Effects of Competence, Exposure, and Linguistic Backgrounds on Accurate Production of English Pure Vowels by Native Japanese and Mandarin Speakers

Malcolm A. Finney, James A. Till, and Naoko TamuraDepartment of Linguistics

California State University, Long Beach

Contact: Malcolm Awadajin Finney, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics

California State University Long BeachLong Beach, CA 90840

Phone: (562) 985-7425     Fax: (562) 985-2593E-Mail: mfinney@csulb.edu

PURPOSE & RATIONALE

• To investigate effects of linguistic backgrounds, degrees of English competence and exposure , and acoustic distance between L1 and L2 vowels on accurate production of 9 pure American English (AE) vowels by native speakers of Japanese (a 5 pure vowel system) and Mandarin (a 7 pure vowel system). Currently, there is incomplete understanding of the causes of this difficulty and specific vowels affected.

PURPOSE & RATIONALE

• Effects of Linguistic Backgrounds: Learners from similar linguistic backgrounds may exhibit similar substitution patterns ,or substitution patterns may reflect universal processing strategies. Bohn (1995)

• Effects of Competence & Exposure: Degree of competence and exposure may influence the degree of accuracy in production. Learners may develop and produce new L2 vowel categories more accurately with increasing exposure to and competency in L2 (Wode 1995).

PURPOSE & RATIONALE

• Effects of Acoustic Distance: L2 learner’s perception of phonetic differences between L1 and L2 vowels may be influenced by degree of perceived acoustic distance or space between an L2 vowel and other L1 vowels (Flege 1995). The greater the distance, the more likely the learner will consider the L2 vowel as ‘new’ possibly leading to the establishment of a new vowel category. The less the distance, the more likely the L2 vowel will be considered to be identical to an existing L1 vowel possibly preventing the establishment of a new L2 vowel category.

PARTICIPANTS & PROCEDURES

• 11 AE speakers, 21 Japanese speakers, and 24 Mandarin Chinese speakers.

• All the subjects completed: 1) a Language History questionnaire; 2) An L2 Proficiency Assessment protocol 3) a set of production tasks

• Production errors were digitally analyzed using computer software that identifies pronunciation deviations from the English norms as well as the degree of deviation from such norms. That is – objective measurement rather than subjective judgments by native speakers (used in a number of studies) was used.

PRODUCTION TASKS

• A two-minute monologue• A one-minute reading aloud for comprehension

(comprehension questions following)• “Carrier” phrases plus target sound in word.• Word & sentence production elicitation task.

Producing words with target sounds in isolation (word repetition task) and in “Carrier phrases (sentence repetition task)

• Assessment focused on the accurate production of nine pure English vowels (/i,,e,,,a,o,,u/)

PRELIMINARY RESULTSF1 & F2 MEASURES FOR WORDS

• SUBJECTS: Results are presented for 30 young adults: 5 female and

5 male subjects for each native language group. L2 exposure, tested competence, and use varied. Chinese Males C7 C9 C10 C21 C23 Exposure (yrs) 10 8 1 3 2 Comptence Tests % 52 100 24 32 12 Active L2 Use (yrs) 10 8 1 3 2

Chinese Females C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Exposure (yrs) 5 2 5 1 0.08 Comptence Tests % 71.43 91.67 48 64 18.75 Active L2 Use (yrs) 1.5 2 5 1 0.08

Japanese Males J1 J13 J15 J17 J18 Exposure (yrs) 4.5 10 5 0.25 3.5 Comptence Tests % 90.91 80 44 36 48 Active L2 Use (yrs) 4.5 10 5 0.25 3.5

Japanese Females J2 J3 J4 J5 J7 Exposure (yrs) 3 5 5 0.6 2.5 Comptence Tests % 62.29 58.33 66.67 32 56 Active L2 Use (yrs) 3 5 5 0.6 2.5

Five productions of each stimulus words were elicited in randomized order and digitized (16 bit, 22 kHz) using a custom designed computer program operating on a low noise computer in a quiet room. Participants wore a head mounted microphone.

METHODS – Word Elicitation & Recording

The Vowels

Beet Bit Bait

Bet Bat Bought

Boat Book Boot

METHODS - MEASUREMENT Mean F1 & F2 frequencies were extracted from the vowelmidpoint using the Praat program (Boersma, P. & Weenink, 2006)

F1 & F2 MEASUREMENT Reliability Probe – JM17 /ae/

F1-T1-M1 F1-T2-M2 Diff HZ F2-T1-M1 F2-T2-M2 Diff Hz

718 713 5 1746 1752 -6

743 744 -1 1808 1810 -2

695 682 13 1798 1798 0

709 711 -2 1789 1795 -6

747 739 8 1762 1762 0

Mean Diff 4.60     -2.80

SD   6.27     3.03

VOWEL AREAS - MALE

200

600

1000

040080012001600200024002800

second formant (Hz)

firs

t for

man

t (H

z)

[i][u]

[ae]

[a]

Vowel Areas - Males

English - Black J apanese - Red Chinese - Blue

VOWEL AREAS – FEMALE

200

600

1000

040080012001600200024002800

second formant (Hz)

firs

t for

man

t (H

z)

[i] [u]

[ae]

[a]

Vowel Areas - Female English - Black J apanese - Red Chinese - Blue

LAX VOWELS – MALE

200

600

1000

040080012001600200024002800

second formant (Hz)

firs

t for

man

t (H

z)

[ I ]

[U]

[eh]

Lax Vowels - Males

English - Black J apanese - Red Chinese - Blue

LAX VOWELS – FEMALE

200

600

1000

040080012001600200024002800

second formant (Hz)

firs

t for

man

t (H

z)

[ I ]

[U]

[eh] Lax Vowels - Females

English - Black J apanese - Red Chinese - Blue

HIGH INTRA-SUBJECT F2 VARIABILITYRepeated Trials of same Vowel by subject with 4.5 years of L2

use.

High Within Subject F2 Variability - JM-1SD = 145 Hz

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1 2 3 4 5

Trial for "Bat"

F2 -

HZ

CONCLUSIONS • There was substantial variability in L2 vowel

production accuracy between subjects in both the Japanese(JS) and Mandarin(MS) speaking group. – Some subjects showed substantial variability on repeated trials

for the same L2 vowel.– Examination of individual patterns rather than group means may

be necessary.

• Despite the variability, limited group trends were identified:– Both the JS and MS groups tended to produce lax L2 vowels

more like the tense L2 vowel counterpart. F2 was increased (tongue fronting) and F1 was lowered (tongue raising).

– Both the JS and MS groups tended to produce [o] and [ah] with a reduced F2 and an increased F1. This suggests a tongue position that was backed and lowered relative to the English speakers.