Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T07:52:47.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Production of New and Similar Vowels by Adult German Learners of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Ocke-Schwen Bohn  and
James Emil Flege
Ocke-Schwen Bohn
Affiliation:
Kiel University, Germany
James Emil Flege
Affiliation:
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study reported in this paper examined the effect of second language (L2) experience on the production of L2 vowels for which acoustic counterparts are either present or absent in the first language (L1). The hypothesis being tested was that amount of L2 experience would not affect L1 German speakers' production of the “similar” English vowels /i, l, ∈/, whereas English language experience would enable L1 Germans to produce an English-like /æ/, which has no counterpart in German. The predictions were tested in two experiments that compared the production of English /i, l, ∈, æ/ by two groups of L1 German speakers differing in English language experience and an L1 English control group. An acoustic experiment compared the three groups for spectral and temporal characteristics of the English vowels produced in /bVt/ words. The same tokens were assessed for intelligibility in a labeling experiment. The results of both experiments were largely consistent with the hypothesis. The experienced L2 speakers did not produce the similar English vowels /i, l, ∈/ more intelligibly than the inexperienced L2 speakers, not did experience have a positive effect on approximating the English acoustic norms for these similar vowels. The intelligibility results for the new vowel /æ/ did not clearly support the model. However, the acoustic comparisons showed that the experienced but not the inexperienced L2 speakers produced the new vowel /æ/ in much the same way as the native English speakers.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 131 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Anderson, S. R. (1974). The organization of phonology. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Anisfield, M., Anisfield, E., & Semogas, R. (1969). Cross-influences between the phonological systems of Lithuanian-English bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 257–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anisfield, M., & Gordon, M. (1971). An effect of one German-language course on English. Language and Speech, 14, 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, H., & Careless, B. J. (1978). Zur auditiven Perzeption von amerikanischem Englisch durch deutsche Schüler. In Kelz, H. P. (Ed.), Phonetische Grundlagen der Ausspracheschulung (Vol. 2, pp. 45–62). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Arnold, R., & Hansen, K. (1968). Phonetik der englischen Sprache: Eine Einführung. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Barry, W. J. (1974a). Language background and the perception of foreign accent. Journal of Phonetics, 2, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, W. J. (1974b). Perzeption und Produktion im sub-phonemischen Bereich. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung an intersprachlichen Minimalpaaren des Deutschen und Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, W. J. (1977). Ausspracheabweichungen: Eine experimentalphonetische Untersuchung an deutschen Englischlernenden (Working Papers No. 7). Kiel: Kiel University, Phonetics Department.Google Scholar
Barry, W. J. (1981). Die Problematik der Aussprache in der Fremdsprachenerlernung: Die Unvermeidbarkeit eines fremden Akzents. Working Papers, 16, 2–28. Kiel: Kiel University, Phonetics Department.Google Scholar
Bethge, W. (1963). Beziehungen der Generation zur Quantität in den deutschen Mundarten. Phonetica, 9, 200–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boesch, B. (1957). Die Aussprache des Hochdeutschen in der Schweiz. Zürich: Schweizer Spiegel.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., & Flege, J. E. (1990). Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delattre, P. (1964). Comparing the vocalic features of English, German, Spanish and French. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 71–97.Google Scholar
Disner, S. F. (1983). Vowel quality: The relationship between universal and language specific factors (UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics No. 58). Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (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, J. E. (1988). The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Human communication and its disorders (pp. 224–401). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1991). The intelligibility of English vowels spoken by British and Dutch talkers. In Kent, R. (Ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders (pp. 157–231). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987a). Cross-language switching in stop consonant perception and production by Dutch speakers of English. Speech Communication, 6, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987b). Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Hillenbrand, J. (1984). Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimson, A. C. (1970). An introduction to the pronunciation of English (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harris, M. S., & Umeda, N. (1974). Effect of speaking mode on temporal factors in speech: Vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 56, 1016–1018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House, A. S. (1961). On vowel duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33, 1174–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iivonen, A. (1983). Zur Frage der regionalen Variation der hochdeutschen Vokale. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 84, 45–52.Google Scholar
Iivonen, A. (1987). Monophthonge des gehobenen Wienerdeutsch. Folia Linguistica, 21, 293–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1960). An outline of English phonetics (9th ed.). London: Heffer.Google Scholar
Jongman, A., Fourakis, M., & Sereno, J. A. (1989). An acoustic study of vowels in modern Greek and German. Language and Speech, 32, 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, H. P. (1969). Die gespannten und ungespannten Vokale in der norddeutschen Hochsprache mit einer spezifischen Untersuchung der Struktur ihrer Formantenfrequenzen. Phonetica, 9, 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keutsch, M. (1974). Praxis der englischen Aussprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. (1973). Interaction between two factors that influence vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 1102–1104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohler, K. (1971). On the adequacy of phonological theories for contrastive studies. In Nickel, G. (Ed.), Papers in contrastive linguistics (pp. 83–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1977). Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. (1981). Contrastive phonology and the acquisition of phonetic skills. Phonetica, 38, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kufner, H. L. (1971). Kontrastive Phonologie, Deutsch—Englisch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1978). Phonetic differences within and between languages. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 41, 32–40.Google Scholar
Leskien, A., & Brugman, K. (1882). Litauische Volkslieder und Märchen aus dem preuβischen und russischen Litauen. Straβburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P., & Kubaska, C. (1979). Intrinsic vowel duration and formant frequencies: Data from speech acquisition. In Wolf, J. J. & Klatt, D. H. (Eds.), Speech communication papers (pp. 213–215). New York: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (1987). Phonological similarity, markedness, and rate of 1.2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, E. A. (1904). Zur Vokaldauer im Deutschen. In Nordiska Studier tillegnade Adolf Noreen (pp. 347–356). Uppsala: Appelberg.Google Scholar
Miller, J. D. (1989). Auditory–perceptual interpretation of the vowel. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 2114–2134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moulton, W. G. (1962). The sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moulton, W. G. (1987). Changing standards for Standard German pronunciation and some student reactions. Beiträge zur Phonetik und Linguistik, 52, 261–289.Google Scholar
Narahara, Y., Okainoto, T., & Shimoda, H. (1977). Beiträge zur Phonetik des Deutschen. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Oakeshott-Taylor, J. (1976). Perception and production of English sounds by German speaking subjects. Hamburger Phonetische Beiträge, 17, 163–199.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. (1960). Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietveld, A. C. M. (1975). Untersuchung zur Vokaldauer im Deutschen. Phonetica, 31, 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, G., & Wollmann, A. (1977). Englische Phonetik und Phonologie (2nd ed.). Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Schouten, M. E. H. (1977). Imitation of synthetic vowels by bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 5, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrdal, A. K. (1985). Aspects of a model of the auditory representation of American English vowels. Speech Communication, 4, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrdal, A. K., & Gopal, H. S. (1986). A perceptual model of vowel recognition based on the auditory representation of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79, 1086–1100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traunmüller, H. (1982). Der Vokalismus des Ostmittelbairischen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 49, 289–333.Google Scholar
Umeda, N. (1975). Vowel duration in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58, 434–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiher, E. (1975). Lautwahrnehmung und Lautproduktion im Englischunterricht für Deutsche. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kiel University, Kiel.Google Scholar
Weiss, R. (1972). Perceptual parameters of vowel duration and quality in German. In Rigault, A. & Charbonneau, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 633–636). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weiss, R. (1976). The perception of vowel length and quality in German: An experimental-phonetic investigation. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Williams, L. (1979). The modification of speech perception and production in second-language learning. Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wode, H. (1978). The beginnings of non-school room L2 phonological acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. (1980). Phonology in L2 acquisition. In Felix, S. W. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 123–136). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1981). Learning a second language: VoL 1. An integrated view of language acquisition. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1984). Phonologie: Segmentale Struktur. In Heidolph, K. E., Flämig, W., & Motsch, W. (Eds.), Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik (pp. 898–990). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar