Abstract
This article analyses the acoustical properties of Dutch vowels produced by adult Spanish learners and investigates how these vowels are perceived by non-expert native Dutch listeners. Statistical vowel classifications obtained from the acoustical properties of the learner vowel realizations were compared to vowel classifications provided by native Dutch listeners. Both types of classifications were affected by the specific set of vowels included as stimuli, an effect caused by the large variability in Spanish learners’ vowel realizations. While there were matches between the two types of classifications, shifts were noted within and between production and perception, depending on the vowel and vowel features. We considered the variability between Spanish learners further by investigating individual patterns in the production and perception data, and linking these to the learners’ proficiency level and multilingual background. We conclude that integrating production and perception data provides valuable insights into the role of different features in adult L2 learning, and how their properties actively interact in the way L2 speech is perceived. A second conclusion is that adaptive mechanisms, signalled by boundary shifts and useful in coping with variability of non-native vowel stimuli, play a role in both statistical vowel classifications (production) and human vowel recognition (perception).
References
Adank, Patti. 2003. Vowel normalization: A perceptual-acoustic study of Dutch vowels. Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Adank, Patti, Roeland van Hout & Roel Smits. 2004a. An acoustic description of the vowels of Northern and Southern Standard Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(3). 1729-1738.10.1121/1.1779271Search in Google Scholar
Adank, Patti, Roel Smits & Roeland van Hout. 2004b. A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(5). 3099-3107.10.1121/1.1795335Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Wendy & Pavel Trofimovich. 2005. Interaction of native- and second-language vowel system(s) in early and late bilinguals. Language and Speech 48(1). 1-27.10.1177/00238309050480010101Search in Google Scholar
Bent, Tessa & Ann R. Bradlow. 2003. The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3). 1600-1610.Search in Google Scholar
Bent, Tessa, Meslissa Baesse-Berk, Stephanie A. Borrie & Megan McKee. 2016. Individual differences in the perception of regional, nonnative, and disordered speech varieties. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 140(5). 3775-3786.Search in Google Scholar
Berck, Peter. 2017. Memory-based text correction. Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T. 1995. A direct realist view of speech cross language speech perception. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research, 171-206. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar
Birdsong, David & Michelle Molis. 2001. On the evidence for maturational constraints in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language 44(2). 235-249.10.1006/jmla.2000.2750Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2010. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.1.32. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ (accessed 14/02/18).Search in Google Scholar
Bohn, Ocke-Schwen. 1995. Cross language speech perception in adults: First language transfer doesn’t tell it all. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research, 279-304. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bradlow, Ann R. & Tessa Bent. 2008. Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition 106. 707-729.10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.005Search in Google Scholar
Burgos, Pepi. 2018. Non-native pronunciation: Patterns of learner variation in Spanish-accented Dutch. Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Burgos, Pepi, Catia Cucchiarini, Roeland van Hout & Helmer Strik. 2014a. Phonology acquisition in Spanish learners of Dutch: Error patterns in pronunciation. Language Sciences 41. 129-142.10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.015Search in Google Scholar
Burgos, Pepi, Matyas Jani, Catia Cucchiarini, Roeland van Hout & Helmer Strik. 2014b. Dutch vowel production by Spanish learners: Duration and spectral features. Proceedings of Interspeech 2014, Singapore. 529-533.Search in Google Scholar
Burgos, Pepi, Eric Sanders, Catia Cucchiarini, Roeland Van Hout & Helmer Strik. 2015. Auris Populi: Crowdsourced native transcriptions of Dutch vowels spoken by adult Spanish learners. Proceedings of Interspeech 2015, Dresden, Germany. 2819-2823.Search in Google Scholar
Chladkova, Kateřina, Paola Escudero & Paul Boersma. 2011. Context-specific acoustic differences between Peruvian and Iberian vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(1). 416-428.10.1121/1.3592242Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, A., I. H. Slis & J. ’t Hart. 1963. Perceptual tolerance of isolated Dutch vowels. Phonetica 9. 65-78.10.1159/000258144Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, A., I. H. Slis & J. ’t Hart. 1967. On tolerance and intolerance in vowel perception. Phonetica 16. 65-70.10.1159/000258559Search in Google Scholar
Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp (accessed 14/02/18).Search in Google Scholar
Council of Europe. CEFR Self-Assessment Grid. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/168045bb52 (accessed 14/02/18).Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne. 2012. Native listening: Language experience and the recognition of spoken words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9012.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
De Angelis, Gessica. 2007. Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847690050Search in Google Scholar
Derwing, Tracey M. & Murray J. Munro. 1997. Accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility. Evidence from four L1s. SSLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 1-16.Search in Google Scholar
Escudero, Paola. 2005. Linguistic perception and second language acquisition: Explaining the attainment of optimal phonological categorization. Utrecht University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Escudero, Paola & Williams, Daniel. 2012. Native dialect influences second-language vowel perception: Peruvian versus Iberian Spanish learners of Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Express Letters 131(5). 406-214.10.1121/1.3701708Search in Google Scholar
Flege, James E. 1995. Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research, 233-277. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar
Flege, James E. 2012. The role of input in second language (L2) speech learning. Paper presented at the VIth International Conference on Native and Non-native Accents of English, Ɫodź, Poland, 6-8 December. Retrieved from http://www.jimflege.com/ (accessed 14/02/18).Search in Google Scholar
Flege, James E., Elaina M. Frieda & Takeshi Nozawa. 1997. Amount of native-language (L1) use affects the pronunciation of an L2. Journal of Phonetics 25. 169-186.10.1006/jpho.1996.0040Search in Google Scholar
Flege, James E., Carlo Schirru & Ian R. A. MacKay. 2003. Interaction between the native and the second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication 40. 467-491.10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00128-0Search in Google Scholar
Gottfried, Terry L. 2008. Music and language learning. Effects of musical training on learning L2 speech contrasts. In Ocke-Schwen Bohn and Murray J. Munro (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning, 221-237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.17.21gotSearch in Google Scholar
Guion, Susan G. 2003. The vowel systems of Quichua-Spanish bilinguals. Phonetica, 60, 98-128.Search in Google Scholar
Hualde, Jose I. 2005. The sounds of Spanish. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Iverson, Paul & Bronwen G. Evans. 2007. Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems: Perception of formant targets, formant movements, and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122(5). 2842-2854.10.1121/1.2783198Search in Google Scholar
Kolb, Alice Y. & David A. Kolb. 2005. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4(2). 193-212.10.5465/amle.2005.17268566Search in Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2009. Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30. 579-589.10.1093/applin/amp043Search in Google Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York, US: Wiley.10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799Search in Google Scholar
Lobanov, B. M. 1971. Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49. 606-608.10.1121/1.1912396Search in Google Scholar
Long, Michael H. 1990. Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12. 251-285.10.1017/S0272263100009165Search in Google Scholar
Magen, Harriet S. 1998. The perception of foreign-accented speech. Journal of Phonetics 26. 381-400.10.1006/jpho.1998.0081Search in Google Scholar
Major, Roy C. 2001. Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410604293Search in Google Scholar
Mayr, Robert & Paola Escudero. 2010. Explaining individual variation in L2 perception: Rounded vowels in English learners of German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13. 279-297.10.1017/S1366728909990022Search in Google Scholar
McAllister, Robert, James E. Flege & Thorsten Piske. 2002. The influence of L1 on the acquisition of Swedish quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics 30. 229-258.Search in Google Scholar
Moyer, Alene. 2013. Foreign accent. The phenomenon of non-native speech. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511794407Search in Google Scholar
Munro, Murray J. 1993. Productions of English vowels by native speakers of Arabic: Acoustic measurements and accentedness ratings. Language and Speech 36(1). 39-66.10.1177/002383099303600103Search in Google Scholar
Munro, Murray J. & Tracey M. Derwing. 1995. Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 45. 73-97.Search in Google Scholar
Navarro Tomas, Tomas. 2004. Manual de pronunciacion espanola. Madrid, Spain: Editorial CSIC-CSIC Press.Search in Google Scholar
Piske, Thorsten, Ian R. A. MacKay & James E. Flege. 2001. Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics 29. 191-215.10.1006/jpho.2001.0134Search in Google Scholar
Scovel, Thomas. 1988. A Time to Speak. A Psycholinguistic Inquiry into the Critical Period for Human Speech. New York, US: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryota & Hidetoshi Shimodaira. 2006. Pvclust: An R package for assessing the uncertainty in hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 22(12). 1540-1542.10.1093/bioinformatics/btl117Search in Google Scholar
Tokuhama-Espinosa, Tracey. 2003. The relationship between musical ability and foreign languages. In Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa (ed.), The multilingual mind, 65-80. Westport, CT: Praeger.Search in Google Scholar
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES). 2015. Cambridge English. The Cambridge English Scale Explained. Cambridge English Language Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/177867-the-methodology-behind-the-cambridge-english-scale.pdf (accessed 14/02/18).Search in Google Scholar
Van der Harst, Sander. 2011. The vowel space paradox: A sociophonetic study on Dutch. Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Van der Harst, Sander, Hans van de Velde & Roeland van Hout. 2014. Variation in Standard Dutch vowels: The impact of formant measurement methods on identifying the speaker’s regional origin. Language, Variation and Change 26(2). 247-272.10.1017/S0954394514000040Search in Google Scholar
Van Leussen, Jan-Willem & Paola Escudero. 2015. Learning to perceive and recognize a second language: the L2LP model revised. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1-1210.3389/fpsyg.2015.01000Search in Google Scholar
Van Son, R. J. J. H., Binnenpoorte, D., Van den Heuvel, H., & Pols, L. C. W. 2001. The IFA corpus: a phonemically segmented Dutch open source speech database. Proceedings of Eurospeech 2001, Aalborg, Denmark. 2051-2054.Search in Google Scholar
Van Wijngaarden, Sander J. 2001. Intelligibility of native and non-native Dutch speech. Speech Communication, 35. 103-113.Search in Google Scholar
Wade, Travis, Allard Jongman & Joan Sereno. 2007. Effects of acoustic variability in the perceptual learning of non-nativeaccented speech sounds. Phonetica 64. 122-144.10.1159/000107913Search in Google Scholar
Yeni-Komshian, Grace H., James E. Flege & Serena Liu. 2000. Pronunciation proficiency in the first and second languages of Korean-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(2). 131-149.10.1017/S1366728900000225Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Pepi Burgos, et al., published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
