Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 23, 2021

Articulatory settings and L2 English coronal consonants

  • Laura Colantoni EMAIL logo , Alexei Kochetov and Jeffrey Steele
From the journal Phonetica

Abstract

Background/aims: We explore the potential contribution of Articulatory Settings (AS) theory to L2 speech production research, testing the hypothesis that L2 segmental speech learning should involve a gradual, overall shift in both place and constriction degree, simultaneously affecting all consonants of a series as opposed to a set of parallel but unrelated changes in learners’ production of individual sounds. Methods: We conducted an electropalatography study of four francophone learners’ production of French and English word-initial and -medial /t d s z n l/ via carrier-sentence reading tasks. Results: L1–L2 differences in tongue shape are more common than those in constriction location, first and foremost for sonorants, and, thus, our results are not completely consistent with AS theory’s claims. Conclusions: AS theory provides a potentially rich framework for exploring the L2 speech learning of consonantal phenomena including low-level L1–L2 differences in place of articulation. We propose that the observed lack of systematic between-language articulatory differences could be attributed to a number of factors to be explored in future research, such as the targeting of voicing and manner differences before the adjustment of small place differences as well as individual patterns of entrenchment of L1 articulatory routines.


Corresponding author: Laura Colantoni, Department of Spanish & Portuguese, University of Toronto, 73 Queen’s Park Cr., Northrop Frye Hall 304, Toronto, ON M5S1K7, Canada, E-mail:

Funding source: Social the Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Award Identifier / Grant number: #435-2015-2013

Funding source: ATLAS

Appendix A: French and English stimuli by consonant (/t d s z n l/) and position in the word (initial, medial). For each consonant, monosyllabic stimuli are presented first.

Language Consonant Position
Word-initial Word-medial
French /t/ tue /ty/
tâcheté

témoin

tendu

théâtre

tua

tuer
/taʃˈte/

/teˈmwɛ̃/

/tɑ̃ˈdy/

/teˈɑtʁ/

/tyˈɑ/

/tyˈe/
chanteur

coutume

fauteuil

goûter

motif

pâté
/ʃɑ̃ˈtœʁ/

/kuˈtym/

/foˈtœj/

/ɡuˈte/

/mɔˈtif/

/pɑˈte/
/d/ demande

débauche

dîner

doux
/dəˈmãd/

/deˈboʃ/

/diˈne/

/du/
bondir

cadeau

chandail

idée

lundi

tendu
/bɔ̃ˈdiʁ/

/kaˈdo/

/ʃɑ̃ˈdaj/

/iˈde/

/lœ̃ˈdi/

/tɑ̃ˈdy/
/s/ ciel

saint

sait

serre

sœur

soin

sort

suint
/sjɛl/

/sɛ̃/

/sɛ/

/sɛʁ/

/sœʁ/

/swɛ̃/

/sɔʁ/

/sɥɛ̃/
ciseler

samedi

sauvegarde

syllabe
/siˈzle/

/samˈdi/

/sovˈɡaʁd/

/siˈlab/
brasser

coincé

français

glisser

lessive

vaisseau
/bʁaˈse/

/kwɛ̃ˈse/

/fʁɑ̃ˈsɛ/

/ɡliˈse/

/leˈsiv/

/vɛˈso/
/z/ zoo /zu/
zélé /zeˈle/ maison

oiseau
/mɛˈzɔ̃/

/waˈzo/
/n/ nie

nous
/ni/

/nu/
nier

Noël
/niˈe/

/nɔˈɛl/
anneau

final

grenouille
/aˈno/

/fiˈnal/

/ɡʁəˈnuj/
/l/ loue

loup
/lu/

/lu/
lapin

lessive

logement

louer

lundi
/laˈpɛ̃/

/leˈsiv/

/lɔʒˈmɑ̃/

/luˈe/

/lœ̃ˈdi/
collègue

syllabe

zélé
/kɔˈlɛɡ/

/siˈlab/

/zeˈle/
English /t/ talk

tells

tip

twin
/tɑk/

/tɛlz/

/tɪp/

/twɪn/
tidy

tomato

twentieth
/tajˈdi/

/təˈmeto/

/ˈtwɛntjəθ/
atomic

attack

captain

contain

context

contextual

obtain

potato

uptight
/əˈtɑmɪk/

/əˈtæk/

/ˈkæptən/

/kənˈten/

/ˈkɑntɛkst/

/kənˈtɛkstʃəl/

/əbˈten/

/pəˈteto/

/əpˈtajt/
/d/ die

do

dogs

doors

dwell
/daj/

/du/

/dɑɡz/

/dɔɹz/

/dwɛl/
decide

demand

dizzy
/dəˈsajd/

/dəˈmænd/

/ˈdɪzi/
productive

productiveness

redo
/pɹəˈdʌktɪv/

/pɹeˈdʌktɪvnəs/

/ɹəˈdu/
/s/ salt

save

saved

saw

saves

see

serve

solve

surf

sweet
/sɑlt/

/sev/

/sevd/

/sɑ/

/sevz/

/si/

/səɹv/

/sɑlv/

/səɹf/

/swit/
severe

sister

subject

sunbathe
/səˈviɹ/

/ˈsɪstəɹ/

/ˈsʌbdʒəkt/

/ˈsʌnbeð/
acid

acidify

decide

gossip

passive

pieces
/æˈsɪd/

/əˈsɪdəfaj/

/dəˈsajd/

/ˈɡɑsɪp/

/ˈpæsɪv/

/ˈpisəs/
/z/ zipper /ˈzɪpəɹ/ bizarre

dizzy
/bəˈzɑɹ/

/ˈdɪzi/
/n/ names /nemz/
neatly

negate

nothing
/ˈnitli/

/nəˈɡet/

/ˈnʌθɪŋ/
analogous

analogue

analogy

avenue

banana

Canada

Canadian

productiveness
/əˈnæləɡəs/

/ˈænəlɑɡ/

/əˈnælədʒi/

/ˈævənju/

/bəˈnænə/

/ˈkænədə/

/kəˈnedjən/

/pɹəˈdʌktəvnəs/
/l/ laughs

lamp

last

let

life

lips
/læfs/

/læmp/

/læst/

/lɛt/

/lajf/

/lɪps/
laughter

lawyer

location

locker

lovely

luxurious

luxury
/ˈlæftəɹ/

/ˈlojəɹ/

/loˈkeʃən/

/ˈlɑkəɹ/

/ˈlʌvli/

/ləkˈʒɜrjəs/

/ˈlʌkʃəɹi/
analogous

analogue

analogy

capitalism

gorilla

lovely

realize

release

smallish
/əˈnæləɡəs/

/ˈænəlɑɡ/

/əˈnælədʒi/

/ˈkæpətəlɪzm/

/ɡəˈɹɪlə/

/ˈlʌvli/

/ˈɹilajz/

/ɹəˈlis/

/ˈsmɑlɪʃ/

Appendix B: Linguopalatal profiles of all French (averaged over 6 repetitions) and English consonants (averaged over 4 repetitions) as produced by Participant 2. Note: most consonants were produced in word-initial position and next to non-front vowels.

Appendix C: Individual results for post-hoc pairwise comparisons for CA_a4. Note: Results reported for participants who showed some significant differences.

Participant Consonant pairs β SE t ratio p
1 EN /d/, FR /d/ 0.04 0.23 0.20 1.00
EN /t/, FR /t/ −0.12 0.19 −0.60 1.00
EN /l/, FR /l/ −0.76 0.19 −3.89 0.007
EN /n/, FR /n/ −0.14 0.24 −0.58 1.00
EN /s/, FR /s/ 0.65 0.16 4.04 0.004
EN /z/, FR /z/ 0.18 0.39 0.45 1.00
3 EN /d/, FR /d/ −0.06 0.22 −0.26 1.00
EN /t/, FR /t/ 0.004 0.19 0.02 1.00
EN /l/, FR /l/ −0.18 0.19 −0.95 0.99
EN /n/, FR /n/ −1.01 0.26 −3.90 0.007
EN /s/, FR /s/ −0.03 0.16 −0.20 1.00
EN /z/, FR /z/ −0.12 0.40 −0.30 1.00
4 EN /d/, FR /d/ −0.61 0.31 −1.94 0.73
EN /t/, FR /t/ 0.02 0.29 0.07 1.00
EN /l/, FR /l/ −0.92 0.26 −3.44 0.03
EN /n/, FR /n/ −0.38 0.38 −1.01 0.99
EN /s/, FR /s/ 0.07 0.24 0.32 1.00
EN /z/, FR /z/ 0.17 0.53 0.33 1.00

Appendix D: Individual results for Q_a4.

Participant Consonant pairs β SE t ratio p
1 EN /d/, FR /d/ 0.22 0.20 1.10 0.99
EN /t/, FR /t/ −0.11 0.18 −0.64 1.00
EN /l/, FR /l/ −1.75 0.17 −10.19 <0.0001
EN /n/, FR /n/ −0.88 0.23 −3.78 0.01
EN /s/, FR /s/ 0.55 0.15 3.64 0.01
EN /z/, FR /z/ 0.13 0.33 0.40 1.00
2 EN /d/, FR /d/ −0.35 0.21 −1.63 0.89
EN /t/, FR /t/ −0.57 0.19 −2.92 0.140
EN /l/, FR /l/ −1.02 0.18 −5.43 <0.0001
EN /n/, FR /n/ −0.96 0.25 −3.82 0.009
EN /s/, FR /s/ 0.007 0.16 0.04 1.00
EN /z/, FR /z/ −0.20 0.37 −0.54 1.00
3 EN /d/, FR /d/ −0.46 0.22 −2.01 0.68
EN /t/, FR /t/ −0.45 0.20 −2.20 0.55
EN /l/, FR /l/ 0.10 0.19 0.54 1.00
EN /n/, FR /n/ −1.45 0.26 −5.42 <0.0001
EN /s/, FR /s/ −0.23 0.17 −1.38 0.96
EN /z/, FR /z/ −0.32 0.40 −0.81 0.99
4 EN /d/, FR /d/ −0.35 0.19 −1.82 0.80
EN /t/, FR /t/ −0.16 0.18 −0.89 0.99
EN /l/, FR /l/ −1.09 0.16 −6.69 <0.0001
EN /n/, FR /n/ −0.31 0.23 −1.32 0.97
EN /s/, FR /s/ −0.18 0.15 −1.20 0.98
EN /z/, FR /z/ 0.25 0.32 0.78 0.99

Appendix E: Individual results for Q_p4.

Participant Consonant pairs β SE t ratio p
1 EN /d/, FR /d/ 0.33 0.23 1.39 0.96
EN /t/, FR /t/ −0.33 0.23 −1.41 0.95
EN /l/, FR /l/ −0.58 0.19 −3.00 0.11
EN /n/, FR /n/ −0.72 0.29 −2.42 0.39
EN /s/, FR /s/ 0.22 0.19 1.17 0.99
EN /z/, FR /z/ 0.78 0.35 2.18 0.56
2 EN /d/, FR /d/ 0.45 0.21 2.13 0.59
EN /t/, FR /t/ −0.14 0.20 −0.69 0.99
EN /l/, FR /l/ −0.13 0.18 −0.77 0.99
EN /n/, FR /n/ −0.27 0.26 −1.06 0.99
EN /s/, FR /s/ 0.28 0.16 1.72 0.85
EN /z/, FR /z/ 0.73 0.35 2.08 0.63
3 EN /d/, FR /d/ −0.66 0.20 −3.23 0.059
EN /t/, FR /t/ −1.02 0.20 −4.97 0.0001
EN /l/, FR /l/ −1.16 0.16 −6.92 <0.0001
EN /n/, FR /n/ −0.48 0.27 −1.79 0.81
EN /s/, FR /s/ −0.71 0.16 −4.23 0.002
EN /z/, FR /z/ 0.04 0.32 0.12 1.00
4 EN /d/, FR /d/ −0.66 0.204 −3.236 0.06
EN /t/, FR /t/ −1.02 0.20 −4.97 0.0001
EN /l/, FR /l/ −1.16 0.16 −6.92 <0.0001
EN /n/, FR /n/ −0.48 0.27 −1.79 0.81
EN /s/, FR /s/ −0.71 0.16 −4.23 0.002
EN /z/, FR /z/ 0.04 0.32 0.12 1.00

Acknowledgment

We wish to acknowledge our study participants and to thank Isabel Garriga and Nayoung Ryu for assistance with data annotation.

  1. Statement of ethics: All participants provided written consent. The study was approved by the University of Toronto Social Sciences and Education ethics board.

  2. Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

  3. Funding sources: This work was partly funded by an Insight Grant from the Social the Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (#435-2015-2013) to Alexei Kochetov and a University of Toronto Faculty of Arts & Science Advancing Teaching and Learning in Arts and Science (ATLAS) grant to the three authors.

  4. Author contributions: Conceptualization: all contributors; stimuli design: AK and JS; methodology: AK; data collection: AK and JS; data analysis: AK and LC; writing: all contributors; funding acquisition: all three authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

References

Amerman, James D. & Martha M. Parnell. 1992. Speech timing strategies in elderly adults. Journal of Phonetics 20. 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30254-2.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Mächler M. Martin, Bolker Ben & Steven Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, Janice W., Pascal H. H. M. van Lieshout, & Catriona M. Steele. 2007. Tongue control for speech and swallowing in healthy younger and older subjects. International Journal of Orofacial Myology 33. 5–18. https://doi.org/10.52010/ijom.2007.33.1.1.Search in Google Scholar

Best, Catherine T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues, 171–204. Baltimore: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Best, Catherine T. & Micheal D. Tyler. 2007. Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Ocke-Schwen Bohn & Murray J. Munro (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.17.07besSearch in Google Scholar

Birdsong, David. 2018. Plasticity, variability and age in second language acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology 9. 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00081.Search in Google Scholar

Bley-Vroman, Robert. 1990. The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20(1–2). 3–47.10.1017/CBO9781139524544.005Search in Google Scholar

Bongaerts, Theo, Susan Mennen & Frans van der Slik. 2000. Authenticity of pronunciation in naturalistic second language acquisition: The case of very advanced late learners of Dutch as a second language. Studia Linguistica 54. 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00069.Search in Google Scholar

Brajot, Francois-Xavier, Fatemeh Mollaei, Megan Callahan, Denise Klein, Shari R. Baum & Vincent L. Gracco. 2013. Articulatory phonetics of coronal stops in monolingual and simultaneous speakers of Canadian French and English. In Proceedings of the meeting on acoustics 19. 1–9.10.1121/1.4799468Search in Google Scholar

Browman, Catherine P. & Louis Goldstein. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49. 155–18. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261913.Search in Google Scholar

Clairet, Sandrine. 2004. Compensation articulatoire dans la production des occlusives du français [Articulatory compensation in the production of French stops]. Université Aix-Marseille Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Cho, Taehong & Patricia Keating. 2001. Articulatory and acoustic studies on domain-initial strengthening in Korean. Journal of Phonetics 29. 155–190. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0131.Search in Google Scholar

Colantoni, Laura & Jeffrey Steele. 2007. Acquiring /ʁ/ in context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29. 381–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263107070258.Search in Google Scholar

Colantoni, Laura, Jeffrey Steele & Paola Escudero. 2015. Second language speech: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139087636Search in Google Scholar

Cruttenden, Alan & Alfred Charles Gimson. 2001. In Arnold International Student (eds.), Gimson’s pronunciation of English, 6th ed. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Dart, Sarah N. 1988. Comparing French and English coronal consonant articulation. Journal of Phonetics 26. 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-0101(88)90308-x.Search in Google Scholar

Dart, Sarah N. (1991). Articulatory and acoustic properties of apical and laminal articulations. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 79. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/52f5v2x2.Search in Google Scholar

De Jong, Kenneth, Noah Silbert & Hanyong Park. 2009. Generalizations across segments in second language consonant identification. Language learning 59(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00499.x.Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola. 2005. Linguistic perception and second language acquisition. LOT Dissertation series, 113. Utrecht, Holland: Utrecht University.Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola. 2009. Linguistic perception of “similar” L2 sounds. In Paul Boersma & Silke Hamann (eds.), Phonology in perception, 151–190. Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola & Paul Boersma. 2004. Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(4). 551–585. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263104040021.Search in Google Scholar

Esling, John H. & Rita F. Wong. 1983. Voice quality settings and the teaching of pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly 17. 89–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586426.Search in Google Scholar

Esling, John H., Scott R. Moisik, Allison Benner & Lise Crevier-Buchman. 2019. Voice quality. The laryngeal articulator model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108696555Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James E. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, 233–277. Baltimore: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James E. & Ocke-Schwen Bohn. 2021. The revised speech learning model (SLM-r). In Ratree Wayland (ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress, 3–83. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.10.1017/9781108886901.002Search in Google Scholar

Fontdevila, Jordi, Maria Dolors Pallarès & Daniel Recasens. 1994. The contact index method of electropalatographic data reduction. Journal of Phonetics 22. 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30190-1.Search in Google Scholar

Fougeron, Cécile & Patricia Keating. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(6). 3729–3740. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418332.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbon, Fiona & Katerina Nicolaidis. 1999. Palatography. In William J. Hardcastle & Nigel Hewlett (eds.), Coarticulation in speech production: Theory, data, and techniques, 229–245. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486395.011Search in Google Scholar

Gick, Bryan, Ian Wilson, Karsten Koch & Clare Cook. 2004. Language-specific articulatory settings: Evidence from inter-utterance rest position. Phonetica 61. 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1159/000084159.Search in Google Scholar

Hayden, Rebecca E. 1950. The relative frequency of phonemes in General-American English. Word 6(3). 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1950.11659381.Search in Google Scholar

Hermes, Anne, Jane Mertens & Doris Mücke. 2018. Rate-related kinematic changes in younger and older adults. Interspeech 2018. 1526–1530.10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1233Search in Google Scholar

Honikman, Beatrice. 1964. Articulatory settings. In David Abercrombie, Dannis B. Fry, Peter A. D. MacCarthy, N. C. Scott & John L. M. Trim (eds.), In honour of Daniel Jones: Papers contributed on the occasion of his eightieth birthday 12 September 1961, 73–84. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Search in Google Scholar

Iverson, Paul, Melanie Pinet & Bronwen G. Evans. 2012. Auditory training for experienced and inexperienced second-language learners: Native French speakers learning English vowels. Applied PsychoLinguistics 33. 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716411000300.Search in Google Scholar

Jenner, Bryan. 2001. ‘Articulatory setting’: Genealogies of an idea. Historiographia Linguistica XXVIII. 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.28.1.09jen.Search in Google Scholar

Jones, Daniel. 1922. An outline of English phonetics. Cambridge: BG Teubner.Search in Google Scholar

Kochetov, Alexei. 2020. Research methods in articulatory phonetics I: Introduction and studying oral gestures. Language and Linguistics Compass 14. e12368. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12368.Search in Google Scholar

Kochetov, Alexei & Laura Colantoni. 2011. Coronal place contrasts in Argentine and Cuban Spanish: An electropalatographic study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41(3). 313–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100311000338.Search in Google Scholar

Kochetov, Alexei, Laura Colantoni & Jeffrey Steele. 2015-2021. The Cross-Language Articulatory Database (CLAD). University of Toronto. http://clad.chass.utoronto.ca/.Search in Google Scholar

Laver, John. 1978. The concept of articulatory settings: An historical survey. Historiographia Linguistica 5(1–2). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.5.1-2.02lav.Search in Google Scholar

Laver, John. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166621Search in Google Scholar

Laver, John. 2009. The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In William Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modeling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16Search in Google Scholar

Lowie, Wander & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2015. Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning 65(1). 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12093.Search in Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brain. 2017. Entrenchment in second-language learning. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 343–366. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1037/15969-016Search in Google Scholar

Malécot, André. 1974. Frequency of occurrence of French phonemes and consonant clusters. Phonetica 29. 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1159/000259468.Search in Google Scholar

Mennen, Ineke, James M. Scobbie, Esther de Leeuw, Sonja Schaeffler & Felix Schaeffler. 2010. Measuring language-specific settings. Second Language Research 26(1). 13–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309337617.Search in Google Scholar

Mines, M. Ardussi, Barbara F. Hanson & June E. Shoup. 1978. Frequency of occurrence of phonemes in conversational English. Language and Speech 21(3). 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097802100302.Search in Google Scholar

Namasivayam, Aravind K., Deirdre Coleman, Aisling O’Dwyer & Pascal van Lieshout. 2020. Speech sound disorders in children: An Articulatory Phonology perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02998.Search in Google Scholar

Paradis, Michel. 2009. Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.40Search in Google Scholar

Perkell, Joseph, Frank Guenther, Harlen Lane, Melania Matthies, Ellen Stockmann, Mark Tiede & Majid Zandipour. 2004. The distinctness of speakers’ production of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116. 2338–2344. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1787524.Search in Google Scholar

Perkell, Joseph, Frank Guenther, Harlen Lane, N. Marrone, Melanie Matthies, Ellen Stockmann, Mark Tiede & Majid Zandipour. 2006. Production and perception of phoneme contrasts covary across speakers. In Jonathan Harrington & Marija Tabain (eds.), Speech production: Models, phonetic processes and techniques, 69–84. New York: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pienemann, Manfred. 1998. Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728998000017.Search in Google Scholar

Qu, Jinghua & Sam-Po Law. 2017. Cognitive basis of individual differences in speech perception, production and representations: The role of domain general attentional switching. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 79. 945–963.10.3758/s13414-017-1283-zSearch in Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/ [Computer program].Search in Google Scholar

Recasens, Daniel. 2010. Differences in base of articulation for consonants among Catalan dialects. Phonetica 67(4). 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1159/000322312.Search in Google Scholar

Recasens, Daniel. 2012. A cross-language acoustic study of initial and final allophones of /l/. Speech Communication 54. 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2011.10.001.Search in Google Scholar

Schaeffler, Sonja, John Scobbie & Ineke Mennen. 2008. An evaluation of inter-speech postures for the study of language-specific articulatory settings. In Rudolph Sock, Susanne Fuchs & Yves Laprie (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international speech production seminar, 121–124. INRIA.Search in Google Scholar

Sundara, Megha, Linda Polka & Shari Baum. 2006. Production of coronal stops by simultaneous bilingual adults. Bilingualism 9(1). 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728905002403.Search in Google Scholar

Święciński, Radosław. 2013. An EMA study of articulatory settings in Polish speakers of English. In Ewa Waniek-Klimczak & Linda R. Shockey (eds.), Teaching and researching English accents in native and non-native speakers, 73–82. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-24019-5_6Search in Google Scholar

Tagarelli, Kaitlyn M., Simón Ruiz-Hernández, José Luis Moreno Vega & Patrick Rebuschat. 2016. Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38. 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263116000036.Search in Google Scholar

Tobias, Jerry V. 1959. Relative occurrence of phonemes in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31. 631. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907766.Search in Google Scholar

Wieling, Martijn & Mark Tiede. 2017. Quantitative identification of dialect-specific articulatory settings. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142(1). 389–394.10.1121/1.4990951Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Ian. 2013. Articulatory settings of French and English monolinguals. In T. Ooigawa (ed.), Sophia University Working Papers in Phonetics 2013, 39–58. Sophia University.10.1121/1.4777977Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Ian & Bryan Gick. 2014. Bilinguals use language-specific articulatory settings. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 57. 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1044/2013_jslhr-s-12-0345.Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Ian & Sunao Kanada. 2014. Pre-speech postures of second-language versus first-language speakers. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 18(2). 106–109.Search in Google Scholar

Wioland, François. 1991. Prononcer les mots du français: des sons et des rythmes. Paris: Hachette.Search in Google Scholar

Wrench, Alan. 2007. Advances in EPG palate design. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology 9. 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040601123676.Search in Google Scholar

Wrench, Alan, Fiona Gibbon, Alison M. McNeill & Sara Wood. 2002. An EPG therapy protocol for remediation and assessment of articulation disorders. In John H. L. Hansen & Brain Pellom (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on spoken language processing, 965–968.10.21437/ICSLP.2002-329Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-08-23
Published in Print: 2021-08-26

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 25.4.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/phon-2021-2007/html
Scroll to top button