Production of L3 Vowels: Is it Possible to Separate them from L1 and L2 Sounds?

It is incontrovertible that acquisition of a sound system of a second language is always a complex phenomenon and presents a great challenge for L2 learners (e.g. Rojczyk, 2010a). There are numerous studies (e.g. Nowacka, 2010; Flege, 1991) which show that L2 learners whose first language has a scarce number of sounds, have problems to distinguish L2 sound categories and tend to apply their L1 segments to new contexts. It may be easily detectable in the case of vowels. There is abundance of studies examining L2 learners’ successes and failures in production of L1 and L2 vowels (e.g. Flege, 1992; Nowacka, 2010; Rojczyk, 2010a). Usually such projects show how difficult it is for L2 learners to separate “old” and “new” vowel categories. However, the situation becomes much more complicated when we think of third language (L3) production. While in the case of L2 segmental production the number of factors affecting L2 sounds is rather limited (either interference from learners’ L1 or some kind of L2 intralingual influence), in the case of L3 segmental production we may encounter L1→L3, L2→L3 or L3 intralingual interference. This makes separation of L3 sounds a much more complex process. The aim of this study is to examine whether speakers of L1 Polish, L2 English and L3 German are able to separate new, L3 vowel categories from their native and L2 categories. Being a part of a larger project, this time the focus is on German /œ/. This vowel was chosen since it is regarded as especially difficult for Polish learners of German and it is frequently substituted with some other sounds. A group of English philology (Polish-English-German translation and interpretation programme) students was chosen to participate in this project. They were advanced speakers of English who did not encounter any difficulties in communication with native speakers of this language and upper-intermediate users of German. They had been taught both English and German pronunciation/practical phonetics during their studies at the University of Silesia. The subjects were asked to produce words containing analysed vowels, namely: P /u/, P /ɔ/, P /ɛ/, E /u/, E /ɔ / and G /œ/. All examined vowels were embedded in a /bVt/ context. The target /bVt/ words were then embedded in carrier sentences I said /bVt/ this time in English, Ich sag’ /bVt/ diesmal in German and Mówię /bVt/ teraz in Polish, in a non-final position. The sentences were presented to subjects on a computer screen and the produced chunks were stored in a notebook’s memory as .wav files ready for inspection. The Praat 5.3.12 speech-analysis software package (Boersma, 2001) was used to scroll through the audio files in order to locate an onset and offset of target vowels, measure the F1 and F2 frequencies and plot vowels on the plane. All analyses were also performed using Praat. The obtained results shed new light on L3 segmental production and L1 and L2 interference

Documenting a language with phonemic and phonetic variation: the case of Enets

This paper describes phonemic and phonetic variation attested in Enets, a highly endangered Uralic language of Northern Siberia. This variation is worth describing for three reasons. First of all, it is a part of documenting phonology of this disappearing language. Second, it is extremely frequent and widespread, including most words of the lexicon, but at the same time it does not visibly correlate with any social parameters, so this is one more case study in the vein of the sociolinguistic agenda set by Dorian (2001; 2010). Third, the Enets variation presents a challenge for consistent transcription, let alone an orthography design. These three reasons structure the paper: after an introductory section on the Enets community, languages used in the community in past and present, methodology of this study, and phonological profile of Enets, I proceed to a phonological description of the variation (section 2), to sociolinguistic details of this variation (section 3), and finally to issues of representation of the Enets data in a vain search for a perfect orthography for the language (section 4). Crucially, the last reason was the driving force for this research in the first place, as “[c]reating a phonemic orthography implies at least a basic phonological analysis preceding its design” (Jany 2010:234) and “faulty phonological analyses give rise to faulty orthographies” (Rehg 2004:506). Being neither a phonetician, nor a phonologist, I had initially aimed only for a basic description of sound patterns for the sake of an orthography; however, it quickly became evident that the puzzle of variation in Enets was not to be taken lightly, and more specific research was conducted. However, despite all the work done, I still see the results rather as a grounding for a consistent transcription/orthography than as a full phonological description. For the latter, Enets is still awaiting a talented phonologist, while our documentation project aimed hard to preserve exemplars of Enets sounds for this purpose (see Khanina 2017 for details).National Foreign Language Resource Cente

Postalveolar fricatives in Slavic languages as retroflexes

The present study poses the question on what phonetic and phonological grounds postalveolar fricatives in Polish can be analyzed as retroflex and whether postalveolar fricatives in other Slavic languages are retroflex as well. Velarization and incompatibility with front vowels are introduced as articulatory criteria for retroflexion, based on crosslinguistic data. According to these criteria, Polish and Russian have retroflex fricatives, whereas Bulgarian and Czech do not. In a phonological representation of these Slavic retroflexes, the necessity of perceptual features is shown. Lastly, it is illustrated that palatalization of retroflex fricatives both in Slavic languages and more generally causes a phonetic and phonological change to a non-retroflex sound

An exploration of the rhythm of Malay

In recent years there has been a surge of interest in speech rhythm. However we still lack a clear understanding of the nature of rhythm and rhythmic differences across languages. Various metrics have been proposed as means for measuring rhythm on the phonetic level and making typological comparisons between languages (Ramus et al, 1999; Grabe & Low, 2002; Dellwo, 2006) but the debate is ongoing on the extent to which these metrics capture the rhythmic basis of speech (Arvaniti, 2009; Fletcher, in press). Furthermore, cross linguistic studies of rhythm have covered a relatively small number of languages and research on previously unclassified languages is necessary to fully develop the typology of rhythm. This study examines the rhythmic features of Malay, for which, to date, relatively little work has been carried out on aspects rhythm and timing. The material for the analysis comprised 10 sentences produced by 20 speakers of standard Malay (10 males and 10 females). The recordings were first analysed using rhythm metrics proposed by Ramus et. al (1999) and Grabe & Low (2002). These metrics (∆C, %V, rPVI, nPVI) are based on durational measurements of vocalic and consonantal intervals. The results indicated that Malay clustered with other so-called syllable-timed languages like French and Spanish on the basis of all metrics. However, underlying the overall findings for these metrics there was a large degree of variability in values across speakers and sentences, with some speakers having values in the range typical of stressed-timed languages like English. Further analysis has been carried out in light of Fletcher’s (in press) argument that measurements based on duration do not wholly reflect speech rhythm as there are many other factors that can influence values of consonantal and vocalic intervals, and Arvaniti’s (2009) suggestion that other features of speech should also be considered in description of rhythm to discover what contributes to listeners’ perception of regularity. Spectrographic analysis of the Malay recordings brought to light two parameters that displayed consistency and regularity for all speakers and sentences: the duration of individual vowels and the duration of intervals between intensity minima. This poster presents the results of these investigations and points to connections between the features which seem to be consistently regulated in the timing of Malay connected speech and aspects of Malay phonology. The results are discussed in light of current debate on the descriptions of rhythm

Stosunek polskich uczniów do nauki wymowy języka angielskiego: analizując od nowa

It is widely agreed that acquisition of a sound system of a second language always presents a great challenge for L2 learners (e.g. Rojczyk, 2010). Numerous studies (e.g. Nowacka, 2010; Flege, 1991) prove that L2 learners whose first language has a scarce number of sounds, encounter difficulties in distinguishing L2 sound categories and tend to apply their L1 segments to new contexts. There is abundance of studies examining L2 learners’ successes and failures in production of L1 and L2 sounds, especially vowels (e.g. Flege, 1992; Nowacka, 2010; Rojczyk, 2010). However, the situation becomes more complicated when we consider third language production. While in the case of L2 segmental production the number of factors affecting L2 sounds is rather limited (either interference from learners’ L1 or some kind of L2 intralingual influence), in the case of L3 segmental production we may encounter L1→L3, L2→L3, L1+L2→L3 or L3 intralingual interference. This makes separation of L3 sounds a much more complex process. The aim of this paper is to examine whether speakers of L1 Polish, L2 English and L3 German are able to separate new, L3 vowel categories from their native and L2 categories. The research presented in this article is a part of a larger project assessing production of L3 segments. This time the focus is on German /y/. This vowel was chosen since it is regarded as especially difficult for Polish learners of German and it is frequently substituted with some other sounds. A group of English philology (Polish-English- German translation and interpretation programme) students was chosen to participate in this study. They were native speakers of Polish, advanced speakers of English and upper-intermediate users of German. They had been taught both English and German pronunciation courses during their studies at the University of Silesia. The subjects were asked to produce words containing analysed vowels, namely: P /u/, P /i/, E /uÉ/, E /iÉ/, E /ɪ/ and G /y/. All examined vowels were embedded in a /bVt/ context. The target /bVt/ words were then embedded in carrier sentences: I said /bVt/ this time in English, Ich sag’ /bVt/ diesmal in German and Mówię /bVt/ teraz in Polish, in a non-final position. The sentences were presented to subjects on a computer screen and the produced chunks were stored in a notebook’s memory as .wav files ready for inspection. The Praat 5.3.12 speech-analysis software package (Boersma, 2001) was used to measure and analyse the recordings. The obtained results suggest that L2 affects L3 segmental production to a significant extent. Learners find it difficult to separate all “new” and “old” vowel categories, especially if they are perceived as “similar” to one another and when learners strive to sound “foreign”.Przyswajanie systemu fonetycznego języka drugiego (J2) zawsze jest ogromnym wyzwaniem dla uczących się nowego języka (np. Rojczyk, 2010). Liczne badania (np. Flege, 1991; Nowacka, 2010) udowodniły, że w przypadku, gdy J1 uczących się nowego języka ma raczej ograniczoną liczbę dźwięków, wówczas osoby te mają problemy z odróżnianiem większej liczby nowych głosek i często zastępują je ojczystymi segmentami. Łatwo można znaleźć wiele badań dotyczących sukcesów i porażek w produkcji i percepcji nowych dźwięków przez uczących się J2 (np. Flege, 1992; Nowacka, 2010; Rojczyk, 2010), jednakże sytuacja staje się znacznie bardziej skomplikowana w przypadku przyswajania języka trzeciego (J3). Podczas przyswajania języka drugiego liczba czynników wpływających na proces produkcji poszczególnych segmentów jest raczej ograniczona (może to być wpływ języka pierwszego lub też interferencja językowa wewnątrz J2), natomiast podczas przyswajania języka trzeciego ich liczba jest zdecydowanie większa (J1→J3, J2→L3, J1+J2→L3 lub procesy zachodzące wewnątrz J3). To wszystko sprawia, że przyswajanie systemu fonetycznego języka trzeciego jest procesem wyjątkowo złożonym. Celem niniejszego artykułu było zbadanie czy rodzimi użytkownicy języka polskiego z J2 — angielskim i J3 — niemieckim, są zdolni do oddzielenia nowych, niemieckich kategorii samogłoskowych od tych polskich i angielskich. Badanie tu opisane jest częścią większego projektu mającego na celu ocenę produkcji samogłosek w J3. Tym razem opisana jest produkcja niemieckiego /y/. Samogłoska ta została wybrana ponieważ jest uważana przez uczących się języka niemieckiego za wyjątkowo trudną i często jest zastępowana innymi, podobnymi polskimi dźwiękami. Uczestnikami badania była grupa studentów filologii angielskiej, potrójnego programu tłumaczeniowego: polsko-angielsko-niemieckiego. Byli rodzimymi użytkownikami języka polskiego, zaawansowanymi użytkownikami języka angielskiego i średniozaawansowanymi użytkownikami języka niemieckiego. Przed przystąpieniem do badania, byli oni uczeni wymowy obu obcych języków. W trakcie badania musieli wyprodukować słowa zawierające wszystkie badane dźwięki, mianowicie: P/u/, P/i/, A/uÉ/, A/iÉ/, A /ɪ/ oraz N/y/. Wszystkie badane samogłoski były ukryte w kontekście /bSt/ . Te słowa były następnie ukryte w zdaniach: I said /bVt/ this time po angielsku, Ich sag’ /bVt/ diesmal po niemiecku oraz Mówię /bVt/ teraz po polsku. Wszystkie wypowiedzi zostały nagrane jako pliki .wav, a następnie poddane analizie akustycznej przy użyciu programu Praat (Boersma, 2001). Uzyskane wyniki pokazały jak trudne dla uczących się języków jest rozdzielenie „nowych” i „starych” samogłosek, zwłaszcza, gdy brzmią one podobnie, a mówiący starają się mówić „jak obcokrajowiec”

(Un)markedness of trills : the case of Slavic r-palatalisation

This paper evaluates trills [r] and their palatalized counterparts [rj] from the point of view of markedness. It is argued that [r]s are unmarked sounds in comparison to [rj]s which follows from the examination of the following parameters: (a) frequency of occurrence, (b) articulatory and aerodynamic characteristics, (c) perceptual features, (d) emergence in the process of language acquisition, (e) stability from a diachronic point of view, (f) phonotactic distribution, and (g) implications. Several markedness aspects of [r]s and [rj] are analyzed on the basis of Slavic languages which offer excellent material for the evaluation of trills. Their phonetic characteristics incorporated into phonetically grounded constraints are employed for a phonological OT-analysis of r-palatalization in two selected languages: Polish and Czech

Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal

Spoken languages have been classified by linguists according to their rhythmic properties, and psycholinguists have relied on this classification to account for infants’ capacity to discriminate languages. Although researchers have measured many speech signal properties, they have failed to identify reliable acoustic characteristics for language classes. This paper presents instrumental measurements based on a consonant/vowel segmentation for eight languages. The measurements suggest that intuitive rhythm types reflect specific phonological properties, which in turn are signaled by the acoustic/phonetic properties of speech. The data support the notion of rhythm classes and also allow the simulation of infant language discrimination, consistent with the hypothesis that newborns rely on a coarse segmentation of speech. A hypothesis is proposed regarding the role of rhythm perception in language acquisition