Cover not available
Article published In:
EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 16 (2016)
Edited by Sarah Ann Liszka, Pascale Leclercq, Marion Tellier and Georges Daniel Véronique
[EUROSLA Yearbook 16] 2016
► pp. 144–178

“Identical” vowels in L1 and L2? Criteria and implications for L2 phonetics teaching and learning

Researchers in the field of the teaching and learning of phonetics agree that learners of a foreign/second language (L2) acquire identical vowels by positive transfer from their first language (L1). This statement prompted us to examine whether the French and Czech languages, differing in the size of their vowel inventories, possess any identical vowels that could thus be omitted from French as a Foreign Language (FFL) phonetic curricula intended for Czech learners. The quantification of the vowels’ phonetic similarity is based on the comparison of their (1) phonetic symbols, (2) formant values (F-patterns), and (3) perceptual characteristics. The combined results show that strictly identical vowels between the two languages do not exist, but some French vowels can be defined as highly similar to some Czech vowels. Different coarticulatory effects of vowels produced in isolation and in labial, dental and palato-velar symmetrical environments point to a very strong influence of phonetic contexts on vowel similarity. Indeed, no French vowel is highly similar to any Czech vowel in all of the contexts studied. The findings suggest that phonetic exercises designed for Czech learners should focus on allophonic variations of all French vowels.
Published online: 10 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.16.06pai
References
Best, C.T. and Tyler, M.D.
(2007) “Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities.” In Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production, M.J. Munro and O.S. Bohn (eds), 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bičan, A.
2013 Phonotactics of Czech. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D.
. (Producer) 2015 Praat: doing phonetics by computer.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.S. and Flege, J.E.
1990 “Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception.” Applied Psycholinguistics 11: 3103–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “Perception and production of a new vowel category by second-language learners”. In Second-language speech: Structure and process, A. James and J. Leather (eds), 53–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borovičková, B. and Maláč, V.
1967.The spectral analysis of Czech sound combinations. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Brière, E.J.
1966 “An investigation of phonological interference”. Language 421: 768–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dankovičová, J.
(1997) “Czech”. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 271: 77–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delattre, P.
1944 “Vers la méthode phonétique intégrale pour les débutants”. The French Review, 18(2): 109–115.Google Scholar
1961 “Le jeu des transitions de formants et la perception des consonnes”. Proc. of IVth Inter. Con. Phon. Sciences, Helsinki: 407–417.Google Scholar
1969 “An acoustic and articulatory study of vowel reduction in four languages”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 7(4): 295–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delattre, P., Liberman, A.M., Cooper, F.S. and Gertsman, L.J.
1952 “An experimental study of the acoustic determinants of vowel color: observation on the one- and two-formant vowels sythetised from spectrographic patterns”. Word 3(3): 195–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mareüil, P.B., Adda-Decker, M., Woehrling, C.
2010 “Antériorisation/aperture des voyelles /O/~/o/ en français du Nord et du Sud”. Proc. of the 28th Journées d’Étude sur la Parole, Mons, 81–84.Google Scholar
Duběda, T.
2005 Jazyky a jejich zvuky : univerzálie a typologie ve fonetice a fonologii. Praha: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Duběda, T. and Januška, J.
2006 “K hypoartikulaci v pražské češtině.” In Sborník příspěvků z 5. mezinárodní konference Setkání mladých lingvistů, P. Porizka and V.P. Polach (eds), 75–81. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.Google Scholar
Fant, G.
1973 Speech sounds and features. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J.E.
1987a “The instrumental study of L2 speech production: some methodological considerations”. Language Learning 37(2): 285–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987b “The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: evidence for the effect of equivalence classification”. Journal of Phonetics 151: 47–65. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 “The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds”. In Human Communication and Its Disorders, A. Review, H. Winitz (eds), 224–401. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
1995 “Second language speech learning. Theory, findings, and problems”. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience : Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-Language Speech Research, W. Strange (ed), 233–272. Timonium, MD: York Press Inc.Google Scholar
1997 “English vowel production by Dutch talkers: More evidence for the “similar” vs “new” distinction.” In Second-language speech, Structure and process, A. James and J. Leather (eds), 11–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Language contact in bilingualism: Phonetic system interactions. In Laboratory Phonology 91, J. Cole and J.I. Hualde (eds), 353–380. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gendrot, C. and Adda-Decker, M.
2007 “Impact of duration and vowel inventory size on formant values of oral vowels: an automated formant analysis from eight languages”. Proc. of Inter. Con. Phon. Sciences, Saarbrûcken: 1417–1420.Google Scholar
Goldman, J.-P.
2011 “EasyAlign: an automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat”. Proc. of InterSpeech, Firenze, Italy.Google Scholar
Guion, S.G., Flege, J.E., Akahane-Yamada, R. and Pruitt, J.S.
2000 “An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: the case of Japonese adult’s perception of English consonants”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107(5): 2711–2724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hála, B.
1941 Akustická podstata samohlásek. Praha: Česká akademie věd a umění.Google Scholar
Harmegnies, B., Delvaux, V., Huet, K. and Piccaluga, M.
2005 “Oralité et cognition: pour une approche raisonnée de la pédagogie du traitement de la matière phonique.” Revue Parole 34–35–361: 265–336.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, J., Clarke, C.M. and Nearey, T.M.
2001 “Effects of consonant environment on vowel formant patterns”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109(2): 748–763. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K., Flemming., E. and Wright, R.
1993 “The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets are hyperarticulated”. Language 691: 505–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamiyama, T. and Vaissière, J.
2009 “Perception and production of French close and close-mid rounded vowels by Japanese-speaking learners”. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère, 21: 60–93.Google Scholar
Kewley-Port, D.
1982 “Measurement of formant transitions in naturally produced stop consonant vowel syllables”. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 721: 379–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kučera, H. and George, K.M.
(1968) A comparative quantitative phonology of Russian, Czech and German. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Landron, S., Paillereau, N., Nawafleh, A., Exare, C., Ando, H. and Gao, J.
(2010) “Le corpus PhoDiFLE : un corpus commun de français langue étrangère pour une étude phonétique des productions de locuteurs de langues maternelles plurielles”. Cahiers de Praxématique 54–551: 73–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lado, R.
1957 Linguistics across cultures : applied linguistics for language teachers.University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Léon, P.R.
1993 Phonétisme et prononciation du français. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Léon, P.R. and Léon, M.
2007 La prononciation du français. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Livbjerg, I. and Mees, I.M.
1988 Practical English Phonetics. Kopenhagen: Shonberg.Google Scholar
Ludvíková, M. and Kraus, J.
1966 “Kvantitativní vlastnosti soustavy českých fonémů”. Slovo a slovesnost 271: 334–344.Google Scholar
Major, R.C.
1987 “Foreign accent : Recent research and theory”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 151: 185–202.Google Scholar
Manuel, S.Y. and Krakow, R.A.
1984 “Universal and language particular aspects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation”. Haskins Status Report on Speech Research 77/781: 69–78.Google Scholar
Mázlová, V.
1946 “Jak se projevuje zvuková stránka češtiny v hláskových statistikách?” Naše řeč 301: 101–111.Google Scholar
Métral, J.P.
1967“Phonétique et phonologie”, Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 41: 21–47.Google Scholar
Miller, L.J.
1981 “Effects of speaking rate on segmental distinctions”. In Perspectives on the Study of Speech, P.D. Eimas and J.L. Miller (eds), 39–73. NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, J.L., Grosjean, F., Mondini, M. and Dommergues, J.-Y.
2011 “Dialect effects in speech perception: The role of vowel duration in Parisian French and Swiss French”. Language and Speech 541: 467–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paillereau, N.
2015a “Assessing the phonetic level in L2 vowels production with the VisuVo software: Case of Czech learners acquiring contrasts between French mid vowels e/ɛ, ø/œ and o/ɔ”. Proc. of PTLC2105, London, UK: 67–70.Google Scholar
2015b “Perception et production des voyelles orales du français par des futures enseignantes tchèques de Français Langue Etrangère (FLE)”. Unpublished PhD thesis, Sorbonne-Nouvelle University, Paris.Google Scholar
2016. “Do isolated vowels represent vowel targets in French? An acoustic study on coarticulation”, Proc. of the 5th World Congress on French Linguistics, Tours, France.
Pustka, E.
2011 “L’accent méridional : représentations, attitudes et perceptions toulousaines et parisiennes”. Varia 691: 117–152.Google Scholar
Rigault, A.
1970 “L’accent dans deux langues à accent fixe: le français et le tchèque [Stress in two fixed-stress languages: French and Czech]”. Studia Phonetica 31: 1–12.Google Scholar
Rochet, B.L.
1995 “Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults”. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-Language Speech Research, W. Strange (ed), 379–407. Timonium, MD: York Press Inc.Google Scholar
Skarnitzl, R. and Volín, J.
2012 “Referenční hodnoty vokalických formantů pro mladé dospělé mluvčí standardní češtiny”. Akustické listy 181: 7–11.Google Scholar
Steinlen, A.K.
2005 The influence of consonants on native and non-native vowel production. A cross-linguistic study. Tübingen: GNV.Google Scholar
Stevens, K.N.
1989 “On the quantal nature of speech”. Journal of Phonetics 171: 3–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, K.N. and House, A.S.
1963 “Perturbation of vowel articulations by consonantal context: An acoustical study”. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 6(2): 111–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strange, W., Bohn, O.S., Nishi, K. and Trent, S.A.
2005 “Contextual variation in the acoustic and perceptual similarity of North German and American English vowels”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(3): 1751–1762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šimáčková, S., Podlipský, V.J. and Chládková, K.
2012 “Czech spoken in Bohemia and Moravia”. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42(2): 225–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Troubetzkoy, N.S.
1957 Principes de phonologie. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Vaissière, J.
2006 La phonétique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
2007 “Area functions and articulatory modeling as a tool for investigating the articulatory, acoustic and perceptual properties of the contrast between the sounds in a language”. In Experimental Approaches to Phonology, P.S. Beddor, M.J. Solé and J.J. Ohala (eds), 54–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2011 On the acoustic and perceptual characterization of reference vowels in a cross-language perspective. Proc. of XVII th Inter. Con. Phon. Sciences, Hong Kong: 52–59.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U.
1953 Languages in Contact, Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Wode, H.
1994 “Nature, nurture, and age in language acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 161: 325–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Paillereau, Nikola & Kateřina Chládková
2019. Spectral and temporal characteristics of Czech vowels in spontaneous speech. AUC PHILOLOGICA 2019:2 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.