This study examines how L1 English-L2 French learners use L1 articulatory and acoustic categories to produce L2 vowels that are both similar to and different from their L1 vowels. Previous studies examining the relationship between L1 and L2 sound inventories have found that learners reuse L1 phone categories to produce L2 phones that are perceived as similar, but importantly, there is a lack of articulatory data included in these types of studies, which has reinforced the assumption that vowel categories can be solely represented by their acoustic properties. The present study uses ultrasound tongue imaging data and videos of lip rounding in addition to acoustic data to examine how L1 English-L2 French learners produce the French vowels /i y u e ø o/ compared with their English vowels /i u e o/. The results focus on individual paths to category formation to show how learners articulate L2 vowels, and reveal that they tend to reuse L1 tongue body gestures to produce the French vowels /i u e o/, and lip rounding gestures to produce the round vowels /y u o/. This study demonstrates that transfer of articulatory gestures depends on vowel quality and emphasizes the importance of using articulatory data to inform theories of L2 category formation.
Adler-BockM.BernhardtB. M.GickB.BacsfalviP. (2007). The use of ultrasound in remediation of North American English /r/ in 2 adolescents. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 128–139.
2.
AllenB.PulleyblankD.AjiboyeO. (2013). Articulatory mapping of Yoruba vowels: An ultrasound study. Phonology, 30(2), 183–210.
3.
Articulate Instruments Ltd. (2012). Articulate assistant advanced user guide: Version 2.14.
4.
BestC. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In WinifredS. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience (pp. 171–204). York Press Inc.
5.
BestC. T.McRobertsG. W.GoodellE. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(2), 775–794.
6.
BestC. T.TylerM. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In BohnO.MunroM. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins.
7.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2017). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.13). http://www.praat.org
8.
BoyceS. E.HamiltonS. M.Rivera-CamposA. (2016). Acquiring rhoticity across languages: An ultrasound study of differentiating tongue movements. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 30(3–5), 174–201.
9.
CharlesS.LulichS. M. (2019). An ultrasound study of American English laterals produced by children. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 177 (Vol. 36, p. 060006).
10.
ChiuC.WeiP.-C.NoguchiM.YamaneN. (2020). Sibilant fricative merging in Taiwan Mandarin: An investigation of tongue postures using ultrasound imaging. Language and Speech, 63(4), 877–897.
11.
DarcyI.DekydtspotterL.SprouseR. A.GloverJ.KadenC.McGuireM.ScottJ. H. (2012). Direct mapping of acoustics to phonology: On the lexical encoding of front rounded vowels in L1 English-L2 French acquisition. Second Language Research, 28(1), 5–40.
12.
DavidsonL. (2006). Comparing tongue shapes from ultrasound imaging using smoothing spline analysis of variance. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(1), 407–415.
13.
EpsteinM. A.StoneM. (2005). The tongue stops here: Ultrasound imaging of the palate. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(4), 2128–2131.
14.
FlegeJ. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15(1), 47–65.
FlegeJ. E.BohnO.-S. (2021). The revised speech learning model (SLM-R). In WaylandR. (Ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp. 3–83). Cambridge University Press.
17.
FowlerC. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct–realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14(1), 3–28.
18.
FranciscoD. T.WertznerH. F. (2017). Differences between the production of [s] and [∫] in the speech of adults, typically developing children, and children with speech sound disorders: An ultrasound study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 31(5), 375–390.
19.
FromkinV. (1964). Lip positions in American English vowels. Language and Speech, 7(4), 215–225.
20.
GayT.LindblomB.LubkerJ. (1981). Production of bite-block vowels: Acoustic equivalence by selective compensation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69(3), 802–810.
21.
GibsonJ. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton, Miffin and Company.
22.
GickB.PulleyblankD.CampbellF.MutakaN. (2006). Low vowels and transparency in Kinande vowel harmony. Phonology, 23(1), 1–20.
GuentherF. H.Espy-WilsonC. Y.BoyceS. E.MatthiesM. L.ZandipourM.PerkellJ. S. (1999). Articulatory tradeoffs reduce acoustic variability during American English /r/ production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105(5), 2854–2865.
25.
Hall-LewL. (2010). Improved representation of variance in measures of vowel merger. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 159 (Vol. 9, p. 060002).
26.
HavenhillJ.DoY. (2018). Visual speech perception cues constrain patterns of articulatory variation and sound change. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 728.
27.
HillenbrandJ. M.ClarkM. J.NeareyT. M. (2001). Effects of consonant environment on vowel formant patterns. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(2), 748–763.
28.
HonikmanB. (1964). Articulatory settings. In AbercrombieD.FryD. B.MacCarthyP. A. D.ScottN. C.TrimJ. L. M. (Eds.), In honour of Daniel Jones: Papers contributed on the occasion of his eightieth birthday (pp. 73–84). Longman.
29.
HuduF. (2014). [ATR] feature involves a distinct tongue root articulation: Evidence from ultrasound imaging. Lingua, 143, 36–51.
30.
IngramJ. C.ParkS.-G. (1997). Cross-language vowel perception and production by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics, 25(3), 343–370.
31.
JonesD. (1956). Cardinal vowels. Linguaphone Institute.
32.
KamiyamaT.VaissièreJ. (2009). Perception and production of French close and close-mid rounded vowels by Japanese-speaking learners. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère, Lia 2, 9–41.
33.
KrauseP. A.KayC. A.KawamotoA. H. (2020). Automatic motion tracking of lips using digital video and OpenFace 2.0. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 11(1), 1–16.
34.
LawsonE.ScobbieJ. M.Stuart-SmithJ. (2011). The social stratification of tongue shape for postvocalic /r/ in Scottish English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2), 256–268.
35.
LawsonE.ScobbieJ. M.Stuart-SmithJ. (2013). Bunched /r/ promotes vowel merger to schwar: An ultrasound tongue imaging study of Scottish sociophonetic variation. Journal of Phonetics, 41(3–4), 198–210.
36.
Lee-KimS.-I. (2014). Revisiting Mandarin ‘apical vowels’: An articulatory and acoustic study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 44(3), 261–282.
37.
Lee-KimS.-I.DavidsonL.HwangS. (2013). Morphological effects on the darkness of English intervocalic /l/. Laboratory Phonology, 4(2), 475–511.
38.
Lee-KimS.-I.KawaharaS.LeeS. J. (2014). The “whistled” fricative in Xitsonga: Its articulation and acoustics. Phonetica, 71(1), 50–81.
39.
LevyE. S. (2009). On the assimilation-discrimination relationship in American English adults’ French vowel learning. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(5), 2670–2682.
40.
LevyE. S.LawF. F. (2010). Production of French vowels by American-English learners of French: Language experience, consonantal context, and the perception-production relationship. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(3), 1290–1305.
41.
LevyE. S.StrangeW. (2008). Perception of French vowels by American English adults with and without French language experience. Journal of Phonetics, 36(1), 141–157.
42.
MajorR. C. (2008). Transfer in second language phonology. Phonology and Second Language Acquisition, 36, 63–94.
43.
Melnik-LeroyG. A.TurnbullR.PeperkampS. (2022). On the relationship between perception and production of l2 sounds: Evidence from anglophones’ processing of the French/u/–/y/contrast. Second Language Research, 38(3), 581–605.
44.
MielkeJ. (2015). An ultrasound study of Canadian French rhotic vowels with polar smoothing spline comparisons. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(5), 2858–2869.
45.
MielkeJ.CarignanC.ThomasE. R. (2017). The articulatory dynamics of pre-velar and pre-nasal /æ/-raising in English: An ultrasound study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(1), 332–349.
46.
MielkeJ.OlsonK. S.BakerA.ArchangeliD. (2011). Articulation of the Kagayanen interdental approximant: An ultrasound study. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3), 403–412.
47.
NagamineT. (2022). Acquisition of allophonic variation in second language speech: An acoustic and articulatory study of English laterals by Japanese speakers. Interspeech, 2022, 644–648.
48.
NeareyT. M. (2012). Vowel inherent spectral change in the vowels of North American English. In MorrisonG.AssmannP. (Eds.), Vowel inherent spectral change (pp. 49–85). Springer.
49.
NyczJ.Hall-LewL. (2013). Best practices in measuring vowel merger. In 166th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America (Vol. 20, p. 060008).
50.
PolkaL.BohnO.-S. (2011). Natural Referent Vowel (NRV) framework: An emerging view of early phonetic development. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 467–478.
51.
PrestonJ. L.McCabeP.TiedeM.WhalenD. H. (2019). Tongue shapes for rhotics in school-age children with and without residual speech errors. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 33(4), 334–348.
52.
PucherM.KlinglerN.LuttenbergerJ.SpreaficoL. (2020). Accuracy, recording interference, and articulatory quality of headsets for ultrasound recordings. Speech Communication, 123, 83–97.
53.
ScobbieJ. M.LawsonE.Stuart-SmithJ. (2012). Back to front: A socially-stratified ultrasound tongue imaging study of Scottish English /u/. Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 103–148.
54.
ScobbieJ. M.WrenchA. A.van der LindenM. (2008). Head-probe stabilisation in ultrasound tongue imaging using a headset to permit natural head movement. In SockR.FuchsS.LaprieY. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Seminar on Speech Production (pp. 373–376).
55.
SisinniB.d’ApolitoS.FivelaB. G.GrimaldiM. (2016). Ultrasound articulatory training for teaching pronunciation of L2 vowels. In Pixel (Ed.), Conference Proceedings. (pp. 265–270). ICT for Language Learning.
56.
StevensK. N. (1989). On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics, 17(1), 3–45.
57.
StevensK. N.KeyserS. J. (2010). Quantal theory, enhancement and overlap. Journal of Phonetics, 38(1), 10–19.
58.
StoneM.ShawkerT. H.TalbotT. L.RichA. H. (1988). Cross-sectional tongue shape during the production of vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83(4), 1586–1596.
59.
StrangeW.LevyE. S.LawF. F. (2009). Cross-language categorization of French and German vowels by naive American listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(3), 1461–1476.
60.
StrycharczukP.ScobbieJ. M. (2017). Fronting of Southern British English high-back vowels in articulation and acoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(1), 322–331.
61.
TabainM.BeareR. (2018). An ultrasound study of coronal places of articulation in Central Arrernte: Apicals, laminals and rhotics. Journal of Phonetics, 66, 63–81.
ZharkovaN. (2013). Using ultrasound to quantify tongue shape and movement characteristics. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 50(1), 76–81.
64.
ZharkovaN. (2016). Ultrasound and acoustic analysis of sibilant fricatives in preadolescents and adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(5), 2342–2351.
65.
ZsigaE. C. (2013). The sounds of language: An introduction to phonetics and phonology (Vol. 7). John Wiley.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
