말소리와 음성과학 (Phonetics and Speech Sciences)

  • 제15권1호
  • /
  • Pages.1-7
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2005-8063(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2586-5854(eISSN)
한국음성학회 (Korean Society of Speech Sciences)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

English vowel production conditioned by probabilistic accessibility of words: A comparison between L1 and L2 speakers

  • 투고 : 2023.01.31
  • 심사 : 2023.03.16
  • 발행 : 2023.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study investigated the influences of probabilistic accessibility of the word being produced - as determined by its usage frequency and neighborhood density - on native and high-proficiency L2 speakers' realization of six English monophthong vowels. The native group hyperarticulated the vowels over an expanded acoustic space when the vowel occurred in words with low frequency and high density, supporting the claim that vowel forms are modified in accordance with the probabilistic accessibility of words. However, temporal expansion occurred in words with greater accessibility (i.e., with high frequency and low density) as an effect of low phonotactic probability in low-density words, particularly in attended speech. This suggests that temporal modification in the opposite direction may be part of the phonetic characteristics that are enhanced in communicatively driven focus realization. Conversely, none of these spectral and temporal patterns were found in the L2 group, thereby indicating that even the high-proficiency L2 speakers may not have developed experience-based sensitivity to the modulation of sub-categorical phonetic details indexed with word-level probabilistic information. The results are discussed with respect to how phonological representations are shaped in a word-specific manner for the sake of communicatively driven lexical intelligibility, and what factors may contribute to the lack of native-like sensitivity in L2 speech.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
  2. Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
  4. Bybee, J. L. (2000). The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-basedmodels of language (pp. 65-85). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  5. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 317-367. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0750
  6. Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(6), 627-635. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80042-8
  7. Gahl, S. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474-496. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0035
  8. Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105(2), 251-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.251
  9. Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 501-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90009-0
  10. Hay, J., & Foulkes, P. (2016). The evolution of medial /t/ over real and remembered time. Language, 92(2), 298-330. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0036
  11. Kilanski, K. J. (2009). The effects of token frequency and phonological neighborhood density on native and non-native English speech production (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
  12. Koo, H. S. (2000). Characteristics of English vowels spoken by Koreans. Speech Sciences, 7(3), 99-108.
  13. Lee, M. (2021). The effects of lexical competitor on Korean speakers' vowel articulation (Mater's thesis). Pusan National University, Busan, Korea.
  14. Lindblom, B. (1968). Temporal organization of syllable production. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress Status Report, 9(2-3), 1-5.
  15. Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle, & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 403-439). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  16. Luce, P. A. (1986). Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
  17. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001
  18. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25(1-2), 71-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9
  19. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1989). Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  20. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1990). Activation, competition and frequency in lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 148-172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  21. Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
  22. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0
  23. Munson, B. (2001). Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in adults and children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 778-792. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/061)
  24. Munson, B., & Solomon, N. P. (2004). The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 1048-1058. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/078)
  25. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52(3), 189-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90043-4
  26. Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17(4), 273-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216508416445
  27. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J. L. Bybee, & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137-158). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  28. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 101-139). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
  29. Pisoni, D. B., Nusbaum, H. C., Luce, P. A., & Slowiaczek, L. M. (1985). Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication, 4(1-3), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(85)90037-8
  30. Ussishkin, A., & Wedel, A. (2002). Neighborhood density and the root-affix distinction. North East Linguistic Society, 32(15), 15.
  31. Vaden, K. I., Halpin, H. R., & Hickok, G. S. (2009). Irvine phonotactic online dictionary, version 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.iphod.com
  32. Wright, R. (2004). Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In J. Local, R. Ogden, R. Temple, M. E. Beckman, & J. Kingston (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology VI: Phonetic interpretation (pp. 75-87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Yun, G. (2010). The effects of neighborhood density and word frequency on the production of English-learning Korean speakers. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology, 16(2), 217-243. https://doi.org/10.17959/SPPM.2010.16.2.217