Bosch, Anna, Need, Barbara, and Schiller, Eric, 339–362. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Keyser, Samuel J., and Kawasaki, Haruko. 1986. Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In Invariance and variability in speech processes, ed. Perkell, Joseph and Klatt, Dennis, 426–449. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Strevens, Peter. 1960. Spectra of fricative noise in human speech. Language and Speech 3:32–49.Google Scholar
Tabain, Marija. 1998. Non-sibilant fricatives in English: Spectral information above 10 kHz. Phonetica 55:107–130.Google Scholar
Teasdale, Allison. 1997. On the differential substitution of English [θ]: A phonetic approach. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics 19.Google Scholar
Vance, Timothy J. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Weinberger, Steven Howard. 1994. Theoretical foundations of second language phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1968. Languages in contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Wenk, Brian J. 1979. Articulatory setting and de-fossilization. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 4:202–220.Google Scholar
Werker, Janet F., and Logan, John. 1985. Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 37:35–44.Google Scholar
Werker, Janet F., and Tees, Richard. 1984. Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 75:1866–1878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed