Evaluation of Phonatory Behavior of German and French Speakers in Native and Non-Native Speech

Phonatory behavior of German speakers (GS) and French speakers (FS) in native (L1) and non-native (L2) speech was instrumentally examined. Vowel productions of the two groups were analyzed using a parametrization of phonatory behaviour and phonatory quality properties in the acoustic signal. The behavior of GS is characterized by more strained adduction of the vocal folds whereas FS show more incomplete glottal closure. Furthermore, GS change their phonatory behavior in the foreign language (=French) by adapting phonatory strategies of FS, whereas FS do not show this tendency. In addition, German beginners (BEG) and partly German advanced learners (ADV) are already orientated on production characteristics of the L2. French BEG however retain their phonatory behavior in L2 (=German) by showing less vocal fold adduction in comparison to their L1. French ADV show the opposite behavior. Finally, ADV of the two speaker groups generally show more strained behavior in L2 productions than BEG. The results provide evidence that GS and FS apply different laryngeal phonatory settings and that they altered their settings in L2 differently. Perceptual evaluation of voice quality of the speech material and a correlation analysis between acoustic and perceptual results are suggested for future research.

[1]  Felix Schaeffler,et al.  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OF PITCH RANGE IN GERMAN LEARNERS OF ENGLISH , 2014, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[2]  Grazyna Demenko,et al.  Linguistic measures of pitch range in slavic and Germanic languages , 2015, INTERSPEECH.

[3]  Susan G. Guion,et al.  Prosody in second language acquisition: Acoustic analyses of duration and F0 range , 2007 .

[4]  Van Bezooijen,et al.  Sociocultural Aspects of Pitch Differences between Japanese and Dutch Women , 1995 .

[5]  Felix Schaeffler,et al.  Measuring language-specific phonetic settings , 2010 .

[6]  K. Koehler,et al.  The Relationship Between Native Speaker Judgments of Nonnative Pronunciation and Deviance in Segmentais, Prosody, and Syllable Structure , 1992 .

[7]  J. Laver.  The phonetic description of voice quality , 1980 .

[8]  Ulrike Gut,et al.  Different manifestations and perceptions of foreign accent in intonation , 2007 .

[9]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[10]  C. Best.  A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception , 1995 .

[11]  Jens Edlund,et al.  Promoting Increased Pitch Variation in Oral Presentations with Transient Visual Feedback. , 2009 .

[12]  Bistra Andreeva,et al.  The phonetic exponency of phrasal accentuation in French and German , 2007, INTERSPEECH.

[13]  Tracey M. Derwing,et al.  Detection of nonnative speaker status from content-masked speech , 2010, Speech Commun..

[14]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .

[15]  Denis Jouvet,et al.  Designing a Bilingual Speech Corpus for French and German Language Learners: a Two-Step Process , 2014, LREC.

[16]  P. Keating,et al.  Comparison of speaking fundamental frequency in English and Mandarin. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Riikka Ullakonoja,et al.  Comparison of Pitch Range in Finnish (L1) and Russian (L2) , 2007 .

[18]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  K. Stevens,et al.  Classification of glottal vibration from acoustic measurements , 1995 .

[20]  J. Kingston.  Learning Foreign Vowels , 2003, Language and speech.

[21]  Manfred Pützer,et al.  Effect of deep brain stimulation on different speech subsystems in patients with multiple sclerosis. , 2007, Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation.

[22]  Wolfgang Wokurek,et al.  Automated Corpus Based Spectral Measurement of Voice Quality Parameters , 2003 .

[23]  Cross-Linguistic Effects on Voice Quality : A Study on Brazilians ’ Production of Portuguese and English , 2014 .

[24]  Bernd Möbius,et al.  Differences of pitch profiles in Germanic and slavic languages , 2014, INTERSPEECH.

[25]  R. Fox,et al.  Auditory and categorical effects on cross-language vowel perception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  William J. Barry,et al.  Instrumental dimensioning of normal and pathological phonation using acoustic measurements , 2008, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[27]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Johanneke Caspers,et al.  The Influence of Word-level Prosodic Structure of the Mother Tongue on Production of Word Stress in Dutch as a Second Language , 2011, ICPhS.

[29]  Maria Grazia Busà,et al.  A Cross Linguistic Analysis of Pitch Range in English L1 and L2 , 2011, ICPhS.

[30]  W. Baker,et al.  LEARNING SECOND LANGUAGE SUPRASEGMENTALS: Effect of L2 Experience on Prosody and Fluency Characteristics of L2 Speech , 2006, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.