This study focuses on voicing assimilation across word boundaries in the speech of second language (L2) users. We compare native speakers of British English to speakers of two West Slavic languages, Czech and Slovak, which, despite their many similarities, differ with respect to voicing assimilation rules. Word-final voicing was analysed in 30 speakers, using the static value of voicing percentage and the voicing profile method. The results of linear mixed-effects modelling suggest an effect of first language (L1) transfer in all L2 English speaker groups, with the tendency to assimilate being correlated with the strength of foreign accent. Importantly, the two language groups differed in assimilation strategies before sonorant consonants, as a clear effect of L1-based phonetic influence.
BárkányiZ.KissZ. G. (2015). Why do sonorants not voice in Hungarian? And why do they voice in Slovak? In KissK. É.SurányiB.DékányÉ. (Eds.), Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba conference (pp. 65–94). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
4.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–8. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
5.
BellA.BrenierJ. M.GregoryM.GirandC.JurafskyD. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 92–111.
6.
BlevinsJ. (2006). A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics, 32(2), 117–166.
7.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2014). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.80). Retrieved from http://www.praat.org
8.
ButcherA. (2004). “Fortis/lenis” revisited one more time: The aerodynamics of some oral stop contrasts in three continents. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 18(6/8), 547–557.
9.
CebrianJ. (2000). Transferability and productivity of L1 rules in Catalan–English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 1–26.
10.
ChenM. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment. Phonetica, 22(3), 129–159.
11.
ColantoniL.SteeleJ.EscuderoP. (2015). Second language speech: Theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CruttendenA. (2014). Gimson’s pronunciation of English (Eighth Edition). London: Routledge.
13.
DavidsonL. (2016). Variability in the implementation of voicing in American English obstruents. Journal of Phonetics, 54(1), 35–50.
14.
DochertyG. J. (1992). The timing of voicing in British English obstruents. Berlin, Germany: Foris Publications.
15.
FarnetaniE.RecasensD. (2010). Coarticulation and connected speech processes. In HardcastleW. J.LaverJ.GibbonF. (Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (2nd edition) (pp. 316–352). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
16.
FoxJ. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(15), 1–27.
17.
HaggardM. (1978). The devoicing of voiced fricatives. Journal of Phonetics, 6(2), 95–102.
18.
HillenbrandJ.IngrisanoD. R.SmithB. L.FlegeJ. E. (1984). Perception of the voiced–voiceless contrast in syllable-final stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76(1), 18–26.
19.
HothornT.BretzF.WestfallP. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363.
20.
JansenW. (2004). Laryngeal contrast and phonetic voicing: A laboratory phonology approach to English, Hungarian, and Dutch. PhD Thesis. University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
21.
JansenW. (2007). Phonological ‘voicing’, phonetic voicing, and assimilation in English. Language Sciences, 29(2), 270–293.
22.
JessenM. (1998). Phonetics and phonology of tense and lax obstruents in German. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
23.
JesusL. M. T.ShadleC. H. (2002). A parametric study of the spectral characteristics of European Portuguese fricatives. Journal of Phonetics, 30(3), 437–464.
24.
KeatingP. (1984). Physiological effects on stop consonant voicing. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 59, 29–34.
25.
KohlerK. J. (1995). Articulatory reduction in different speaking styles. Proceedings of the 13th ICPhS (vol. 2, pp. 12–19). Stockholm: ISPhS.
26.
LadefogedP.MaddiesonI. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
27.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In AtkinsonD. (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48–72). London, UK: Routledge.
28.
LewR. (2002). Differences in the scope of obstruent voicing assimilation in learners’ English as a consequence of regional varieties in Polish. In Waniek-KlimczakE.James MeliaP. (Eds.), Accents and speech in teaching English phonetics and phonology: EFL perspective (pp. 243–264). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
29.
MachačP.SkarnitzlR. (2009). Principles of phonetic segmentation. Prague, Czech Republic: Epocha.
MajorR. C. (2007). Identifying a foreign accent in an unfamiliar language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 539–556.
32.
MajorR. C. (2008). Transfer in second language phonology: A review. In EdwardsJ. G. H.ZampiniM. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 63–94). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
33.
MalécotA. (1969). The lenis–fortis opposition: Its physiological correlates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 47(6), 1588–1592.
34.
MöbiusB. (2004). Corpus-based investigations on the phonetics of consonant voicing. Folia Linguistica, 38(1/2), 5–26.
35.
OhalaJ. J. (1983). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In: MacNeilageP. (Ed.), The production of speech (189–216). New York, NY: Springer.
36.
PalkováZ. (1994). Fonetika a fonologie češtiny [Phonetics and phonology of Czech]. Prague, Czech Republic: Karolinum.
37.
PaulinyE. (1979). Slovenská fonológia [Slovak phonology]. Bratislava, Slovakia: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo.
38.
PirelloK.BlumsteinS. E.KurowskiK. (1997). The characteristics of voicing in syllable-initial fricatives in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(6), 3754–3765.
39.
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.2.2) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
40.
RecasensD. (2014). Gradient phonetic implementation of regressive voicing assimilation in Catalan heterosyllabic two- and three-consonant clusters. Phonetica, 71(2), 128–156.
41.
RecasensD.MiraM. (2012). Voicing assimilation in Catalan two-consonant clusters. Journal of Phonetics, 40(5), 639–654.
42.
RubachJ. (1984). Rule typology and phonological interference. In EliassonS. (Ed.), Theoretical issues in contrastive phonology: Studies in descriptive linguistics (pp. 37–50). Heidelberg, Germany: Julius Groos.
43.
ShihC.MöbiusB. (1998). Contextual effects on voicing profiles of German and Mandarin consonants. Proceedings of the third International Workshop on Speech Synthesis, 81–86.
44.
ŠimáčkováŠ.PodlipskýV. J.ChládkováK. (2012). Czech spoken in Bohemia and Moravia. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42(2), 225–232.
45.
SimonE. (2010). Phonological transfer of voicing and devoicing rules: evidence from L1 Dutch and L2 English conversational speech. Language Sciences, 32(1), 63–86.
46.
SkarnitzlR. (2011). Znělostnĺ kontrast nejen v češtině [Voicing contrast not only in Czech]. Prague, Czech Republic: Epocha.
47.
SkarnitzlR.PoesováK. (2008). Typology of voicing changes in Czech English. In GrmelováA.DuškováL.FarrellM.PípalováR. (Eds.), Plurality and diversity in English studies: Proceedings from the third Prague Conference on Linguistics and Literary Studies (pp. 8–17). Prague, Czech Republic: Faculty of Education, Charles University in Prague.
48.
SkarnitzlR.ŠturmP. (2014). Assimilation of voicing in Czech speakers of English: The effect of the degree of accentedness. Research in Language, 12(2), 199–208.
49.
SkarnitzlR.VolínJ.DrenkováL. (2005). Tangibility of foreign accents in speech: The case of Czech English. In GrmelováA.DuškováL.FarrellM. (Eds.), Proceedings from the second Prague Conference on Linguistics and Literary Studies (pp. 11–20). Prague, Czech Republic: Faculty of Education, Charles University in Prague.
50.
SmithB. L.Hayes-HarbR.BrussM.HarkerA. (2009). Production and perception of voicing and devoicing in similar German and English word pairs by native speakers of German. Journal of Phonetics, 37(3), 257–275.
51.
SmithC. L. (1997). The devoicing of /z/ in American English: effects of local and prosodic context. Journal of Phonetics, 25(4), 471–500.
52.
SnoerenN. D.HalléP. A.SeguiJ. (2006). A voice for the voiceless: Production and perception of assimilated stops in French. Journal of Phonetics, 34(2), 241–268.
53.
StevensK. N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54.
StrycharczukP. (2015). Manner asymmetries in Central Catalan pre-vocalic voicing. Language Sciences, 47(A), 84–106.
ZampiniM. L. (2008). L2 speech production research: Findings, issues, and advances. In EdwardsJ. G. H.ZampiniM. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 219–249). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
