Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp.1465-1493
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 03 Dec 2022 Revised 20 Dec 2022 Accepted 30 Dec 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202212.1465

Articulatory Variability of Phonological Rules by Korean EFL and Indian ESL Speakers

Gwanhi Yun ; Jae-Hyun Sung
(1st author) Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Daegu University, Tel: 053) 850-6025 ghyun@daegu.ac.kr
(corresponding author) Assistant, Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Kongju National University, Tel: 041) 850-8358 jsung@kongju.ac.kr


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The present study investigates how Korean EFL speakers (KS) and Indian ESL speakers (IS) apply their L2 English phonological rules to their production of coronal consonants. To this end, ultrasound imaging experiments were administered for both groups of L2 speakers with three English phonological rules: palatalization, place assimilation and word-final coronal deletion. First, the results showed that most of KS did not palatalize the target alveolars across word boundary. It was also found that place assimilation occurred for the half of the stimuli, showing phonological variations with three major variants. Additionally, word-final /t/ deletion was not common, amounting to only 36%. Second, the results from IS showed that palatalization was applied less than 50%. However, the likelihood of palatalization exhibited interspeaker variation. Additionally, IS applied place assimilation more frequently, compared to KS (56% vs. 50%). Like KS, IS also favored coronal-to-velar assimilation over coronal-to-labial assimilation (81% vs. 31%). Finally, IS showed a similar pattern in the likelihood of word-final /t/ deletion to KS, inducing deletion at 36%. Like KS, deletion occurred more frequently when the following consonant was a labial than when it was a velar. In summary, the gestural patterns from KS and IS suggest that both KS and IS produce English phonological rules gradiently, not in a categorical fashion. Furthermore, it is indicated that place assimilation is more frequent for IS than for KS conceivably due to more exposure to English as SL than as FL. In addition, it was observed that hyperarticulation or gestural overshoot is adopted for both speaker groups. Overall, the articulatory patterns from this study imply that phonological variation is quite common for EFL and ESL speakers like native English speakers. It is also suggested that the way speakers produce L2 phonological rules varies markedly according to individual phonological rules as well as across speaker groups, and the likelihood of occurrence of each of phonological variant differs in accordance with phonological rules, context or English-speaking groups.

Keywords:

phonological variation, foreign language, second language, English, place assimilation, palatalization, word-final coronal deletion, ultrasound imaging technique

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A5A2A01045793).

References

  • Baranowski, M. and D. Turton. 2020. TD-deletion in British English: New evidence for the long-lost morphological effect. Language Variation and Change 32, 1-23. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394520000034]
  • Booij, G. 1995. The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Braver, A. 2013. Degrees of incompleteness in neutralization: Paradigm uniformity in a phonetics with weighted constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.
  • Browman, C. P. and L. Goldstein. 1995. Gestural syllable position effects in American English. In F. Bell-Berti and L. J. Raphael, eds., Producing Speech: Contemporary Issues, 19-34. Woodbury, NY: American Insitutue of Physics.
  • Bush, N. 2001. Frequency effects and word-boundary palatalization in English. In J. Bybee and P. Hopper, eds, Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 244-280. John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.14bus]
  • Byrd, D. 1995. C-center revisited. Phonetica 52, 285-306. [https://doi.org/10.1159/000262183]
  • Cho, T. and P. A. 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]
  • Cooper, W. E. and J. Paacia-Cooper. 1980. Syntax and Speech. Harvard University Press. [https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674283947]
  • Dalby, J. M. 1986. Phonetic Structure of Fast Speech in American English. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University: Bloomington, IN.
  • Davidson, L. 2006. Comparing tongue shapes from ultrasoud imaging using smoothing spline analysis of variance. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120(1), 407-415. [https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2205133]
  • Dell, G. S. 1990. Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes 4, 313-349. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969008407066]
  • Dilley, L, and M. A. Pitt. 2007. A study of regressive place assimilation in spontaneous speech and its implications for spoken word recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122, 2340-2353. [https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2772226]
  • Ellis, L. and W. J. Hardcastle. 2002. Categorical and gradient properties of assimilation in alveolar to velar sequences: Evidence from EPG and EMA data. Journal of Phonetics 30, 373-396. [https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0162]
  • Ernestus, M. 2000. Voice Assimilation and Segment Reduction in Dutch. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
  • Ernestus, M., M. Lahey, F. Verhees and H. Baayen. 2006. Lexical frequency and voice assimilation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120(2), 1040-1051. [https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2211548]
  • Glover, C. and E. Brown. 2006. Written feedback for students: Too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? Bioscience Education 7(1), 1-16, DOI:10.3108/beej.2006.07000004 [https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2006.07000004]
  • Gow, D. W. 2003. Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics 65, 575-590. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194584]
  • Gu, C. 2002. Smoothing Spline ANOVA Models. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3683-0]
  • Gu, C. 2014. Smoothing spline ANOVA models: R package gss. Journal of Statistical Software 58, 1-25. [https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v058.i05]
  • Harley, T. A. and S. B. G. MacAndrew. 1992. Modeling praraphasia in normal and aphaic speech. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 14, 378-383.
  • Harris, M. 1986. Teaching One-on-one: The Writing Conference. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
  • Jongman, A. 2004. Phonological and phonetic representations: The case of neutralization. In Proceedings of the 2003 Texas Linguistics Society Conference, 9-16.
  • Jongman, A., J. Sereno, M. Raaijmakers and A. Lahiri. 1992. The phonological representation of [voice] in speech perception. Language and Speech 35, 137-152. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099203500212]
  • Kreidler, C. 1989. The Pronunciation of English. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
  • Li, Y.-S. 2012. Lexical effects in phonemic neutralization in Mandarin Chinese. Talk presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society. [https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v38i0.3337]
  • Mitterer, H. and M. Ernestus. 2006. Listners recover /t/s that speakers reduce: Evidence from /t/-lenition in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 34, 73-103. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.03.003]
  • Mizoguchi, A., D. Tiede and D. Whalen. 2019. Production of the Japanese moraic nasal /n/ by speakers of English: An ultrasound study. ICPhS 2019.
  • Patterson, D. and C. M. Connine. 2001. Variant frequency in flap production: A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica 58, 254-275. [https://doi.org/10.1159/000046178]
  • Piroth, H. G. and P. M. Janker. 2004. Speaker-dependent differences in voicing and devoicing of German obstruents. Journal of Phonetics 32(1), 81-109. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00008-1]
  • Pitt, M. 2009. How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language 69, 19-36. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.005]
  • Pitt, M., L, Dilley, K. Johnson, S. Kiesling, W. Raymond and E. Hume. 2007. Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech. Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.
  • Pluymaekers, M., M. Ernestus and H. Baayen. 2005. Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118, 2561-2569. [https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2011150]
  • Raymond, W., E. Brown and A. Healy. 2016. Cumulative context effects and variant lexical representations: Word use and English final t/d deletion. Language and Variation and Change 28, 175-202. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394516000041]
  • Raymond, W., R. Dautricourt and E. Hume. 2006. Word-medial /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change 18, 55-97. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394506060042]
  • Roettger, T., B. Winter, S. Grawunder, J. Kirby and M. Grice. 2014. Assessing incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German. Journal of Phonetics 43, 11-25. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.01.002]
  • Schiffman, H. 1999. A Reference Grammar of Spoken Tamil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519925]
  • Simonet, M., M. Rohena-Madrazo and M. Paz. 2008. Preliminary evidence of incomplete neutralization of coda liquis in Puerto Rican Spanish. In L. Colantoni and J. Steele, eds., Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology III, 72-86. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
  • Sohn, H-M. 2001. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sung, J.-H. 2018. Individual differences in frequency effects in English palatalization. The Journal of Studies in Language 34(2), 197-213. [https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.34.2.201808.197]
  • Temple, R. 2009. (t,d): the variable status of a variable rule. In O. P. Jones and E. Payne, eds., Papers in Phonetics and Computational Linguistics, 145-170. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philogoy, and Phonetics 12.
  • Turton, D. 2017. Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English. Laboratory Phonology 8(1), 1-31. [https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.35]
  • Turton, D. and M. Baranowski. 2021. The Sociolinguistics of /l/ in Manchester. Linguistics Vanguard. [https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0074]
  • Walker, J. 2012. Form, function, and frequency in phonological variation. Language Variation and Change 24, 397-415. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000142]
  • Warner, N., A. Jongman, J. Sereno and R. Kemps. 2004. Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: Evidence from Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 32, 251-276. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00032-9]
  • Wright, S. and P. Kwerswill. 1989. Electropalatography in the analysis of connected speech processes. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 3(1), 49-57. [https://doi.org/10.3109/02699208908985270]
  • Yun, G. 2012. Lexical and phonological effects on phonological variation in L2 English palatalization. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 18, 297-320. [https://doi.org/10.17959/sppm.2012.18.2.297]
  • Yun, G. 2022. A mismatch in completeness between acoustic and perceptual neutralization in English flapping. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 22, 1133-1158.