Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
Vol. 4:1 (2018) ► pp.11–45

Moving towards a bilingual baseline in second language phonetic research

| Georgetown University
This investigation compared adult sequential bilinguals and native speakers (NSs) with the intention of determining if bilinguals are an appropriate comparison group for second language (L2) learners in L2 phonetic research. To that end, 16 Spanish-English bilinguals were compared to 20 NSs of English on their perception and production of two English vowels. In perception, both groups had a similar category boundary and acoustic cue weighting. In production, both groups produced distinct vowels that were highly intelligible, although the bilinguals produced the phonemes closer together in the vowel space and had more variable performance than the NSs. The inspection of these two participant groups reveals that bilinguals have the ability to perceive and produce a difficult L2 phonemic contrast, with slight and inconsequential differences when compared to NSs. Thus, I argue that bilinguals who have acquired a target structure are an apt comparison group in L2 phonetic experiments.
Keywords: second language phonetic research, native speaker norms, vowel perception and production, pronunciation models
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Shifting away from the native speaker norm
    • 1.2Reorientation to the intelligibility principle in second language phonetic research
  • 2.The present study
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials
      • 3.2.1Target vowels and auditory stimuli
      • 3.2.2Perception tasks
      • 3.2.3Production tasks
      • 3.2.4Native speaker identifications of productions
      • 3.2.5Background questionnaire
    • 3.3Coding and analysis
    • 3.4Procedure
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Summary of results
    • 5.2Noteworthy differences in bilingual and native speaker productions
    • 5.3What comparison groups do we want for second language phonetic studies?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.00002.sak
References (49)
References
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braida, L. D., Lim, J. S., Berliner, J. E., Durlach, N. I., Rabinowitz, W. M., & Purks, S. R. (1984). Intensity perception. XIII. Perceptual anchor model of context-coding. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76(3), 722–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cebrian, J. (2006). Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel categorization. Journal of Phonetics, 34(3), 372–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., & García Lecumberri, L. (1999). The effect of training on the discrimination of English vowels. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 261–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 279–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Learning the grammar of a second language. In V. J. Cook & D. Singleton (Eds.), Key topics in second language acquisition (pp. 58–71). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K. (2015). Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility? The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 80–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at <[URL]>.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, W. B. (1975). The WH question of pronunciation: An answer from spelling and generative phonology. TESOL Quarterly, 9(3), 299–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P. (2001). The role of the input in the development of L1 and L2 sound contrasts: language-specific cue weighting for vowels. In Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 250–261). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O. S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25(4), 437–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, P. (2014). Perception of American English vowels by adult Spanish-English bilingual listeners (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order Number 3620218)Google Scholar
García Lecumberri, M. L., & Cenoz, J. (1997). Identification by L2 learners of English vowels in different phonetic contexts. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-Language Speech: New Sounds 97. Klagenfurt, Austria: University of Klagenfurt.Google Scholar
Gnevsheva, K. (2015). Style-shifting and intra-speaker variation in the vowel production of nonnative speakers of New Zealand English. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(2), 135–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen Edwards, J. G. (2008). Social factors and variation in production in L2 phonology. In J. G. Edwards & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 251–279). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hillenbrand, J. M., Clark, M. J., & Houde, R. A. (2000). Some effects of duration on vowel recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(6), 3013–3022. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iverson, P., & Evans, B. G. (2009). Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems II: Auditory training for native Spanish and German speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(2), 866–877. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. K. (1995). Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 971, 553–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., & Tily, H. (2011). On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 323–335.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. (2015). Quantifying vowel overlap with Bhattacharyya’s affinity. New Ways of Analyzing Variation 44. Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Kewley-Port, D., & Watson, C. S. (1994). Formant-frequency discrimination for isolated English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 951, 485–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1990). Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: Phonological facts and phonetic explanations. Speech Production and Speech Modelling, 551, 69–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kondaurova, M. V., & Francis, A. L. (2010). The role of selective attention in the acquisition of English tense and lax vowels by native Spanish listeners: Comparison of three training methods. Journal of Phonetics, 381, 569–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konopka, K., & Pierrehumbert, J. (2008). Vowels in contact: Mexican heritage English in Chicago. Proceedings from The Sixteenth Annual Symposium about Language and Society-Austin. Austin, TX: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. Tesol Quarterly, 39(3), 369–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levis, J. M., & Moyer, A. (Eds.). (2014). Social dynamics in second language accent. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 403–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, S., Litzenberg, J., & Subtirelu, N. (2014). Problematizing the dependence on L1 norms in pronunciation teaching: Attitudes toward second-language accents. In J. Levis & A. Moyer (Eds.), Social dynamics in second language accent (pp. 171–194). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linguistic Society of America. (1997). Resolution on the Oakland “Ebonics” issue. Retrieved from <[URL]>.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCrocklin, S. (2012). Effect of audio vs. video on aural discrimination of vowels. TESL-EJ, 16(2).Google Scholar
Mora, J. C., & Levkina, M. (2017). Task-based pronunciation teaching and research: Key issues and future directions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 381–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morrison, G. S. (2008). Perception of synthetic vowels by monolingual Canadian-English, Mexican-Spanish, and Peninsular-Spanish listeners. Canadian Acoustics, 36(4), 17–23.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58(3), 479–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Perkell, J. S., Matthies, M. L., Svirsky, M. A., & Jordan, M. I. (1995). Goal-based speech motor control: A theoretical framework and some preliminary data. Journal of Phonetics, 23(1), 23–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3), 280–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. (2011). Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and comprehensible pronunciation development: An instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology. Language Awareness, 20(1), 45–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Hanzawa, K. (2016). Developing second language oral ability in foreign language classrooms: The role of the length and focus of instruction and individual differences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 371, 813–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salminen, N. H., Tiitinen, H., & May, P. J. C. (2009). Modeling the categorical perception of speech sounds: A step toward biological plausibility. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(3), 304–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., & Parrish, B. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language learning, 38(1), 21–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M. (2015). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinberger, Steven. (2015). Speech Accent Archive. George Mason University. Retrieved from <[URL]>.
Wolfram, W. (2015). Social varieties of American English. In C. A. Ferguson, E. Finegan, S. B. Heath, & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century (pp. 58–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Nagle, Charles L. & Melissa M. Baese-Berk
2022. ADVANCING THE STATE OF THE ART IN L2 SPEECH PERCEPTION-PRODUCTION RESEARCH: REVISITING THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL PRACTICES. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44:2 ► pp. 580 ff. DOI logo
Casillas, Joseph V.
2020. The Longitudinal Development of Fine‐Phonetic Detail: Stop Production in a Domestic Immersion Program. Language Learning 70:3 ► pp. 768 ff. DOI logo
Casillas, Joseph V.
2020. Phonetic Category Formation is Perceptually Driven During the Early Stages of Adult L2 Development. Language and Speech 63:3 ► pp. 550 ff. DOI logo
Casillas, Joseph V.
2021. Interlingual Interactions Elicit Performance Mismatches Not “Compromise” Categories in Early Bilinguals: Evidence from Meta-Analysis and Coronal Stops. Languages 6:1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Levis, John
2020. Revisiting the Intelligibility and Nativeness Principles. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 6:3 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Levis, John M.
2018. Technology and second language pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 4:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Levis, John M.
2022. Revisiting the Intelligibility and Nativeness Principles. In The Evolution of Pronunciation Teaching and Research [Benjamins Current Topics, 121], ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2024. 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.