Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
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.
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.
-
Statement of ethics: All participants provided written consent. The study was approved by the University of Toronto Social Sciences and Education ethics board.
-
Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
-
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.
-
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
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston