•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Second language (L2) learners often encounter difficulties caused by the interference of their native language (L1). The aim of this study is to examine how the Javanese and Sundanese vowel systems hinder the perception of ten English vowels. Thirty Javanese, thirty Sundanese, and twenty English native speakers participated in a mouse-tracking experiment. Participants were required to identify English vowels corresponding to an auditory token by clicking on one of two word strings presented on a computer screen. According to the Speech Learning Model (SLM) hypothesis, the Javanese and Sundanese speakers were predicted to have higher error rates and show a larger Area Under the Curve (AUC) for similar vowels (same IPA symbols, but different diacritics between L1 and the target vowels) than the native English speakers. For new vowels (no same IPA symbols found between L1 and the target vowels), the L2 speakers were predicted to have lower error rates and a smaller AUC than the native English speakers. According to the Second Language Linguistic Perception (L2LP), however, the prediction is stated in the reverse. Repeated measures of ANOVAs found that: 1) the Javanese and Sundanese speakers were less accurate in perceiving the new vowels /ɑː/, /ʌ/, /æ/, /ε/, /ɪ/, and /ʊ/ and similar vowels /iː/ and /uː/. 2) The Javanese speakers showed a larger AUC than native speakers for new vowels /ɑː/, /ɜː/, /ɔː/, and /ʌ/ and for similar vowels /iː/ and /uː/. The Sundanese speakers showed a greater attraction to the incorrect alternatives than the native speakers for new vowels /ɑː/, /ɜː/, /ɔː/, /ʌ/, /æ/, /ε/, /ɪ/, and /ʊ/ and similar vowels /iː/ and /uː/. Our findings partially support the L2LP hypothesis that the Javanese and Sundanese listeners are likely to show high error rates and a large attraction towards the incorrect alternatives of new vowels. The results confirmed that perceptual difficulties varied significantly according to the influence of L1 vowel inventories.

References

Baker, W. et al. 2002. “The effect of perceived phonetic similarity on L2 sound learning by children and adults”, in: A. Do, L. Dominguez, and A. Johansen (eds), BUCLD 26: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 36-47. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Bradlow, Ann. R. 1995. “A comparative acoustic study of English and Spanish vowels”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 1916-1925.

Bruhn, Pernille, Stephanie Huette, and Michael J. Spivey. 2013. “Degree of certainty modulates anticipatory processes in real time”, Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance 40: 525.

Cebrian, Juli. 2006. “Experience and the use of non‐L1 duration in L2 vowel categorization”, Journal of Phonetics 34: 372-387.

Cebrian, Juli. 2007. “Old sounds in new contrasts; L2 production of the English tense-tax vowel distinction”, in J. Trouvain and W. J. Barry (eds), Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp.1637-1640. Saarbrucken: University of Saarland.

Crothers, J. 1978. Typology and universals of vowel systems, in: J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 2: Phonology, pp. 94-152. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Dale, Rick, Caitlin Kehoe, and Michael J. Spivey 2007. “Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing exemplars”, Memory and Cognition 35: 15-28.

Elvin, Jaydene, Paola Escudero, and Polina Vasiliev. 2014. “Spanish is better than English for discriminating Portuguese vowels; Acoustic similarity versus vowel system”, Frontiers in Psychology (October). [Language Sciences 5.]

Escudero, Paola. 2000. “Developmental patterns in the adult L2 acquisition of new contrasts; The acoustic cue weighting in the perception of Scottish tense/lax vowels in Spanish speakers”. MSc thesis, University of Edinburgh.

Escudero, Paola. 2005. Linguistic Perception and Second language acquisition: Explaining the attainment of optimal phonological categorization. PhD thesis, Utrecht University. [LOT dissertation series 113.]

Escudero, Paola. 2006. “Second language phonology; The role of perception”, in: M. Pennington (ed.), Phonology in context. UK: Macmillan.

Escudero, Paola. 2006. “The phonological and phonetic development of new vowel contrasts in Spanish learners of English”, in: B. O. Baptista and M. A. Watkins (eds), English with a Latin beat; Studies in Portuguese/Spanish- English interphonology, pp. 149-161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Studies in Bilingualism 31].

Escudero, Paola. 2009. “Linguistic perception of ‘similar’ L2 sounds”, in: P. Boersma and S. Hamann (eds), Phonology in perception. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Escudero, Paola and Paul Boersma. 2004. “Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 551-585.

Escudero, Paola and Katerina Chládková. 2010. “Spanish listeners’ perception of American and Southern British English vowels”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128: EL254-EL260.

Farmer, Thomas A., Sarah E. Anderson, and Michael. J. Spivey. 2007. “Gradiency and visual context in syntactic garden-paths”, Journal of Memory and Language 57: 570-595.

Farmer, Thomas A. et al. 2009. “L1 language experience influences the perceived similarity of second language vowel categories”, in: N. Taatgen and H. van Rijn (eds), Proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2588-2593. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Flege, James E. 1987. “The production of ‘new’ and ‘similar’ phones in a foreign language; Evidence for the effect of equivalent classification”, Journal of Phonetics 15: 47-65.

Flege, James E. 1992.” The intelligibility of English vowels spoken by British and Dutch talkers”, in: R. Kent (ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders; Theory, measurement, and management, pp. 157-232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Flege, James E. 1995. “Second language speech theory, findings and problems”, in: W. Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience; Theoretical and methodological issues, pp. 233-277. Baltimore, MD: York Press.

Flege, James E., O. S. Bohn, and S. Jang. 1997. “The effect of experience on non-native subjects’ production and perception of English vowels”, Journal of Phonetics 25: 437-470.

Flege, James E and K. L. Fletcher. 1992. “Talker and listener effects on degree of perceived foreign accent”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91: 370-389.

Flege, J. E. and J. Hillendbrand. 1984. “Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language speech production”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76: 708-721.

Flege, James E., M. Munro, and I. MacKay. 1995. “Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in a second language”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 3125-3134.

Fox, Robert A., James E. Flege, and Murray J. Munro. 1995. “The perception of English and Spanish vowels by L1 English and Spanish listeners; A multidimensional scaling analysis”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 2540-2551.

Freeman, Jonathan B. and Nalini Ambady. 2010. “MouseTracker; software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method”, Behavior Research Methods 42: 226-241. [Retrieved from: DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.226.]

Freeman, Jonathan B., Rick Dale, and Thomas A. Farmer. 2011. “Hand in motion reveals mind in motion”, Frontiers in Psychology 2, 59.

Hayward, Katrina. 1995. “/p/ vs. /b/ in Javanese; The role of the vocal folds”, SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 5: 1-11.

Hillenbrand, James M., Michael J. Clark, and Robert A. Houde. 2000. “Some effects of duration on vowel recognition”, Journal of the Acoustical Society 108: 3013-3022.

Incera, Sara and Conor T. McLennan. 2016. “Mouse tracking reveals that bilinguals behave like experts”, Bilingualism; Language and Cognition 19: 610-620. [Retrieved from: DOI: 10.1017/S1366728915000218.]

Iverson, Paul and Brownen G. Evans. 2007. “Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems; Perception of formant targets, formant movements and duration”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122: 2842-2854. [Retreived from: DOI: 10.1121/1.2783198.]

Iverson, Paul and Brownen G. Evans. 2009. “Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems II; Auditory training for L1 Spanish and German speakers”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 866- 877. [Retreived from: DOI: 10.1121/ 1.3148196.]

Ladefoged, Peter. 2001. Vowels and Consonants; An introduction to the sounds of languages. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics. New York, NY: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Lauder, Multamia R. M. T. and Ayatrohaedi. 2006. “The distribution of Austronesian and non-Austronesian languages in Indonesia; Evidence and issues, in: T. Simanjuntak, I. H. E. Pojoh, and Hisyam (eds), Austronesian diaspora and the ethnogeneses of people in Indonesian archipelago. Jakarta: LIPI Press. [Proceedings of the International Symposium.]

Morrison, Geoffrey S. 2008. “Perception of synthetic vowels by monolingual Canadian-English, Mexican-Spanish, and Peninsular-Spanish listeners”, Canadian Acoustics 36: 17-23.

Morrison, Geoffrey S. 2009. “L1-Spanish speakers’ acquisition of the English /i/ - /ɪ/ contrast II; Perception of vowel inherent spectral change”, Language and Speech 52: 437-462.

Perwitasari, Arum. 2013. ”Slips of the ears: Study on vowel perception in Indonesian learners of English”, Humaniora; Journal of Culture, Literature, and Linguistics 25: 103-110.

Peterson, Gordon E. and Ilse Lehiste. 1960. “Duration of syllable nuclei in English”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32: 693-703. [Retreived from: DOI: 10.1121/1.1908183.]

Sisinni, Bianca, Paola Escudero, and Mirko Grimaldi. 2013. “Salento Italian listeners’ perception of American English vowels”. [Paper, the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Interspeech, Lyon, 26‐30 August 2013.]

Spivey, Michael J., Marc Grosjen, and Günther Knoblich. 2005. “Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102/29, pp. 10393-10398. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Wedhawati, Erni W. et al. 2006. Tata bahasa Jawa mutakhir [Grammar of modern Javanese]. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanisius.

Zanten, Ellen van and Vincent J. van Heuven. 1997. “Effects of word length and substrate language on the temporal organisation of words in Indonesian”, in: C. Odé and W. A. L. Stokhof (eds), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, pp. 201-16. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.



Download

Share

COinS