We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
During speech production, bilinguals need to encode target words phonologically before articulation, and the encoding units differ across languages. It remains an open question whether bilinguals employ the encoding unit in their L1 or L2 for phonological encoding. The present study examined the primary unit of phonological encoding in L2 speech production by Mandarin Chinese-English bilinguals with high and low L2 proficiency using the picture-word interference paradigm. Results revealed segmental priming effects with one or two segments and syllabic overlap at varied stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), for both groups in their L2 speech production. Additionally, the results demonstrated increasing effects with more overlapping segments for both groups, and the facilitation effects decreased as SOA increased. These results indicate that bilinguals encode English words with the segment as a primary planning unit regardless of their L2 proficiency. The time course of segmental encoding in L2 production is also discussed.
Words said aloud are typically recalled more than words studied under other techniques. In certain circumstances, production does not lead to this memory advantage. We investigated the nature of this effect by varying the task during learning. Children aged five to six years were trained on novel words which required no action (Heard) compared to Verbal-Speech (production), Non-Verbal-Speech (stick out tongue), and Non-Verbal-Non-Speech (touch nose). Eye-tracking showed successful learning of novel words in all training conditions, but no differences between conditions. Both non-verbal tasks disrupted recall, demonstrating that encoding can be disrupted when children perform different types of concurrent actions.
Through a case study of the ‘speaking machine’ constructed by doctor-poet Erasmus Darwin between 1770 and 1771, this chapter aims to demonstrate that Romantic-era projects on the mechanics of speech were both new and controversial in their potential to undermine the religious, political, and philosophical status quo. It explores how Darwin’s simultaneous investigations of anatomy and machinery are suggestive of a materialist approach to the human, and particularly the speaking, body and how his materialist model of speech production simultaneously allows and is allowed by Darwin’s dual identity as philosopher and physician which informs the interdisciplinarity of his thought and practice. The chapter concludes by making the case that Darwin’s multidisciplinary approach to speech underpins both politicised reactions to his work and his own account of the role that a materialist understanding of speech and the voice can play in the development and improvement of society.
This study investigated lateral asymmetry in the linguopalatal speech sounds of British English by means of electropalatography. This instrumental technique visualizes tongue–palate contact during speech production and allows for the quantification of contact patterns. The first and main objective of the study was to establish a method of measuring asymmetry that would be more sensitive than the approach used previously and would facilitate statistical analysis. The method employed a modified index of asymmetry and controlled for the overall amount of tongue–palate contact. The secondary objective was to use the proposed method to quantify asymmetry in the production of the linguopalatal consonants of British English, focusing on asymmetry observed in the region of the palate corresponding to the place of articulation. Regression analysis of 22,004 speech sounds, produced by four native speakers, indicated that the approximant /l/ is the most asymmetrical speech sound, followed by the central approximants /j, r/. Although fricatives had been hypothesized to be highly asymmetrical, they were not consistently more asymmetrical than plosives. In terms of the place of articulation of speech sounds, velar sounds were less asymmetrical than alveolars. It was possible to account for some of these findings by referring to the unilateral productions of approximants.
Study abroad is typically viewed as a catalyst for pronunciation learning because it affords learners both massive amounts of L2 input and abundant opportunities for meaningful L2 use. Yet, even in such an environment, there is substantial variability in learning trajectories and outcomes. The nature of the target structure is also a powerful determinant of learning; some structures seem to develop effortlessly, whereas others do not improve much at all. Additionally, study abroad research brings to light the important issue of speaker identity, as learners often make decisions about how they want to sound and what pronunciation features they will adopt. This chapter examines developmental time frames, trajectories, and turning points in the phonetics and phonology of L2 learners in a study abroad context. We also describe how learners acquire the regional pronunciation variants of their host communities considering the phonetics of the target feature and learners’ attitudes and beliefs. We argue that study abroad should be situated within a dynamic, longitudinal, and context-dependent view of phonetic and phonological learning.
Researchers in bilingualism seek to identify factors that are associated with specific features of bilingual speech. One such predictive factor is language dominance, typically understood as the degree to which one of the languages of a bilingual is more often and more proficiently used. In this chapter we review landmark studies that demonstrate the power of language dominance in predicting fine-grained phonetic and phonological characteristics of speech production and on the perceptual and processing abilities in one or both languages of bilinguals. We then critically examine the construct of dominance and identify ways that dominance can be and has been measured, as well as challenges inherent in the measurement of dominance. We follow demonstrating the dynamic character of dominance by reviewing research on dominance switches and shifts. This is followed by a review of extant studies on language dominance in bilingual speech production, perception, and processing in both languages. We conclude with four areas where research can be fruitfully directed.
This chapter reviews research on the phonetic and phonological production patterns of children exposed to two or more languages in early childhood. Much of the research has examined whether bilingual children differ from monolingual children in their production patterns and, when differences have been found, whether such patterns can be explained by language-internal (e.g., the influence of the phonological properties of one language on the other), language-external (e.g., language input or dominance), or other factors (e.g., the developing lexicon). We focus on language-internal influences, also referred to as cross-linguistic interaction, and review models that have been used to account for interaction. Our findings reveal that, while systematic differences between monolingual and bilingual speech exist, the differences are not large and may be explained by multiple factors. The chapter concludes with a discussion of research limitations which include small participant numbers and a predominance of certain language pairs, factors that have hindered attempts to model cross-linguistic interaction.
This chapter provides a thorough, up-to-date review of the literature on the phonetics and phonology of early bilinguals. It pulls together studies from a range of bilingual settings, including bilingual societies and heritage language contexts. While the chapter mostly reviews evidence from adolescent and adult participants, it also makes reference to the child bilingualism literature, where appropriate. The chapter first reviews studies on the accents of early versus late bilinguals, followed by a discussion of the various explanatory accounts for the observed differences between these two groups. Subsequently, the critical significance of early linguistic experience on bilingual speech patterns is considered, with particular reference to the evidence from childhood overhearers and international adoptees. The following sections then review studies comparing simultaneous and early sequential bilinguals, and those exploring the role of language dominance, continued use, the language of the environment in bilinguals’ pronunciation patterns, and the role of sociolinguistic factors in early bilingual speech patterns. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research.
This chapter reviews evidence that the orthographic forms (spellings) of L2 sounds and words affect L2 phonological representation and processing. Orthographic effects are found in speech perception, speech production, phonological awareness, and the learning of words and sounds. Orthographic forms facilitate L2 speakers/listeners – for instance in lexical learning – but also have negative effects, resulting in sound additions, deletions, and substitutions. This happens because L2 speakers’ L2 orthographic knowledge differs from the actual working of the L2 writing system. Orthographic effects are established after little exposure to orthographic forms, are persistent, can be reinforced by factors other than orthography, including spoken input, and are modulated by individual-level and sound/word-level variables. Future research should address gaps in current knowledge, for instance investigating the effects of teaching interventions, and aim at producing a coherent framework.
Many have expressed concerns regarding the replicability of scientific research. However, little of this ongoing discussion has focused on research examining the production of vowels and consonants or the many important choices that researchers must make in pre-analysis phases of speech production research. The literature reviewed here indicates that not all speech production studies have been replicated, and that how speech is elicited may affect the results that are obtained. Many different elicitation techniques are in current use, but none represents a gold standard. The new Characteristic Speech Production (CSP) technique presented here aims to augment replicability by obviating the need for participants to accommodate their speech to that of others or adopt a particular speaking style as they give meaningful answers to meaningful questions. Given the novelty of the CSP technique, the chapter provides a protocol that is designed to test its efficacy. If the CSP technique can be shown to yield speech samples that are more representative of individuals’ speech than a standard list-reading technique, a change in how speech is elicited for production research will be warranted.
This chapter examines the acquisition of vowels and consonants in perception and production during typical second language (L2) acquisition by sequential, dominant bilinguals. The acoustic and articulatory studies reviewed serve to illustrate general patterns of L2 segmental learning with a focus on four principal themes, each structured around one or two main research questions: 1) cross-linguistic influence (How does a sequential, dominant bilingual’s first language shape L2 segmental perception and production?); 2) development (Are there universal patterns to L2 segmental speech development? Are certain vocalic and consonantal phenomena acquired more easily?); 3) inter- and intralearner variability (What are the sources of differences in perception and/or production between learners and for the same learner over time and in different communicative contexts?); and 4) training effects (What are the effects of training on learning? How do variables such as task and stimuli type condition effectiveness?).
Adults undertaking the endeavor of learning a new language can attest to the difficulty involved with producing the sounds and prosody of the target language. A principal aim of research on adult speech production is to comprehend the mechanisms and processes that differentiate adult bilingual speech development from bilingual speech that develops earlier in life. It is clear that individuals who learn an additional language in adulthood typically encounter some difficulties that early learners do not. In particular, these difficulties arise at the segmental level when acquiring novel sound categories and novel sound contrasts, as well as at the suprasegmental level when learning to produce non-native prosodic structures related to intonation, stress, rhythm, tone, and tempo. The present chapter provides a selective overview of the current state-of-the-art in adult bilingual speech production. Furthermore, this chapter considers theoretical and methodological areas for improvement, as well as avenues for future research.
Evidence that listeners attend to and track subphonemic phonetic details is indicated by listeners’ ability to reliably connect subphonemic variation and, often, socio-indexical associations in ways that align with the patterns realized in production. Bilinguals are presented with the task not only of associating within-language variation (e.g., social group X is connected to a particular range of phonetic realizations within language Y) but also of attending to how ethnolects and bilingually accented speech index social categories across languages. Having access to multiple languages also gives bilingual speakers a larger repertoire with which to index language- and community-specific social meaning. This chapter outlines the linguistic structures bilinguals may connect across their languages and then presents a specific exemplar model, noting the opportunities within the model’s structure for bilingual dynamics. The heterogeneity of bilingual individuals and speech communities is necessarily addressed, as this dynamic adds to the complexity and intrigue of studying bilingual populations.
In this chapter, we thoroughly describe the L2LP model, its five ingredients to explain speech development from first contact with a language or dialect (initial state) to proficiency comparable to a native speaker of the language or dialect (ultimate attainment), and its empirical, computational, and statistical method. We present recent studies comparing different types of bilinguals (simultaneous and sequential) and explaining their differential levels of ultimate attainment in different learning scenarios. We also show that although the model has the word “perception” in its name, it was designed to also explain phonological development in general, including lexical development, speech production, and orthographic effects. The chapter demonstrates that the L2LP model can be regarded as a comprehensive theoretical, computational, and probabilistic model or framework for explaining how we learn the phonetics and phonology of multiple languages (sequentially or simultaneously) with variable levels of language input throughout the life span.
The ability to acquire the speech sounds of a second language has consistently been found to be constrained with increasing age of acquisition. Such constraints have been explained either through cross-linguistic influence in bilingual speakers or as the result of maturational declines in neural plasticity with age. Here, we disentangle these two explanations by investigating speech production in adults who were adopted from China to Sweden as toddlers, lost their first language, and became monolingual speakers of the second language. Although we find support for predictions based on models of bilingual language acquisition, these results cannot be explained by the bilingual status of the learners, indicating instead a long-term influence of early specialization for speech that is independent of bilingual language use. These findings are discussed in light of first-language interference and the theory of maturational constraints for language acquisition.
The aim of this study was to examine spoken Namibian English by investigating how multilingual Namibian speakers produce vowel durations in pre-lenis and pre-fortis positions, and how those vowel durations compare to British English vowel durations in the same words. In British English and most other English varieties, vowel duration is affected by the voicing of the following consonant, so that vowels preceding phonologically voiced consonants are longer (pre-lenis lengthening) and vowels preceding phonologically voiceless consonants are shorter (pre-fortis clipping). The production data was collected using orthographic stimuli that were monosyllabic English words with voiced and voiceless final consonants after the target vowels. The data were collected from 14 multilingual Namibian English speakers. The vowel durations produced by the speakers in pre-lenis and pre-fortis position were first compared to each other and then to those produced by nine British English speakers in an earlier study. The results showed that the pre-lenis vowels were clearly longer than the pre-fortis vowels, and there were no differences between Namibian and British English vowel durations in most of the tested words. The results offer new insights into the realization of vowel duration in pre-lenis and pre-fortis positions in Namibian English.
Bilinguals may choose to speak a language either at their own will or in response to an external demand, but the underlying neural mechanisms in the two contexts is poorly understood. In the present study, Chinese–English bilinguals named pairs of pictures in three conditions: during forced-switch, the naming language altered between pictures 1 and 2. During non-switch, the naming language used was the same. During free-naming, either the same or different languages were used at participants' own will. While behavioural switching costs were observed during free-naming and forced-switching, neuroimaging results showed that forced language selection (i.e., forced-switch and non-switch) is associated with left-lateralized frontal activations, which have been implicated in inhibitory control. Free language selection (i.e., free-naming), however, was associated with fronto-parietal activations, which have been implicated in self-initiated behaviours. These findings offer new insights into the neural differentiation of language control in forced and free language selection contexts.
Studies on the role of speech production on learning have found a memory benefit from production labeled the “Production Effect.” While research with adults has generally shown a robust memory advantage for produced words, children show more mixed results, and the advantage is affected by age, cognitive, and linguistic factors. With adults, the Production Effect is not restricted to the immediate context but is also found after a delay. So far, no studies have investigated the effect of delayed recall on the Production Effect with children. Children aged 5 and 6 years old (n = 60) participated in two sessions. Children were trained on familiar words and images, which were heard (Listen) or produced aloud (Say). Children then performed a free recall task. One week later, children repeated the recall task and an additional recognition task. At immediate testing, there was a recency effect on words recalled from the different training conditions and a recall advantage for words produced over words heard; however, this no longer held after a 1-week delay in either the recall or recognition task. Exploratory analysis showed that vocabulary did not predict the Production Effect. Findings indicate that unlike adults, the Production Effect is not as robust in children after a delay.
When a bilingual speaker has a larger linguistic sub-system in their L1 than their L2, how are L1 categories mapped to the smaller set of L2 categories? This article investigates this “subset scenario” (Escudero, 2005) through an analysis of laterals in highly proficient bilinguals (Scottish Gaelic L1, English L2). Gaelic has three lateral phonemes and English has one. We examine acoustics and articulation (using ultrasound tongue imaging) of lateral production in speakers’ two languages. Our results suggest that speakers do not copy a relevant Gaelic lateral into their English, instead maintaining language-specific strategies, with speakers also producing English laterals with positional allophony. These results show that speakers develop a separate production strategy for their L2. Our results advance models such as the L2LP which has mainly considered perception data, and also contribute articulatory data to this area of study.
Ideally, comprehensible second language (L2) speech would be seen as acceptable speech. However, the association between these dimensions is underexplored. To investigate the relationship between comprehensibility and “academic acceptability,” defined here as how well a speaker could meet the demands of a given role in an academic setting, 204 university stakeholders judged L2 speech samples elicited from a standardized English test used for university admissions. Four tasks from 100 speakers were coded for 13 speech stream characteristics. Judgments for comprehensibility and acceptability correlated strongly (r = .93). Linear mixed-effects models, used to examine judgments across all tasks and separately for each task, indicated that while random intercepts (i.e., speaker ability, listener severity) explained a substantial amount of total variation (32–44%) in listener judgments compared to speech characteristic fixed effects (8–21%), fixed effects did account for variation in speaker random effects (reducing variation compared to intercept-only models by 50–90%). Despite some minimal differences across task types, the influence of speech characteristics across both judgments was mostly similar. While providing evidence that comprehensible speech can indeed be perceived as acceptable, this study also provides evidence that speakers demonstrate both consistent and less consistent performance, in reference to speech stream production, across performances.