PhD Research Project Proposal

PhD Research Project Proposal
Title:
Factors contributing to non-native accent in prosody:
From perception to articulation
Department of Linguistics, University of Konstanz
Name: Yuki Asano
Email: Yuki.Asano@uni-konstanz.de
Student number: 01/773842
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Bettina Braun
November 3, 2011

1 Introduction
Anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows how difficult it is
to acquire prosody (rhythm, intonation) in a second language (L2). What is
usually referred to as a foreign accent is often retained even by advanced
learners. Studies have shown evidence of the existence of foreign-accented
prosody by L2 learners (e.g., Altmann and Kabak, 2011, for review), but still
little is known about which stages of speech processing (perception, storage
or articulation?) contribute to foreign-accented prosody. Some studies (e.g.,
Escudero et al., 2008; Broersma and Cutler, 2008) show that learners’ deviant
prosodic forms are not only related to articulation, but can also be caused by
diverse levels of phonological processing such as at the level of speech perception
or the storage of novel prosodic forms in learner’s mental lexicon.
The central question in my study is whether the deviant prosodic forms produced
by L2 learners are due to problems in L2 perception, problems regarding
the storing process of L2 phonological information, or problems regarding
L2 production (integrating segmental and suprasegmental information at the
articulatory level).
To investigate this research question, five experiments will be conducted: Experiment
1 already tested the kind of difficulties language learners show in
their L2 prosody when it comes to highly frequent L2 words. After a basic
understanding of the issue, Experiments 2 and 3 will examine whether the
deviant L2 prosodic forms found in Experiment 1 are due to their speech perception
or storage. Experiments 4 and 5 will examine whether the difficulties
found in speech production are additionally caused by problems at the articulatory
level in addition to by problems that relate to learners’ speech perception
and storage. The study aims to give new insight into the extremely
understudied relationships of the L2 speech perception, storage and production,
taking the developmental aspects of L2 acquisition into consideration by
testing learners at various L2 proficiency levels. It will also provide didactic
implications, which will contribute to an improvement of L2 learning and
teaching.
2 Background and state of the art
2.1 Languages in focus: German and Japanese
Japanese and German have different prosodic systems in many aspects. One
such aspect is speech rhythm, which has been referred to as temporal sequencing
of similar event (Dalton and Hardcastle, 1977, 41). Japanese is
known to be what is called a mora-timed language (Cutler and Otake, 1994) (=
Each mora has a psychologically perceivable similar duration.), while German
is categorized as a stress-timed language (Kohler, 1982) (= Stressed syllables
define the rhythm.). Additionally, stressed syllables in a German word are
produced with higher pitch, longer duration, and more energy (Gussenhoven,
2007).
1

Other aspects are the realizations and the functions of pitch accent: Pitch
accents in Japanese and German have different phonetic forms and phonological
functions. Japanese pitch accents are characterized sorely by changing
F0, while German pitch accents are manifested by changes in F0, as well
as by increase in intensity and duration (Beckman and Pierrehumbert, 1986).
Comparing the functional aspects of pitch accents, pitch accents in Japanese
are lexically specified (Beckman and Pierrehumbert, 1986) and have thus primarily
a lexical function (for example áme means ‘rain’ and amé ‘candy’) and
post-lexical uses appear only secondary in the light of a primarily lexical restriction.
On the contrary, German pitch accents are used mainly for postlexical
purposes (e.g., Gibbon, 1998).
Despite the duration change caused by stress and pitch change, a long German
vowel can still be distinguished from a short vowel. This is due to the
fact that vowel quality plays a phonemic role in the production of German,
which creates a contrast between a short and a long vowel (Bennett, 1968).
However, unlike German, there is no significant quality difference between
Japanese short and long vowels (Ueyama, 2000). This is the reason that duration
in Japanese is very important and no change occurs in the duration of
pitch accent.
2.2 Phonological processing and representation
in speech perception, storage and production
In order to investigate foreign-accented prosody, it is important to explore
not only speech production itself, but also speech perception and storage,
since speech production and perception are known to be intimately linked
(a.o. Liberman and Mattingly, 1985). As Levelt’s model (1989) also shows,
the mental lexicon is directly connected with the Speech-Comprehension System,
which supports the reciprocal relationship between speech perception
and production. In this section, models of speech perception and production
that are relevant to my study will be briefly presented.
2.2.1 Lexical and sublexical phonology
First of all, the difference between lexical and sublexical phonology (Ramus,
2001) should be made clear, since nonword stimuli will be used in my experiments.
Lexical phonological representation (see Figure 1) serves as permanent storage
for phonological forms of words, whereas sublexical phonological representation
is storage within short-term memory (a.o. Gathercole, 1999) or
in working memory (a.o. Baddeley et al., 1998) for whatever can be represented
in a phonological format, that is, word, whole utterances and nonsense
sequences of phonemes (nonwords) (Ramus, 2001, 201). In acoustic representation
(ibid.) (or acoustic storage in Gathercole, 1999), acoustic record of
the most recent auditory speech item is stored in a sensory form (Gathercole,
1999, 413). In the case of nonwords, the link between lexical and sublexical
2

Figure 1: Model of speech perception and production (Szenkovits and Ramus,
2005, 255)
phonological information fails to exist (except when a listener tries to remember
nonwords by associating them with real words). Or in case of L2 words,
acoustic representations, articulatory representations, sublexical phonological
representations as well as lexical phonological representations are not
connected with each other directly (cf. Kroll and Stewart, 1994). Gathercole
(1999) claims that interference from L1 to L2 occurs before phonological information
is stored in lexical phonological representations. Therefore, in my
experiments, I will examine the stages that occur before lexical phonological
representation.
2.2.2 Perception and storage
In Baddeley’s working memory model (Baddeley, 1986), sublexical phonological
input is assumed to be stored in the working memory, within which memory
traces will fade, if not revived, within one or two seconds. If an articulatory
control process (‘articulatory rehearsal’) occurs, memory traces can be
maintained in the phonological buffer by means of subvocal rehearsal. This
phonological loop (Baddeley, 1986) is not only specialized for the retention of
verbal information over short periods of time, but is also assumed to have links
to long-term memory, helping with the storage of new words as phonological
episodic information (e.g., Baddeley et al., 1998; Baddeley, 2000; Baddeley
and Wilson, 2002). Comparing the model of Baddeley (1986) with Ramus‘
model (2001) (see Figure 1), the memory trace in Baddeley (1986) is comparable
with acoustic representations in Ramus (2001) and storage in working
memory (Baddeley, 1986) with sublexical phonological representations in Ramus
(2001).
3

The function of the phonological loop to build episodic memory representations
in long-term memory is supposed to be more relevant in processing of
unfamiliar phonological forms (e.g., in L2 or in nonwords) than in processing
of familiar words (cf. Baddeley et al., 1998). Normally, existing conceptual,
lexical or phonological knowledge will be used to store and learn a new word
(e.g., Kroll and Stewart, 1994). When unfamiliar phonological forms are presented,
lexical knowledge is not available and therefore it is difficult to build
an association to support storing and learning. In such a case, listeners tend
to rely on the phonological loop system to provide the necessary temporary
storage of the phonological material while more stable long-term phonological
memories are being constructed (Baddeley et al., 1998, for review).
In my study, it will be examined how L1 and L2 listeners perceive unfamiliar
words (which contain phonological structures of the target language) at
the level of acoustic representations and store them at the sublexical phonological
representations. By presenting nonwords, both L1 and L2 listeners
have no direct access to the existing lexical knowledge, however L1 listeners
will probably still have an advantage, since phonological structures of sound
stimuli are more familiar to them. At which point of phonological processing
(acoustic or sublexical phonological representations) do L1 and L2 listeners
show clear differences? Do L2 listeners have more difficulties when they must
map the acoustic input onto sublexical phonological representations and store
it by relying on the phonological loop? Or do they show difficulties in the earlier
stage, before the phonological information gets into the loop?
2.2.3 Speech production
Speech production varies according to what kind of production task is intended
to be performed. For instance, spontaneous speech is clearly different
from reading aloud (Clark and Van Der Wege, 2002; Guaïtella, 1999). In this
study, two types of speech production tasks are relevant: Immediate imitation
and delayed imitation. The former type of task might be better called ‘articulation’
than speech production and does not require the access to sublexical
phonological representations, but primarily to acoustic representations.
The latter type of speech production requires the phonological information to
be stored at least in sublexical phonological representations. In this sense,
the delayed imitation paradigm needs to access the same representations as
semi-spontaneous speech (‘output sublexical phonological representations’,
see Figure 1).
The whole process of an immediate imitation is supported by the motor theory
of speech perception (Liberman et al., 1967) as well as the theory of Direct
Realism (Fowler, 1986), which claim that speech perception is automatically
mediated by an innate, specialised speech module to which listeners have
no conscious access. Even though the theories differ from each other as to
whether specialized processes are necessary to account for speech perception
(Liberman and Whalen, 2000), they both share the view that an immediate
imitation is nothing more than phonetic gestures which are automatically mediated
during speech perception. In Figure 1, an immediate imitation should
4

e indicated through the arrow which connects acoustic representations and
articulatory representations. However, the theory evoked a large amount of
critical commentary (a.o. Lane, 1965; Galantucci et al., 2006; Massaro and
Chen, 2008). One of the persuasive criticism is the claim that listeners simply
perceive speech in terms of a prototypical pattern recognition process (but not
detailed articulatory gestures) using various contextual constraints. In speech
comprehension, the goal is to understand, which is not necessarily linked to
the actual gestures of the speaker (Massaro and Chen, 2008, 453). Despite
these criticism, I will use the motor theory of speech perception for my data
interpretation and discussion, since the goal of my experimental task (immediate
imitation) is not to understand, but to pay attention to phonological forms
closely as possible and imitate the stimuli as accurately as possible. The experimental
task does not reflect the daily speech perception situations.
At the articulatory level, however, regardless of the type of speech production
task, a speaker must coordinate several different prosodic cues simultaneously
(e.g., Levelt, 1989). In the case of real words (except for in the case of
an immediate imitation task) a phonetic or articulatory plan for each word will
be built in phonological encoding (Levelt, 1989) (see Figure 2), by processing
and integrating morphological, metrical, segmental information as well as
post-lexical meaning such as intonational meaning simultaneously (ibid., 13).
Even in the case of nonwords, it has been shown that phonological encoding
takes place despite the absence of lexical cues (e.g., Christopher, 1981).
Figure 2: An outline of the architecture for the phonological encoding of connected
speech (Levelt, 1989, 366)
In phonological encoding, L2 learners may face the first processing difficulty
in metrical spellout. At this stage, metrical patterns which are stored in mental
lexicon are used (ibid., 322). Regarding Japanese and German, the moratimed
and stress-timed speech systems can compete with each other. Since I
5

assume that the metrical plans influence all further processes in phonological
encoding, successful metrical processing seems to be essential for successful
phonological encoding. The present study investigates, which stage of speech
production and articulation foreign-accented speech occurs at. More specifically,
we will examine whether L2 speakers have difficulties at the level of
sublexical phonological representations or articulatory representations by coordinating
several prosodic cues.
3 Work Schedule
3.1 Experiment 1 (Data gathered in March 2011)
Experiment 1 determines the difficulties in L2 speech production by examining
how L1 and L2 speakers integrate several prosodic cues to produce daily
frequently used words. In the task, 60 participants (15 Japanese and German
native speakers, 15 German learners of Japanese as well as 15 Japanese learners
of German) (non-native speakers rated with respect to their proficiency in
L2) had to repeatedly (3 times) seek a person’s attention in three situations,
saying the following words: Two Japanese words, one with lexical pitch accent
(Sumimasen ‘Excuse me’– with a lexical pitch accent on the penultimate
mora), one without (Konnichiwa ‘Hello’) and a German word (Entschuldigung
‘Excuse me’). The task was presented with a laptop using its presentation
function. The experimental design allowed us to test how the strengthening
of one aspect (repeated attention-seeking) influences the coordination of
suprasegmental cues in two languages ceteris paribus.
Clear transfers from one’s L1 to L2 were found. Relevant results for Experiments
2–5 are briefly summarized: 1) German learners of Japanese ignored
the Japanese lexical pitch accent and produced the utterance with various
kinds of pitch accents like in their L1, German. 2) German learners produced
deviant rhythmic forms compared to the ones of Japanese native speakers.
The analysed words, Sumimasen and Konnichiwa, are very frequently used
words. Therefore, it can be assumed that the learners could have had enough
exposure to be potentially able to store the natives’ phonetic and phonological
realization.
Why is L2 speech production still different despite the large amount of L2 inputs?
In which stage of speech processing do these deviant forms occur? Further
experiments are designed to determine whether the deviant forms found
in L2 speech production represent a lack of abilities to distinguish two different
speech rhythms and pitch movement and/or a lack of abilities to categorize
them and/or problems in mapping phonological information into representations
or in coordinating several prosodic cues at the articulatory level.
3.2 Experiment 2
Experiment 2 will address the question of whether the difficulties of L2 learners
in Experiment 1 are due to problems at the level of acoustic representa-
6

tions (=distinction) or at the level of sublexical phonological representations
(= storage). 15 adult Japanese listeners and 15 Japanese learners of German
as well as 15 German listeners with no learning history of Japanese (as
a comparison group) are going to be tested in an AX procedure. The paired
nonsense sound stimuli differ or do not differ in Japanese moraic structures
and pitch accents as follows:
Condition (a): Contrastive moraic structures (2 moraic vs. 3 moraic)
mora structure pair pitch accent
CVCV vs. CVCCV zusu vs. zuusu H(igh)H vs. HH
CVCV vs. CVCCV zusu vs. zuusu L(ow)H vs. LH
CVCV vs. CVCCV zusu vs. zussu HL vs. HL
CVCV vs. CVCVV zusu vs. zussu HH vs. HH
CVCV vs. CVCVV zusu vs. zusuu LH vs. LH
CVCV vs. CVCVV zusu vs. zusuu HL vs. HL
Condition (b): Contrastive pitch accents (HH vs. HL vs. LH)
pitch accent pair mora structure
HL vs. HH zusu vs. zusu CVCV vs. CVCV
HH vs. LH zusu vs. zusu CVCV vs. CVCV
LH vs. HL zusu vs. zusu CVCV vs. CVCV
HL vs. HH zussu vs. zussu CVCCV vs. CVCCV
HH vs. LH zussu vs. zussu CVCCV vs. CVCCV
LH vs. HL zussu vs. zussu CVCCV vs. CVCCV
HL vs. HH zuusu vs. zuusu CVVCV vs. CVVCV
HH vs. LH zuusu vs. zuusu CVVCV vs. CVVCV
LH vs. HL zuusu vs. zuusu CVVCV vs. CVVCV
The condition (a) examines whether listeners are sensitive to the differences
in two different moraic structures. The condition (b) explores whether listeners
hear differences between two different pitch accent patterns. Based on
the sonority values of consonants and vowels (Hardison and Saio, 2010), further
candidates for experimental stimuli are going to be selected (e.g., \sufu\,
\bada\). The candidate will be assessed in terms of ‘wordlikeness’ to ensure
that all stimuli are comparable (non)wordlike in both languages. This pretest
for the stimuli selection will be conducted by testing 18 Japanese and 18 German
L1 speakers using an web-based experiment (WebExp2) which enables
us to get both participants’ responses and reaction times (e.g., Keller et al.,
2009).
After the pretest, the selected materials will be recorded by a female speaker
of Japanese. Prior to the experiments, the duration of the first and second
vowels, the second consonants as well as the pitch contours will be measured
to assure that the contrast was realized. Each token will be three times so
that different tokens of the same type can be used in the experiment.
More importantly, the duration of ISI will be varied. Stimuli will be presented
either with short ISI (= 500 ms) or with long ISI (=2000 ms). It has been
reported that there is a relationship between the duration of the ISI and discrimination
performance in the AX procedure (Pisoni, 1973). The condition
7

with short ISI enables us to test whether German learners have difficulties
in distinguishing between two stimuli at the level of acoustic presentations.
On the contrary, the stimuli presented with long ISI will answer the question
about the difficulties at the level of sublexical phonological representations
(e.g., Bradlow and Pisoni, 1999).
Stimuli will be randomized and assigned and presented using the neurobehavioural
experiment program Presentation. Participants’ responses (using
signal detection theory, cf. Macmillan and Creelman, 2005) and reaction times
(using multi-level regression models, cf. Baayen et al., 2008) will be analysed.
3.3 Experiment 3
In Experiment 3, a categorization (ABX) task will be conducted, in which the
same participants who participated in Experiment 2 take part. An ABX task
requires the listeners to attend to acoustic cues in order to build categories
on which to make a decision, while in an AX task, they generally pay attention
only to the acoustic cues which are relevant to distinguish the stimuli (cf.
Council, 1989). In order to proceed with an ABX task, it is necessary to store
AB in (sublexical) phonological representations so that they can be compared
with X later (critical views however see also ibid.). The participants and materials
will be the same as described in Experiments 2. Only the presentation
of stimuli will be modified as follows:
Condition (a): Moraic structures of A and B are different.
A B X
zusu (HL) zussu (HL) zusu (HL) or zussu (HL)
zusu (LH) zussu (LH) zusu (LH) or zussu (HL)
zusu (HL) zuusu (HL) zusu (HL) or zuusu (HL)
zusu (LH) zuusu (LH) zusu (LH) or zuusu (LH)
Condition (b): Pitch accents of A and B are different.
A B X
zusu (HL) zusu (HH) zusu (HL) or zusu (HH)
zusu (HH) zusu (LH) zusu (HH) or zusu (LH)
zusu (LH) zusu (HL) zusu (LH) or zusu (HL)
3.4 Experiment 4 and 5
Experiments 4 and 5 examine whether the deviant phonological forms which
were shown in Experiment 1 are due to the difficulties in coordinating several
L2 phonological cues (difficulties in the articulatory organization) or problems
in sublexical phonological representations (storage). The task is an imitation
task. Participants will be asked to imitate an auditory stimuli, which will be
used also in Experiments 2 and 3. Stimuli will not be presented in a pair,
8

ut instead, each of them will be presented separately. In Experiment 4, participants
have to imitate a stimulus soon after it has been presented. This
experiment investigates whether learners have articulatory problems and difficulties
at the level of articulatory representations. In Experiment 5 however,
they will be asked to start to imitate after a peep tone (= a delayed imitation).
During the pause (before the peep tone), another linguistic task will
be conducted in order to prevent the effects of repetitions until they start to
imitate it. In this way, the difficulties regarding the storage of information in
sublexical phonological representations will be examined. One possible result
to expect would be the case where German learners could perform well only
in Experiment 4, but not in any other experiments. In this case, they are able
to imitate a stimulus only reflexively. This finding will be supported by the
motor theory of speech perception (Liberman et al., 1967). Another possible
scenario that I imagine occurring is that learners succeed in Experiment 4,
but not in Experiment 5. In this case, the possible interpretation is that their
production problems relate to storage.
Throughout the Experiments 2 to 5, I plan to use the same sound stimuli testing
the same participants on the same day. In this way, it can be ensured
that the participants have not gotten any new relevant information which can
impact their further performance and the relationships between articulation
and/speech production and speech perception and storage can be also examined
and analysed.
This project will be concluded by combining the empirical evidence of the
above described experiments to evaluate (and possibly revise) current theories
on the processing of speech production of L1 and L2.
References
Altmann, H. and Kabak, B. (2011). Second language phonology: L1 transfer,
universals, and processing from segments to stress, pages 298–319. Continuum,
London New York.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., and Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling
with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and
Language, 59(4):390–412.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11):417–423.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., and Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop
as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105(1):158–173.
Baddeley, A. and Wilson, B. A. (2002). Prose recall and amnesia: implications
for the structure of working memory. Neuropsychologia, 40(10):1737–1743.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Beckman, M. E. and Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1986). Intonational structure in
Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3:54.
9

Bennett, D. C. (1968). Spectralt forms and duration as cues in the recognition
of English and German vowels. Language and Speech, 11:65–85.
Bradlow, A. R., N. L. C. and Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Effects of talker, rate and
amplitude variation on recognition memory for spoken words. Perception
Psychophysics, 61(2):206–219.
Broersma, M. and Cutler, A. (2008). Phantom word activation in L2. System,
36(1):22–34.
Christopher, B. (1981). Hemispheric asymmetry in lexical access and phonological
encoding. Neuropsychologia, 19(3):473–478.
Clark, H. H. and Van Der Wege, M. (2002). Psycholinguistics. In Medin, D. L.,
editor, Stevens Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Memory and Cognitive
Processes, number 2, pages 209–259. John Wiley, New York.
Council, N. R. (1989). Classification of complex nonspeech sounds. National
Academy Press, Washington D. C.
Cutler, A. and Otake, T. (1994). Mora or phoneme? Further evidence for
language-specific listeningfurther evidence for language-specific listening.
Journal of Memory and Language, 33(6):824–844.
Dalton, P. and Hardcastle, W. J. (1977). Disorders of fluency and their effects
on communication. E. Arnold, London.
Escudero, P., Hayes, R., and Mitterer, H. (2008). Novel L2 words and assymetric
lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36(2):345–360.
Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception
from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14:3–28.
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C., and Turvey, M. (2006). The motor theory of speech
perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3):361–377.
Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Cognitive approaches to the development of shortterm
memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3:410–418.
Gibbon, D. (1998). Intonation in German. In Hirst, D. and Cristo, A., editors,
Intonation systems: a survey of twenty languages, chapter 4, pages 78–95.
Cambridge University Press.
Guaïtella, I. (1999). Rhythm in speech: What rhythmic organizations reveal
about cognitive processes in spontaneous speech production versus reading
aloud. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(4):509–523.
Gussenhoven, C. (2007). Intonation, pages 253–280. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Hardison, D. M. and Saio, M. M. (2010). Development of perception of second
language japanese geminates: Role of duration, sonority, and segmentation
strategy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(01):81–99.
10

Keller, F., Gunasekharan, S., Mayo, N., and Corley, M. (2009). Timing accuracy
of web experiments: A case study using the webexp software package.
Behavior Research Methods, 41(1):1–12.
Kohler, K. (1982). Rhythmus im deutschen. In Kohler, Klaus, J., Schäfer-
Vincent, K., and Timmermann, G., editors, Experimentelle Untersuchungen
zu Zeitstrukturen im Deutschen, volume 19, pages 89–106. Institut für
Phonetik der Universität Kiel.
Kroll, J. F. and Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture
naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory
representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33:149–174.
Lane, H. (1965). The motor theory of speech perception: A critical review.
Psychological Review, 72(4):275–309.
Levelt, Willem, J. M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., and Studdert-Kennedy, M.
(1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74(6):431–
461.
Liberman, A. M. and Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception
revised. Cognition, 21(1):1–36.
Liberman, A. M. and Whalen, D. H. (2000). On the relation of speech to language.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(5):187–196.
Macmillan, N. and Creelman, C. (2005). Detection theory: a user’s guide.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Massaro, D. and Chen, T. (2008). The motor theory of speech perception revisited.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2):453–457.
Pisoni, D. B. (1973). Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination
of consonants and vowels. Perception & Psychophysics, 13:253–260.
Ramus, F. (2001). Outstanding questions about phonological processing in
dyslexia. Dyslexia, 7(4):197–216.
Szenkovits, G. and Ramus, F. (2005). Exploring dyslexic’ phonological deficit i:
Lexical vs sub-lexical and input vs output processes. Dyslexia, 11:253–268.
Ueyama, M. (2000). Prosodic Transfer: An Acoustic Study of L2 English vs. L2
Japanese. PhD thesis, University of California.
11