Ghent University

Faculty of Arts and Philosophy

English Linguistics Department

Academic year 2011-2012

Native and non-native vowel contrasts in early

second language phonology: The production of the English vowel contrasts

/ɪ/-/ɛ/-/æ/ and /ʊ/-/u:/ by young native speakers of Dutch

Esther Holleman

Supervisor:

Dr. Ellen Simon

Master dissertation submitted

in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master in Linguistics and

Literature: English – Swedish

1

Acknowledgments

The writing of this research paper would not have been possible without the encouragement

of many people. First of all, I would like to show my utmost gratitude to my supervisor, Dr.

Ellen Simon, for her constant support and guidance. Her insightful comments contributed

immensely to the completion of this research paper. I would also like to thank her for

conducting the experiment, without which this paper could not have been written. I am also

truly thankful to the children who participated in this study and to their school, without whose

corporation I would not have required the necessary data. Special thanks also to my friends

for their continuous support. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents and

sister for their help and understanding through the duration of my studies.

2

Contents

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................... 1

Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4

1 Age and second language acquisition .................................................................................. 7

1.1 Critical Period Hypothesis ............................................................................................... 7

1.2 Remarks on the Critical Period Hypothesis ..................................................................... 9

1.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 11

2 Second language phonology ................................................................................................ 13

2.1 Factors influencing L2 phonology ................................................................................. 13

2.2 The role of the native language in second language phonology .................................... 15

2.2.1 Early vs. more recent research on L2 phonology .................................................... 16

2.2.2 Flege’s Speech Learning Model .............................................................................. 17

2.2.2.1 Flege’s Equivalence Theory ............................................................................. 17

2.2.2.2 Remarks on Flege’s Equivalence Theory ......................................................... 19

2.2.2.3 Younger vs. older learners in Flege’s Interaction Hypothesis ......................... 21

2.3 The role of universal principles ...................................................................................... 22

3 The role of instruction on second language phonology .................................................... 24

3.1 The Integrated Approach ................................................................................................ 24

3.2 Explicit Instruction ......................................................................................................... 25

3.3 Form Focused Approach ................................................................................................ 26

3.4 Comparison of the different approaches ........................................................................ 27

3.5 The role of language awareness, input and output in pronunciation instruction ............ 28

3.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 29

4 Vowels ................................................................................................................................... 30

4.1 Vowel analysis ............................................................................................................... 30

4.2 Duration .......................................................................................................................... 34

4.3 The vowels of English .................................................................................................... 35

4.4 The vowels of Dutch ...................................................................................................... 37

4.5 Predicting difficulties for Dutch-speaking learners of English ...................................... 39

3

5 Case study ............................................................................................................................ 41

5.1 General aim and procedure ............................................................................................ 41

5.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 42

5.2.1 Participants .............................................................................................................. 42

5.2.2 Design and stimuli ................................................................................................... 43

5.2.2.1 Session 1 ........................................................................................................... 43

5.2.2.2 Session 2 ........................................................................................................... 46

5.3 Coding and analysis ....................................................................................................... 47

5.4 Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................... 48

6 Results .................................................................................................................................. 51

6.1 Dutch .............................................................................................................................. 51

6.2 English ............................................................................................................................ 57

6.2.1 Repetition vs. picture-naming task .......................................................................... 58

6.2.2 Pre-instruction vs. post-instruction vowels ............................................................. 61

6.2.3 Intra- and interspeaking variation............................................................................ 64

6.2.4 Native speakers ....................................................................................................... 65

7 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 68

7.1 Differences and similarities between the L1 and L2 ...................................................... 68

7.1.1 The front vowels ...................................................................................................... 69

7.1.2 The back vowels ...................................................................................................... 77

7.2 The influence of age ....................................................................................................... 84

7.3 Effects of instruction ...................................................................................................... 86

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 91

References ............................................................................................................................... 93

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 99

4

Introduction

The accuracy and speech in which the phonology of a foreign language can be acquired

depends on a number of different factors, such as the age of the learner, the learner’s native

language (henceforth L1), and the amount of experience in the new language (henceforth L2)

the learner has. For instance, in a study by Højen and Flege (2006) on the discrimination of

English vowel contrasts by native speakers of Spanish, it was revealed that mainly the early

learners were able to successfully perceive the differences between the foreign vowels.

Nevertheless, Højen et al. concluded that, besides early acquisition, other factors may also be

of significance in second language acquisition, as not all young learners showed similar high

results.

This research paper will focus mainly on three subjects in the field of native and non-

native L2 vowel acquisition.

Firstly, the question whether vowel production in the beginning stages of L2 learning

benefits from early exposure will be addressed. In many studies it has been argued that solely

young learners are able to achieve an accurate L2 phonology level, while late learners will

inevitably maintain a foreign accent (Munro 2008). Next to the ability to acquire an L2 more

accurately, it is also claimed that young learners can learn an L2 more rapidly than older

learners (Tsukada et al. 2004). These claims are mainly based on the critical period

hypothesis, which suggests that language learning must be accomplished before a certain age.

Whether this critical period hypothesis can be applied on L2 acquisition is, however, subject

to more debate (Ioup 2008). Some studies have, for example, provided evidence that even

young learners have to be continually exposed to the L2 in order to attain a high level of

proficiency (Bongaerts et al. 1997).

Moreover, it is suggested in Flege’s (1995) Speech Learning Model that accurate L2

phonology acquisition is not entirely impossible for late learners. The difficulty a learner has

in acquiring a particular phoneme depends rather on whether this phoneme is similar or

dissimilar from the phonemes found in the learner’s L1 than on age of acquisition. This

suggestion is mostly of significance for the second matter in this research paper, which deals

with the influence of the L1 sound system on that of the L2.

The fact that the L1 plays an important role in the pronunciation of the L2 sounds is

widely agreed upon, but the issue of how this influence manifests itself is less certain, as

many different suggestions have been made with respect to which sounds are most

5

problematic for L2 learners (Eckman 2004). In the majority of studies, it is nevertheless

assumed that L2 learners will generally be able to produce new L2 vowels (i.e., vowels which

do not occur in the L1) more accurately than similar L2 vowels (i.e., vowels which have a

close equivalent in the L1). To this end, this research paper will examine the vowel contrasts

/ɪ/-/ε/-/æ/ and /ʊ/-/u:/, which contain both new and similar vowels.

A third subject which will be touched upon in this study is the question whether L2

learners’ L2 phonology may benefit from instruction. In order to form an answer to this issue

several different approaches to L2 phonology instruction will be compared, such as the

integrated and form focused approach, which each have led to some positive results.

However, it should be remarked that in general little evidence seems to indicate that

instruction has a direct effect on a learner’s L2 pronunciation (Piske et al. 2001), although

some other studies have underlined the findings that both focused phonology instruction and

immersion may be beneficial for L2 phonology acquisition (Piske et al. 2001; Lord 2010).

These subjects lead to the following research questions which will be discussed in this

research paper.

The first question posed is whether young second language learners are indeed capable

of rapidly acquiring foreign vowel sounds accurately, or if early exposure does not have any

significant effects yet on L2 vowel production at the onset of learning.

The second question concerns the different vowel contrasts, in particular /ɪ/-/ε/-/æ/ and

/ʊ/-/u:/. Are beginning L1 Dutch learners of English able to contrast these vowels from one

another both in terms of their acoustic properties and in terms of their duration? If so, are the

contrasts made native-like, or rather influenced by the learners’ L1? In addition, do the

productions of the learners follow regular patterns, or do they show intra- or interspeaker

variation?

The third question regards the role of instruction in L2 phonology. Does instruction

have some effect on young learners’ L2 production, even when it does not specifically focus

on phonology, but more on vocabulary and grammar?

To be able to discuss these questions the data from an experiment conducted by Dr.

Ellen Simon were analysed and examined. In total, ten children participated in the

experiment, all of which attended the same primary school where they received a small

amount of English instruction. For the experiment a Dutch picture-matching task, followed by

an English repetition and picture-naming task were carried out at two different sessions. The

first session was held before the participants had received any English instruction, while the

second session was held after the participants had received a total of ten hours of instruction.

6

Outline

The first chapter of this paper will give a general overview of the relationship between second

language acquisition and age. The focus will mainly lie on the discussion of the critical period

hypothesis, and the presentation of previous findings both supporting and opposing the

suggestion that early exposure is paramount for accurate second language acquisition.

The second chapter will focus more specifically on which factors influence second

language phonology. In particular, the role of the first language sound system on the second

language sound system will be discussed, followed by a brief discussion of universal language

principles.

The third chapter will provide a comparison of three different approaches to

phonology instruction, to be precise the integrated, explicit and form focused approach will be

compared. Furthermore, this chapter will also discuss the role of language awareness, and the

role of input and output in second language instruction.

The fourth chapter will deal with the qualitative and quantitative aspects of vowels,

both with respect to how vowels are analysed and with respect to the characteristics of

English and Dutch vowels. This chapter also discusses the pronunciation difficulties which

are expected for Dutch-speaking learners of English.

The fifth chapter is concerned with the construction of the experiment, the

methodology used and its participants, and also discusses the hypotheses for this research

paper, which are based on the findings from the previous chapters.

The sixth chapter will present the results obtained from the experiment.

The last chapter will discuss the results as presented in the previous chapter in relation

to the hypotheses made in the fifth chapter.

7

Chapter 1. Age and second language acquisition

In the field of second language acquisition, many researchers claim that early learning leads to

better results than late learning, since it has been observed that L2 learners who were exposed

to the L2 in childhood often have higher levels of L2 proficiency than L2 learners who

learned the L2 in late adolescence or adulthood (Høyen & Flege 2006). This observation is

often associated to the critical period hypothesis (henceforth CPH), which suggests that

learning a new language accurately after a certain age becomes virtually impossible

(Marinova-Todd et al. 2000). However, many other researchers do not attach any believe to

the critical period hypothesis, but rather suggest that young learners perform better because of

other factors, such as, for instance, education (Binghadeer 2010).

1.1 Critical Period Hypothesis

According to Marinova-Todd et al. (2000), the majority of psycholinguists agree that a critical

period exists for L1 acquisition. The term critical period (henceforth CP) can be defined as

the period in which it is relatively easy to acquire a language completely. It is widely believed

that the critical period also applies for second language acquisition (henceforth SLA) and that

younger second language learners consequently have an advantage over older second

language learners. It is accordingly hypothesized that children are able to acquire an L2 easier

and more rapidly, and are additionally more likely to achieve a native-like level, whereas

older adolescents and adults have more difficulty in acquiring the L2 and generally maintain a

foreign accent. Tsukada et al. (2005) note that children can learn an L2 “quickly,

automatically, effortlessly, and to a level indistinguishable from that of native speakers”

(264). The general belief in the CPH is that native-like L2 acquisition can solely be achieved

if the learner is continually exposed to the L2 before the age of 6 years (Anderson 2004).

The idea of a critical period was first proposed by Lenneberg (1967; in Bongaerts et

al. 1997), who stated that after the beginning of puberty language acquisition becomes

extremely difficult due to biological and neurological reorganizations in the brain which occur

around the onset of puberty. He suggested that the language-processing abilities in the brain

become firmly localized in the left hemisphere. According to Lenneberg (1967; in Bongaerts

et al.,1997), this brain lateralization makes ultimate attainment in first or second language

learning virtually impossible (Marinova-Todd et al. 2000). Others have assigned the CP to a

8

loss of neural plasticity during puberty. This brain maturation, which makes the brain less

“flexible”, makes it similarly less suitable for the acquisition of languages. The exact age at

which these changes in the brain occur is, however, subject to much debate. Krashen (1973; in

Marinova-Todd 2000) suggested that lateralization already takes place around the age of 5,

whereas Scovel (1988, 2000; in Tsukada et al. 2005) placed the CP around the age of 12.

Patkowski (1988; as cited in Bongaerts 1997) likewise places the end of the CP between ages

of 12 and 15. Long (1990; as cited in Bongaerts 1997), however, states that it is impossible

for most language learners to acquire a native-like accent after the age of 6, although some

can acquire it until the age of 12. For Ioup (2008), L2 learners are regarded as ‘young’ before

the age of 8 and ‘old’ after the age of 16. Ioup nevertheless also observes that there is still

much uncertainty on whether the difficulty of language learning after a certain age is in fact

caused by neurobiological changes.

Since it is difficult to decide on an exact closing age for the CP and since it is not sure

whether L2 acquisition is even impossible after the CP, Lamendelle (1997; in Marinova-Todd

2000) introduced the notion of a sensitive period which suggests an optimal period for

language learning, but does not exclude the possibility of language learning after puberty. For

Mack (2003; in Ioup 2008), the idea of a critical period implies that the L2 learner can no

longer acquire the language completely when the CP ends, whereas the idea of a sensitive

period indicates that partial acquisition is theoretically still possible after puberty.

There is much evidence in support of the critical and sensitive period, indicating that it

is relatively likely that younger learners can achieve higher levels of L2 proficiency than older

learners. Munro et al. (1996) studied the effect of age on the production of English vowels by

a group of native speakers of Italian living in Canada at the time of the study. Their age of

arrival (henceforth AOA) in Canada ranged from 2 to 23 years old. Although some of the

older learners had lived in Canada for 32 years, none of them managed to achieve a native-

like level. Additionally, Munro et al. (1996) indicated that none of the English vowels were

completely acquired by the late-arriving group. By contrast, the production of the vowels by

the early-arriving learners was often perceived as unaccented by a group of native listeners.

Tsukada et al. (2005) similarly found that children had a higher level of correct L2 production

and perception than adults. They examined a group of native Korean early and late learners of

English living in North America and compared the results of their production and perception

tests to those of native speakers of English. As opposed to the results of Munro et al. (1996),

the native Korean children still differed from the native speakers of English in that their

accent was not regarded as unaccented or native-like. However, their level of L2 proficiency

9

was higher than that of the adult L2 learners, who failed to produce and discriminate the

English vowels correctly. Flege et al. (1999) also examined the effect of AOA in the United

States in a group of native speakers of Korean, who were all experienced in English. This

study revealed that AOA affected the proficiency level of both the pronunciation and

morphosyntax of the L2 learners.

It should be noted that many researchers agree that the CP solely influences the level

of pronunciation of L2 learners and not the level of morphosyntax. Whether an L2 learner can

acquire a native-like level of morphosyntax depends less on the amount of education (s)he

receives and on the degree of L1 use than for phonology acquisition, both of which are, as a

rule, higher for children than for adult learners (Flege et al. 1999). Other explanations for the

greater influence of age on the level of phonology than on morphosyntax are, among others,

the earlier completion of phonological learning than morphosyntactic learning in the L1

(Bever 1981; in Flege et al. 1999), the greater difficulty for L2 learners to separate their

different phonological systems than separate their different morphosyntactic systems (Cook

1992; in Flege et al. 1999) and the “greater overall perceived similarity of phonological

structures in the L1 and L2 than of corresponding morphosyntactic structures” (Felix 1980,

Ioup 1984, MacWhinney 1987; in Flege et al. 1999: 98). In addition, Scovel (1988; in Ioup

2008) indicated that pronunciation is controlled by neuromuscular movements for the

controlling of which age plays a key role. Wong and MacWhinney (2009) even state that,

based on earlier research (for example, Swain 1981, Ervin-Tripp 1974, Bongaerts 1999; in

Wong et al. 2009), “there is no reason for parents or educators to insist that children must

obligatory begin L2 learning at a very early age”, with the exception of phonological learning.

1.2 Remarks on the Critical Period Hypothesis

Other studies contradict these findings in support of the CP and argue that adult learners

possess the same ability of learning an L2 as children. Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle (1978)

tested the CPH (i.e. that solely before puberty SLA will be relatively fast and successful,

leading to a similar proficiency level as native speakers) by studying the evolution of L2

learning of Dutch at three different intervals by five age groups ( 3-5, 6-7, 8-10, 12-15 years

and adults), who were all native speakers of English. The results revealed that the group of

12-15-years-olds performed best in all the tests, both phonologically and morphosyntactically,

while the youngest group scored worst. Snow et al. (1978) conclude from these findings that

10

the CPH cannot be maintained, since the age groups which were in the “optimal period” did

not display a faster or better language acquisition than the two older groups. In a study by

MacLeod and Stoel-Gammon (2010), simultaneous bilinguals, who had learned both

languages before the age of three, were compared to sequential bilinguals, who learned their

second language when they were 8-12 years old. Both groups used both languages to the same

extent and were equally proficient. In the study, the bilinguals’ production of the stop

consonants and vowels was studied in order to examine to what extent age plays a role in L2

production. Contrary to the presupposed hypothesis that the simultaneous bilinguals would be

better in making a distinction between similar sounds in both languages than the sequential

bilinguals, the results showed that both groups produced the consonants and vowels equally

well. As in the study by Snow et al. (1978), the CPH was not supported here, since both

groups had the same level of pronunciation in both languages.

Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) also question whether a critical period exists for L2

learning and argue that most evidence in support of the CPH is based on three fallacies:

misinterpretation, misattribution and misemphasis.

With misinterpretation Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) refer to the fact that many

researchers only take into account the final result of language acquisition by children and

from these results draw the conclusion that they can learn a language quickly and without

difficulties, whereas many studies have shown that in reality adolescents and adults are more

successful than younger learners in the early stages of language learning (Snow 1978, Rivera

1988; in Marinova-Todd et al. 2000). A second form of misinterpretation often made is based

on the assumption that the ability of language learning is associated with the ability of

problem solving. Once children would have acquired this last ability, the ability of language

learning would equally become impossible (Long,1990; in Marinova-Todd et al. 2000). A

study by Bialystok and Hakuta (1994; in Marinova-Todd et al. 2000), however, showed that

only after the age of 20 language learning becomes more difficult, which implies that no

correlation exists between the abilities of language learning and problem solving. It should

nevertheless be noted that Bialystok et al. examined proficiency in L2 grammar which is, as

already mentioned, less heavily influenced by age than accent.

The second fallacy concerning age and L2 learning discussed by Marinova-Todd et al.

(2000) is misattribution, which denotes the false assumption that the localization of language

in the brain affects the proficiency level of the speaker. For younger learners both the L1 and

L2 are assumed to be located in the same area in the brain, whereas the L1 and L2 of older

learners are located in different areas in the brain. (Kim et al. 1997; in Marinova-Todd 2000).

11

Marinova-Todd et al., however, dismiss this idea as irrelevant for the question whether late

learners can acquire an L2 successfully, since the study of Kim et al. did not take into account

the proficiency level of the participants. Late learners, who are proficient in their L2, would

display similar brain localization as early learners. Moreover, Marinova-Todd et al. (2000)

also doubt whether the maturation of the brain can be associated with the higher L2

proficiency levels of children, since neuroscientists cannot explain the precise relationship

between these two factors.

Lastly, Marinova-Todd et al. argue that most studies on the differences between early

and late L2 learners leave out those late L2 learners who have attained a native-like level and

solely emphasize the less successful learners. Adult learners should, however, not be regarded

as a single homogeneous group, but rather as a group in which the L2 learners vary greatly

from each other, as opposed to young learners who often show a more similar level of L2

proficiency.

1.3 Conclusion

These findings suggest that native-like achievement in language learning is not entirely

impossible after puberty and that some late learners eventually acquire an L2 accurately.

Flege et al. (1997) in the same line claim that “the capacity to learn new forms of speech

remains intact over the life span” (438). Nevertheless, although early learners are often not

indistinguishable from L1 speakers, they often do have an advantage over late learners. Two

main explanations may be offered for why L2 learning is easier for children with regards to

foreign pronunciation learning. Firstly, children learn a new language in a different manner

than adults. Children learn an L2 more directly, since they are “naive and inexperienced

learner[s]” (7), whereas adults tend to learn an L2 in terms of their L1 and of what they

already know about language in general (Pennington 1996). Secondly, it is argued that

“children may be better equipped than adults to imitate and reproduce speech as they hear it”

(Pennington 1996: 7), as they tend to react to those elements of the L2 which are most salient.

Adults on the other hand tend to learn an L2 from a deeper level.

In addition, Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) found in their study that the ability to learn

an L2 decreases slowly and not abruptly as the CPH suggests. The reasons they offer for this

decrease is the influence of the L1 which becomes stronger as age increases, which is most

clear in the onset of L2 learning, since the L2 is then still more dependent on the L1 system.

12

Furthermore, it is likely that better language learning is only associated with age, because of

social, educational and motivational factors which influence L2 proficiency (Binghadeer

2010).

13

Chapter 2. Second language phonology

With respect to second language phonology, there is a general consensus that one of the most

significant factors influencing a learner’s L2 pronunciation is his/her native language (Baker

et al. 2002). However, how the L1 affects the L2 productions is still subject to much debate,

as not all researchers agree on which sounds form the greatest difficulties for L2 learners

(Major 2008). Furthermore, other factors besides the L1 and age (as discussed in Chaper 1),

seem to influence learners’ L2 productions too, such as length or residence, motivation and

language use (Piske et al. 2001).

2.1 Factors influencing L2 phonology

In a study on the perception of L2 vowels by young learners, Højen et al. (2006) found that

few of the participants were able to perform on a native-like level, which indicates that early

exposure alone is not necessarily a key to success in L2 learning. In other words, age does not

guarantee a native-like performance of the L2 in the area of sound perception and production.

Even simultaneous bilingual children do not always have an accurate pronunciation of the

sounds of their non-dominant language (Mack et al. 1995; in Ioup 2008). Højen et al. (2006)

suggest that besides learning an L2 as a child, other factors may be important as well in

acquiring the language sufficiently. One of the first studies on other factors which may affect

L2 proficiency was carried out by Purcell and Suter (1980; in Ioup 2008). They found that the

L1, aptitude for oral mimicry, residency and attitude are of most significance in L2

pronunciation learning (Ioup 2008). Piske et al. (2001) similarly indicate that for accurate L2

pronunciation other factors besides age may be of influence, some of which will be discussed

here.

A first factor Piske et al. (2001) suggest is the length of residence (henceforth LOR) of

the L2 learner, which they define as “the number of years spent in a community where the L2

is the predominant language” (197). There is some criticism on the use of LOR as a factor

affecting foreign accent, since a long LOR is not always necessarily correlated with much L2

experience. Moreover, studies on LOR seem to lead to conflicting results: some have indeed

found effects of LOR on L2 pronunciation (e.g., Asher & Garcia 1969, Purcell & Suter 1980,

Flege & Fletcher 1992; in Piske et al. 2001), while others have not (e.g., Oyama 1976, Tahta

et al. 1981, Flege 1988; in Piske et al. 2001). According to Flege (1988; in Piske et al. 2001),

14

a possible explanation for this discrepancy is the fact that LOR has no longer any influence on

late L2 learners, whereas the pronunciation of younger learners is more easily influenced by

LOR. The factor LOR is therefore not as significant as age in L2 learning, or is, at least,

dependent on age.

Another factor that, according to Piske et al. (2001), possibly contributes to a higher

level of accurate L2 pronunciation is the motivation of the learner to achieve a native-like

accent. Bongaerts et al. (1997) note that “if it is of vital importance to [learners] to sound like

a native speaker of the language they are learning, it is possible that they will attain a native-

like accent, in spite of a late start” (449). However, similarly to the previous factor discussed,

studies on the influence of motivation have led to conflicting results. In those studies which

proposed that motivation may be of significance in L2 learning, there was a correlation found

between ‘professional motivation’ and the learner’s degree of foreign accent. ‘Professional

motivation’ here indicates that it is essential for the L2 learner to sound as native-like as

possible either because of studies or work. In the study by Binghadeer (2010), for instance,

the participants were all university students who would become English teachers. After a

period of L2 training, the students achieved better results in L2 production. Binghadeer

associates these positive effects with both the L2 input given and the ‘professional

motivation’ of the participants. Nevertheless, ‘professional motivation’ alone does not

necessarily lead to accurate pronunciation. Moreover, Piske et al. (2001) also remark that it is

difficult to ‘measure’ motivation. It is therefore often quite problematic to compare the results

of the different participants.

A last factor discussed by Piske et al. (2001) is the amount of influence language use

has on the degree of foreign accent. Most studies have shown that frequent use of the L2 does

not necessarily improve the learner’s L2 pronunciation. Cebrian (2006), for example,

examined the hypothesis that adult learners who have extensive L2 experience can produce

L2 sounds more accurately, but found that the experienced adult learners did not show a

greater ability in discriminating between the different L2 sounds. Flege et al. (1997), on the

other hand, noted that their study on the production of L2 vowels by adults proved that “adults

who learn a second language will come to produce and perceive certain vowels in their L2

more accurately as they gain experience in the L2” (466). In a study on the difference between

similar vowels which are articulated either close to or distant from a new vowel by Bohn and

Flege (1992), it was suggested that the influence of experience differs in both kinds of vowels.

According to their study, those vowels which benefit from experience are usually new L2

vowels, which do not have an equivalent in the learner’s L1. Baker and Trofimovich (2005),

15

finally, claim that experience in the L2 affects the L2 pronunciation of early learners more

than the pronunciation of late learners. Additionally, many studies have shown that especially

the amount of L1 use of the learner exerts influence on the degree of L2 accent. The more an

L2 learner continues to use his/her L1 frequently, the more likely it is (s)he will have a

stronger L2 accent (e.g., Flege et al. 1999b, Flege et al. 1995; in Piske et al. 2001). An

explanation for this finding is that greater L1 use often implies less L2 use and thus less

experience (Flege and MacKay 2004; in Munro & Derwing 2008).

Also MacLeod et al. (2010) propose that besides age other factors are involved in L2

learning, such as competence in and use of both languages. As already mentioned in Chapter

1, they investigated in their study if simultaneous and sequential bilinguals still differed in

their production of stop consonants and vowels if both groups used both languages equally

and both displayed a high level of proficiency. Their results revealed that there were indeed

no significant differences between the two groups of bilinguals. Next to use of the L1 and L2,

MacLeod et al. emphasize that the social value of the languages can influence the proficiency

of L2 learners as well. The participants in this study spoke both French and English fluently

and lived in Canada, where both languages have a high social value. In this case, the high

social value of the languages can be linked to motivation.

Although there are still many debates on the influence of the above discussed factors

on L2 learning, it is not unreasonable to assume that age in itself is not a guarantee for

accurate L2 learning, especially in the field of phonology. Moreover, it has been shown that it

is not entirely impossible for older learners to acquire an L2 accurately. Early learners do

have a clear advantage over older learners, since they can learn the L2 quicker and better, but

during the early stages of L2 learning early and late learners will often perform similarly. In

most cases, late learners are even more successful (Anderson 2004). Marinova-Todd et al.

(2000) also claim that the sole reason age affects language learning is because “it is associated

with social, psychological, educational, and other factors that can affect L2 proficiency” (28),

as was also suggested in Chapter 1.

2.2 The role of the native language in second language phonology

In the area of L2 phonology, there is a general consensus that the L1 influences both the

perception and production of L2 sounds, resulting in a foreign accent. Many researchers have

remarked that L2 learners frequently replace L2 phones with phones occurring in their L1.

16

The sounds produced are neither identical to the sounds of the L1 or the L2, but are a

combination of the values of both or fall in between both pronunciations (Lord 2010). A

foreign accent can also appear when the L2 learner inserts or omits phones or replaces one

phone with another (Munro 2008). These problems arise especially frequently when the L2

sound has a corresponding sound in the learner’s L1, leading to the misidentification of the L2

sound by the learner (Flege & Hillenbrand 1984). Moreover, phonology seems more open to

this type of influence than other areas of L2 acquisition. A study by Ioup (1984; as cited in

Eckman 2004) revealed that “native speakers of English can identify different groups of non-

native speakers on the basis of pronunciation but are not able to do so reliably on the basis of

only written or syntactic evidence” (515). This also implies that different native languages

lead to different problems in L2 perception and production.

2.2.1 Early vs. more recent research on L2 phonology

O’Brien & Smith (2010) mention that there is a discrepancy between earlier and more recent

research on L2 pronunciation. Whereas earlier research perceived foreign accents as the result

of direct transfer from the L1 to the L2, more recent research has shown that the influence of

the L1 on the L2 is often not as direct as first thought. Major (2008) notes that most

researchers tend to follow the hypothesis that dissimilar sounds are easier to learn than similar

sounds, thus following the theory of direct L1-to-L2-transfer. This can be explained by the

fact that those L2 sounds which are located further away from the sounds in the L1 are more

noticeable for learners than those sounds which are similar. Consequently, learners only

attempt to acquire those L2 sounds in which they can perceive a difference from their L1.

According to Eckman et al. (2003) there are three different situations of phonemic

contrast between the L1 and L2, which influence the language acquisition of the L2 learner. In

the first situation (i), neither of the contrasting phonemes of the L2 exist in the L1. In the

second situation (ii), the L1 has one of the phonemes which contrast in the L2. Lastly, in the

third situation (iii), the different phonemes, which contrast in the L2, also occur in the L1, but

do not contrast. According to Eckman et al. (2003), following from these situations several

instances concerning relative learning difficulty can be hypothesized:

(i) [those cases] where the native language has neither of the phonemes in question,

would be more difficult than (ii) [those cases] where the native language has one of

17

the relevant phonemes, [which] (ii), in turn, would be more problematic than (iii)

[those cases] where the native language has both of the phones in question, albeit as

allophones of the same phone.

(Eckman et al. 2003: 171)

In other words, the situations where the L1 and L2 differ the most from each other are

estimated as the most difficult to acquire. Lado (1957; in Eckman 2004), on the other hand,

emphasized the fact that errors develop in the L2 phonology when the sound systems between

the two languages differ only minimally. He claimed that learners face the greatest difficulties

when their L1 has two or more allophones for different phonemes in the L2. For instance,

Lado stated that for Spanish-speaking learners of English the sounds [d] and [ð], which are

allophones of /d/ in Spanish, but are in contrast to each other in English, are the most difficult

to acquire. Hamerly (1982; in Eckman 2004) similarly found that L2 learners regard

allophones as the most problematic element in L2 pronunciation learning. The learners in his

study had the most difficulties with suppressing their L1 allophones when they spoke the L2.

Also producing L1 allophones which are distributed differently in the L2 and producing L2

allophones which do not occur in the L1 were encountered with great difficulty.

O’Brien et al. (2010) too remark that researchers more recently have claimed that

those sounds between the L1 and L2 which are relatively alike cause more difficulties for L2

learners, because they generally do not perceive a difference between the similar sounds and

do therefore not make an effort to acquire those specific sounds, as they will assume they can

already pronounce them correctly. It is in this last case that transfer can occur, which means

that the L1 sometimes indirectly influences the perception and production of L2 sounds.

2.2.2 Flege’s Speech Learning Model

2.2.2.1 Flege’s Equivalence Theory

Similarly, this theory is further elaborated in Flege’s ‘equivalence theory’ (1992, 1995; as

cited in Major 2008), which forms a tenet of his Speech Learning Model (henceforth SLM).

One of the hypotheses of the SLM is that L2 learners can add new sound categories for both

‘similar’ and ‘new’ sounds until the age of 5-6 years, but are no longer capable of establishing

sound categories for ‘similar’ sounds when they are older (Flege 1997). The difference

18

between new and similar sounds in the L2 is, according to Flege (1997), that both vary in

degree of dissimilarity from the L1 both qualitatively and quantitatively. The equivalence

theory then is based on the idea that similar sounds are more difficult to acquire and can

therefore cause transfer. The theory maintains that L2 learners will analyse the similar L2

sounds as L1 sounds and, as a result, L2 learners will also pronounce them as L1 sounds.

In addition, Flege (1995, 2003; in O’Brien et al. 2010) also hypothesizes that the L2

learner will more rapidly create new sound categories for those L1 and L2 vowels which

differ greatly from each other, since bilinguals generally attempt to separate their L1 and L2

sounds in their combined phonetic space, so that they do not overlap. A study conducted by

Flege & Hillenbrand (1984) on the vowel production of American English-speaking learners

of French supports this equivalence theory. The L2 learners of French could pronounce the

phoneme /y/, which is a ‘foreign’ sound for English speakers, relatively accurately, but had

more difficulties with the French phoneme /u/, which sounds similar to the English phoneme

/u/.

Again, similar to the proposition of Eckman et al. (2003), there are three different

situations which can occur between the sounds of the L1 and L2.

In the first case, the L2 sound is ‘new’ for the L2 learner, indicating that the learner’s

L1 has no equivalent for the L2 sound. Flege (1997) predicts that most late learners will

encounter difficulties with the production of these sounds in the early stages of learning, but

will eventually master them. O’Brien et al. (2010) caution, however, that this does not

necessarily imply a native-like performance for late learners. Although they found in their

study on the production of German vowels by speakers of English that the participants were

able to create a separate category for the ‘new’ German vowel /y:/, they also found that their

productions still differed from those of the native German speakers. For younger learners, on

the other hand, new sounds will be easier, since the sounds in their phonetic system are not

yet established as firmly as with older learners. These new sounds can nevertheless also

undergo “category assimilation”, which means that the L2 learner will produce the unfamiliar

L2 sounds as L1 sounds (O’Brien et al. 2010).

In the second situation, the sounds between the L1 and L2 are ‘identical’, having the

same phonetic values. These sounds are therefore generally not very problematic for L2

learners (Collins & Mees 1984; in Flege 1997). This situation does however not occur very

frequently and Keys (2002) rightly questions whether it is even realistic “to assume an exact

phonemic match across languages” (43).

19

In the third and last situation described by Flege (1997), the L1 and L2 phonemes are

‘similar’ to each other. Here L2 learners mostly fail to perceive the small differences between

the L1 and L2 sounds and subsequently fail to produce the L2 sounds in a native-like way.

It should be noted that this theory presupposes that production follows perception in

language acquisition. Ioup (2008) observes that Flege’s SLM theorizes that “the mechanisms

needed to produce new sounds remain intact, but as with the other models [i.e. Best’s (1994)

‘Perceptual Assimilation Model’1 and Kuhl’s (1992) ‘Native Language Magnet Model’

2], it is

perception that changes with development” (49). To perceive and produce L2 sounds

accurately, the L2 learner has to be able to detect the differences between the L1 and L2 even

when they are similar (Baker et al. 2002). For Flege (1995; in Ioup 2008), younger learners

are still able to analyse the L2 independently from their L1, whereas older learners use their

L1 as a reference. Perkell et al. (2004) likewise hypothesize that perception influences

production and that those people who are capable of discriminating correctly between the

different L2 sounds will also be capable of producing those contrasting L2 phonemes

correctly. When speakers can detect the subtle differences between the L2 sounds, they will

learn how to produce these sounds, even when these are pronounced closer to or further apart

from each other than in their L1. When an L2 learner, on the other hand, has poorer

perception abilities, his/her L2 production will suffer from it accordingly. Trubetzkoy (1969;

in Flege 1997) and Logan (1989; in Flege 1997) remarked that learners will solely perceive

those sounds which are relevant in their L1 and which are important for distinguishing

between meaning differences in their L1. Consequently, L2 learners will only produce those

L2 sounds which they are able to detect.

2.2.2.2 Remarks on Flege’s Equivalence Theory

Concerning the difficulty of learnability of specific L2 sounds, Munro et al. (1996) make two

observations. First, they argue that it is not possible or desirable to generalize the inequalities

in learnability as “vowel x, but not vowel y, is readily learnable” (326). In their study on the

vowel productions of Italian learners of English, they found that none of the participants was

1 This model combines both elements from perception and production. At the onset of language acquisition the

L1 sounds will become categorized when the child has acquired their correct pronunciation. L2 sounds, then,

will be assigned to these L1 categories, based on similarities (Ioup 2008). 2 According to this model, the infant learner creates phonetic prototypes, which can be defined as “idealized

representations of phonetic categories”. These prototypes form a link between perception and production and

function for L2 learners as “a magnet forcing the learner to perceive the [closest] new sound as the prototype”

(Ioup 2008: 49).

20

able to produce the vowels accurately, but rather that they displayed individual levels of

success for each vowel. The second observation made by Munro et al. (1996) is that no

straightforward explanation can be given for why certain vowels need less effort to acquire

than others. According to Munro et al. (1996), the absence of a certain vowel in the L1 sound

system did not influence its production in the L2. Moreover, neither do the values of the

vowel productions in the L1 and L2 affect its pronunciation. For instance, the hypothesis that

the Italian vowels similar to the English ones are more difficult to produce than the dissimilar

vowels was not supported in this study. Therefore, it should be noted that not all research

supports the hypothesis that similar sounds are more difficult to acquire than dissimilar

sounds. A study by Bohn et al. (1992), for instance, revealed that certain German-speaking

learners of English could pronounce the similar sounds better than the dissimilar sounds.

Moreover, the Similarity Differential Rate Hypothesis proposes that “dissimilar

phenomena are acquired at faster rates than similar phenomena”, rather than being less

difficult than similar sounds (Major & Kim 1996; as cited in Major 2008: 74). Eckman (2004)

explains this hypothesis with the argument that beginning and advanced learners do not

encounter the same problems in L2 learning: for beginning learners, whose L2 is still subject

to much L1 transfer, similar sounds seem relatively easy to use. On the other hand, for

advanced learners, who are more aware of the differences between the similar sounds, this is

no longer the case.

In support of the findings that some learners do pronounce similar sounds better, it

should also be noted that L2 learners whose L1 resembles the sounds patterns of the L2 are

more likely to have a more accurate pronunciation than L2 learners whose L1 phonological

system differs strongly from the L2 system (Ioup 2008). The size of the vowel inventory of

the two languages might have an influence as well on L2 acquisition: according to Munro et

al. (2008) those learners whose L1 vowel system has a similar size as that of as their L2

vowel system have an advantage over those learners whose L1 and L2 vowel systems differ to

a greater extent in size, especially if the L1 vowel inventory is smaller than the L2 vowel

inventory.

21

2.2.2.3 Younger vs. older learners in Flege’s Interaction Hypothesis

Flege’s (1995) Interaction Hypothesis (henceforth IH) is a part of his SLM, which accounts

for how language learners acquire the different sound segments of the L2. According to the

IH, the differences between early and late learners can be explained by the interaction that

occurs between the learners’ L1 and L2 sound system. In younger learners, this interaction is

smaller than in older learners, because the development of the younger learners’ L1 has not

been completed yet. The sound categories in younger learners are not fixed yet and can still be

adapted, which enables them to learn foreign sounds more easily than older learners who have

fixed sound categories. Similarly, Baker and Trofimovich (2005) argue that “early bilinguals

may be more likely than late bilinguals to restructure their L1 phonetic system” (22). In other

words, the degree of interaction between the L1 and L2 depends on the degree in which the

L1 of the language learners has developed. In addition, the SLM also suggests that “children’s

L1 sound categories are less powerful attractors of L2 sounds than those of adults” (Baker et

al. 2002; 41), since children less often perceive L2 sounds in terms of L1 sounds.

Furthermore, the fact that the L1 sound categories of younger learners are still

developing also affects the direction of influence between the L1 and L2. For younger

learners the influence of the L1 and L2 is mostly bidirectional, which implies that not only

does the L1 exert influence on the L2, but the L2 also influences the sounds of the learner’s

L1. For older learners this influence is mostly unidirectional L1-to-L2, because older learners’

L1 phonetic system has become less flexible and is consequently less easily influenced by a

foreign language (Baker et al. 2005). It should be noted that according to Baker et al. (2008)

the SLM as intended by Flege does not apply for beginning learners, because the differences

between early and late learners in the initial stages of learning differ from the differences

between these two groups in later stages, as already mentioned above.

Baker et al. (2008) consider two different tenets of the IH, which will be discussed

here, mainly based on Holleman (2011).

The first tenet highlights the fact that the L1 categories in fact develop rather slowly.

Baker et al. (2008) argue that already early on in life – around 10 months – children tend to

prefer those sounds which occur in their L1, but this preference to those consonants and

vowels develops fairly slowly and continues even into adolescence. Especially between the

ages of 6 and 12 years children seem to become more skilled in discriminating between the

L1 sounds than earlier in childhood (Hazan & Barrett 2000; in Baker et al. 2008). However,

there remains a difference between children and adults in terms of accuracy in L1 perception

22

and production. It is the increasing capacity to discriminate between the L1 phonemes that

diminishes the capacity of L2 learners to correctly perceive and produce those sounds which

do not occur in their L1.

The second tenet suggests that because of the development of the L1 categories,

leading to more ‘robust’ sound categories, older adolescents and adults are better able to

discriminate and produce L1 sounds accurately, but have more difficulties in discriminating

those phonetic sounds which do not occur in their L1 and will additionally analyse L2 sounds

in terms of L1 sounds. By contrast, children, whose L1 sound categories are still developing,

can better differentiate between unfamiliar sound differences. Flege (1997) notes that it is

easier for adolescents and adults than for children to classify different L1 sounds under non-

ideal listening conditions (such as with background noise), because their sound categories are

more firmly set and the categories’ “tolerance limits [...] expand” (14). The downside of this

being that these fixed categories make it more difficult to discriminate between L1 and L2

sounds in L2 learning.

In the study by Baker et al. (2008) on the interaction between L1 and L2 sound

systems in early and late bilinguals, these tenets of the IH were partially confirmed. Baker et

al. (2008) examined both the perception and production of vowels by early and late Korean

learners of English. The results revealed that the children did not outperform the adults in the

perception of the L2 vowels, but did produce two of the four vowels more accurately than the

adults. The two vowels which were produced accurately were those English vowels which are

absent in Korean (/ɪ/, /ʊ/), indicating that children are better in discriminating those sounds

which do not appear in their L1 sound system. This study therefore supported the hypothesis

that there is a correlation between age and the ability to accurately perceive and produce L2

sounds which are not present in the L1 or sounds which are similar, and that this ability is

associated with the state of development of the learner’s L1 sound system.

2.3 The role of universal principles

Another L2 phonology model is Major’s Ontogeny Phylogeny Model (2001; in Major 2008)

(henceforth OPM). This model was originally designed for adult L2 phonology, but was

applied on child L2 learning by Anderson (2004). According to Major (2008), L2 speech

consists of three different elements: the L1, the L2 and ‘universal principles’. Illustrations of

these universal principles are, for instance, markedness (e.g., voiced obstruents in initial

23

position are acquired before obstruents in final position) and hypercorrection (e.g., the

exaggeration of the pronunciation of American English /r/ by certain L2 learners) (Major

2008). Each of these three elements which affect L2 speech exerts more influence during a

particular stage in the L2 acquisition. In the model as developed for adult L2 learners, the L1

will exert more influence in the early stages of learning, while the L2 and the universal

principles will be of stronger influence in the later stages. For children, however, Anderson

(2004) suggests that the universal principles will in general play a more significant role in the

acquisition process, since the L1 sound system of children is not fully established yet and can

therefore not yet function as a starting point for language learning.

Anderson (2004) specifically examined the phonological L2 acquisition by young

children via immersion. Her study led to three conclusions: (i) there is transfer of the sound

systems from the L1 and L2, (ii) this transfer is unidirectional from the L1 to the L2,3 and (iii)

the children separate the phonological systems of their L1 and L2 from one another. At the

onset of her study she suggested two different outcomes for child L2 acquisition: either their

L1 may affect the development of their L2 (because the children already have established

their L1 sound system), or universal patterns of development, together with elements from the

L2, will influence their language acquisition. A previous study by Piper (1984; in Anderson

2004) had already revealed that the L2 guides the development of the early learners: the

participants in the study all had different L1 backgrounds, but showed similar productions of

the L2. In the study by Anderson (2004), similar results were found. Furthermore, Anderson

notes that the older children were more proficient in L2 learning, possibly drawing on their

previously acquired knowledge of their L1 phonological system. However, in general, all

young learners in this study appeared to acquire the L2 relatively effortlessly in the immersion

context. The author assumes that the L1 primarily exerted influence on the articulatory level

of the L2, implying that similar L2 sounds were influenced by the L1 sounds. The influence

on the phonological level, which is defined as “the level of rules that govern how sounds are

sequenced and used” (Anderson 2004: 199), however, was not as high. Anderson concludes

that, because of the still ongoing development of the children’s L1 sound system, the

universal principles were of stronger influence than the L1 on the L2 acquisition.

3 Note that this conclusion is not in line with Flege’s (1995) Interaction Hypothesis, as discussed in Section

2.2.2.3.

24

Chapter 3. The role of instruction on second

language phonology

In the structural approach to teaching, to obtain accurate L2 skills was paramount and was

estimated as more important than achieving fluency, and this translated itself into an emphasis

on repetition in the courses and an intolerant attitude towards any L1 influence entering the

L2 speech (Isaacs 2009). Because of the stress that was put on accuracy, much attention was

devoted to pronunciation teaching. Later, however, when both the naturalistic approach to

teaching and the communicative language teaching were introduced, pronunciation was

regarded as a part of linguistics rather than communicative competence, and therefore no

longer seen as important. It was thought that even without any pronunciation teaching, the

students would achieve a sufficient level of L2 pronunciation through input received in class.

Therefore, pronunciation was often disregarded in the communicative language courses,

although it plays a central role in the success of communication (Isaacs 2009). Another

problem in the field of pronunciation instruction is that teachers seem to “see the rare learner

who achieves a native-like accent as an achievable ideal, not an exception” (Levis 2005; as

cited in Saito 2011: 55), although Piske et al. (2001) have observed that there is no evidence

that L2 teaching is a guarantee for a native-like accent. This aim, set by the L2 teachers, may,

according to Field (2005; in Saito 2011), be seen as an obstacle for many language students.

The following sections will introduce some of the several different approaches to

pronunciation teaching which can be distinguished.

3.1 The Integrated Approach

A first approach is the integrated approach as discussed by Wong et al. (2009). They

underline the idea that language teachers should organize their courses in relation to how

language is acquired and should also adjust the learning activities so that the children can

more easily learn the foreign speech sounds. In order to do so, teachers have to create “a

language-rich environment” (Wong et al. 2009: 20) where the children receive the

opportunity to use the L2 (in this case English) both passively and actively.

The motive behind this idea is that this learning environment appeals more to the

children’s interest and gives them more motivation. Wong et al. based this approach on

Bredekamp and Rosegrant’s (1995; in Wong et al. 2009) concept of integration, which

25

proposes that children will learn more efficiently when the subjects taught are integrated with

their personal, social and pre-academic experiences of languages, mathematics and science,

and creative subjects. In classrooms these activities are in general already applied for learning

L2 vocabulary and grammar, but here they serve to improve pronunciation.

To illustrate this, Wong et al. offer some articulation activities which can be used in

this approach, such as “circle time”, where teachers focus on the articulation of the individual

speech sounds by means of a story or pictures. It is paramount here that the children do not

notice that they are in fact practising their pronunciation. Other activities are, for instance,

asking certain questions to which the children need to answer with a sentence containing the

particular sounds, using arts and crafts, music and movement, game, and mathematics and

science.

3.2 Explicit Instruction

A second approach to pronunciation is the explicit instruction, which DeKeyser (2003; in

Saito 2011) explains as an instructional treatment in which “rule explanation forms part of the

instruction (i.e., deduction) or [in which] learners are asked to attend to particular forms and

try to find the rules themselves (i.e., induction)” (46). Possible advantages of explicit

pronunciation teaching are that students will become more aware of their own pronunciation

and the pronunciation of native speakers (Derwing and Munro 2005; in Saito 2011). In other

words, explicit phonological instruction helps to shape the ‘phonological awareness’ of the

students, which Saito (2011) defines as “the conscious knowledge of segmentals and

suprasegmentals” (46).4

In his study, Saito specifically examined the effects of segmental-based instruction,

which he values because of its teachability. The advantages of this kind of instruction for

teaching are that these features can easily be explained to the students by means of the

phonetic characteristics (articulator organs, place of articulation and manner of articulation)

and that possible pronunciation problems can be foreseen, if the students share the same L1.

Although the participants in the study by Saito did not display an improvement of their

L2 accent after having received pronunciation instruction, the participants in the study by

Lord (2010) on explicit pronunciation instruction did obtain higher results than those students

4 Words can be distinguished from one another on both the segmental level (e.g., bellow vs. mellow, or rusty vs.

trusty) and on the suprasegmental level, which refers to differences in pitch, amplitude and duration of syllables

(Koster & Cutler, 1997).

26

who did not receive any pronunciation instruction. However, it should be noted that the

results by Lord may be influenced by the fact that the participants were also enrolled in a

language immersion program, which was highly advantageous for the L2 pronunciation of the

participants. Lord concluded from these findings that the combination of both explicit

instruction and immersion leads to the best results for the L2 learners. With respect to the

study by Saito (2011), it should be noted that the participants were all adult learners, which

may imply that they faced greater difficulties physically compared to younger learner.

3.3 Form Focused Approach

Both Isaacs (2009) and Trofimovich and Gatbonton (2006) discuss the form-focused

instruction in pronunciation teaching. In form-focused instruction the stress is on grammar,

vocabulary, or pronunciation “in a meaning-oriented instructional context” (Isaacs 2009: 5)

and its aim is to “[push] learners to notice the gap between their un-target-like interlanguage

utterances and the target form” (Isaacs 2009: 43). This means that teachers should attempt to

make their students aware of the different linguistic features which exist between their L1 and

L2.

According to Isaacs, there are two different manners in which form-focused

instruction can be taught: either reactively, where the teacher gives corrective feedback to

mistakes made by the student, or pre-emptively, where the teacher draws attention to the

differing linguistic features beforehand. Trofimovich et al. (2006) remark that these form-

focused language activities have a positive effect on the students’ pronunciation, since they

will be able to process the different sound system of the L2 faster and possibly also more

efficiently. However, Isaacs (2009) observes that it is difficult in pronunciation teaching to

strike the right balance between focus on forms (where the form is more important than the

meaning) and focus on meaning. According to DeKeyer (1998; in Isaacs 2009), L2 learners

need instruction to achieve a native-like L2 production of sounds, whereas instruction is not

necessarily required for vocabulary learning. A too strong emphasis on meaning could also

obstruct students from correctly detecting and acquiring the L2 sounds (Trofimovich et al.

2006). Therefore it would be more logical to focus instruction on forms rather than on

meaning. However, although L2 phonology learning benefits from repetition, this would have

negative consequences for the communicative aspect of L2 teaching and would imply a return

to rote learning. A solution Isaacs (2009) offers for this problem is the ‘zoom principle’ by

27

Firth (1997; in Isaacs 2009), which means that teachers should focus their teachings on certain

problems in pronunciation when they appear in the communicative activities.

Trofimovich et al. (2006) found in their study on L2 learners of Spanish that their

pronunciation had improved after having received both spoken L2 input on a repetitive basis

and specific form-focused instruction. They, similarly to Isaacs (2009), note that “L2

pronunciation learning [...] can be conceptualized in the context of ‘mindful repetition in an

engaging communicative context by motivated learners’ (Ellis 2002: 177; original emphasis)”

(as cited in Trofimovich et al. 2006: 532).

3.4 Comparison of the different approaches

Pennington and Richards (1986; in Derwing et al. 1998) remarked that there is still much

uncertainty about which kind of instruction is the most optimal for improving L2 learners’

pronunciation and not all scholars accept that there is even any advantage in pronunciation

instruction. Derwing et al. (1998) examined the results of three different approaches to

pronunciation instruction: segmental accuracy (i.e., instruction at the level of the word or

smaller units), general speaking habits and prosodic factors (i.e., global strategies), and no

specific instruction. In their study, they also draw attention to the difference for L2 learners

between the dimensions of accentedness, comprehensibility, and fluency. Accentedness refers

to the degree of accuracy of the production of the L2 learners. Comprehensibility indicates

how easily listeners can understand the production of the learners. Fluency specifies the

extent to which learners can produce utterances in the L2 both smoothly and rapidly

(Kennedy & Trofimovich 2010).

Derwing et al. (1998) conducted two different experiments to examine whether

accentedness, comprehensibility and fluency improved after having received either

segmental-based, global or no pronunciation-specific instruction. In the first experiment they

collected speech samples of students at two different times: once at the beginning of the

courses and once after 11 weeks. The speech samples consisted of simple statements, which

the participants repeated from native speakers, after having read them first. Immediately after

the first experiments, the participants had to perform the second experiment, in which they

were asked to describe a standard picture story. For the first experiment, all groups displayed

a slight improvement, but only the group who had received segmental-focused instruction

showed a significantly better result. For the second experiment, only the group who had

28

received global instruction had improved on the levels of comprehensibility and fluency. The

degree of accentedness did, however, not increase in any of the groups.

These results led to the conclusion that both segmental-based and global instruction

are beneficial for the pronunciation of L2 students, but both in different situations. The

segmental-based approach is especially useful in case of a mispronunciation which has caused

a breakdown in communication. Segmental-based instruction may help the L2 learner to

notice his/her mistake and correct him/herself. However, it appeared that the attention given

to the accurate production of the L2 sounds was at the expense of the language processing

abilities of the learners (Derwing & Rossiter 2003). Students who have received global

instruction, on the other hand, seem to be better prepared to perform in spontaneous speech

(Derwing et al. 1998).

3.5 The role of language awareness, input and output in

pronunciation instruction

In the study by Kennedy et al. (2010), the relationship between the level of language

awareness of L2 learners and their level of pronunciation was tested. In addition, they also

studied whether the different approaches of the L2 learners to language awareness (i.e., the

quantitative angle and the qualitative angle)5 had a different effect on pronunciation. The

language awareness of the students was tested through entries in dialogue journals they had to

make on language and learning.

The experiment revealed that there is a correlation between the accuracy of

pronunciation and the number of qualitative language awareness comments the student made.

Kennedy et al. connect this finding with the results of previous studies on L2 grammar which

also found a relation between grammatical awareness and correct use of the grammatical

features. An explanation for this, proposed by Kennedy et al., is that those students who

displayed the highest degree of qualitative language awareness comments were already more

proficient in accentedness, comprehensibility, and fluency from the beginning of the course

onwards. However, Kennedy et al. also suggest that a quantitative approach might be

beneficial in the early stages of language learning for those students who show problems with

5 In the quantitative approach to language awareness, language learning can be seen “as a set of items

(grammatical concepts, word patterns, etc.) which need to be taken in and remembered”, whereas the qualitative

approach sees language “as something that carries meaning” and “as a context in which learning can occur”

(Kennedy et al. 2010: 177).

29

L2 phonology, since the quantitative approach is more helpful in teaching basic pronunciation

skills than the qualitative approach.

Furthermore, Kennedy et al. emphasize the importance of input in L2 acquisition.

They claim that, in pedagogy, L2 learners should first attain a certain level of proficiency in

L2 listening before they can show L2 awareness and consequently improve their

pronunciation.

For Saito (2009), on the other hand, output is equally important for L2 pronunciation

learning, because it increases the likelihood that the L2 learners will become more aware of

their own mistakes and of the correct pronunciation of the L2 forms. Types of production

activities he proposes are either controlled practice, such as reading tasks, or communicative

practice, such as picture-describing tasks. The aim of these activities is that, since the L2

students will have to notice their own accuracy on the level of syntax, word choice and

pronunciation, they will participate more in spontaneous speech, similarly to the qualitative

approach of pronunciation instruction discussed by Kennedy et al. (2010).

3.6 Conclusion

All these findings indicate that pronunciation instruction is mostly more beneficial for the L2

learners’ production than no attention to pronunciation at all. However, there exists no

definite agreement on which kind of approach leads to the best results. To achieve

communicative competences, a global approach appears to be the optimal method. However,

if the segmental elements of L2 pronunciation need to be improved, explicit or form-focused

instruction are better suited. The most important aim of pronunciation instruction is

nevertheless to create an awareness of the L2 sounds in the language learners. Consequently,

when the L2 learners are able to notice and correct their mistakes, thus improving their

accentedness, their comprehensibility and fluency will eventually improve as well.

30

Chapter 4. Vowels

Vowels can be described as vocalic sounds, which are “produced by egressive pulmonic

airflow through vibrating or constricted vocal folds in the larynx and through the vocal tract,

and the sound generated at the larynx is modified by the cavities of the tract” (Clark & Yallop

1995: 22). The size and shape of the tract can be modified by varying the positions of the

tongue and lips, resulting in different vowels, each with their own specific value. To produce

a particular vowel, the tongue has to adjust its shape and position, whereas the lips have to

adjust their shape and degree of protrusion (Clark et al. 1995).

4.1 Vowel analysis

In vowel analysis, it is especially difficult to determine the exact shape and position of the

tongue, since the tongue does not make “any specific construction in the area surrounding the

midline of the oral cavity” (Clark et al. 1995: 22). This also poses problems for the plotting of

the position of the tongue in a vowel diagram. A traditional method of plotting the position of

the tongue is a two-dimensional diagram, corresponding to the articulatory space, in which

both the tongue height (on the vertical axis) and the tongue fronting (on the horizontal axis)

are represented.

Vowel analysis can be visualized with the help of speech spectrograms (see Figure

4.1), which are two-dimensional formats which represent the changes which occur in the

speech spectrum over time. On the spectrogram three different dimensions can be found:

frequency (on the vertical axis), time (on the horizontal axis), and the magnitude of acoustic

energy (shown by the either bright or dark intensity of the display) (Clark et al. 1995).

31

Figure 4.1. Spectogram of the vowel [ɜ] (taken from Clark et al. 1995: 253)

Figure 4.2 shows the different acoustic properties which together are necessary for the

productions of vowels, in this case the vowel [ɜ]: (a) the harmonic spectrum of the phonation

source; 6

(b) the resonant response of the vocal tract; (c) the phonation spectrum which results

from the effects of tract resonance; (d) the spectrum of the final radiated acoustic sound

pressure wave, which denotes “the acoustic radiation properties of the human head” (Clark et

al. 1995: 246); and (e) the time domain pressure wave. The phonetic spectrum (a) and the

resonance peaks (b) together result in a spectrum (c), having peaks of energy caused by the

resonance. These peaks of energy, following from resonance, are called formants (Clark et al.

1995). In other words, “the formant frequencies refer to the characteristic ‘pitch overtones’ of

a given vowel as a function of the size and shape of the articulatory tract” (Zampini 2008:

226). They contain information on the quality of vowels and each type of formant has

received a number (F1, F2 etc.) according to its degree of frequency. The position and shape of

the tongue play a key role in the value of the formants (Clark et al. 1995). F1 refers to the

vowel height, determined by the position of the tongue. As the height of the vowel decreases,

the F1 will increase. This implies that a low vowel will have a higher F1 than a high vowel. F2

is also dependent on the position of the tongue and denotes the frontness or backness of the

vowel. The F2 value decreases as the vowel is produced more back. Front vowels, on the other

hand, have higher F2 values (Zampini 2008).

6 Phonation can be defined as “the periodic vibration of the vocal folds” (Clark et al., 1995: 237).

32

Figure 4.2. Acoustic properties of the vowel [ɜ] (taken from Clark et al. 1995: 247)

In a standard diagram of the vowel quality (see Figure 4.3), the F2 is plotted on the horizontal

axis, with the lowest values starting from the right increasing to the left. The F1 is plotted on

the vertical axis, with the lowest values starting from the top increasing to the bottom (Clark

et al. 1995). One of the problems this two-dimensional visualisation causes is that, for

instance, vowels which have similar F1 and F2 values but different lip positions, and therefore

different pronunciations, will be plotted on the same place in the diagram (Ladefoged 1967; in

Clark et al. 1995).

Using these formant frequencies is an objective way to describe the qualities of the

vowels. However, it should be noted that not the absolute values of the formant frequencies

are of significance in perception and production but rather their relative relationship to one

another, because of the individual differences between speakers. Languages only use a select

number of sounds of the total human articulatory potential. The speakers of a certain language

are obliged to use these sounds their language prescribes. Clark et al. (1995), therefore,

indicate that languages are normative in nature. This implies that certain language productions

can be regarded as either ‘normal’ or as strange or foreign. The same reaction to sounds can

also emerge when language users come into contact with another language and consider

certain words or names as ‘unpronounceable’. However, even within the same language it can

be expected that various productions of the same sound occur, since “the nature of the

33

articulatory mechanism, the precision and coordination needed to control it, and the fineness

of auditory discrimination” (Clark et al. 1995: 83) all control language pronunciation.

This variation of productions does not pose a problem for the everyday language users,

but it does for phoneticians, because it hinders the possibility of indicating the exact values

for, for instance, vowels which hold for each individual speaker. The most significant cause

for pronunciation differences is the variation in the size and the shape of the vocal tract and

articulators. This is most prevalent in the different productions of adults and children, since

the length of the vocal tract is higher in adults than in children. This difference in length of the

vocal tract has a rather significant influence on the values of the formant frequencies (Clark et

al. 1995).

However, speakers do tend to preserve the specific contrast existing between the

different vowels in their sound system. Even when speakers display different formant values

for their vowels, the contrast between them will be maintained. This allows listeners to

understand the productions of the speaker accurately, because language users can change their

mental sound map which they have of the language for each different speaker (Clark et al.

1995). Formant frequencies should therefore also be analysed within the vowel system of the

individual speaker and not generally, since productions vary according to the speaker and can

lead to overlap between the vowels (Ladefoged & Broadbent 1957; in Clark et al. 1995), as

displayed in Figure 4.3, representing English vowels produced by native speakers of

Australian English.

Figure 4.3. The F1 and F2 values of the English monophtongs as produced by 172 adult male speakers

of Australian English. The lines surrounding each vowel show the different distributions (taken from

Clark et al. 1995: 316)

34

4.2 Duration

Besides differences in the qualitative aspect (i.e., the formant frequencies), vowels can also

differ from one another in quantity, which is of phonological significance in some languages

(Zampini 2008). The duration of a particular vowel depends on, among other things, the

quality of the vowel and the consonants preceding and following it. However, according to

Lehiste (1976; in Clark et al. 1995), each vowel also has its own specific length, independent

from other factors. Lower vowels, for instance, generally have a longer duration than higher

vowels, because low vowels require greater effort to be produced.

The influence from the neighbouring consonants on a vowel can be either language

specific or universal because of its place of articulation. Some effects of consonants on vowel

duration only occur in some particular languages. In English, for instance, voiced stops and

fricatives lengthen the preceding vowel more than voiceless consonants. According to Clark

et al. (1995), this seems a natural effect for native speakers of English, but is in fact not a

universal language feature. However, the influence of the place where a consonant is

produced on the adjacent vowel does seem to be a universal feature. When the production of a

particular consonant requires tongue movement, the complete production of the consonant

will consequently take longer and the duration of the neighbouring vowel will therefore have

a longer duration as well. Alveolars or velars will, for instance, have a lengthening effect on

the preceding vowel, as opposed to bilabials (Clark et al. 1995).

Similar to the difference in quality between the vowels, the difference in quantity is

also relative rather than absolute, since the duration of vowels depends on their quality and

the adjacent consonants. Furthermore, Clark et al. (1995) remark that long vowels do not have

a minimum length of duration, or short vowels a maximum length. What is more important is

that similar vowels, solely differing in length, display relative duration differences when they

are placed in comparable contexts (Clark et al. 1995).

In the field of L2 learning, it has been suggested that the quantitative aspect of vowels

may play a significant role in L2 learners’ discrimination of L2 vowel contrasts which do not

occur in their L1. For instance, some studies (e.g., Minnick-Fox & Maeda 1999, Altenburg &

Vago 1987, Wang 1997; in Cebrian 2006) have revealed that to contrast the English vowels /i/

and /ɪ/ from one another, L2 learners will make greater use of duration to discriminate

between the vowels than native speakers of English would. Furthermore, other research has

shown that duration is used more for those vowel contrasts which do not occur in the

speaker’s L1 than for those contrasts which are similar between the L1 and L2 (Flege & Bohn

35

1989; in Cebrian 2006). According to Cebrian (2006), the use of duration by L2 learners can

be explained by the fact that “learners may detect some difference between the target vowels

and interpret it as a temporal contrast only” (384). L2 learners will eventually notice the non-

native L2 features and will use these features to discriminate between the L2 sounds, but

when the L2 contrast has no L1 equivalent L2 learners will only rely on the quantitative

aspect to discriminate rather than on the qualitative aspect. On the other hand, Cebrian also

remarks that when the sounds of the L2 vowel contrast only differ from one another in their

duration and do not occur in the learner’s L1, the L2 learner will not be able to discriminate

between the sounds.

4.3 The vowels of English

Compared to other languages, the English vowel system is rather large and contains a

relatively complex system of vowel contrasts. Moreover, it should be noted that the

pronunciation of the English vowels varies greatly depending on the variety of English that is

spoken. There is no standardized articulation of the English vowel system (Clark et al. 1995).

English has seven checked steady-state vowels, meaning that both the tongue and the

lip shape are held constant during the articulation (see Figure 4.4). Furthermore, the checked

steady-state vowels can be distinguished from the free vowels in that they cannot occur in

word-final stressed open syllables. However, they can occur before the consonant /η/, and

have a relatively shorter length than free vowels (Collins & Mees 2003). In addition, the short

and long vowels in English are not only distinguished from each other quantitatively, but they

also show different qualitative values (e.g., the F1 value of the free steady-state English vowel

/i:/ is lower than the one of the checked steady-state vowel /ɪ/), as opposed to some other

languages, such as Finnish, where the vowel qualities of long and short vowels are the same

(Zampini 2008).

The seven checked steady-state vowels in English are /ɪ/, /ɛ/, /æ/, /ʌ/, /ɒ/, /ʊ/ and /ə/

(see Figure 4.4). The vowels /ʌ/, /ɒ/, and /ə/ or schwa, will not be discussed here, since they

will not be included in the study presented in Chapters 5-7. The checked-steady state vowels

which will be discussed here are /ɪ/ or KIT-vowel, which is a front-central, close-mid,

unrounded vowel; /ɛ/ or DRESS-vowel, which is a front, above-open mid, unrounded vowel;

/æ/ or TRAP-vowel, which is a front, slightly above-open, unrounded vowel; and /ʊ/ or FOOT-

vowel, which is a back-central, close-mid and slightly rounded vowel (Collins et al. 2003).

36

Figure 4.4. The checked steady-state vowels of English (taken from Collins & Mees 2003: 89)

The English free vowels can be separated into two groups: the steady-state vowels and the

diphthongs. The free steady-state vowels maintain the same tongue and lip position during the

production, as opposed to the diphthongs. They can occur in stressed open syllables, but do

not occur before the consonant /η/ (except as the result of assimilations, e.g., ‘green card’ [gri:

η ka:d]). Their duration is relatively longer than the one of checked vowels. The English

vowel system has five free steady-state vowels.

The five English free steady-state vowels are /i:/, /u:/, /ɑ:/, /ɔ:/ and /ɜ:/ (see Figure 4.5).

Only the vowel /u:/ or GOOSE-vowel, which is a centred from back, close, rounded vowel, will

be discussed here as it is examined in the present study, presented in Chapters 5-7 (Collins et

al. 2003).

Figure 4.5. The free steady-state vowels of English (taken from Collins & Mees 2003: 100)

As mentioned above, the place of articulation of vowels can be measured by formant

frequencies. The mean formant values of the English vowels are presented in Table 4.1 and

4.2, presenting data of native speakers of American English and RP, respectively. For the

American-English speakers, also vowel duration data are added.

37

Table 4.1. The average duration (in ms) and formant frequencies (in Hz) of vowels produced by 46

American-English speaking children (taken from Hillenbrand et al. 1995)

/ɪ/ /ɛ/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

Duration 248 235 322 247 278

F1 511 749 717 568 494

F2 2552 2267 2501 1490 1345

Table 4.2. The mean formant frequencies (in Hz) of vowels produced by native RP speakers, aged 20-

25 years old (taken from Hawkins & Midgley 2005)

/ɪ/ /ɛ/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

F1 393 600 917 413 289

F2 2174 1914 1473 1285 1616

4.4 The vowels of Dutch

Dutch has six checked steady-state vowels (see Figure 4.6), which, similarly to English,

cannot occur in word-final stressed open syllables. All these vowels have a relative short

duration. The six checked steady-state vowels of Dutch are /ɪ/, ɛ/, /ɑ/, /ɔ/, /Y/ and /ə/ (Collins

et al. 2003).

The vowels which will be discussed here are /ɪ/ or VIS-vowel, which is a front central,

above close-mid and unrounded vowel; and /ɛ/ or FLES-vowel, which is a front, open-mid and

unrounded vowel.

Figure 4.6. The checked vowels of Dutch (taken from Collins & Mees 2003: 128)

38

Dutch has four free steady-state vowels (see Figure 4.7), which, as opposed to the checked

vowels, can occur in word-final stressed open syllables. In the Flemish varieties of Dutch,

these vowels are generally produced with a longer duration than in the Northern Dutch

varieties.

The four free steady-state vowels of Dutch are /u/, /y/, /i/ and /a:/. The free steady-state

vowels which will be discussed here are /u/ or BOEK-vowel, which is a back-central, closed,

rounded vowel; and /y/ or NU-vowel, which is a front-central, between close and close-mid,

rounded vowel (Collins et al. 2003).

Figure 4.7. Free steady-state vowels of Dutch (taken from Collins & Mees 2003: 132)

As in English, there exists considerable accent variation in the pronunciation of the Dutch

vowels. These accent variations in Standard Dutch are affected by the dialects spoken in the

different areas (Adank et al. 2004). Although Adank et al. note that especially Southern

Standard Dutch (i.e., the variety of Dutch spoken in Belgium) shows less variety in tongue

height than tongue position (i.e., front versus back), Collins et al. (2003) suggest that vowel

height slightly differs between the Dutch accents.

With reference to the present study, it should be noted that the vowel /ɪ/ is often

pronounced more closed in the dialect of Antwerp than in Standard Dutch and that its

pronunciation resembles the free vowel /i/; the vowel /ɛ/ is likewise more closed in the area of

Antwerp compared to the other Southern Dutch dialects, which often have a production of /ɛ/

closer to /æ/; the vowel /u/ is produced more front and lower in the dialect of Antwerp; and

the formant values of the free vowel /y/ are close to those of the checked vowel /Y/

(Verhoeven & Van Bael 2002; Collins et al. 2003). Furthermore, the vowel duration also

varies between the different dialects. Of significance here is that the vowel /y/ is produced

longer in the dialect of Antwerp, compared to the other Southern Standard Dutch dialects. The

duration of the other vowels which will be discussed does not differ to such a great extent

39

(Verhoeven et al. 2002). Data of vowel formant frequencies and duration by speakers from

the area of Antwerp are presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3. The average duration (in ms) and formant frequencies (in Hz) of vowels produced by

speakers of the area of Antwerp (taken from Verhoeven & Van Bael 2002)

/ɪ/ /ɛ/ /u/ /y/

Duration 128 102 246 290

F1

Male speakers

Female speakers

329

326

473

548

350

374

297

302

F2

Male speakers

Female speakers

2122

2600

1894

2250

840

935

1833

2051

4.5 Predicting difficulties for Dutch-speaking learners of English

As hypothesized by Flege (1987) in his SLM, most difficulties for Dutch-speaking learners of

English will arise for those sounds which are similar to one another but not identical. New

sounds will usually pose problems at the onset of learning, but will eventually be mastered by

the majority of the L2 learners (see Section 2.2.2.1).

Tops et al. (2001) propose the following learning schedule for the English vowels by

speakers of Dutch, in which the shaded phonemes are almost identical in both languages and

therefore cause only minor learning difficulties, and in which the unshaded phonemes are

similar or new phonemes and are therefore relatively problematic to learn. Note that Figure

4.8 only accounts for the acoustic properties of the vowels.

Figure 4.8. The English vowels (taken from Tops et al. 2001: 2)

40

According to Figure 4.8, the English vowel /ɪ/ should generally not form any obstacle for L1

Dutch speakers, since the Dutch phoneme is almost identical to its English equivalent.

However, as was already mentioned above, in the Antwerp accent /ɪ/ is often produced more

closed and front, which could lead to a confusion between the vowels /ɪ/ and /i:/ (Collins et al.

2003; Tops et al. 2002).

The Dutch vowel /ɛ/, however, falls between the English vowels /ɛ/ and /æ/, which

tends to lead to the confusion of both vowels by Dutch-speaking learners of English. This

confusion is further enhanced, because the vowel /æ/ does not occur in Dutch. In the dialect

spoken in Antwerp, the Dutch vowel /ɛ/ is produced quite closed, and as a result the

production of English /ɛ/ may resemble English /ɪ/ for speakers with an Antwerp accent. Since

the vowel /æ/ does not exist in the Dutch vowel system, it is often produced identical to /ɛ/,

which may lead to a breakdown in intelligibility (Collins et al. 2003; Tops et al. 2002).

In Dutch there is no equivalent to the vowel /ʊ/. Confusion often occurs between the

vowels /ʊ/ and /u:/, as Dutch speakers produce these as identical vowels, both on the

qualitative and quantitative level, perceiving both of them as instances of the Dutch vowel /u/.

The Dutch vowel /u/ is, however, produced less central than English /ʊ/, and closer and

shorter than English /u:/ (Collins et al. 2003; Tops et al. 2002).

41

Chapter 5. Case study

5.1 General aim and procedure

The aim of the present case study was to examine the productions of the English vowel

contrasts /ɛ/-/æ/-/ɪ/ and /ʊ/-/u:/ by Dutch-speaking children, as these vowel contrasts have

been reported to be difficult for speakers of Dutch (see Chapter 4). Besides the influence of

the L1, also the influence of age and instruction on L2 pronunciation were examined. In order

to obtain the data needed for this study, a group of ten school children were asked to perform

several production tasks, both in English and Dutch. These experiments made it possible to

examine both the influence of the L1 and the influence of instruction on L2 vowel production.

The informants performed the experiments at two different intervals. In the first

session, the participants first carried out a Dutch picture-matching task, where they had to

produce existing Dutch monosyllabic words. Secondly, an English repetition task and an

English picture-naming task were conducted, containing existing English monosyllabic

words. In the second session, the same English and Dutch words were used which had been

used in the first session. For the Dutch part a slightly different picture-matching task was set

up.

The experiments were conducted in the school of the participants and all participants

were tested individually in each session. Although it is often claimed that when L2 learners

are tested in the L2 their L1 will interfere less with their L2 productions (Escudero et al.

2008), the language used during the current tests was Dutch, the informants’ native language.

The L1 of the participants was chosen as the principal language for explanation during the

experiments in order to ensure that the participants would sufficiently comprehend all the

tasks and additional explanations, since their proficiency level of English was not very high

yet. Furthermore, Escudero et al. (2008) remark that mostly advanced L2 learners may

experience L1 interference when their L1 is used. In the current study, all participants were,

however, beginning learners.

42

5.2 Methodology

5.2.1 Participants

Ten children participated in the tests, all of whom were native speakers of Dutch. None of

them were reported to have any speech deficits, hearing or learning disabilities. At the time of

the experiments, the participants were in the fifth grade of primary school and were all

between nine and twelve years old. This implies that they could still be counted as young L2

learners at the time of testing (Bongaerts et al. 1997). The school took part in a pilot project of

the Flemish community to promote English instruction in primary school. As part of the

programme, the children received two hours of English instruction every two weeks, mostly

in the form of games and songs. As English is not part of the official school curriculum, the

children did not take any tests or exams in English.

Prior to the experiment, none of the participants had received any formal education in

English, had lived in an English-speaking environment, or used English on a regular basis. It

should nevertheless be noted that some of the participants already displayed a higher

knowledge of English vocabulary than others. They reported to have learned some English

through television programs and other media. Nonetheless, since the first experiment was

conducted in September 2010, before the English classes had started, and the second

experiment in May 2011, the level of proficiency in English of all participants was quite low

at both times of testing. Mainly, because in all the informants had only received

approximately ten hours of instruction. The data of these experiments were gathered as part of

a larger research project.7

Although some of the parents of the participants had a different linguistic background,

all participants spoke Dutch at home. Only one participant reported to speak both Dutch and

Portuguese with his parents and siblings. All informants lived in the area of Mol, Flanders,

where they also went to school. This may have an influence on the participants’ productions

of the English and Dutch vowels, as discussed in Section 4.4. The children were not aware of

the actual aim of the English production tasks, but believed it was an English vocabulary test.

7 The data were gathered by Dr. Ellen Simon as part of an FWO project on ‘Child L2 Development’. The

analysis of the data (see Chapter 6) was performed by myself.

43

Table 5.1 presents information on the gender, age and linguistic background of the

informants.

Table 5.1. Informants’ background information

Informant Gender Age Other language

knowledge8

1 M 10 -

2 M 10 -

3 M 10 -

4 M 10 -

5 F 9 -

6 M 9 -

7 M 10 -

8 F 12 Romani

9 F 11 Moroccan (fluent)

10 M 10 Portuguese (fluent)

5.2.2 Design and stimuli

5.2.2.1 Session 1

Before the experiments were started, it was first explained to the participants that they would

perform games in English and Dutch, but that these were not connected to any schoolwork or

would not have an influence on any of their school grades. After the Dutch and English tasks

were performed, the participants were asked if they found the tasks difficult, especially with

reference to the English words used.

The Dutch task

In Session 1, the participants were first asked to perform a Dutch production task, in order to

examine the informants’ pronunciation of the Dutch vowels. The method used was through a

picture-matching task which consisted of two parts. In the first part, the participants were

given two sets of pictures, of which each picture could be semantically linked to another

picture of the other set. For instance, the picture of a ball of wool [wol] could be linked to a

picture of a cat [kat]. The instructions for the tasks were provided orally in Dutch. The

8 The category ‘other language knowledge’ does not include Dutch, French and English, since Dutch is the

native language of all participants and they were taught English and French at school.

44

participants were told that the pictures were jumbled and were instructed to match these

pictures again and in doing so say the word the picture represented. To ensure that the

participants understood the task, they were first tested with an example sentence. After this,

the informants were asked to repeat the words of each picture before placing them, one at a

time, back in an envelope which was handed to them, in order to have two productions of

each stimulus.

In the second part of the Dutch production task, the participants were given a sheet on

which pictures were randomly linked to other pictures. The participants were asked to follow

the lines that were drawn between the pictures and name the two connected pictures by saying

the sentence “the X is connected to the Y” [“de X is verbonden met de Y”]. For instance, the

picture of a wall [muur] was connected to the picture of a bag [zak].

The stimuli used in these production tasks were all monosyllabic words with a CVC-

structure. Since the participants could choose the order in which they named the pictures

themselves, the stimuli were arranged randomly. In this experiment, twelve Dutch steady-

state vowels were used, of which four will be examined in the current study, as they may have

an influence on the production of the English vowel contrasts discussed in this study (see

Chapter 7). In total, 24 stimuli were used. When a participant did not know a word or could

not immediately find the word which was intended, they were first given a description,

because repetition of the word by another speaker could influence the participants’ natural

pronunciation (Munro, 2008). In most cases this enabled the participants to name the correct

word. The stimuli of the examined vowels are presented in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2. The words containing the relevant vowels used in the Dutch picture-matching tasks

Target vowel Dutch words

/ɪ/ kip, vis

/ɛ/ bed, zes

/u/ boek, voet

/y/ muur, vuur

The English tasks

After the Dutch production tasks, the participants were asked to perform two English tasks.

The aim was to test the participants’ productions of the English vowels, before they had

received any formal instruction in English.

45

The first task was a repetition task. The participants were told that they would see

pictures on a computer screen and would hear the matching word in the meantime, spoken by

a native speaker of English, through the headphones they were wearing. After having heard

the word, they were instructed to repeat it loud and carefully. The informants repeated each

word twice. Again, similar to the Dutch production tasks, the instructions were given orally

and in Dutch, to ensure that the participants fully understood everything. Furthermore, the

participants were advised to attempt to memorize the words they heard, because most of them

would return in the following task. The words were placed in a random order, with none of

the words containing the same vowel occurring in a sequence.

The second task was a simple picture-naming task, where the participants were shown

pictures and were asked which of them they could name in English.9 Not all participants were,

however, able to remember all the words asked. In case the participants could not name the

picture, the correct word was given to them and they were asked to repeat it. These repetitions

were not used in the analysis.

The pictures were shown to the participants in a random order, each time in groups of

four. In these two tasks, eleven English steady-state vowels were tested. In both tasks 24

stimuli were given. For each vowel, three stimuli were used, except for /æ/ and /ʊ/, which had

two stimuli in both tasks. The stimuli were all monosyllabic words with a CVC-structure.

Table 5.3 presents the stimuli which contain the vowels which will be discussed in the present

study.

Table 5.3. The words containing the relevant vowels used in the English repetition and

picture-naming tasks

Target vowel English words

/ɪ/ fish, pig, six

/ɛ/ bed, head, pen

/æ/ cat, hat

/ʊ/ book, foot

/u:/ goose, pool, shoes

9 The initial idea was to conduct a quartets card game, in which the participants would have to ask questions and

accordingly name the pictures in order to collect a complete set of four cards of the same colour. However, since

the participants had not yet received any English instruction, this task proved to be too difficult. Furthermore,

there was a rather big difference between the participants in their knowledge of English vocabulary.

46

5.2.2.2 Session 2

The aim of the tests in the second session was to examine whether the pronunciation of the

English vowels had changed after the participants had received English instruction. Besides

the production of the English vowels, the Dutch vowels were also tested. Before the tests were

carried out by the participants, all participants were told that, similarly to the first session,

they would be asked to play some language games, the results of which would not affect any

of the participants’ school grades.

The English tasks

In the second session, first the participants’ production of the English vowels was tested in a

repetition and picture-naming task. The words used and the order in which they appeared

were completely identical to the English repetition and picture-naming tasks conducted in

Session 1 (see Section 5.2.2.1). The instructions were given in Dutch, because the English

proficiency level of the participants was still quite low. However, since the participants had at

that moment already received several English classes, their knowledge of the English

vocabulary had slightly improved compared to Session 1.

The Dutch task

After the two tasks for English were conducted, the participants were asked to perform a

Dutch production task. The instructions for this task were given orally in Dutch. Again, the

same words were used in this task as in the Dutch production tasks conducted in the first

session (see Section 5.3.1).

This time, the participants were handed a set of cards with words on them and a set of

cards showing pictures. Each word could be connected with a picture, having some form of

relationship to one another. The participants were instructed to place the cards with the

pictures next to those cards with the matching words. For example, the word ‘midnight’ was

matched with a picture of a ghost [spook]. When doing so, they were asked to name the words

which the pictures represented. As already mentioned above, the stimuli used in this task were

the same as in the first session. In total, 24 stimuli were used, of which 8 contained one of the

vowels which are discussed in the present study (see Table 5.2). In case the participants could

not immediately find the correct term, the word was described to them in Dutch or a Dutch

synonym was given.

47

5.3 Coding and analysis

The vowels in the present study were analysed with the help of the computer program

PRAAT (Boersma & Weenink 2012), which is specially developed for doing phonetics by

computer. In the present study, both the formants and duration were calculated by the use of

PRAAT.

As a first step, each word was separated by putting boundaries roughly at the onset and

end of it. Secondly, the vowels of each word were selected, similarly by putting boundaries

around them. Both the words and their vowels were selected manually. This results in a

waveform with two textgrids, as can be seen in Figure 5.1, which represents the English word

‘pen’.

The duration and formants of each vowel were then measured automatically by

running scripts, developed for PRAAT (Boersma et al. 2012). The scripts indicate the

beginning and end point of the vowels, their duration, and the mean value of each vowel’s

first, second and third formant (F1, F2, F3). In the present study, the duration and F1 and F2 of

both the English and Dutch vowels will be taken into account. As mentioned in section 4.1,

the F1 value gives information on the openness or closeness on the vowel, while the F2 value

gives information on the frontness or backness of the vowel.

Those vowels which were spoken too softly or which had background noise were not

used, because this may affect the formant frequencies. Words in the English picture-naming

which were repeated rather than produced spontaneously tasks were not analysed either.

Figure 5.1. The waveform and textgrid for the word ‘pen’ as produced by Participant 1 in the English

repetition task (hence ‘R’) during the first session

48

5.4 Hypotheses

Based on earlier studies discussed in Chapters 1-4 a number of hypotheses can be formulated.

At first, since this hypothesis may possibly carry implications for the other hypotheses, the

influence of the L1 of the informants on their L2 vowel production will be discussed. The

hypothesis states that the English vowel production of the informants will be influenced by

their L1 both on the level of the formant frequencies and on the level of duration. Because the

informants in this study are children, the second hypothesis concerns the advantage of young

learners over older learners in L2 learning, more specifically in the field of phonology. It is

hypothesized that the vowel production of the participants will not be native-like yet, as they

performed in the experiments at the very onset of learning, despite their relatively young age.

A third hypothesis relates to the effects of instruction on the pronunciation of the informants,

for which they were tested at two different intervals. As seen in Section 5.2, the participants

received only a rather limited amount of instruction between the two sessions, which leads to

the hypothesis that the participants will not show a considerable improvement of their vowel

production at the second time of testing.

Differences and similarities between the L1 and L2

For this study, not only the English vowel productions of the participants were examined, but

also their Dutch vowels in order to be able to study the influence of differences and

similarities between a learner’s L1 and L2. As discussed in Chapter 2, researchers have

proposed opposing ideas on whether similar or dissimilar sounds form greater difficulties for

L2 learners. In this study, the hypothesis of Flege’s SLM (1997) will be followed, stating that

similar sounds are more difficult for L2 learners than dissimilar sounds. The hypothesis,

among others proposed by O’Brien et al. (2010), that new sounds will be easier for younger

learners than for older learners, because the former do not have established their phoneme

system yet, will however not be followed here. It is expected that the informants at the age of

ten will already have established their vowel system fairly well, although intraspeaker

variation is still possible. Rather, it is hypothesized that the new vowels will equally pose a

problem for the present informants, as they may undergo “category assimilation”, which

implies that the informants perceive them as L1 sounds (O’Brien et al. 2010).

With respect to duration, it was proposed that duration is often used by L2 learners for

those vowel contrasts which do not occur in their L1 (see Section 4.2). It is therefore

49

hypothesized that the duration contrasts will be most visible between the front vowels /ɪ/-/ε/-

/æ/, because /æ/ does not occur in the informants’ L1. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that the

English vowels /ɪ/ and /ε/ will be reasonably influenced by the duration of their closest Dutch

equivalents /ɪ/ and /ε/. The vowel /æ/, which does not have an equivalent in Dutch, may be

subject to more production variation. Regarding the two back vowels /ʊ/ and /u:/, it can be

hypothesized that the participants will perceive the contrast between the short vowel /ʊ/ and

the long vowel /u:/ and will accordingly make this contrast in their productions.

Concerning place of articulation, the following hypotheses are proposed (see Section 4.5):

Because the vowel /ɪ/ occurs both in Dutch and in English, it is hypothesized that the

participants will make use of their L1 pronunciation for the production of the English

vowel, although /ɪ/ is pronounced somewhat differently in both languages. In Dutch,

/ɪ/ is produced more back.

A similar hypothesis can be made for /ε/, which also has an equivalent in both

languages which differ slightly in place of articulation, as Dutch /ε/ is more open.

For the production of the new vowel /æ/, it is proposed that the participants will not

notice a difference between /ε/ and /æ/ and will consequently rely on their production

of /ε/ for the pronunciation of /æ/, thereby mispronouncing the vowel, as it should be

produced more open than /ε/.

Lastly, because /ʊ/ nor /u:/ have an identical equivalent in Dutch, it is hypothesized

that the participants will not be able to contrast them (regarding formant frequencies,

not duration) and will produce them similarly to Dutch /u/. Theoretically, Dutch /u/

differs from English /u:/ solely in length, and should therefore not pose a problem

acoustically.

The influence of age

The hypothesis that younger learners perform better in L2 acquisition, because of social,

educational and motivational advantages, is not followed here. Besides age, it was suggested

that other factors may be important for L2 learning too, most significantly the amount of

experience the learner has in his/her L2. Furthermore, most studies which stated that young

learners perform better than late learners examined L2 learners who were immersed in an L2

speaking country (for example, Snow et al. 1978; Munro et al. 1996; Baker et al. 2008). The

informants in the present study, however, have very limited experience in speaking English,

50

as they had received only a small amount of instruction at the time of testing, and are not

immersed in a English-speaking environment.

The influence of age is also of significance concerning the variation in articulation of

the participants, both for their Dutch and English vowels. Because the phoneme system of

children is not firmly fixed yet (see Section 2.2), they may display intraspeaker variation in

their L1, which also has implications for the production of their L2. Since the informants were

all approximately ten years old at the time of testing (i.e. before puberty), it is hypothesized

that the participants will show a small degree of intraspeaker variation in the production of

their Dutch vowels, although not comparable to the variation found in younger children’s

speech. This variation will consequently also cause intraspeaker variation in the production of

their English vowels, especially since the informants’ production is examined at the onset of

L2 learning, which implies that their vowel system is not established yet.

Effects of instruction

In the field of pronunciation instruction, there is no consensus about which approach

generally leads to the best results in accurate L2 phonology, but some attention must be

devoted to pronunciation in instruction in order to find improvements in the learner’s

articulation (Derwing et al. 1998). At the first time of testing, the participants had not

received any English instruction yet. Therefore, they were asked to perform the same tasks at

a second interval to examine whether their production of the English vowels had benefited

from the instruction they had received. However, most attention in the lessons was devoted to

vocabulary and grammar and the amount of instruction received was very limited (see Section

5.2. This leads to the hypothesis that in general for the present participants no effects of

instruction will be found on their L2 vowel production. However, it should be remarked that,

since the knowledge of vocabulary of the participants had increased between the two sessions,

their awareness of the L2 may have developed too. A greater awareness of the informants of

the differences between Dutch and English would lead to a more accurate pronunciation.

However, this last hypothesis is formulated with caution, since the proficiency of English of

the informants was still relatively low at the second session.

51

Chapter 6. Results

This section presents the results obtained from the experiments as discussed in Chapter 5.

First the results from the Dutch tasks will be presented in Section 6.1, followed by the results

from the English tasks in Section 6.2. The discussion of the English tasks is divided according

to the hypotheses. All relevant vowels were analysed with the use of PRAAT (Boersma et al.

2012).

All tables presented show the average (-Outliers) values and standard deviation (-

Outliers) values. These values are based on the mean values of the vowels’ F1, F2 and

duration, and their standard deviations. The standard deviations revealed that the productions

of the participants showed great variation, especially in the F2 values, which may be due to

measurement errors or by accidental untypical productions by the participants which led to

outlying values. As it is essential for the comparison with the English formant values to find

the most representative results, a second average was calculated to reduce the influence of

potential uncharacteristic values on the results. In this case, all F1 and F2 values which were

greater or smaller than 1.5 standard deviations from the average value were omitted. In the

tables, the standard deviation (-Outliers) values will be placed between brackets. Only these

last results will be used in the presentation of the results for both the Dutch and English tasks.

6.1 Dutch

As discussed in Section 2.2, the L1 plays a significant role in the production of an L2, which

led to the hypothesis in this study that the participants’ English vowel productions will be

influenced by their Dutch vowel production. Therefore, the participants in this experiment

were asked to perform two Dutch picture-naming tasks. The results of these tasks are used to

compare the influence of the L1 on the L2 in the present study. Additionally, it should also be

noted that, since the L1 accent of the participants is regionally influenced, these results may

lead to more accurate observations than data retrieved from existing literature (see Section

4.4).

52

1. Formant frequencies

Table 6.1 shows the average (-Outliers) and standard deviation (-Outliers) values of the F1 and

F2 frequencies of the Dutch vowels from Session 1.

Table 6.1. Formants for the Dutch spread vowel productions recorded during Session 1 (in Hz)

/ɪ/ /ɛ/ /u/ /y/

F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2

Average

531

(33)

1777

(543)

646

(85)

1769

(197)

398

(70)

806

(184)

405

(80)

2039

(371)

According to these results, the F1 values show less variation in production than the F2 values

of the participants, implying that the F1 frequencies are more stable in the productions of the

informants. The F1 values seem to represent the typical productions relatively well, as the

standard deviation values are rather low. The F2 values, on the other hand, still display rather

high standard deviation values, even after the exclusion of the outlying values. The high

standard deviations denote that there is much variation found in the informant’s productions.

A possible explanation for why the F2 values on average show higher variation than the F1

values may be linked to the articulatory vowel space in which the vowels are produced. The

F1 values for the Dutch vowels of the first session range from 398 Hz (for /ʊ/) to 646 Hz (for

/ε/), while the F2 values range from 806 Hz (for /u/) to 2039 Hz (for /y/). This might lead to a

smaller chance of overlap between the vowels concerning fronting than height, which may

accordingly allow more variation in the F2 values.

These values indicate that the highest, and therefore most closed, vowels of the

informants are /u/ and /y/, whose F1 values do not differ significantly. Of the two spread

vowels /ɪ/ and /ε/, the highest vowels is /ɪ/, as was expected. With the respect to the F2 values,

/y/ is produced most front, followed by /ɪ/ and /ε/ who have almost equal results. Most

striking are the F2 high standard deviation values of particularly /ɪ/ and /y/.

In order to be able to provide a more visual representation of the spectral quality of the

vowels, the formant frequency values can be placed into a graph. Figure 6.1 displays the mean

values of the four Dutch vowels discussed in the present study, as produced by the

participants during Session 1, and also includes the formant frequency values of speakers with

an Antwerp accent (taken from Verhoeven & Van Bael 2002), as discussed in section 4.4, for

53

comparison. Although Verhoeven et al. separated the data of the male and female speakers, an

average result of both groups is used here.

Figure 6.1. The formant values for the Dutch vowels produced by the participants during Session 1

and formant values retrieved from Verhoeven & Van Bael (2002)

Figure 6.1 reveals that the average (-Outliers) values of the participants in this study and the

average values retrieved from the study of Verhoeven et al. (2002) are considerably different.

The difference in vowel productions is most apparent in the comparison of the formant values

of the vowels /ɪ/ and /u/. A main reason for this variation may be the difference in age of the

informants of the present study and the informants of the study of Verhoeven et al., as age

influences the size and the shape of the vocal tract and articulators, which influence the nature

of the sound productions (Clarke et al. 1995). Another explanation may be the differences in

accent between the two groups, since Mol, where the informants live, is not located in the

centre of the province of Antwerp. Therefore, the data concerning the formant frequencies

from Verhoeven et al. (2002) will not be further used in the discussion on the influence of the

L1 on the L2, as these data are not relevant for the participants in the present study.

Furthermore, Figure 6.1 shows that for the current participants the F2 values of the

vowels /ɪ/ and /ε/ are relatively similar, both pronounced reasonably front, but that these

vowels contrast in their F1 values, with /ɪ/ produced higher. For /u/ and /y/, on the other hand,

whereas the F1 values are approximately identical, the F2 values differ greatly, with /y/ as the

most fronted vowel and /u/ as the most backed vowel in this study for these speakers.

200

400

600

800

5001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Participants /ɪ/ Participants /ɛ/ Participants /u/ Participants /y/

Literature /ɪ/ Literature /ɛ/ Literature /u/ Literature /y/

54

To examine whether these data are accurate, the participants also performed a Dutch picture-

naming task during the second session. Of these results again the average (-Outliers) and

standard deviation values will be presented (see Table 6.2).

Table 6.2. Formants for the Dutch vowel productions recorded during Session 2 (in Hz)

/ɪ/ /ε/ /u/ /y/

F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2

Average

542

(46)

1845

(308)

682

(96)

1610

(246)

443

(53)

998

(148)

366

(68)

1889

(386)

As expected, the formant values from the second session are not completely identical to those

of the first session, but some similarities can be found. First of all, the F2 values show greater

variety than the F1 values. Secondly, the mean F2 value of /u/ is the lowest, while the mean F2

value of /y/ is the highest. Thirdly, the mean F1 values of /ɪ/ and /ε/ are approximately the

same to those of Session 1. Different, however, are the mean F2 values of these two vowels.

Whereas these vowels hardly differed from each other in their F2 values in the first session,

they show a greater contrast in the second session. The F2 values for /ɪ/ are higher compared

to those of the first session, which accordingly causes the F2 values of /ɪ/ and /y/ to be more

similar. Here too the average formant values can be placed into a graph to provide a more

visual representation of the results.

Figure 6.2. The formant values for the Dutch vowels produced by the participants during Session 2

Figure 6.2 supports the findings which were deduced from the results presented in Table 6.2.

However, most importantly, the same production tendencies of the first session (see Figure

6.1) are also represented in this graph. The highest and most fronted vowel is /y/, whereas the

200

400

600

800

5001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Participants /ɪ/ Participants /ε/ Participants /u/ Participants /y/

55

most backed vowel is /u/ and the lowest vowel is /ε/. The vowel /ɪ/ takes in a middle position

between /y/ and /ε/. These results indicate that the vowel productions of the informants are

relatively consistent.

2. Duration

Next to the formant frequencies of the vowels, the duration of the Dutch vowels of the

participants was measured, to examine to what extent the informants’ L1 vowels influence the

duration of the informants’ L2 vowels. The mean values and standard deviations (between

brackets) are presented in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3. Duration of the Dutch vowels recorded during Session 1 (in ms)

/ɪ/ /ε/ /u/ /y/

Average 113

(28)

126

(30)

117

(39)

184

(45)

One of the most striking features of the results presented above is that the standard deviation

for all vowels is quite small. These findings suggest that the production of the vowels is fairly

consistent and similar between the different informants regarding duration. Figure 6.3

presents these average duration values of each vowel as produced by the participants during

Session 1 in a bar graph.

Figure 6.3. The average duration of the Dutch vowels recorded during Session 1 (in ms)

Figure 6.6 clearly shows that the vowel /y/ has the longest duration of the selected vowel

group, thereby visibly contrasting with the vowel /u/. Both these vowels will be used in the

comparison with the English back vowels /ʊ/ and /u:/. Figure 6.6 further indicates that /ε/ has

0 50 100 150 200

(in ms)

/ɪ/

/ε/

/u/

/y/

56

a longer pronunciation than /ɪ/, both of which are short vowels in Dutch. It would, however,

be interesting to examine if this tendency holds for each individual participant, since the

difference in length between these two vowels is relatively small. The values per participant

are therefore included in the appendices (see Tables 8.3 and 8.4). They show that there is

indeed some variation in duration between these vowels. In addition, it may be noted that the

informants in the study of Verhoeven et al. (2002) display a longer pronunciation for /ɪ/,

instead of /ε/ (see Section 4.4).

Furthermore, the duration values as measured during the first session can also be

compared to those measured during the second session, to examine whether the findings are

accurate and whether the participants display a consistency in their pronunciation. Table 6.4

presents the average (-Outliers) and standard deviation (-Outliers) values of the duration of

these vowels.

Table 6.4. Duration of the Dutch vowels recorded during Session 2 (in ms)

/ɪ/ /ε/ /u/ /y/

Average 122

(29)

150

(24)

134

(16)

223

(37)

In relation to the values retrieved during the first session, these data do not show much

variation, as the standard deviations are relatively small. Striking is that, compared to the first

session, the pronunciation of the vowels appears to be longer here, leading to a higher average

result for each vowel. Most important for the comparison with the English vowels, however,

is the question whether the average values of the first session correspond to those of the

second session, with respect to the relative contrast in duration between the vowels.

Therefore, the values are again placed into a bar graph (see Figure 6.4).

Figure 6.4. The average duration for the Dutch vowels recorded during Session 2 (in ms)

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

/ɪ/

/ε/

/u/

/y/

57

As can be clearly seen from Figure 6.4, the mean values of the vowels retrieved during the

second session show a greater contrast from each other than those recorded during the first

session, especially for /ɪ/, /ε/ and /u/. Nevertheless, the general tendencies found in the first

session can again be found here. Of importance for the present discussion is the confirmation

of the finding that the informants seem to produce /ε/ with a longer duration than /ɪ/.

Therefore, as was already proposed in the presentation of the results of the formant

frequencies, the data of the participants in the study of Verhoeven et al. (2002) do not hold for

the participants in this study and will consequently not be used.

6.2 English

The participants’ productions of their L1 vowels, as presented in the previous section, were

examined in order to compare them with the productions of their English vowels. Therefore,

the participants also performed two English production tasks during the first and second

session. This section will first compare the results from the repetition and picture-naming

task, followed by a comparison of the vowels of the first and second session. Thirdly, the

amount of variation found in the informants’ productions will be presented. Finally, formant

and duration values of native speakers will be provided for comparison. In each part, first the

results of the formant values will be presented and then the results of the vowels’ duration.

In order to provide a visual depiction of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the

vowels, the results will be presented in graphs, using the mean values from the repetition and

picture-naming tasks of the first and second session, which are displayed in Table 6.5 for the

formant frequency values and Table 6.6 for duration. In the presentation of the duration

results, the data of the repetition and picture-naming task were taken together, because it was

found that the difference in results between these tasks was not statistically significant (p >

0.5).

58

Table 6.5. The formant values of the English repetition (= Rep.) and picture-naming (= P.N.) task in

the first and second session (in Hz)

/ɪ/ /ε/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2

Rep. Session 1 526

(43)

1742

(676)

695

(93)

1851

(448)

738

(102)

1812

(280)

528

(49)

1100

(177)

491

(68)

956

(303)

P.N. Session 1 538

(26)

2371

(227)

628

(83)

1879

(297)

658

(65)

2004

(96)

405

(78)

963

(228)

384

(30)

776

(75)

Rep. Session 2 516

(38)

2179

(543)

725

(72)

1860

(324)

753

(81)

1906

(146)

535

(51)

1270

(240)

448

(42)

1026

(172)

P.N. Session 2 534

(52)

2212

(704)

730

(52)

1716

(347)

709

(67)

1685

(420)

474

(55)

1011

(185)

436

(61)

866

(269)

Table 6.6. The duration values in the first and second session (in Hz)

/ɪ/ /ε/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

Session 1 146

(48)

186

(50)

207

(73)

150

(48)

208

(37)

Session 2 149

(31)

207

(45)

198

(33)

132

(19)

219

(49)

6.2.1 Repetition vs. picture-naming task

The results from the repetition and picture-naming tasks will be compared, because repetition

tasks where an informant repeats the stimuli after a native speaker “may produce better-than-

normal output by closely imitating the model voice” (Munro 2008: 202). In this part only the

acoustical quality of the vowel productions by the informants will be discussed, as the results

for duration were taken together. Figure 6.5 presents the results from both tasks of the first

session.

59

Figure 6.5. The vowels produced during the first session

(Rep. = Repetition task; P.N. = Picture-naming task)

With respect to the front vowels, Figure 6.5 shows that the productions of /ε/ and /æ/ hardly

differ in the repetition task from the picture-naming task. Moreover, it seems that these two

vowels are not contrasted from one another, but rather that the informants produce them as if

they were the same vowel. However, more striking are the results for /ɪ/. Although the

informants show that they are able to contrast this vowel from /ε/ and /æ/, they produce the

vowel rather differently in both tasks. Whereas the informants produced /ɪ/ very back in the

repetition task, the vowel becomes very front in the picture-naming task. Taken together with

the fairly high standard deviations for the F2 values of this vowel, as presented in Table 6.5, it

appears that the informants show a rather inconsistent production for /ɪ/, with respect to its

fronting.

The formant frequencies of the back vowels seem to follow a quite regular pattern in

the repetition and picture-naming tasks. In both cases, the vowel /ʊ/ is produced relatively

more front and lower than /u:/, although the absolute values of the repetition and picture-

naming task differ from each other. However, these results indicate that the informants are

able to contrast between /ʊ/ and /u:/, both when repeating an L1 English speaker in the

repetition task and independently in the picture-naming task.

To be able to examine whether the findings from the first session are typical of the

informants’ production, the results from the second session are presented too (see Figure 6.6).

200

400

600

800

5001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Rep. /ɪ/ Rep. /ε/ Rep. /æ/ Rep. /ʊ/ Rep. /u:/

P.N./ɪ/ P.N. /ε/ P.N. /æ/ P.N./ʊ/ P.N./u:/

60

Figure 6.6. The vowels produced during the second session

(Rep. = Repetition task; P.N. = Picture-naming task)

When comparing both tasks, the values for /ɪ/, as presented in Figure 6.6, seem to be

relatively regular, as the informants produced this vowel virtually identical in both tasks. The

vowel /ɪ/ is also again clearly contrasted from /ε/ and /æ/. Striking in these results is that the

values of /ε/ and /æ/ lie fairly close to each other in the two tasks, suggesting that these

vowels influence each other’s production. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that their relation to

one another seems similar in both separate tasks: /ε/ is in both cases produced lower and more

front. The absolute values of both vowels differ, however, between the repetition and picture-

naming tasks, as the values of the picture-naming tasks are lower for all front vowels.

As is shown in Figure 6.6, the contrast between /ʊ/ and /u:/ appears to be relatively

similar in both tasks: /ʊ/ is on average produced more front and lower than /u:/ in both

session. This finding would suggest that the participants do maintain a contrast between these

two vowels, as the same observation was made in the results of the first session for the back

vowels.

Summary

The comparison of the results from the repetition and picture-naming task indicates that the

informants’ back vowels show most variation. In both sessions, the pronunciation of the back

vowels differs in the repetition and picture-naming task, although the relative contrast

between the vowels seems to be maintained, which may indicate that the informants are aware

that there is a contrast between these two vowels, but do not have a fixed production yet.

200

400

600

800

5001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Rep. /ɪ/ Rep. /ε/ Rep. /æ/ Rep. /ʊ/ Rep. /u:/

P.N./ɪ/ P.N./ε/ P.N. /æ/ P.N./ʊ/ P.N. /u:/

61

The vowels /ε/ and /æ/ were in both tasks in both sessions produced very similarly,

hardly showing any contrast, implying that the informants are not able to produce any

acoustical contrast. In the first session, the informants produced /ɪ/ very differently in both

tasks, as opposed to the second session, where the mean values of both tasks were virtually

identical, which indicates that the informants are in fact able to produce this vowel fairly

consistently.

6.2.2 Pre-instruction vs. post-instruction vowels

To examine whether the vowel productions of the informants had improved after having

received some English instruction, the mean vowel values of the first and second session will

be compared.

1. Formant frequencies

For clarity, the front and back vowels will be presented separately in this part. Figure 6.7

displays the formant values of the front vowels of both tasks.

Figure 6.7. The front vowels produced during the first and second session

(Rep. = repetition task; P.N. = picture-naming task)

Figure 6.7 shows that the formant values of the vowels produced in Session 2 provide a rather

different image than the formant values of the Session 1. First of all, the irregular production

of /ɪ/ in the first session, does not occur in the second session, as the informants produce this

400

600

800

150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 1

Rep. /ɪ/ Rep. /ε/ Rep. /æ/

P.N. /ɪ/ P.N. /ε/ P.N. /æ/

400

600

800

150020002500F

1 (

in H

z)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 2

Rep. /ɪ/ Rep. /ε/ Rep. /æ/

P.N. /ɪ/ P.N. /ε/ P.N. /æ/

62

vowel almost identically in both tasks. In both sessions, /ε/ and /æ/ seem to be produced quite

similarly by the informants in both tasks, although their relative relations to one another differ

slightly. In the picture-naming task of the first session /ε/ and /æ/ are produced more front

than in the repetition task, while they are produced more back in the picture-naming task of

the second session. This difference may, however, not be very significant, as on average

hardly any contrast is made between these vowels.

Figure 6.8 presents the formant values of the back vowels from both tasks.

Figure 6.8. The back vowels produced during the first and second session

(Rep. = repetition task; P.N. = picture-naming task)

It was suggested in Section 6.2.1 that the informants contrasted /ʊ/ and /u:/ fairly regularly in

both tasks in both sessions. Figure 6.8, however, also shows that the informants do not

contrast these vowels similarly in the first and second session. In both sessions, /ʊ/ is

produced more open and front than /u:/ in both tasks, but while /ʊ/ is produced more closed in

the picture-naming task than /u:/ in the repetition task in the first session, it is produced

slightly more open in the picture-naming task than /u:/ in the repetition task of the second

session. It may be even remarked that in the second session there is virtually no contrast

between the formant values of /u:/ in the repetition task and the formant values of /ʊ/ in the

picture-naming task. Furthermore, all values from the second session seem to be produced

more front than those from the first session.

200

400

600

50010001500F

1 (

in H

z)

F2 (in Hz)

The first session

Rep. /ʊ/ Rep /u:/ P.N. /ʊ/ P.N. /u:/

200

400

600

50010001500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

The second session

Rep. /ʊ/ Rep. /u:/ P.N. /ʊ/ P.N. /u:/

63

2. Duration

Besides formant frequencies, the duration of the English vowels was measured to examine

whether the child L2 learners reached native-like values for duration and whether the vowels’

duration was influenced by the participants’ L1. The mean duration values from Session 1 and

2 for both the front and back vowels are displayed in Figure 6.9.

Figure 6.9. The average duration for the English vowels in the first and second session (in ms)

According to 6.11, the participants seem to produce the vowels /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ and the vowels /æ/

and /u:/ almost equally long in the first session, barely displaying any contrast in length of

production. The vowel /ε/ falls in between these two groups. The results from the second

session, however, show rather different values for duration. The vowel /u:/ is produced

considerably longer than /æ/ in the second session, while these two vowels had an almost

equal length in the first session. A similar tendency occurs between /ɪ/ and /ʊ/, with /ɪ/ being

produced longer in Session 2. Also noteworthy is that /ε/ has a somewhat longer duration than

/æ/ here, as opposed to Session 1. It appears that the informants’ productions of the front

vowels differ more from each other in the first and second session than their back vowel

productions, which are more stable throughout both sessions.

3. Summary

The comparison of the first and second session revealed that the informants’ pronunciation

did not differ significantly after having received instruction. Particularly the formant

frequency values seemed rather similar between the two sessions, with some exceptions, such

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

The first session

/ɪ/ /ε/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

The second session

/ɪ/ /ε/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

64

as the production of /ɪ/ in the repetition tasks. With respect to duration, there seemed to be

more difference between the first and second session, especially in the production of the front

vowels. Most striking was the finding that while /æ/ had a longer duration than /ε/ in the first

session, it was produced shorter than /ε/ in the second session.

6.2.3 Intra- and interspeaking variation

As the informants are young learners at the onset of L2 acquisition, it is likely that their

productions will show variation. Both the productions of the same informant may vary (i.e.

intraspeaker variation) and the productions between all informants (i.e., interspeaker

variation). The variation may be examined through the standard deviation values, which were

already presented in Table 6.5 for the formant frequencies and in Table 6.6 for duration.

1. Formant frequencies

The standard deviations, which were first presented in Table 6.5, are repeated here in Table

6.7.

Table 6.7. The standard deviation (-Outliers) values of the formant frequencies of the English

repetition (= Rep.) and picture-naming (= P.N.) task in the first and second session (in Hz)

/ɪ/ /ε/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2

Rep. Session 1 43 676 93 448 102 280 49 177 68 303

P.N. Session 1 26 227 83 297 65 96 78 228 30 75

Rep. Session 2 38 543 72 324 81 146 51 240 42 172

P.N. Session 2 52 704 52 347 67 420 55 185 61 269

Similarly to the results of the Dutch vowels, the standard deviations are quite high, as can be

seen in Table 6.7. In general, the standard deviation values of the F1 are smaller than those of

the F2, implying that the informants’ productions vary more in terms of frontness or backness

than in vowel height. This may suggest that the informants are relatively aware of how high or

low they should pronounce a vowel, but are less sure on the vowels’ frontness or backness.

There seems to be no significant difference between the standard deviations from the

first and second session, and between the standard deviations of the repetition and picture-

65

naming tasks, which indicates that the informants’ productions are not influenced by repeating

an L1-model or by instruction with respect to variation. Striking in this case is that the lowest

overall standard deviations are found for the picture-naming task of the first session, implying

that the informants’ vowel productions seem to have varied least when they were not

influenced by the productions of a native speaker or by L2 instruction. However, it should be

remarked there were fewer data for this picture-naming task, as the participants did not readily

remember all the words asked (see Table 8.12 in the Appendices).

2. Duration

The values given in Table 6.8 were first displayed in Table 6.6, and present the standard

deviation values for duration, taking together the results from the repetition and picture-

naming tasks.

Table 6.8. The standard deviation (-Outliers) values of duration (in ms)

/ɪ/ /ε/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

Session 1 48 50 73 48 37

Session 2 31 45 33 19 49

As opposed to the values of the formant frequencies which did not show any significant

difference between the first and second session, it appears that there is less variation in the

second session than in the first session regarding duration, with the exception of /u:/. Overall,

in both sessions, the variation seems to be relatively small, implying that the informants have

a rather stable L2 production with respect to duration.

This finding may be explained by the assumption that it is likely that the informants do

not have any problems in distinguishing between the general groups of checked and free

vowels, and will accordingly pronounce the vowels either short or long. It is therefore more

interesting to examine whether the informants are able to contrast the vowels accurately from

one another in terms of duration, as was discussed in Section 6.2.2.

6.2.4 Native speakers

To compare the results of the child L2 learners in the present study with the average

productions of adult L1 speakers, it would be interesting to also have a visual representation

66

of the formant values and duration of native speakers of English. The values used were

already discussed in Section 4.3.

1. Formant frequencies

Figure 6.10 presents the formant values of native speakers of American English and RP. The

exact values were presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 (see Section 4.3).

Figure 6.10. Formant values of the vowels for American English (data taken from Hillenbrand et al.

1995) and RP (data taken from Hawkins & Midgley 2005)

The formant values of /ɪ/ and /ε/, as presented in Figure 6.10, show a regular pattern for both

American English and RP, with the American English vowel in both cases being more fronted

and lower than the RP production. Naturally, because the difference in accent, the American

English and RP speakers do not produce the vowels with the same acoustic values, but in the

productions of both the American English speakers and the speakers of RP /ɪ/ is more fronted

and produced higher than /ε/. Interesting for this study, however, is the production of /æ/,

which has a different place of articulation in these two accents. Whereas the speakers of

American English produce this vowel roughly in between the productions of /ɪ/ and /ε/, the

speakers of RP produce /æ/ rather backed and lower than the other two front vowels. In the

vowel diagram presented in Section 4.3, the American English production is followed, as /æ/

is produced lower and slightly more backed than /ε/ (Collins et al. 2003).

As opposed to the formant frequencies of the front vowels, the values of the back

vowels seem to follow a more irregular pattern between the different accents of English. Most

200

400

600

800

1000

10001500200025003000

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz) American English /ɪ/

American English /ε/

American English /æ/

American English /ʊ/

American English /u:/

RP /ɪ/

RP /ε/

RP /æ/

RP /ʊ/

RP /u:/

67

notable in Figure 6.10 is the articulation of /u:/ of the speakers of RP, which is relatively high

and more front compared to the other back vowels here. However, the data used here are

those of the age group of 20-25 years old and when looking to the mean formant frequencies

of the older age groups, it appears that the older the participants are, the lower the F2 values of

/u:/ become, indicating that they are produced more backed. The same trend is also found for

the F2 values of /ʊ/ for the speakers of RP (Hawkins et al. 2005: 195). Similar to the findings

of the front vowels is that the RP back vowels are on average produced higher than the

American English vowels.

2. Duration

For duration, only data of speakers of American English will be used, as the study of

Hawkings et al. (2005) did not present any duration values for the native speakers of RP.

These results are displayed in Figure 6.11. The exact values were presented in Table 4.1 (see

Section 4.3).

Figure 6.11. The average duration for the English vowels produced by native speakers of American

English (in ms) (data taken from Hillenbrand et al. 1995)

Most striking in Figure 6.11 is that the speakers of American English have the longest

duration for /æ/, which is produced noticeably longer than the long vowel /u:/. The shortest

vowel, although shortly followed by /ɪ/ and /ʊ/, is /ε/, which does not correspond to the results

of the productions of the participants in the present study. Similar to the findings of the

participants is that the vowels /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ differ from each other only minimally.

0 100 200 300 400

(in ms)

/ɪ/

/ε/

/æ/

/ʊ/

/u:/

68

Chapter 7. Discussion

In this chapter the findings of the previous chapter will be discussed in relation to the

proposed hypotheses discussed in Chapter 5. The hypotheses concerned the role of the L1,

age and instruction on the vowel production of young Dutch-speaking learners of English.

Firstly, it was suggested that the L1 of the informants will influence the formant frequencies

and duration of the vowels discussed. The degree of influence depends on the similarity

between the two languages. The second hypothesis stated that although the informants are

young learners, their pronunciation will not necessarily be native-like. However, the young

age of the informants will affect the amount of variation in their productions. Lastly, it was

hypothesized that the vowel production of the informants will not have visibly improved

through the instruction received.

This chapter will be divided according to these three hypotheses. For the hypothesis on

the influence of the L1, the results from the Dutch and English tasks will be taken together for

the discussion, to examine whether or not the predicted vowel pronunciation difficulties were

found in these participants. For the hypothesis on the role of age, the focus will mainly be on

inter- and intraspeaker variation. The findings from these discussions will subsequently be

used for the discussion of the hypothesis on the effects of instruction, where the changes in

vowel production which arose between the first and second session of data collection will be

discussed.

7.1 Differences and similarities between the L1 and L2

One of the aims of this study is to examine if and how the L1 influences the production of the

foreign sounds of a learner’s L2. It was hypothesized, based on Flege’s SLM (1997), that

those L2 vowels which are non-native, but which nevertheless have a close equivalent in the

L1 would form the greatest pronunciation difficulties for the L1 learners. Regarding the

English vowels examined in this research paper, this implies that the informants’ production

of the front vowel /æ/ and the back vowel /ʊ/ will be most problematic. For /æ/, it was

suggested that both its formant frequencies and duration would be influenced by the

pronunciation of the Dutch vowel /ε/. Regarding /ʊ/, it was proposed that this vowel would be

produced similarly to /u:/, and that both these back vowels would be influenced by either the

Dutch vowel /u/ or, albeit less likely, /y/. Finally, it was hypothesized that the two English

69

front vowels /ɪ/ and /ε/ would not be very problematic for the informants in that they would be

able to contrast these two vowels sufficiently, although it was also expected that their

pronunciation would show influence of their L1.

In this section, the productions of the Dutch vowels by the informants will be

compared to those of the English vowels, as presented in Chapter 6. For clarity, the front and

back vowels will be separated into two different parts. First, the formant frequencies and

duration of the Dutch and English front vowels will be compared, followed by the formant

frequencies and duration of the Dutch and English back vowels. The first and second session

will be presented separately too, although they will be discussed together, as the discussion of

the differences between these two sessions is provided in Section 7.3.

7.1.1 The front vowels

1. Formant frequencies

The results of the Dutch tasks indicated that the informants clearly contrasted the vowels /ɪ/

and /ε/ from each other in terms of F1. Both in the first and second session /ɪ/ was produced

higher than /ε/. The contrast in F2 was not as obvious between these two vowels in the first

session, but the results from the second session displayed a greater difference in

pronunciation, with /ɪ/ produced more front than /ε/ (see Table 6.5).

The clear contrast made by the informants between these two Dutch vowels is

visualized in Figure 7.1, which shows every individual vowel production by the informants

during the Dutch tasks.

70

Figure 7.1. The Dutch formant values of Session 1 and 2 by the participants

Although Figure 7.1 shows that some productions of the two vowels partly overlap, the

overall picture indicates that the informants generally are able to maintain a contrast between

these two vowels in their native language. Besides some outlying values, which can be

ascribed to accidental faulty articulations or calculation errors, the vowel /ɪ/ is in general

produced higher than /ε/ by the informants during these two sessions. This may lead to the

conclusion that concerning the informants’ L1, their vowel system already seems reasonably

well established in that they are able to distinguish between two closely pronounced vowels,

according to a regular pattern, which may also carry consequences for the pronunciation of

their L2 vowels.

As it is now ascertained that the informants contrast their L1 front vowels, it seems

also likely that they will be able to distinguish between the English vowels /ɪ/ and /ε/, as it is

hypothesized that the Dutch equivalent vowels will influence their English pronunciation. The

pronunciation of the new English vowel /æ/ will, however, most likely be influenced by the

pronunciation of the Dutch vowel /ε/, as already proposed in Section 5.5.

The mean formant values of the English vowels of the first session (see Table 6.5)

indicated that on average in both tasks /ɪ/ seems to be produced higher than /ε/ and /æ/,

similarly to its Dutch equivalent production. The most consistent production for both the F1

and F2 is found for /ε/, while /æ/ shows most variation between the two tasks. Combined with

the finding that the participants’ L1 front vowel pronunciation seems quite consistent, these

results may indicate that the participants base their pronunciation of the L2 vowels on their

0

200

400

600

800

1000

5001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 1

/ɪ/ /ε/

0

200

400

600

800

1000

5001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 2

/ɪ/ /ε/

71

pronunciation of their L1 vowels, which enables them to have a more consistent vowel

production for those vowels which have an equivalent in their L1. Striking in this case then is

the difference in F2 value for /ɪ/ between the repetition and picture-naming task. However, as

discussed in Chapter 6, the F2 values for all the informants’ productions, including their Dutch

productions, are subject to wide variation. In order to ensure that these suggestions are

accurate, all individual vowel productions by the participants made in the first session were

placed into a graph (see Figure 7.2).

Figure 7.2. The formant values of the English front vowels by the participants

As can be seen in Figure 7.2, the hypotheses made concerning the production of the three

English front vowels seems to be confirmed in the case of the informants in this study. The

production of /ɪ/ is rather high and front in both the repetition and picture-naming task, similar

to the informants’ Dutch productions of /ɪ/, and also in line with the native speakers’

productions (see Figure 6.9). The same conclusions can be drawn for the productions of the

English vowel /ε/, which is also produced similarly to the informants’ Dutch /ε/, and is

consistent with the native speakers’ pronunciation, although here there seems to be a slight

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

3008001300180023002800

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 1

Repetition task /ɪ/ Repetition task /ε/ Repetition task /æ/

Picture-naming task /ɪ/ Picture-naming task /ε/ Picture-naming task /æ/

72

difference in pronunciation of the vowel between the repetition and picture-naming task. As

was predicted, the pronunciation of /æ/ by the participants seems to overlap almost

completely with the pronunciation of /ε/, which supports the hypothesis that the informants

are not able to produce a contrast between /ε/ and /æ/, as this contrast does not occur in their

L1. According to Collins et al. (2003), /æ/ in English should be produced lower and slightly

more backed than /ε/.10

Remarkable for all three vowels is that they have relatively many

outlying productions. This may be due to the fact that the informants are beginning learners,

tested at the onset of learning, but this observation may also be due to calculation errors or

mispronunciations, which will be further discussed in Section 7.2.

Now focusing on the second session, the results showed that the formant frequencies

of /ɪ/ and /ε/ were quite consistent, with the F2 values of /ε/ showing slight variation (see

Table 6.5). Also the F1 values of /æ/ seemed constant between the two tasks, while the F2

values again are more varied. It is generally suggested that informants’ pronunciations may be

positively influenced in a repetition task by the speaker model, thereby giving better, but

consequently less representative results (Munro 2008). Therefore, it is a bit surprising here

that the F2 values of /æ/ are higher than /ε/ in the repetition task, implying that they are

produced more front, while /æ/ is generally produced more back than /ε/ by native speakers

(Collins et al. 2003). In the picture-naming task, on the other hand, the contrast seems to be

produced more accurately.

The individual productions of the repetition and picture-naming task of the second

session by the participants were also placed into a graph to offer a better picture on whether

the participants make a distinction in the production of the three English front vowels (see

Figure 7.3).

10

Note that this suggestion is consistent with the mean values of the native speakers of American English

(Hillenbrand et al. 1995), but not with the mean values of the native speakers of RP (Hawkins et al. 2005), who

produce /æ/ in between /ɪ/ and /ε/ (see Figure 6.10).

73

Figure 7.3. The formant values of the English front vowels by the participants

Looking at the results of the repetition task, the informants make a rather obvious contrast in

their productions of /ɪ/ and /ε/, leading to further support for the hypothesis that these two

vowels do not pose a problem for Dutch-speaking learners of English. Concerning /æ/, there

again seems to be overlap with /ε/, but there also seem to be some more accurate productions

here, where /æ/ is produced a bit lower, thus differing from /ε/. The results for /ε/ and /æ/ for

the picture-naming task, on the other hand, clearly show that the informants are not able to

contrast these two vowels, as their productions in this case are virtually identical. Between the

productions of /ɪ/ and /ε/ then, the contrast again appears to be maintained by the informants.

The slight difference in pronunciation of /æ/ between the repetition and picture-naming tasks

supports the suggestion by Munro (2008) that speaking the L2 after a model generally leads to

better results by the L2 learners.

As the results from both the first and second session indicate that the pronunciation of

the English vowel /æ/ is problematic for the informants in the present study in that they are

not able to distinguish between /ε/ and /æ/, it may be interesting to examine to what extent the

Dutch vowels influence the production of /æ/. The results from the English repetition and

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

3008001300180023002800

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 2

Repetition task /ɪ/ Repetition task /ε/ Repetition task /æ/

Picture-naming task /ɪ/ Picture-naming task /ε/ Picture-naming task /æ/

74

picture-naming task for /æ/ and the results of the Dutch task for both /ɪ/ and /ε/ were therefore

placed into a graph (see Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4. The formant values of /æ/ of the first and second session and the formant values of Dutch

/ɪ/ and /ε/ by the informants

In general, there seems to be little overlap between Dutch /ɪ/ and English /æ/, implying that

the informants do not confuse between these two vowels in their productions. On the other

hand, when comparing the values of Dutch /ε/ and English /æ/, it can be concluded that the

informants consider /æ/ almost as a complete equivalent to Dutch /ε/, as their values partly

cover each other, although it may be also noted that in some cases the informants seem to

produce Dutch /ε/ slightly more backed than /æ/, indicating that their productions are not

entirely identical. Since many productions of /ε/ and /æ/ do nevertheless overlap each other,

the back productions of /ε/ may be considered as accidental or untypical productions of the

informants.

2. Duration

For the discussion of the results of the vowels’ duration, the values as presented in Table 4.1

for the native speakers, and the average (-Outliers) values as presented in Tables 6.3 and 6.4

for the results of the Dutch tasks, and Table 6.6 for the results of the English tasks will be

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

05001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 1 /æ/

Repetition task English /æ/

Picture-naming task English /æ/

Dutch /ɪ/

Dutch /ε/

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

05001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 2 /æ/

Repetition task English /æ/Picture-naming task English /æ/

Dutch /ɪ/ Dutch /ε/

75

used (see Figure 7.5). It was remarked in Chapter 6 that the informants’ English vowel

productions seemed rather inconsistent, displaying different results at both sessions, which did

neither seem to correlate directly with their Dutch productions or with the productions of the

native speakers of English. This irregularity is, however, typical of early L2 speech. Similarly

to the formant frequencies, it was hypothesized that the informants would rely on their Dutch

vowel system for the production of the English vowels, meaning that /ɪ/ and /ε/ would be

similar in length to their Dutch equivalents, and the duration of /æ/ would be similar to /ε/.

Figure 7.5. The duration of the L1 Dutch children’s English vowels of the first session compared to

the results of the Dutch vowels (left) and the results of the native speakers (data taken from

Hillenbrand et al., 1995) (right) (in ms)

When comparing the Dutch and English vowel productions of the informants, it becomes

clear that the informants tend to produce the English vowels longer than their Dutch

equivalents. This finding could be linked to the prediction that L2 learners will often make

use of duration to distinguish between foreign vowels. For instance, the contrast between

English /ɪ/ and /ε/ appears to be longer than the contrast between Dutch /ɪ/ and /ε/. While the

native speakers produce /ɪ/ longer than /ε/, the informants followed the production of the

Dutch vowels and produced /ε/ longer than /ɪ/, thereby supporting the hypothesis on the

influence of the L1.

Striking is the duration of /æ/ produced by the informants, as they produce this vowel

relatively long, as opposed to the hypothesis stating that the informants would not be able to

differentiate between /ε/ and /æ/. By producing /æ/ longer than /ɪ/ and /ε/, the informants seem

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350(in ms)

Informants /ɪ/ Informants /ε/

Informants /æ/ Native speaker /ɪ/

Native speaker /ε/ Native speaker /æ/

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

L1 Dutch /ɪ/ L1 Dutch /ε/ L2 English /ɪ/

L2 English /ε/ L2 English /æ/

76

on first sight to display a quite accurate pronunciation of this vowel, as the native speakers’

/æ/ also has a longer duration compared to /ɪ/ and /ε/. In this case too, the hypothesis that

duration is used to distinguish between vowel contrasts which do not occur in the speaker’s

L1 can be applied, although it may also be noted that low vowels are generally produced

longer than high vowels (Clark et al. 1995), implying thus that the participants are in fact

aware of the contrast between /ε/ and /æ/.

To be able to ascertain whether these findings are typical of the informants’

pronunciation or, rather, are accidental findings, the results of the second session will be

discussed too. The values are represented in Figure 7.6.

Figure 7.6. The duration of the L1 Dutch children’s English vowels of the second session compared to

the results of the Dutch vowels (left) and the results of the native speakers (data taken from

Hillenbrand et al. 1995) (right) (in ms)

The duration values from the second session as displayed in Figure 7.6 seem to be more in

line with the expected results, as the influence of the L1 is more strongly visible, especially

with reference to the duration of the new vowel /æ/. Similar to the first session, the informants

produced /ε/ longer than /ɪ/, as opposed to the native speakers, which clearly indicates that the

informants use their knowledge of their L1 for the production of their L2. As hypothesized,

/æ/ is produced almost equally long as /ε/, and is on average even produced shorter in this

session than in the first session, suggesting that the informants are not able to make an

accurate contrast between these two vowels.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

(in ms)

Informants /ɪ/ Informants /ε/

Informants /æ/ Native speaker /ɪ/

Native speaker /ε/ Native speaker /æ/

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

L1 Dutch /ɪ/ L1 Dutch /ε/ L2 English /ɪ/

L2 English /ε/ L2 English /æ/

77

3. Summary

Regarding the vowels /ɪ/ and /ε/, it can be concluded that the informants on average rely on

their L1 productions for the productions of the English equivalents. In the case of the formant

frequencies, this leads to /ɪ/ being produced more front and higher than /ε/. Because this

contrast is similar in Dutch and in English, it may seem that this contrast is therefore produced

quite accurately by the informants. In the case of duration, on the other hand, the informants

produce /ε/ longer than /ɪ/, as opposed to the native speakers of English, and in this respect,

their vowel productions are hence less native-like.

For the non-native contrast /ε/-/æ/, it was clearly shown that concerning the formant

frequencies the informants were not able to distinguish between these two vowels, supporting

the hypothesis on the influence of the L1. In the case of duration, more ambiguous results

were found. Whereas it seemed in the results of the first session that the informants made an

accurate contrast in duration, the results of the second session indicated that the informants

made hardly any contrast in duration. Since /æ/ is a new vowel for speakers of Dutch, it is

logical that much variation exists in its pronunciation, especially considering that the

informants are beginning learners.

7.1.2 The back vowels

1. Formant frequencies

The Dutch vowels /u/ and /y/ were examined, as they might be of influence for the

informants’ production of /ʊ/ and /u:/. It should nevertheless be noted that in Dutch /y/ is a

front vowel, and therefore less likely to influence the production of English /ʊ/ and /u:/

(Collins et al. 2003). The mean results of the vowels /u/ and /y/ from the Dutch tasks of both

Session 1 and 2 were presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.

According to the results displayed in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, the informants pronounced

/u/ in both cases more back and lower than /y/, although the absolute mean values of the

formants in Session 1 concerning the F1 differed only minimally. The contrast made by the

informants between these two vowels is presented in Figure 7.7, which presents the individual

productions of the informants during Sessions 1 and 2.

78

Figure 7.7. The Dutch formant values of Session 1 and 2 by the participants

While Figure 7.7 indicates that there are some identical productions between /u/ and /y/ made

by the informants, in general it appears that the informants maintain a contrast between these

two vowels in Dutch. Especially /y/ is occasionally produced more back, partly covering the

productions of /u/, but these results could be caused by calculation errors or unintentional

mispronunciations by the informants. These results therefore show that the informants have a

relatively fixed L1 vowel system, in which they clearly distinguish between the front vowel

/y/, on the one hand, and the back vowel /u/, on the other hand. It is hypothesized that

especially this last vowel will influence the productions of the English vowels /ʊ/ and /u:/.

Figure 6.10 showed that the acoustic quality of /ʊ/ and /u:/ of the native speakers of

American English and RP is not identical. For the speakers of RP the contrast between /ʊ/ and

/u:/ was more outspoken than for the speakers of American English, and while the RP

speakers produced /u:/ higher and more front than /ʊ/, the speakers of American English

showed the exact opposite relationship between these two vowels. As the vowel diagrams

provided in Section 4.3 (Collins et al. 2003) seem to follow the findings of the L1 American

English speakers, the results from the informants will be compared to these (i.e., /ʊ/ more

back and lower than /u:/, with only a relatively small contrast).

Looking at the mean results in Table 6.5 for the first session, it seems on first sight

that the informants make an accurate distinction between /ʊ/ and /u:/, as in the repetition and

the picture-naming tasks, both the F1 and F2 values for /u:/ are smaller, indicating that this

vowel is produced higher and more back.

0

200

400

600

800

0100020003000

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 1

/u/ /y/

0

200

400

600

800

0100020003000

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 2

/u/ /y/

79

However, because it was remarked in Chapter 6 that much variation exists between the

productions, visible through the high standard deviation values, and because the difference in

value between the F1 and F2 seems relatively small, it seems necessary to examine all

individual productions by the informants too, similarly to the front vowels, to verify whether

the contrast between these vowels is constantly maintained (see Figure 7.8).

Figure 7.8. The formant values of the English back vowels by the participants

More notably than with the front vowels, the informants seem to pronounce the back vowels

differently in the repetition and the picture-naming task. Whereas in the repetition task /ʊ/ is

produced more front and lower and the vowel productions are relatively concentrated in the

vowel space, the majority of the results from the picture-naming task of the same vowel are

more back and higher, but are also more spread over the vowel space. This finding does,

however, not hold for /u:/, for which the repetition task results show wide variation, while the

results from the picture-naming task are more clustered. Nevertheless, it should be noted that

there were few useable data for /u:/ from the picture-naming task (see Table 8.12 in the

Appendices), which may influence the findings. Comparing the results of /ʊ/ and /u:/ from the

repetition task, it can be concluded that the participants in some cases seemed able to produce

an accurate contrast between these two vowels, pronouncing /ʊ/ more front and lower. On the

other hand, the wide variation of the /u:/ productions also indicates that this non-native vowel

poses a rather important problem for the informants, in that they are not able to give /u:/ a

fixed place in their vowel system. Comparing the results of /ʊ/ and /u:/ from the picture-

naming task, the opposite could however be concluded, as the productions of /u:/ are quite

0

200

400

600

800

050010001500200025003000

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 1

Repetition task /ʊ/ Repetition task /u:/

Picture-naming task /ʊ/ Picture-naming task /u:/

80

constant here. Striking here is that the contrast between the two vowels is smaller in the

picture-naming task than in the repetition task, again suggesting that directly repeating a

model improves the L2 learners pronunciation.

The results from the second session, which were presented in Tables 6.5, similarly to

the first session indicate that the informants correctly distinguish /ʊ/ and /u:/ from each other,

as the mean values of the F1 and F2 of /u:/ are again smaller, which implies that on average

this vowel was produced higher and more back than /ʊ/. As the individual productions from

the first session showed, the mean values do not always give a perfect overview of the

contrasts made by the informants. Therefore, the individual results were again placed into a

graph (see Figure 7.9).

Figure 7.9. The formant values of the English back vowels by the participants

In line with the proposed hypothesis that the informants would have difficulties with the non-

native vowel contrast /ʊ/ and /u:/, the results from the second session of the back vowels show

that many of the informants’ productions overlap each other. For both vowels, the productions

in the repetition task are more front, while they are more back in the picture-naming task. An

explanation for this finding could be that in the picture-naming task, the participants rely more

on their knowledge of their L1 vowel system, as it was noted in Section 4.5 that the Dutch

equivalent vowel /u/ is produced less central than English /ʊ/ and higher than English /u:/. In

order to examine this suggestion, the productions of the second session of the English picture-

naming task and the Dutch task can be compared (see Figure 7.10). It should be noted that this

does not necessarily mean that the productions of the repetition task are more accurate. The

0

200

400

600

800

050010001500200025003000

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 2

Repetition task /ʊ/ Repetition task /u:/

Picture-naming task /ʊ/ Picture-naming task /u:/

81

values of the vowels in the repetition task show much variation and overlap each other,

suggesting that the informants are not able to perceive an acoustic difference between these

vowels.

Figure 7.10. The values from the second session for the Dutch task and the English picture-naming

task, and values of the American English native speaker (data taken from Hillenbrand et al. 1995)

Figure 7.10 supports the claim that Dutch /u/ is in fact produced more back than English /ʊ/

and more closed or higher than English /u:/, as the comparison of the Dutch productions of the

informants and the mean productions of the native speakers shows. Furthermore, the

hypotheses that the informants will not be able to differentiate between English /ʊ/ and

English /u:/, and that their L1 will influence their L2 productions are supported here too, as

the Dutch /u/, English /ʊ/ and English /u:/ values overlap each other.

2. Duration

For the discussion of duration of the back vowels, the average (-Outliers) values which were

presented in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 for the Dutch vowels, and the average (-Outliers) values

which were presented in Table 6.6 for the English vowels will be used.

0

200

400

600

800

0500100015002000

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Informants Dutch /u/ Informants English /ʊ/ Informants English /u:/

American English /ʊ/ American English /u:/

82

Figure 7.11. The duration of the L1 Dutch children’s English vowels of the first session compared to

the results of the Dutch vowels (left) and the results of the native speakers (data taken from

Hillenbrand et al. 1995) (right) (in ms)

Figure 7.11 indicates that the informants are capable of distinguishing between the vowels /ʊ/

and /u:/ in terms of duration, which supports the hypothesis that the informants would mostly

have problems with contrasting the formant frequencies of this vowel contrast (cfr. Supra)

rather than with duration. It was hypothesized that the informants would quite easily notice

the difference in length between the checked vowel /ʊ/ and the free vowel /u:/. It may be

suggested that the duration of the English vowels by the informants is influenced by the

duration of the Dutch vowel /u/, as the absolute values of /ʊ/ and /u:/ are shorter for the

informants than for the native speakers, and similar to Dutch /u/. However, it was noted in

Section 4.2 that duration contrasts should be measured relatively, which implies that the

absolute shorter values do not cause a breakdown in understanding, since the relative contrast

is maintained.

As the results of the second session of the front vowels are different from the results of

the first session, the results of the second session of the back vowels will be discussed too.

They are displayed in Figure 7.12.

0 100 200 300

(in ms)

Informants /ʊ/ Informants /u:/

Native speaker /ʊ/ Native speaker /u:/

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

L1 Dutch /u/ L1 Dutch /y/

L2 English /ʊ/ L2 English /u:/

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

(in ms)

Informants /ʊ/ Informants /u:/

Native speaker /ʊ/ Native speaker /u:/

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

Dutch /u/ Dutch /y/

English /ʊ/ English /u:/

83

Figure 7.12. The duration of the L1 Dutch children’s English vowels of the second session compared

to the results of the Dutch vowels (left) and the results of the native speakers (data taken from

Hillenbrand et al. 1995) (right) (in ms)

Most striking in the results displayed in Figure 7.12 is that the mean values of Dutch /u/ and

English /ʊ/ are virtually identical, only differing by two ms, which may denote the influence

of the L1 on the L2. However, since this finding did not occur in the first session for these two

vowels, this result can perhaps not be generalized. It was noted in the discussion on the vowel

duration of the first session that the duration contrast between two vowels is measured

relatively. Again, the informants accurately contrast between /ʊ/ and /u:/ by on average

producing /u:/ longer than /ʊ/, similarly to the native speakers. Noteworthy here is that the

contrast between /ʊ/ and /u:/ is nevertheless more outspoken for the informants than for the

native speakers, which may refer to the hypothesis that L2 learners use duration as a means

for distinguishing between vowel contrasts which do not occur in their L1.

3. Summary

In the discussion of the formant frequencies of /ʊ/ and /u:/ it was noted that hardly any

contrast was found between these vowels in the productions of the informants, whereas in

native English these two vowels are contrasted. A comparison between Dutch /u/ and English

/ʊ/ and /u:/ brought to light that the informants’ L1 influenced their English vowel

productions, as the values largely overlapped each other. This influence was further supported

by the finding that the informants showed better results in the repetition tasks, where they

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

(in ms)

Informants /ʊ/ Informants /u:/

Native speaker /ʊ/ Native speaker /u:/

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

L1 Dutch /u/ L1 Dutch /y/

L2 English /ʊ/ L2 English /u:/

84

could repeat the words after a native speaker, than in the picture-naming tasks. Furthermore, it

can also be concluded that for the production of English /ʊ/ and /u:/, the informants relied

more on their production of Dutch /u/ than /y/, which is produced more front.

Although in absolute values the L1 was also visible in the L2 productions regarding

the duration of the back vowels, this does not cause similar problems as with the formant

frequencies, since relatively the same contrast was made between /ʊ/ and /u:/. The informants

were able to notice the difference in length between these two vowels, which they accordingly

produced accurately. As the contrast in duration made by the informants was larger than by

the native speakers, it may be suggested that the informants made use of duration rather than

place of articulation to distinguish between the vowels in this non-native vowel contrast.

7.2 The influence of age

Many previous studies suggest that young learners should be able to learn an L2 more easily

than older learners (see Chapter 1). One reason for this is that their sound system is more

flexible and can thus more easily adjust themselves to foreign sounds. In the present study, it

was expected that the informants’ productions would not be native-like yet, as was confirmed

in the previous section, but that the fact that the informants are young learners would prevail

in the production variation they showed individually and compared to the other informants,

both in their L1 and L2.

In the Dutch tasks, for instance, the high standard deviations, which were presented in

Tables 6.1 and 6.2, indicate that there is much variation in the L1 vowel productions,

especially concerning the F2 values. This variation may be interspeaker variation, implying

that all informants vary in their vowel pronunciation, but may also be intraspeaker variation,

implying that there is variation in the vowel productions of individual speakers, which is a

typical tendency for young speakers. Although it was confirmed in the previous section that

the informants already show a rather consistent pronunciation for their L1, as they displayed

quite similar results for their L1 in both sessions, the high standard deviation values also

suggest that the informants’ vowel system is not entirely fixed yet. It was proposed in Flege’s

Interaction Hypothesis (see Section 2.2.2.3) that when a speaker’s sound categories are still

adaptable the learning of foreign sounds will be easier too.

However, as the discussion of the previous section demonstrated, the informants were

in general not able to contrast between those vowel contrasts which do not occur in their L1.

85

Concerning the English front vowels, the informants distinguished /ɪ/ and /ε/ similarly as the

native speakers, but this could be explained by the fact that this contrast also occurs in Dutch.

However, the exact place of articulation differed from that of the native speakers, as the Dutch

vowels /ɪ/ and /ε/ are not pronounced exactly the same as their English equivalents. The

influence of the L1 on the production of these vowels became most prevalent in the

examination of the vowels’ duration. For the production of the non-native vowels /æ/, /ʊ/ and

/u:/, the informants relied on the productions of those Dutch vowels which sound similar, but

do in fact differ in pronunciation.

These findings suggest that the young learning age of the informants did not have a

particularly noteworthy advantageous effect on their L2 phonology acquisition, as

hypothesized. It was suggested that besides early acquisition, also experience together with

sufficient use of the L2, and language immersion may positively affect the L2 pronunciation.

Since the informants were beginning learners and were not immersed in an L2-speaking

environment, their L2 production did consequently not directly profit from their young

learning age.

Returning to the possibility of inter- and intraspeaker variation concerning the English

vowels, it was expected that because the informants were at the onset of L2 learning, their

productions would also show greater inter- and intraspeaker variation, which was supported

by the finding of the high standard deviation values for the English vowels, which were

presented in Table 6.5 for the formant frequencies.

Surprisingly, it appears that those vowels which have an equivalent in Dutch (i.e., /ɪ/

and /ε/) have the highest standard deviation values, implying that the informants show high

variation in the productions of the vowels, while the new vowels (i.e., /æ/ and /ʊ/) show

accordingly less variation. It was expected that the informants would have more difficulty

with the new vowels and thus show a less stable pronunciation. The L1 influence may explain

why the inter- and intraspeaker variation is high in the informants’ production of /ɪ/ and /ε/,

but does not explain why the variation is relatively lower for the new vowels. Although, it

should be remarked that the variation in the production of the new vowels is still high in

absolute terms.

In order to discuss whether the variation is mostly between speakers or within

speakers, the individual results for the vowel /ɪ/ are placed into a graph, as the variation for

this vowel is the highest overall. Because the data from the picture-naming task for this vowel

were not complete, only the results from the repetition task will be discussed, as these provide

a more total picture (see Figure 7.13).

86

Figure 7.13. The formant frequencies of /ɪ/ of the repetition tasks

These formant values displayed in Figure 7.13 show that there is both inter- and intraspeaker

variation found in the productions by the informants. Especially in the first session, the

majority of the informants seem to have a quite consistent pronunciation, although some

participants’ productions also vary between the different stimuli (i.e., informant 1, 4 and 8). In

the second session, the high standard deviation values are most likely caused by intraspeaker

variation, as there is almost no interspeaker variation in this case. The fact that the first

session presents more interspeaker variation, while the second session presents more

intraspeaker variation is probably due to coincidence. However, these results do clearly

support the hypothesis that beginning learners’ vowel systems are still variable, as the

informants in this study differ both from each other in their pronunciation and in their own

pronunciations.

7.3 Effects of instruction

As it was argued that L2 learners’ pronunciation generally only benefits from instruction

when the learners receive instruction that focuses also on pronunciation besides vocabulary

and grammar, it was expected that the informants in this study will not show any significant

0

200

400

600

800

0100020003000

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 1

Informant 1 Informant 2 Informant 3

Informant 4 Informant 5 Informant 6

Informant 7 Informant 8 Informant 9

0

200

400

600

800

0100020003000

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 2

Informant 1 Informant 2 Informant 3

Informant 4 Informant 5 Informant 6

Informant 7 Informant 8 Informant 10

87

improvement of their vowel productions in the second session. Furthermore, no consensus has

been made yet on which form of instruction leads to the best results. Moreover, the amount of

instruction the informants had received at the time of the second testing was quite limited (see

Section 5.2.1). However, it may be possible that the informants did show some differences in

production, as their language awareness may have evolved between the two sessions by

having received English instruction. To discuss the effects of instruction, the results from the

first session and the second session will be compared, for both the formant frequencies and

duration.

1. Formant frequencies

For the discussion of the difference between the pre-instruction and post-instruction

productions of the informants, the findings from the two previous sections have to be taken

into account. First, it was noted that for the vowels which are similar in Dutch and English the

informants used their L1 vowel pronunciation for the production of the L2 vowels, while the

new vowels were influenced by the production of the closest vowels. Secondly, the

informants’ vowel system is very variable. Note that the standard deviation values presented

in Table 6.5 show that the variation in production by the informants is not lower in the second

session than in the first session. Often it seems as if there is even more variation in the second

session. Furthermore, as a graph containing all individual results would give a rather

confusing presentation, the mean values of the vowels as presented in Chapter 6 will be used.

They are displayed in Figure 7.14.

88

Figure 7. 14. The average (-Outliers) values of the formant frequencies of the English vowels by the

informants (Rep. = repetition task; P.N. = picture-naming task)

As expected, relatively few differences are found in the comparison of the formant values of

the first and second session. Most striking is the difference in place of articulation of /ɪ/ in the

repetition and picture-naming tasks in the first session, whereas this same vowel’s

pronunciation in the second session is almost similar. However, as the English /ɪ/ is usually

produced somewhat more back than Dutch /ɪ/, this finding would suggest that /ɪ/ in the first

repetition task may be produced more accurately than in the second repetition task. This

implication would indicate that instruction did not have any beneficiary effects for the English

pronunciation of the informants. The same finding goes for /ε/, which is usually produced

more front and close in English than in Dutch. Similarly to /ɪ/, it seems as if the results from

the first session are more native-like than those of the second session. The new vowel /æ/ is in

both sessions produced closely to /ε/, and the back vowels’ results do not seem to vary

significantly between the two session, which all suggests that the informants’ pronunciation

did not improve notably through instruction.

2. Duration

As in Chapter 6, the results from the repetition and picture-naming task will be taken together

for the discussion of the vowels’ duration. Furthermore, it was already established in Chapter

6 that the informants’ productions regarding duration were reasonably fixed, not showing

200

400

600

800

5001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 1

Rep. /ɪ/ Rep. /ε/ Rep. /æ/ Rep. /ʊ/

Rep. /u:/ P.N. /ɪ/ P.N. /ε/ P.N. /æ/

P.N. /ʊ/ P.N. /u:/

200

400

600

800

5001000150020002500

F1

(in

Hz)

F2 (in Hz)

Session 2

Rep. /ɪ/ Rep. /ε/ Rep. /æ/ Rep. /ʊ/

Rep. /u:/ P.N. /ɪ/ P.N. /ε/ P.N. /æ/

P.N. /ʊ/ P.N./u:/

89

much variation (within the same session). Similarly to the formant frequencies, the

conclusions on duration made in the previous sections will be taken into account. For

duration, these are mainly the findings that the informants had most problems with the relative

length of the front vowels, while they seemed able to produce the back vowels more

accurately. In addition, it also appeared that the informants used duration to distinguish

between the non-native vowel contrasts. Figure 7.15 displays the results from Session 1 and 2.

Figure 7. 15. The average (-Outliers) values of the English vowels’ duration by the informants

Again the hypothesis that instruction had no effect on the informants’ production seems to be

confirmed here. In general, the contrasts in duration made by the informants in the first

session were repeated in the second session, with the exception of /ε/-/æ/. This means that for

the front vowels /ɪ/ and /ε/, which were contrasted in a non-nativelike way by the informants

in the first session, no correction in pronunciation is made in the second session. For the

contrast /ε/-/æ/, it appears that the production in the first session was even more native-like

than the one in the second session (see Figure 7.5 for comparison with the results from the

native-speaker). Also for the back vowels, it may be noted that the results from the first

session are more native-like than those from the second session, as it was observed that the

relative contrast in duration in the second session between /ʊ/ and /u:/ is longer than that of

the native speakers (see Figure 7.6 for comparison). Accordingly, it may be argued that L2

instruction did not affect the informants’ pronunciation of the English vowels.

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

Session 2

/ɪ/ /ε/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

0 50 100 150 200 250

(in ms)

Session 1

/ɪ/ /ε/ /æ/ /ʊ/ /u:/

90

3. Summary

The findings from the comparison of the first and second session seem to suggest that the

informants have a better pronunciation before the start of instruction than after having

received instruction. It would, however, be more logical that the informants are simply not

aware of how to pronounce the English vowels, and thus rely on their knowledge of their L1.

As the informants’ L1 vowels still show some variation, this could consequently also

influence the productions of the L2, causing the values of the vowels to differ between the

first and second session. In other words, the differences found between the first and second

session are not influenced by the L2 instruction the informants received, but rather by their

varying L1 vowel system. Moreover, there is no immediate explanation for why the

participants showed seemingly more native-like productions in the first session than in the

second session.

91

Conclusion

This research paper aimed to investigate three issues concerning native and non-native vowel

contrasts in the field of early L2 phonology. In particular, the influence of age, of the L1, and

of instruction on the production of the English front vowels /ɪ/-/ε/-/æ/ and back vowels /ʊ/-/u:/

by young L1 Dutch learners of English was examined, both in terms of qualitative and

quantitative vowel aspects.

Firstly, the question whether young learners can easily acquire foreign speech sounds

was addressed. It was hypothesized that, although much research has indicated that early

exposure positively affects L2 acquisition, the participants in the present study would not

show accurate L2 pronunciation yet, as they were studied at the onset of learning, and were

not immersed in an English-speaking environment. However, it was suggested that the

participants would show both intra- and interspeaker variation in their vowel productions,

because of their relatively young age and because they were beginning learners.

Secondly, the influence of the L1 on L2 vowel contrasts was examined. It was

expected that the participants would have few problems with contrasting between /ɪ/ and /ε/,

as this is a native vowel contrast, but would have more difficulties with the contrasts /ε/-/æ/,

and /ʊ/-/u:/, as these vowel contrasts do not occur in Dutch. In addition, it was hypothesized

that all vowels would to a certain degree be influenced by equivalent L1 vowels both

qualitatively and quantitatively.

Thirdly, the issue whether learners’ L2 vowel productions benefit from L2 instruction

was examined. However, since the participants in the present study had received only a small

amount of English instruction at the time of testing, it was not expected that the vowel

productions by the informants would have changed drastically.

These three hypotheses were evaluated using the results obtained from an experiment

on the production of Dutch and English vowels by young learners. The participants were all

Dutch-speaking beginning learners of English, and were tested both before they had received

any instruction and after they had received a small amount of instruction.

With respect to the age of L2 learning, the results revealed that the participants were

not able yet to contrast the English vowels accurately, which suggests that besides early

exposure other factors may be of equal or even more significance in L2 phonology

acquisition. However, the results showed that the participants varied much in both their L1

and L2 vowel productions, although they were in general able to maintain the same contrasts

92

between the vowels, especially in their L1. Surprising for the variation in the L2 productions

was the finding that the participants varied most in their pronunciation of the similar vowels,

rather than the new vowels, which may imply that the participants are able to make a

distinction between, for example, /ε/ and /æ/. This implication is, however, contradicted by

the results, which indicate that the participants in general do not contrast between these

vowels.

In the examination of the results concerning the formant frequencies and duration of

the vowels, it was found that the L1 exerted much influence on the production of the English

vowels by the participants. The participants managed to contrast /ɪ/ and /ε/ accurately in terms

of formant frequencies, but this was mainly due to the fact that they contrasted these vowels

similarly in Dutch. This did, however, not hold for the duration of these vowels, which were

contrasted differently in Dutch and English. The participants were not able to distinguish

accurately between the vowel contrasts /ε/-/æ/ and /ʊ/-/u:/ in terms of formant frequencies.

For duration, /ε/ and /æ/ were contrasted correctly in the first session, but not in the second

session, which suggests that the participants were indeed not aware of a contrast between

these vowels. The back vowels /ʊ/ and /u:/ did, on the other hand, not pose any problems

concerning duration.

Lastly, the results from the first and second session did not reveal any significant

differences, implying that the participants’ English vowel production had not changed much

after having received instruction.

Nevertheless, a number of limitations should be noted regarding the findings in this

research paper. First of all, the number of participants in the present study was quite small,

which may have influenced the interpretations of the results. Furthermore, it should be

remarked that not all data could be used, limiting the number of available results. Finally,

because the participants had received only a small amount of instruction, the third issue

concerning the role of instruction on L2 phonology could not be answered sufficiently.

Therefore, it would be interesting for further research to examine the role of

instruction on the L2 phonology of young learners who have received instruction over a

longer period of time, preferably with additional focus on pronunciation, besides vocabulary

and grammar. Moreover, it would also be interesting to investigate the role of duration in L2

non-native vowel contrasts more deeply.

In summary, the findings in this research paper suggested that when no specific

attention is given to early learners’ L2 phonology, the learners will not be able to accurately

contrast between both native and non-native vowels.

93

References

Adank, Patti, Roeland van Hout & Roel Smits. 2004. An acoustic description of the vowels of

Northern and Southern Standard Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

116(3). 1729–1738.

Anderson, Raquel. 2004. Phonological acquisition in preschoolers learning a second language

via immersion: a longitudinal study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 18(3). 183-210.

Baker, Wendy & Pavel Trofimovich. 2005. Interaction of native- and second language vowel

system(s) in early and late bilinguals. Language and Speech 48(1). 1-27.

Baker, Wendy, Pavel Trofimovich, Molly Mack, & James E. Flege. 2002. The effect of

perceived phonetic similarity on non-native sound learning by children and adults. In

S. Fisch, B. Scarabel, & A. H. Do (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Boston University

Conference on Language Development, 36-47. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Baker, Wendy, Pavel Trofimovich, James E. Flege, Molly Mack & Randall Halter. 2008.

Child–adult differences in second-language phonological learning: The role of cross-

language similarity. Language and Speech 51(4). 317-342.

Binghadeer, Nora A. 2010. The Effects of Age and Input Enhancement on L2 Vowel

Production: A Longitudinal Study. TESOL Journal 3. 64-80.

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2012. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer

program]. Version 5.3.13, retrieved 13 April 2012 from http://www.praat.org/

Bohn, Ocke-Schwen & James E. Flege. 1992 The production of new and similar vowels by

adult German learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14. 131-158.

Bongaerts, Theo, Chantal van Summeren, Brigitte Planken & Erik Schils. 1997. Age and

ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 19. 447-465.

94

Cebrian, Juli. 2006. Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel categoriation.

Journal of Phonetics 34. 372-387.

Clark, John & Colin Yallop. 1995. An introduction to phonetics and phonology. 2nd

edn.

Oxford: Blackwell

Collins, Beverley & Inger M. Mees. 2003. The phonetics of English and Dutch. 5th

edn.

Leiden: Brill.

Derwing, Tracey M. & Marian J. Rossiter. 2003. The effects of pronunciation instruction on

the accuracy, fluency, and complexity of L2 accented speech. Applied Language

Learning 13(1). 1-17.

Derwing, Tracy M., Murray J. Munro & Grace Wiebe. 1998. Evidence in favor of a broad

framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning 48(3). 393-410.

Eckman, Fred R. 2004. From phonemic differences to constraint rankings: Research on

second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26. 513-549.

Eckman, Fred R., Abdullah Elreyes & Gregory K. Iverson. 2003. Some principles of second

language phonology. Second Language Research 19(3). 169-208.

Escudero, Paola, Rachel Hayes-Harb & Holger Mitterer. 2008. Novel second-language words

and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics 36. 345-360.

Flege, James E. 1987. The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language:

Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics 15. 47-65.

Flege, James E. 1995. Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In

W. Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-

language research, 229-273. Timomium, MD: York Press.

95

Flege, James E. 1997. English vowel production by Dutch talkers: More evidence for the

“new” vs “similar distinction”. In Allan R. James & Jonathan Leather (eds.), Second-

Language Speech, Structure and Process, 11-52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Flege, James E. & James Hillenbrand. 1984. Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language

speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76(3). 708-721.

Flege, James E., Ocke-Schwen Bohn and Sunyoung Jang. 1997. Effects of experience on non-

native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics 25.

437-470.

Flege, James E., Grace H. Yeni-Komshian & Serena Liu. 1999. Age constraints on second-

language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language 41. 78-104.

Hawkins, Sarah & Jonathan Midgley. 2005. Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four

age groups of speakers. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35(2). 183-

199.

Hillenbrand, James, Laura A. Getty, Michael J. Clark, & Kimberlee Wheeler. 1995. Acoustic

characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of

America 97(5). 3099-3111.

Holleman, Esther. 2011. The English front vowels in early second language phonology: A

study on the production of English /ɛ/ and /æ/ by young native speakers of Dutch.

Ghent: University of Ghent Bachelor paper.

Højen, Anders & James E. Flege. 2006. Early learners' discrimination of second-language

vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(5). 3072-3084.

Ioup, Georgette. 2008. Exploring the role of age in the acquisition of a second language

phonology. In Jette G. Hansen Edwards & Mary L. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and

Second Language Acquisition, 41-62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

96

Isaacs, Talia. 2009. Integrating Form and Meaning in L2 Pronunciation Instruction. TESL

Canada Journal 27(1). 1-12.

Kennedy, Sara & Pavel Trofimovich. 2010. Language awareness and second language

pronunciation: A classroom study. Language Awareness 19(3). 171-185.

Keys, Kevin. 2002. First language influence on the spoken English of Brazilian students. ELT

Journal 56(1). 41-46.

Lord, Gillian. 2010. The combined effects of immersion and instruction on second language

pronunciation. Foreign Language Annals 43(3).488-503.

MacLeod, Andrea A.N. & Carol Stoel-Gammon. 2010. What is the impact of age on the

second language acquisition on the production of consonants and vowels among

childhood bilinguals? International Journal of Bilingualism 14(4). 400-421.

Major, Roy C. 2008. Transfer in second language phonology: A review. In Jette G. Hansen

Edwards & Mary L. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition, 63-

94. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Marinova-Todd, Stefka H., D. Bradford Marshall & Catherine E. Snow. 2000. Three

misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly 34. 9-34.

Munro, Murray J. 2008. Foreign accent and speech intelligibility. In Jette G. Hansen Edwards

& Mary L. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition, 193-218.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Munro, Murray J. & Tracey M. Derwing. 2008. Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners:

A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning 58(3). 479-502.

Munro, Murray J., James E. Flege & Ian R. A. MacKay. 1996. The effects of age of second

language learning on the production of English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics 17.

313-334.

97

O'Brien, Mary Grantham & Laura Catharine Smith. 2010. Role of first language dialect in the

production of second language German vowels. International Review of Applied

Linguistics in Language Teaching 48(4). 297-330.

Pennington, Martha. 1996. Phonology in English language teaching. New York: Longman.

Perkell, Joseph S., Frank H. Guenther, Harlan Lane, Melanie L. Matthies, Ellen Stockmann,

Mark Tiede & Majid Zandipour. 2004. The distinctness of speakers' productions of

vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts. Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America 116(4). 2338-2344.

Piske, Thorsten, Ian R. A. MacKay & James E. Flege. 2001. Factors affecting degree of

foreign accent in an L2: a review. Journal of Phonetics 29. 191-215.

Saito, Kazuya. 2011. Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and

comprehensible pronunciation development: An instructed SLA approach to L2

phonology. Language Awareness 20(1). 45-59.

Snow, Catherine E., and Marian Hoefnagel-Hohle. 1978. The critical period for language

acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development 49. 1114-1128.

Tops, Guy A. J., Xavier Dekeyser, Betty Devriendt & Steven Geukens. 2001. Dutch speakers.

In Michael Swan & Bernard Smith (eds.), Learner English, Second Edition: A

Teacher’s Guide to Interference and other Problems, 1-22. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Trofimovich, Pavel & Elizabeth Gatbonton. 2006. Repetition and focus on form in processing

L2 Spanish words: Implications for pronunciation instruction. The Modern Language

Journal 90(4). 519-535.

Tsukada, Kimiko, David Birdsong, Ellen Bialystok, Molly Mack, Hyekyung Sung & James E.

Flege. 2005. A developmental study of English vowel production and perception by

native Korean adults and children. Journal of Phonetics 33. 263-290.

98

Verhoeven, Jo & Christophe Van Bael. 2002. Akoestische kenmerken van de Nederlandse

klinkers in drie Vlaamse regio’s. Taal en Tongval, Tijdschrift voor Taalvariatie 54(1).

1-23.

Wong, Richard Kwok-Shing and Brian MacWhinney. 2009. Integrating teaching practice with

developmental norms: The case of phonological teaching in L2. International Journal of

Early Years Education 17(1). 17-31.

Zampini, Mary L. 2008. L2 speech production research: Findings, issues, and advances. In

Jette G. Hansen Edwards & Mary L. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and Second Language

Acquisition, 219-249. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

99

Appendices

Dutch picture-matching task stimuli

Table 8.1. Dutch picture-matching task stimuli

Target vowel Stimuli

/ɑ/ kat, zak

/a:/ kaas, haas

/ε/ bed, zes

/ɪ/ kip, vis

/i/ tien, fiets

/ɔ/ kop, bos

/u/ voet, boek

/u/ mug, bus

/y/ muur, vuur

/e/ zeep, beek

/o/ boot, spook

/ø/ neus, reus

English repetition and picture-naming task stimuli

Table 8.2 English repetition and picture-naming task stimuli

Target vowel Stimuli

/ɑː/ bath, heart, card, cars

/ε/ bed, head, pen

/æ/ cat, hat

/ɪ/ pig, six

/i:/ sheep, keys

/ɔː/ ball, fork

/ʊ/ book, foot

/u:/ pool, goose, shoes

/ɜː/ girl, bird

/ʌ/ duck, bus

/ɒ/ dog, sock(s)

100

Dutch picture-matching task results

Table 8.3. The results per participant for /ɪ/ (Duration in ms; F1 and F2 in Hz)

Informant Session 1 Session 2

Duration F1 F1 Duration F1 F2

1 109 528 1560 130 517 2066

1 148 500 2121 112 525 2354

1 84 542 1489 - - -

2 123 595 1805 205 532 1695

2 164 526 1959 145 610 1746

2 105 610 2157 - - -

3 109 509 924 138 477 1764

3 233 509 924 97 665 2193

4 144 544 2143 173 512 1918

4 117 595 2143 168 564 2164

5 91 527 1925 87 600 1311

6 98 581 1746 103 464 1298

6 134 510 612 118 583 2054

6 163 586 635 - - -

7 87 454 2027 133 535 1531

7 144 485 1887 140 552 1979

8 78 507 2153 147 498 832

8 119 555 2344 84 616 2528

8 77 538 2347 - - -

9 102 612 687 - - -

9 73 520 903 - - -

10 - - - 98 578 1741

10 - - - 81 511 1856

101

Table 8.4. The results per participant for /ε/ (Duration in ms; F1 and F2 in Hz)

Informant Session 1 Session 2

Duration F1 F2 Duration F1 F2

1 100 609 1483 165 647 1768

1 131 205 743 - - -

1 106 637 1700 - - -

2 87 535 1779 222 668 1295

2 177 576 1752 164 723 1431

2 158 606 1790 - - -

3 134 682 1321 155 681 1325

3 164 671 1777 166 702 1632

4 150 645 2009 237 712 2102

4 115 637 1876 205 756 1912

4 - - - 189 728 1874

5 183 933 1821 147 767 1097

5 69 658 1815 130 461 772

6 193 710 1654 162 734 1541

6 115 712 1613 174 697 1548

6 161 657 1580 - - -

7 109 679 1745 139 692 1783

7 123 693 1675 115 466 1751

8 69 710 2086 133 288 780

8 93 758 1991 178 824 1291

8 89 733 2079 - - -

9 92 778 873 - - -

9 117 434 917 - - -

9 172 918 2372 - - -

10 - - - 113 675 1827

10 - - - 116 692 1752

102

Table 8.5. The results per participant for /u/ (Duration in ms; F1 and F2 in Hz)

Informant Session 1 Session 2

Duration F1 F2 Duration F1 F2

1 976 335 835 111 440 892

1 134 264 1005 114 435 1293

1 79 338 1598 - - -

2 81 352 911 154 522 1042

2 117 316 777 149 349 844

2 116 309 701 - - -

3 94 456 613 101 347 922

3 126 403 587 121 309 887

3 118 526 1301 - - -

4 76 336 476 155 502 973

4 142 435 599 141 410 847

4 113 412 1472 - - -

5 138 417 792 133 502 1243

5 184 323 910 92 459 715

6 198 413 860 140 398 868

6 136 494 1026 141 472 1183

6 207 316 958 - - -

7 112 313 862 144 321 855

7 111 334 666 - - -

8 72 523 933 130 448 1036

8 74 513 782 - - -

8 67 439 1353 - - -

9 95 472 810 - - -

9 111 466 659 - - -

9 111 439 662 - - -

10 - - - 111 436 1190

10 - - - 97 479 1184

103

Table 8.6. The results per participant for /y/ (Duration in ms; F1 and F2 in Hz)

Informant Session 1 Session 2

Duration F1 F2 Duration F1 F2

1 137 645 1882 223 391 1983

1 216 526 1881 231 419 1994

1 190 462 1949 - - -

2 184 297 1625 253 348 2065

2 198 287 2242 281 313 1805

2 281 319 2124 - - -

3 142 456 2617 233 285 1645

3 292 172 525 262 261 1184

3 258 515 2543 - - -

4 180 492 2144 213 333 924

4 214 521 1444 291 449 1855

4 241 351 2569 - - -

5 161 448 2382 190 365 745

5 225 462 2250 251 424 1315

6 111 337 1158 257 535 1850

6 193 320 923 246 462 2427

7 92 423 2060 184 290 1249

7 252 412 2091 163 291 2007

7 206 444 1746 - - -

8 127 372 2131 219 445 2068

8 71 352 1797 261 507 2335

8 111 304 2153 - - -

9 178 523 620 - - -

9 128 430 1817 - - -

9 201 604 680 - - -

10 - - - 153 333 1976

10 - - - 166 450 2467

104

English repetition and picture-naming task results

Table 8.7. The results per participant for /ɪ/ (Duration in ms; F1 and F2 in Hz) (Dur. = duration)

Repetition task Picture-naming task

Informant Session 1 Session 2 Session 1 Session 2

Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2

1 131 504 1250 164 502 649 109 581 666 - - -

1 227 587 2518 - - - 102 533 570 - - -

2 146 546 2395 186 492 2427 88 624 2240 177 501 2448

2 227 504 2555 - - - 136 561 2365 - - -

3 165 569 942 214 464 4354 111 570 857 234 597 832

3 138 509 1388 151 597 2048 - - - - - -

4 132 529 2282 140 575 2171 230 525 2596 200 579 2385

4 373 484 728 202 505 1123 259 466 2595 - - -

5 101 547 2305 126 484 2463 237 500 2765 137 567 2213

5 239 448 2398 108 149 643 169 511 2432 - - -

6 166 511 1097 135 491 2140 178 635 2082 - - -

6 150 496 946 117 468 2273 - - - - - -

7 133 539 2218 125 504 2437 93 501 2393 116 461 2609

7 85 455 2518 115 536 2190 132 554 2279 - - -

8 93 554 2203 120 548 918 94 549 2342 139 549 554

8 167 553 1388 292 525 3003 205 530 1987 - - -

9 129 601 1074 - - - - - - - - -

9 150 788 1147 - - - - - - - - -

10 - - - 152 516 2466 - - - 142 482 2788

10 - - - 161 539 2492 - - - - - -

105

Table 8.8. The results per participant for /ε/ (Duration in ms; F1 and F2 in Hz) (Dur. = duration)

Repetition task Picture-naming task

Informant Session 1 Session 2 Session 1 Session 2

Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2

1 215 622 1429 235 613 1878 - - - 262 785 1952

1 191 645 2364 193 699 2082 - - - 173 428 916

1 154 769 1329 186 643 2087 - - - 258 523 2014

2 216 658 2058 233 599 2014 63 654 1928 149 543 1650

2 107 554 2243 172 826 2104 72 651 1864 115 805 1774

2 - - - 222 740 2078 - - - - - -

3 200 697 2047 172 720 1812 257 556 1002 116 745 1749

3 145 653 698 205 631 1444 176 749 1975 311 725 1899

3 213 658 2308 286 635 1873 103 714 897 160 739 1783

4 220 808 1910 265 719 910 283 546 2057 294 728 1006

4 139 569 1809 195 331 724 263 587 2097 212 826 2173

4 365 669 2024 208 760 2091 134 530 1600 228 693 2040

5 322 693 2060 237 726 2071 246 517 659 285 697 877

5 234 689 2124 114 329 697 200 719 1919 260 678 1960

5 234 689 2124 266 820 2072 131 768 1844 134 713 1945

6 226 560 983 301 553 1134 140 678 1693 312 681 1968

6 191 809 853 182 676 1816 238 664 725 339 550 118

6 368 554 892 298 686 1704 - - - 162 727 1156

7 171 733 2104 162 762 1888 180 613 2179 207 693 1782

7 149 608 2226 216 732 2077 234 559 1990 225 674 1872

7 226 793 2056 - - - 151 536 2178 130 817 1465

8 200 707 2234 197 785 845 233 774 2113 214 625 694

8 150 731 1915 150 816 833 206 449 1747 203 685 993

8 189 757 2170 214 750 756 - - - 121 770 2353

9 121 817 1128 - - - - - - - - -

9 237 781 1054 - - - - - - - - -

9 149 922 931 - - - - - - - - -

10 - - - 170 745 1950 - - - 183 756 1824

10 - - - 164 874 1932 - - - 208 745 1930

10 - - - 191 729 2039 - - - 118 728 1691

106

Table 8.9. The results per participant for /æ/ (Duration in ms; F1 and F2 in Hz) (Dur. = duration)

Repetition task Picture-naming task

Informant Session 1 Session 2 Session 1 Session 2

Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2

1 149 839 1877 251 7760 2012 - - - 194 709 1800

1 150 678 1167 104 638 1751 - - - - - -

1 226 840 1656 - - - - - - - - -

2 82 875 2007 176 644 1878 - - - 189 772 1764

2 189 708 2127 194 799 1638 - - - 193 649 1975

3 270 699 1964 213 745 1737 196 509 960 159 776 1794

3 147 719 1172 155 683 1738 171 728 939 288 684 1683

4 396 706 2014 221 756 1925 307 575 1958 226 785 2141

4 306 623 1967 154 808 2081 316 596 1943 262 714 1959

5 285 751 2040 233 961 2011 397 658 1913 218 782 796

5 174 632 2176 145 851 2079 285 594 970 305 702 1958

6 212 795 1731 279 665 1726 - - - 319 598 1080

6 272 536 1744 203 684 1933 - - - 287 594 864

7 177 760 2008 164 835 1926 111 838 1898 167 619 1720

7 132 749 2003 161 751 2087 141 712 2021 169 735 1877

8 214 1003 1490 204 747 865 135 752 2152 294 417 735

8 124 788 1961 140 1090 1821 - - - 228 479 499

9 228 953 1311 204 832 2014 - - - - - -

9 128 1030 1233 154 728 2044 - - - - - -

10 - - - - - - - - - 176 762 1972

10 - - - - - - - - - 214 758 1885

107

Table 8.10. The results per participant for /ʊ/ (Duration in ms; F1 and F2 in Hz) (Dur. = duration)

Repetition task Picture-naming task

Informant Session 1 Session 2 Session 1 Session 2

Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2

1 92 477 1357 121 609 1623 126 523 1284 164 537 1623

1 147 515 970 97 541 1309 - - - - - -

2 151 549 1033 137 529 1020 189 351 841 122 396 934

2 216 503 1046 136 486 860 152 330 830 132 391 931

3 108 656 1175 73 411 1082 169 339 856 100 319 877

3 142 591 1220 130 466 1270 150 420 738 138 462 792

4 254 427 1071 146 579 1226 251 346 1130 235 482 1034

4 307 591 1433 180 584 1770 372 354 1621 210 650 1206

5 163 363 1121 124 542 1250 106 398 485 236 470 669

5 175 555 2110 140 558 1525 - - - 240 392 919

6 97 526 1143 111 403 1013 240 612 1339 150 491 1058

6 198 550 1685 142 485 736 - - - 233 479 1042

7 128 482 1328 130 680 1304 104 439 758 125 570 1169

7 129 467 1081 92 449 1106 - - - - - -

8 116 698 929 76 532 2122 135 551 887 177 496 521

8 124 544 1025 147 590 1248 - - - - - -

9 88 593 922 - - - - - - -

9 100 550 742 - - - - - - -

10 - - - 125 488 1200 - - - 134 515 1167

10 - - - 122 593 1509 - - - 127 487 1349

108

Table 8.11. The results per participant for /u:/ (Duration in ms; F1 and F2 in Hz) (Dur. = duration)

Repetition task Picture-naming task

Informant Session 1 Session 2 Session 1 Session 2

Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2 Dur. F1 F2

1 234 492 1015 302 428 921 - - - 166 500 1450

1 225 498 1390 213 400 1105 - - - 197 522 1208

2 212 333 769 228 432 849 - - - 172 326 668

2 190 368 912 228 393 889 - - - - - -

3 252 498 796 179 493 1006 235 465 688 160 476 612

3 272 488 802 293 386 959 - 268 485 1021

4 236 508 513 278 479 991 131 395 1142 237 393 781

4 240 474 1281 233 495 1236 248 354 832 -

5 165 491 563 231 462 730 241 390 832 120 406 640

5 198 428 1376 248 418 1450 - - - 289 479 1292

6 216 516 1179 283 434 1067 - - - 188 464 913

6 196 543 2679 318 421 1216 - - - - - -

7 153 369 714 193 289 1170 264 355 701 112 465 490

7 175 605 1483 - - - 239 427 828 218 358 916

8 148 488 774 160 497 585 - - - 137 217 538

8 121 351 740 198 545 1343 - - - - - -

9 167 625 985 - - - - - - - - -

9 145 606 2506 - - - - - - - - -

10 - - - 185 470 883 - - - 167 418 963

10 - - - 186 515 1422 - - - 285 371 1215

109

Number of tokens measured per vowel

Table 8.12. Total number of tokens measured per vowel (n)

Session 1 Session

Dutch_PM task /ɪ/ 22 17

Dutch_PM task /ε/ 23 18

Dutch_PM task /u/ 25 16

Dutch_PM task /y/ 25 18

English_Rep task /ɪ/

18

16

English_PN task /ɪ/ 14 7

English_Rep task /ε/ 27 26

English_PN task /ε/ 18 26

English_Rep task /æ/ 19 18

English_PN task /æ/ 11 17

English_Rep task /ʊ/ 18 18

English_PN task /ʊ/ 11 15

English_Rep task /u:/ 18 17

English_PN task /u:/ 6 14