No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The relationship between vowel production and perception: native speakers' perception of nativeness in LOT and THOUGHT vowels in Received Pronunciation
Reporting the results of a study of pronunciation variation that is perceived as native-like by young native speakers
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2014
Extract
The fact that differences in vowel articulation are important in distinguishing accents of English is well established (Wells, 1982; Cruttenden, 2008; Ng, Chen & Sadaka, 2008; Park, 2009a, 2009b). It is also the case that speakers' production of a particular vowel varies for an individual speaker and between speakers of the ‘same’ accent (Rose, 2002; Cruttenden, 2008). In terms of perception, it is evident that L1 speakers, i.e. speakers for whom the language is the first language or one of the first languages acquired, are often able to recognise vowel articulations which deviate from the norm in their accent, even when the difference in vowel production is not significant enough to be mapped onto another L1 phoneme category, i.e. where the use of the alternative vowel quality could potentially change the meaning of the word (Park, 2009a). It should be acknowledged that any such norms are likely to vary in accordance with generational changes to a particular variety. But studies seeking to establish the degree of interrelatedness of vowel production and speakers' perceived ideal realisation have had mixed results. For example, Hoopingarner (2004) found that L1 speakers' production and preferred realisation were relatively similar, while Ainsworth & Paliwal (1984) and Frieda, Walley, Flege & Sloane (2000) failed to demonstrate such a correlation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014
References
Ainsworth, W. & Paliwal, K. 1984. ‘Correlation between the production and perception of the English glides /w, r, l, j/.’ Journal of Phonetics, 12, 237–43.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. 2008. ‘Praat doing phonetics by computer.’ (Version 5.0.11) Online at <http://www.praat.org/> (Accessed March 8, 2011).+(Accessed+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
Bohn, O-S. 1995. ‘Cross-language speech perception in adults: first language transfer doesn't tell it all.’ In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 279–304.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (ed.). 2008. Gimson's Pronunciation of English. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Dancey, C. & Reidy, J. 2004. Statistics without Maths for Psychology: Using SPSS for Windows. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Freeman, G. & Halton, J. 1951. ‘Note on exact treatment of contingency, goodness of fit and other problems of significance.’ Biometrika, 38, 141–9.Google Scholar
Frieda, E., Walley, A., Flege, J. & Sloane, M. 2000. ‘Adults’ perception and production of the English vowel /i/.’ Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 129–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gimson, A. 1945–1949. ‘Implications of the phonemic/chronemic grouping of English vowels.’ Acta Linguistica V, 94–100.Google Scholar
Heselwood, B. & Skilling, F. 2008. ‘Target bias in examiners’ transcriptions of student productions in practical phonetics oral tests.'British Association of Clinical Linguistics Colloquium Programme & Abstracts, 17. Reading: University of Reading.Google Scholar
Hoopingarner, D. 2004. ‘Native and nonnative differences in the perception and production of vowels.’ PhD thesis. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Kewley-Port, D. & Watson, C. 1994. ‘Formant-frequency discrimination for isolated English vowels.’ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 485–96.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1986. ‘Phonetic universals in vowel systems.’ In Ohala, J. & Jaeger, J. (eds), Experimental Phonology. Florida, FL: Academic Press, pp. 13–44.Google Scholar
Liu, C. & Kewley-Port, D. 2004. ‘Vowel formant discrimination in high fidelity speech.’ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116: 1224–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowry, R. 2011a. ‘Fisher exact probability test 2x4.’ Online at <http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/fisher2x4.html> (Accessed June 1, 2011).+(Accessed+June+1,+2011).>Google Scholar
Lowry, R. 2011b. ‘For a 2x2 contingency table.’ Online at <http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/tab2x2.html> (Accessed June 1, 2011).+(Accessed+June+1,+2011).>Google Scholar
Ng, M., Yang, C. & Sadaka, J. 2008. ‘Vowel features in Turkish accented English.’ International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 404–13.Google Scholar
Oller, D. & Eilers, R. 1975. ‘Phonetic expectation and transcription validity.’ Phonetica, 31, 288–304.Google Scholar
Park, H. 2009a. ‘Phonological information and linguistic experience in foreign accent detection.’ PhD thesis. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Park, H. 2009b. ‘Linguistic experience's influence on foreign accent detection in short, slightly accented speech.’ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 2756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, P. 2002. Forensic Speaker Identification. London and New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, H. 1997. ‘Auditory scales of frequency representation.’ Online at <http://www2.ling.su.se/staff/harmut/bark.htm> (Accessed July 1, 2011).+(Accessed+July+1,+2011).>Google Scholar