Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:46:58.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laryngeal Systems in Dutch, English, and German: A Contrastive Phonological Study on Second and Third Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2010

Ellen Simon  and
Torsten Leuschner
Ellen Simon*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Torsten Leuschner*
Affiliation:
University College Ghent / Ghent University
*
Ghent University, English Department, Rozier 44, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium, [[email protected]]
Department of Translation Studies, University College Ghent, Groot-Brittanniëlaan 45, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Dutch, English, and German all have a phonological contrast between voiced and voiceless plosives, they differ in the way these stops are realized. While English and German contrast voiceless aspirated with phonetically voiceless stops, Dutch has a contrast between voiceless unaspirated and prevoiced stops. This study compares these three laryngeal stop systems and examines the acquisition of the English and German systems by a group of native speakers of Dutch. The analysis reveals that both trained and untrained participants transferred prevoicing from Dutch into English and German but acquired aspiration and thus showed a “mixed” laryngeal system in both their L2 (English) and their L3 (German). Since even untrained participants produced voiceless stops in the target Voice Onset Time range, pronunciation training has only a moderate effect.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 22 , Special Issue 4: SPECIAL ISSUE: DUTCH BETWEEN ENGLISH AND GERMAN , December 2010 , pp. 403 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2010

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

REFERENCES

Ackermann, Hermann, & Hertrich, Ingo. 1997. Voice onset time in ataxic dysarthria. Brain and Language 56. 321–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, Paul, & Weenink, David. 2008. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, version 5.0.27 [computer program], retrieved from http://www.praat.org. Date accessed: 28 September 2010.Google Scholar
Bradlow, Ann, Pisoni, David, Akahane-Yamada, Reiko, & Tokhura, Yoh'ichi. 1996. Training Japanese listeners to identify /r/ and /l/: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101. 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, Jasone, Hufeisen, Britta, & Jessner, Ulrike (eds.) 2001. Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerry J. 1992. The timing of voicing in British English obstruents. Berlin: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, Jim. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, Jim, & Eefting, W.. 1987. Cross-language switching in stop consonant production and perception by Dutch speakers of English. Speech Communication 6. 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haag, W. K. 1979. An articulatory experiment on voice onset time in German stop consonants. Phonetica 36. 169–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hattori, Kota, & Iverson, Paul. 2008. English /r/-/l/ pronunciation training for Japanese speakers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123:5. 3327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick. 2005. Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: The case of laryngeal specifications. The internal organization of phonological segments, ed. by Van Oostendorp, Marc & Van de Weijer, Jeroen, 319–354. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory, & Salmons, Joseph. 1995. Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic. Phonology 12. 369–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory, & Salmons, Joseph. 1999. Glottal spreading bias in Germanic. Linguistische Berichte 178. 135–151.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory, & Salmons, Joseph. 2003a. Laryngeal enhancement in Early Germanic. Phonology 20. 43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory, & Salmons, Joseph. 2003b. Legacy specification in the laryngeal phonology of Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory, & Salmons, Joseph. 2008. Germanic aspiration: Phonetic enhancement and language contact. Sprachwissenschaft 33. 257–278.Google Scholar
Jansen, Wouter. 2004. Laryngeal contrast and phonetic voicing: A laboratory phonology approach to English, Hungarian, and Dutch. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael. 1998. Phonetics and phonology of tense and lax obstruents in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jessner, Ulrike. 2006. Linguistic awareness in multilinguals. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Carolyn, & Wilson, Ian. 2002. Phonetic evidence for early language differentiation: Research issues and some preliminary data. International Journal of Bilingualism 6. 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René, Van der Feest, Suzanne, Fikkert, Paula, Kerkhoff, Annemarie, & Zamuner, Tania. 2007. Representations of [voice]: Evidence from acquisition. Voicing in Dutch, ed. by Jan van der Torre, Erik & van de Weijer, Jeroen, 41–80. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingston, John, & Diehl, Randy L.. 1994. Phonetic knowledge. Language 70. 419–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, Dennis H. 1975. Voice onset time, frication, and aspiration in word-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 18. 686–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
König, Ekkehard, & Gast, Volker. 2009. Understanding English-German contrasts. 2nd revised edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Lisker, Leigh, & Abramson, Arthur S.. 1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word 20. 384–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llama, Raquel, Cardoso, Walcir, & Collins, Laura. 2008. The roles of typology and L2 status in the acquisition of L3 phonology: The influence of previously learnt languages on L3 speech perception, New Sounds 2007: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, ed. by Rauber, Andréia S., Watkins, Michael A., & Baptista, Barbara O., 313-323. Florianópolis: Federal University of Santa Catarina. http://www.nupffale.ufsc.br/newsounds/proceedings. Date accessed: 28 September 2010.Google Scholar
Major, Roy. 2001. Foreign accent. The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangold, Max. 2006. Duden. Das Aussprachewörterbuch. 6th revised and updated edn. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut and F.A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Mehlhorn, Grit. 2007. From Russian to Polish: Positive transfer in L3 acquisition. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, 6-10 August 2007, 1745-1748. http://www.icphs2007.de/conference/Papers/1709/1709.pdf. Date accessed: 28 September 2010Google Scholar
Nooteboom, Sieb G. 1974. Experimentele bijdragen aan de fonologie. Forum der Letteren 15. 73–99.Google Scholar
Reis, Mara Silvia, & Nobre-Oliveira, Denize. 2008. Effects of perceptual training on the identification and production of the English voiceless plosives. Aspiration by Brazilian EFL learners. New Sounds 2007: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, ed. by Rauber, Andréia S., Watkins, Michael A., & Baptista, Barbara O., 398-407. Florianópolis: Federal University of Santa Catarina. http://www.nupffale.ufsc.br/newsounds/proceedings. Date accessed: 28 September 2010.Google Scholar
Sanz, Cristina, & Lado, Beatriz. 2008. Third language acquisition research methods. Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd edn., vol. 10: Research methods in language and education, ed. by King, Kendall A. & Hornberger, Nancy H., 113–135. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Simon, Ellen. 2009. Acquiring a new L2 contrast: An analysis of the English laryngeal system of L1 Dutch speakers. Second Language Research 25. 377–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Ellen. 2010. Child L2 development: A longitudinal case study on the acquisition of a new voice contrast. Journal of Child Language 37. 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Ellen. (to appear.) Laryngeal stop systems in contact: Connecting present-day acquisition findings and historical contact hypotheses. [Diachronica 28.2, 2011.]Google Scholar
Van Alphen, Petra. 2004. Perceptual relevance of prevoicing in Dutch. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen dissertation, MPI Series in Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan phonology and two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiteside, Sandra, Henry, Louisa, & Dobbin, Rachel. 2004. Sex differences in voice onset time: A developmental study of phonetic context effects in British English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116. 1179–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar