Choi Jiyoun, Kim Sahayng, Cho Taehong
ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, Western Sydney UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia; Hanyang Phonetics and Psycholinguistics Lab, Department of English Language and Literature, Hanyang UniversitySeoul, South Korea.
Hongik University Seoul, South Korea.
Front Psychol. 2016 May 13;7:624. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00624. eCollection 2016.
This study investigated how coda voicing contrast in English would be phonetically encoded in the temporal vs. spectral dimension of the preceding vowel (in vowel duration vs. F1/F2) by Korean L2 speakers of English, and how their L2 phonetic encoding pattern would be compared to that of native English speakers. Crucially, these questions were explored by taking into account the phonetics-prosody interface, testing effects of prominence by comparing target segments in three focus conditions (phonological focus, lexical focus, and no focus). Results showed that Korean speakers utilized the temporal dimension (vowel duration) to encode coda voicing contrast, but failed to use the spectral dimension (F1/F2), reflecting their native language experience-i.e., with a more sparsely populated vowel space in Korean, they are less sensitive to small changes in the spectral dimension, and hence fine-grained spectral cues in English are not readily accessible. Results also showed that along the temporal dimension, both the L1 and L2 speakers hyperarticulated coda voicing contrast under prominence (when phonologically or lexically focused), but hypoarticulated it in the non-prominent condition. This indicates that low-level phonetic realization and high-order information structure interact in a communicatively efficient way, regardless of the speakers' native language background. The Korean speakers, however, used the temporal phonetic space differently from the way the native speakers did, especially showing less reduction in the no focus condition. This was also attributable to their native language experience-i.e., the Korean speakers' use of temporal dimension is constrained in a way that is not detrimental to the preservation of coda voicing contrast, given that they failed to add additional cues along the spectral dimension. The results imply that the L2 phonetic system can be more fully illuminated through an investigation of the phonetics-prosody interface in connection with the L2 speakers' native language experience.
本研究调查了以英语为第二语言的韩国人如何在前面元音的时长维度与频谱维度(元音时长与F1/F2)中对英语韵尾浊音对比进行语音编码,以及他们的第二语言语音编码模式与以英语为母语者的模式相比会是怎样的。至关重要的是,通过考虑语音与韵律的接口来探究这些问题,通过比较三种焦点条件(音系焦点、词汇焦点和无焦点)下的目标片段来测试突显的影响。结果表明,韩国人利用时长维度(元音时长)来编码韵尾浊音对比,但未能利用频谱维度(F1/F2),这反映了他们的母语经验——即韩语中的元音空间分布较稀疏,他们对频谱维度的细微变化不太敏感,因此英语中精细的频谱线索不易获取。结果还表明,在时长维度上,第一语言和第二语言使用者在突显情况下(音系或词汇聚焦时)都会过度清晰地发出韵尾浊音对比,但在非突显条件下则发音不够清晰。这表明,无论说话者的母语背景如何,低层次的语音实现和高层次的信息结构以一种交际高效的方式相互作用。然而,韩国人使用时长语音空间的方式与以英语为母语者不同,尤其是在无焦点条件下减少得较少。这也归因于他们的母语经验——即韩国人对时长维度的使用受到一定限制,这种限制对保留韵尾浊音对比并无不利影响,因为他们未能在频谱维度上添加额外线索。这些结果意味着,通过结合第二语言使用者的母语经验对语音与韵律接口进行研究,可以更全面地阐明第二语言语音系统。