An acoustic-phonetic comparison of the clear speaking styles of Finnish-English late bilinguals

Journal of Phonetics

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 509-520

  Granlund, Sonia ^a   Hazan, Valerie ^a   Baker, Rachel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859965456     PISSN: 00954470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2012.02.006     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Baker R., Hazan V. DiapixUK: A task for the elicitation of spontaneous speech dialogs. Behavior Research Methods 2011, 43(3):761-770.
2. Bent T., Buchwald A., Pisoni D.B. Perceptual adaptation and intelligibility of multiple talkers for two types of degraded speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2009, 126:2660-2669.
3. Boersma P., Weenink D. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 2001, 5:341-345.
4. Bradlow A.R. Confluent talker- and listener-related forces in clear speech production. Laboratory phonology 2002, Vol. 7:241-273. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
5. Bradlow A.R., Alexander J. Semantic-contextual and acoustic-phonetic enhancements for English sentence-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2007, 121(4):2339-2349.
6. Bradlow A.R., Bent T. The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2002, 112(1):272-284.
7. Bradlow A.R., Kraus N., Hayes E. Speaking clearly for learning-impaired children: Sentence perception in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2003, 46:80-97.
8. Charles-Luce J. Cognitive factors involved in preserving a phonemic contrast. Language and Speech 1997, 40(3):229.
9. Cho T., Lee Y., Kim S. Communicatively driven versus prosodically driven hyper-articulation in Korean. Journal of Phonetics 2011, 39(3):344-361.
10. Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S., Hervais-Adelman A.G., Taylor K.J., McGettigan C. Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: Evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology 2005, 134:222-241.
11. Ferguson S.H., Kewley-Port D. Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2002, 112:259-271.
12. Ferguson S.H., Kewley-Port D. Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: Acoustic characteristics of vowels. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2007, 50:1241-1255.
13. Flege J.E. The production of 'new' and 'similar' phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of Equivalence Classification. Journal of Phonetics 1987, 15:47-65.
14. Forster K., Forster J. DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavioural Research Methods 2003, 35:116-124.
15. Gut, U. (2006). Unstressed vowels in non-native German. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden.
16. Hansen J.G. Acquiring a non-native phonology. Linguistic constraints and social barriers 2006, Continuum, London.
17. Hazan V., Baker R. Acoustic-phonetic characteristics of speech produced with communicative intent to counter adverse listening conditions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2011, 130(4):2139-2152.
18. Iivonen A. Intonation in Finnish. Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages 1998, 311-327. Cambridge University Press. D. Hirst, A. Di Cristo (Eds.).
19. Johnson K., Flemming E., Wright R. The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets are hyperarticulated. Language 1993, 69:505-528.
20. Kang K.H., Guion S.G. Clear speech production of Korean stops: Changing phonetic targets and enhancement strategies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2008, 124:3909-3917.
21. Krause J.C., Braida L.D. Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 115:362-378.
22. Leather K., James W. Second language speech. Handbook of second language acquisition 1996, 269-316. Academic Press, San Diego. W.C. Ritchie, T.K. Bhatia (Eds.).
23. Li, C. (2009). Perception of foreign-accented clear speech by younger and older English listeners. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Simon Fraser University.
24. Lindblom B. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. Speech production and speech modelling 1990, 403-439. Kluwer Academic, Amsterdam. W.J. Hardcastle, A. Marchal (Eds.).
25. Liu S., Del Rio E., Bradlow A.R., Zeng F.-G. Clear speech perception in acoustic and electrical hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 116:2374-2383.
26. Moon S.-J., Lindblom B. Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1994, 96:40-55.
27. Munro M., Derwing T. Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech 1995, 38:289-306.
28. Munro M., Derwing T. Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 1999, 49(Suppl. 1):285-310.
29. NUAligner. Northwestern University Linguistics Department Software. Last accessed 04.02.11. http://groups.linguistics.northwestern.edu/documentation/nualigner_home. html.
30. Picheny M.A., Durlach N.I., Braida L.D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing, I: Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1985, 28:96-103.
31. Picheny M.A., Durlach N.I., Braida L.D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing, II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1986, 29:434-446.
32. Ringen, C., & Suomi, K. (2009). Fenno-Swedish VOT: Influence from Finnish? In Proceedings of FONETIK 2009 (pp. 60-65). Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
33. Rogers C.L., DeMasi T., Krause J. Conversational and clear speech intelligibility of /bVd/ syllables produced by native and non-native English speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2010, 128(1):410-423.
34. Rosen S., Faulkner A., Wilkinson L. Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: Implications for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1999, 106(6):3629-3636.
35. Sajavaara K., Dufva R.H. Finnish-English phonetics and phonology. International Journal of English Studies 2001, 1:241-256.
36. Scarborough, R., Brenier, J., Zhao, Y., Hall-Lew, L., & Dmitrieva, O. (2007). An acoustic study of real and imagined foreigner-directed speech. In Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS). Saarbrücken.
37. Smiljanic R., Bradlow A.R. Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2005, 118(3, Part 1):1677-1688.
38. Smiljanic R., Bradlow A.R. Stability of temporal contrasts across speaking styles in English and Croatian. Journal of Phonetics 2008, 36(1):91-113.
39. Smiljanic R., Bradlow A.R. Speaking and hearing clearly: Talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Linguistics and Language Compass 2009, 3:236-264.
40. Smiljanic R., Bradlow A.R. Native and non-native clear speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2009, 125(4, Part 2):2753.
41. Smiljanic R., Bradlow A.R. Bidirectional clear speech perception benefit for native and high-proficiency non-native talkers and listeners: Intelligibility and accentedness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2011, 130(6):4020-4031.
42. Uchanski, R. M. (1988). Spectral and temporal contributions to speech clarity for hearing impaired listeners. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
43. Ulbrich, C. (2008). Acquisition of regional pitch patterns in L2. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008 (pp. 575-578). Campinas.
44. Van Engen K.J., Baese-Berk M., Baker R.E., Choi A., Kim M., Bradlow A.R. The Wildcat corpus of native- and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language and Speech 2010, 53(4):510-540.
45. Wassink A., Wright R., Franklin A. Intraspeaker variability in vowel production: An investigation of motherese, hyperspeech, and Lombard speech in Jamaican speakers. Journal of Phonetics 2007, 35:363-379.
46. Wavescroller, Northwestern University Linguistics Department Software. Last accessed 04.02.11. http://groups.linguistics.northwestern.edu/documentation/wavescroller_ho me.html.
47. Ylinen S., Uther M., Latvala A., Vepsäläinen S., Iverson P., Akahane-Yamada R., et al. Training the brain to weight speech cues differently: A study of Finnish second-language users of English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 22(6):1319-1332.