Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universityatically longer than the latter (Cruttenden2008).Figure 2. Average vowel and stop duration in msfor S15 for 5 instances of the words bead, beat, bid,bit.So, as is apparent from Figure 2, speaker S15manages to produce somewhat shorter vowelsin bid and bit than in beat and bit. This is theprimary cue that this speaker is using to dissimilatethe vowels, although not, unfortunatelythe cue expected as most salient by native listeners.But there is no pre-fortis clipping apparent.This important cue to post-vocalic voicingis not produced by this speaker. In conjunctionwith the lack of spectral distinction between thevowels of bead, bead vs. bid, bit seen in Figure1, the result is that these four words are percievedas indistinguishable by native and notnativelisteners (Cunningham 2009).Sentence intelligibilityA number of factors work together to confoundthe listener of Vietnamese-accented English inconnected speech. Not only is it difficult to perceivevowel identity and post vocalic voicing asin the above examples, but there are a numberof other problems. Consider the sentence Myfriend’s sheep is often green. This is taken fromthe stimuli set used for the larger study mentionedabove. The advantage of sentences ofthis type is that the contextual aids to interpretabilityare minimised while connected speechphenomena are likely to be elicited. There arehere a number of potential pitfalls for the Vietnamesespeaker of English. The cluster at theend of friend’s, especially in connection withthe initial consonant in sheep can be expectedto prove difficult and to be simplified in someway. The quality and duration of the vowels insheep and green can be expected to cause confusion(as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 above.The word often is liable to be pronounced witha substitution of /p/ for the /f/ at the end of thefirst syllable, as voiceless stops are permissiblein coda position in Vietnamese while fricativesare not.Let us then see what happens when speakerV1, a 23-year old male graduate student of Englishfrom Hanoi, reads this sentence. In fact hemanages the beginning of the utterance well,with an appropriate (native-like) elision of the/d/ in friends. Things start to go wrong after thatwith the word sheep. Figure 3 shows a spectrogramof this word using Praat (Boersma andWeenink 2009). As can be seen, the final consonantcomes out as an ungrooved [s].Figure 3. The word sheep as pronounced by speakerV1.Now there is a possible explanation for this. Asmentioned above, final /f/ as in the word if isoften pronounced as [ip]. This pronunciation isviewed as characteristic of VietnameseaccentedEnglish in Vietnam – teacher and thuslearner awareness of this is high, and the featureis stigmatised. Thus the avoidance of the final/p/ of sheep may be an instance of hypercorrection.It is clearly detrimental to V1’s intelligibility.Another problematic part of this sentence byV1 is that he elides the /z/ in the word is. Thereis silence on either side of this vowel. Again,this leads to intelligibility problems. The finaldifficulty for the listener in this utterance is amatter of VOT in the word green. V1 has novoice before the vowel begins as is shown infigure 4. The stop is apparently voiceless andthe release is followed by a 112ms voicelessaspiration. This leads to the word being misinterpretedby listeners as cream.110
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityFigure 4 the word green as pronounced by speakerV1. The marking shows aspiration after the releaseof the initial stop.ConclusionSo it can be seen that the intelligibility of theseVietnamese speakers of English is a majorproblem for them and their interlocutors. Notonly do they have non-native pronunciation featuresthat are clear instances of transfer fromtheir L1, Vietnamese, they also have other,spontaneous, modifications of the targetsounds. This is part of the general variabilitythat characterises non-native pronunciation, butwhen the sounds produced are as far from thetarget sounds as they are in the speech of V1,communication is an extreme effort.ReferencesBaker, A. (2006). Ship or sheep: an intermediatepronunciation course. Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press.Boersma, P. and D. Weenink (2009). Praat: doingphonetics by computer.Cruttenden, A. (2008). Gimson's Pronunciationof English. London, Hodder ArnoldCunningham, U. (2009). Quality, quantity andintelligibility of vowels in VietnameseaccentedEnglish. Issues in Accents of EnglishII: Variability and Norm. E. Waniek-Klimczak. Newcastle, Cambridge ScholarsPublishing Ltd.Flege, J. E., I. R. A. MacKay, et al. (1999). NativeItalian speakers' perception and productionof English vowels. Journal of theAcoustical Society of America 106(5):2973-2987.Flege, J. E., M. J. Munro, et al. (1995). Factorsaffecting strength of perceived foreign accentin a 2nd language. Journal of theAcoustical Society of America 97(5): 3125-3134.Ingram, J. C. L. and T. T. A. Nguyen (2007).Vietnamese accented English: Foreign accentand intelligibility judgement by listenersof different language backgrounds, Universityof Queensland.Irvine, D. H. (1977). Intelligibility of Englishspeech to non-native English speakers. Languageand Speech 20: 308-316.Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based,empirically researched pronunciation syllabusfor English as an international language.Applied Linguistics 23(1): 83-103.Kirkpatrick, A., D. Deterding, et al. (2008). Theinternational intelligibility of Hong KongEnglish. World Englishes 27(3-4): 359-377.Ladefoged, P. (2006). A Course in Phonetics.Boston, Mass, Thomson.Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing (1995). Processingtime, accent, and comprehensibilityin the perception of native and foreignaccentedspeech. Language and Speech 38:289-306.Nguyen, D. L. (1970). A contrastive phonologicalanalysis of English and Vietnamese.Canberra, Australian National University.Rooy, S. C. V. (2009). Intelligibility and perceptionsof English proficiency. World Englishes28(1): 15-34.Tajima, K., R. Port, et al. (1997). Effects oftemporal correction on intelligibility of foreign-accentedEnglish, Academic Press Ltd.Tang, G. M. (2007). Cross-linguistic analysis ofVietnamese and English with implicationsfor Vietnamese language acquisition andmaintenance in the United States. Journal ofSoutheast Asian American Education andAdvancement 2.Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge,Cambridge University Press111
Page 1 and 2:
Department of LinguisticsProceeding
Page 3 and 4:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 109: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 127 and 128: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227:
Department of LinguisticsPhonetics
show all

Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?