台灣語者對英語輔音串的聲學與感知研究｜國立清華大學博碩士論文庫

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	洪佳慶 Jia-Qing Hong
論文名稱：	台灣語者對英語輔音串的聲學與感知研究 Perceptual and Production Studies on English Consonant Clusters by Taiwan Mandarin Speakers
指導教授：	張月琴 Yueh-Chin Chang
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 語言學研究所 Institute of Linguistics
論文出版年：	2007
畢業學年度：	96
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	125
中文關鍵詞：	輔音串、聲學、聽覺感知、第二語言習得
外文關鍵詞：	consonant clusters, acoustic phonetics, speech perception, second language acquisition
相關次數：	點閱：1 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

　　本篇論文以聲學及聽覺感知方法研究台灣語者對於英語輔音串的學習，提出造成構音及聽覺感知障礙之成因，並探討發音與聽覺感知之間的關係。研究包括兩種類型的實驗，分別為發音實驗及聽覺感知實驗。
　　聲學實驗第一部分探討台灣語者學習英語輔音串的主要錯誤類型，並對語料作聲學分析。本實驗錄製八位語者（一位英語母語者，七位台灣語者）。實驗結果發現台灣語者最常出現的錯誤類型為元音加插以及流音代換（主要以類似/r/之音代換/l/）；根據錯誤率的多寡，我們將台灣語者分為兩組人。統計結果顯示，有聲子音起首的輔音串 vs.無聲子音起首的輔音串以及包含/l/的輔音串vs.包含/r/的輔音串之間有顯著之差異。有聲子音起首輔音串以及包含/l/輔音串錯誤率較高，而差異皆見於兩組台灣語者。對於流音代換，我們提出了構音機制上的解釋：/l/需要兩個發音的gestures (stop closure and vocalic gesture)，而相較之下/r/只需一個發音gesture (vocalic gesture)，故在發含有/l/的輔音串時，台灣語者較難達到正確的發音位置。另一個可能性為，流音代換是受到前行塞音的發音方式所影響所致。
　　聲學實驗的第二部份為聲學研究。聲學研究針對塞音的嗓音起始時間（以下簡稱VOT）、流音長度（流音在音節中所占比率）、以及流音共振峰值（第一、第二、及第三共振峰）。分析結果顯示台灣語者塞音的VOT值與母語語者相似，而流音所占比率大於母語者。流音所占比率較大，我們推測為台灣語者需要較多的時間來完成輔音串的協同發音所致。共振峰值方面，結果顯示表現較好的台灣語者與母語者的值非常相似，而流音代換 (類似/r/之音取代/l/) 與英語的/r/的共振峰值在分布範圍以及平均值上皆非常接近。
　　聽覺感知實驗探討台灣語者如何聽辨英語CCV vs. C«CV兩類刺激項，本實驗包含指辨認(identification)實驗以及區辨(discrimination)實驗；共有二十八位台灣語者參與實驗。實驗結果顯示，受試者偶而會聽到虛幻元音(illusory vowel)以及將/l/以及/r/兩者混淆，但整體而言，台灣語者能夠區分英語CCV vs. C«CV兩類刺激項。此現象顯示母語的phonotactics在聽覺感知上並未扮演極重要角色，與Dupoux et al (1999)的結果不同。另外，實驗結果顯示，有聲子音起首的刺激項錯誤率大於無聲子音起首的刺激項；包含/l/的刺激項錯誤率大於包含/r/的刺激項。
　　本研究也發現構音與聽覺感知之間成正相關，受試者發音與聽覺實驗當中，傾向採用相同策略（元音加插或流音代換）。
　　本文為第一個探討台灣語者所發輔音串的聲學特性以及聽覺感知的研究，實驗結果使我們對非母語的輔音串發音以及聽覺感知有更深入的了解。希望本研究的結果能對英語的發音教學上能夠有所幫助及對在非母語聽覺感知之相關研究有所啟發。

The aim of this thesis is to investigate the influence of the native phonological system on the production and perception of non-native speech. In order to address this issue, three experiments were conducted to examine how Taiwan Mandarin (TM) speakers produce and perceive English word-initial consonant clusters.
The first experiment is an acoustic study of the production by TM speakers of English consonant clusters. Results show that the majority of the production corpus has been correctly produced. However, errors have been found: TM speakers employ multiple strategies and the most frequent strategies are vowel epenthesis between two consonants (CCV□C□CV) and liquid replacement (/bl/□/br/). Moreover, speakers are more accurate on some clusters than others. One interesting finding is that the liquid duration ratio of TM speakers is larger than that of the native speaker and the F3 value of replacement (/l/□/r/) is similar to that of /r/ (i.e. the characteristic feature of /r/ is low F3). The larger ratio of liquids implies that the TM speakers needed more time to coarticulate the articulatory gestures between segments. The lower F3 value may be due to the coarticulation of the previous stop consonants (coarticulation effects, i.e. labialization in /b/- and /p/-clusters and velarization in /g/- and /k/-clusters).
The second and third experiments explore the perception of TM speakers on English CCV clusters and their counterpart disyllabic C«CV stimuli. Results of perception experiments demonstrate that participants could perceptually distinguish CCV and C«CV stimuli. Occasionally, participants hear illusory vowels and misperceive /l/ for /r/. The results are not consistent with the prediction that native phonotactics plays an important role in non-native perception. Thus, it is suggested that, in addition to phonotactics, perceptual cues play substantial roles in the perception of non-native syllable structures.
Results of the present study support the notion that there exists a close relationship between production and perception despite the individual variations. Speakers with more production errors tend to misperceive the stimuli more frequently and they tend to employ the same strategies in both production and perception. Moreover, the fact that participants can produce and perceive English consonant clusters indicates that native phonotactics does not play a very important role in the non-native speech.
The results of these studies not only contribute to the understanding of the interactions of native and non-native languages on the levels of phonemes and phonotactics, explore the relationship between speech production and perception, but also provide implications for the data analyses and formulation of hypotheses for future studies.

Table of Contents

CHINESE ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT…..………………………………………………………………… .ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..…………………………………………………………………………....v
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………................viii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………........x
LIST OF APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………......xi

CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………....1
  1.1  Background………………………………………………………...………………………...1
  1.2  Literature Review………………………………………………………………….………...1
1.2.1  The production of non-native sequences………………………………......................2
1.2.1.1  English consonant clusters by L2 speakers…………………….........................2
1.2.1.2  English consonant clusters by TM speakers……………………........................3
1.2.1.3  Mandarin Chinese and English phonotactics......................……………......…..4
1.2.1.4  The status of liquids in English and Chinese………………………………...…4
1.2.1.5 Markedness of L2 consonant clusters………………………………………..…..6
1.2.2  Non-native language perception………………………………………………..…….8
1.2.2.1  Theoretical approaches…………………………………………………...…...10
1.2.2.2  The role of phonotactics………………………………………………………14
   1.3  Motivations and Goals……………………………………………………………...…......17
   1.4  Outline of Thesis……………………………………………………………………….....18

CHAPTER 2  PRODUCTION STUDY (I)………………………………………………….......19
2.1  Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…….......19
2.1.1  Predictions…………………………………………………………….……..…….. 19
2.2  Method…………………………………………………………………….……………....20
2.2.1  Participants…………………………………………………………….……………20
2.2.2  Materials…………………………………………………………………………….20
2.2.3  Procedures…………………………………………………………………………..20
2.2.4  Transcription…………………………………………………………………...…... 21
2.3  Results……………………………………………………………………………….…... 22
2.3.1  General View………………………………………………………………..............23
2.3.2  Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………......................25
2.3.2.1  The main effect of initial consonant………………………...……….……… .26
2.3.2.2  Main effect of liquid……………………………………………………..........28
2.3.2.3  Main effect of Syllable structure……………………………………..…….... 29
2.4  Conclusion and Discussion..........………………………………………………………... 31

CHAPTER 3  PRODUCTION (II): ACOUSTIC STUDY………………………………….…35
3.1  Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….....35
3.2  Method………………………………………..…………………………………….....…..37
3.2.1  Participants………………………………………………………………….............37
3.2.2  Material …………………………………………………………………..................37
3.2.3  Measurements…………………………………………………………………….....37
3.3  Results……………………………………………………………………………….........38
3.3.1  Duration of Consonant: VOT…………………………………………….…............38
3.3.1.1  The native speaker……………………………………………………….........38
3.3.1.2  Results of the Taiwan Mandarin (TM) speakers…………………………........40
3.3.1.3  Discussion…………………………………………………………………......43
3.3.2  Duration of Liquids………………………………………………………………... 43
3.3.2.1  Discussion…………………………………………………………………......50
3.3.3  Formant frequencies of liquids……………………………………………………...50
3.3.3.1  Results…………………………………………………………………...........50
3.3.3.2  Discussion…………………………………………………………………......55
3.3.4  Production Experiment 2: liquids /r/ and /l/ in the syllable-initial position...............56
3.3.4.1  Participants…………………………………………………………………....56
3.3.4.2  Stimuli materials and Procedure……………………………………………....56
3.3.4.3  Results and discussion………………………………………………………...57
3.4  General discussion…………………………………………………………………….......58

CHAPTER 4  PERCEPTION EXPERIMENT…………………………………………..….…61
4.1  Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….61
4.1.1  Predictions…………………………………………………………………………..61
4.2  Method………………………………………………………………………………........62
4.2.1  Participants……………………………………………………………………….....62
4.2.2  Speech Materials and Procedure…………………………………………………....63
4.1.2.1  Identification tests………………………………………………………….…64
4.2.2.2  Discrimination tests……………………………………………………….......64
4.3  Results…………………………………………………………………………………….65
4.3.1  Identification test…………………………………………………………………....65
4.3.2  Identification reevaluated…………………………………………………………...67
4.3.3  Discrimination test………………………………………………………….……....70
4.4  Discussion…………………………………………………………………...................... 72

CHAPTER 5  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCTION AND PERCEPTION...77
5.1  Results of this study……………………………………………………………………....79
5.1.1  Error rates for six individual speakers………………………………………….…..79
5.1.2  Error types in production and perception tasks…………………………………......81
5.2  Discussion………………………………………………………………………………...85

CHAPTER 6  CONCLUSION………………………………………………………..…............87
6.1  Summary of this thesis…………………………………………………………………....    87
6.2  Limitations & Further Research……………………………………………......................92

REFERENCE...................................................................................................................................93





LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1  Error rates for each error type (Strong Performers) ………………………...………. 24
Figure 2.2  Error rates for each type (Weak Performers) …………………………………….......24
Figure 2.3  Error rates by initial consonants……………………………………............................26
Figure 2.4  Error rates by clusters……………………………………........................................... 27
Figure 2.5  Error rates by initial consonants: Strong Performers………………………….……...27
Figure 2.6  Error rates by clusters: Strong Performers……………………………………............27
Figure 2.7  Error rates by initial consonants: Weak Performers…………………………………..28
Figure 2.8  Error rates by clusters: Weak Performers……………………………………..............28
Figure 2.9  Error rates of /l/ and /r/ of each participant……………………………………...........29
Figure 2.10  The effect of Number of syllables for each group (error rate) ……………………...30
Figure 2.11  The effect of Number of syllables for each participant……………………..............30
Figure 3.1  VOT values by in initial consonants /b, p/…………………………………................39
Figure 3.2  VOT values by in initial consonants /d, t/…………………………………….............39
Figure 3.3  VOT values by in initial consonants /g, k/…………………………………................39
Figure 3.4  VOT values by in initial consonants /b, p/: Speaker M2………………….................. 40
Figure 3.5  VOT values by the initial consonant /d, t/ of speaker M2………………….................41
Figure 3.6  VOT values by in initial consonants /g, k/: Speaker M2……………….......................41
Figure 3.7  VOT values by the initial consonant /b, p/ of all speakers except speaker M2…….…42
Figure 3.8  VOT values by the initial consonant /d, t/ of all speakers except speaker M2….........42
Figure 3.9  VOT values by the initial consonant /g, k/ of all speakers except speaker M2…….…42
Figure 3.10  Mean duration of /l/ and /r/ for each speaker……………………………………......44
Figure 3.11  Ratio of liquids to syllables……………………….....................................................45
Figure 3.12  The ratio of liquids to the syllable (native speaker) ………………………………...45
Figure 3.13  The ratio of liquids to the syllable (Speaker S1) …………………………………....47
Figure 3.14  The ratio of liquids to the syllable (Speaker S2) ……………………………………47
Figure 3.15  The ratio of liquids to the syllable (Speaker M1) …………………………………...47
Figure 3.16  The ratio of liquids to the syllable (Speaker M2) ………………………………….. 48
Figure 3.17  The ratio of liquids to the syllable (Speaker S3) …………………………………... 49
Figure 3.18  The ratio of liquids to the syllable (Speaker S4) …………………………………... 49
Figure 3.19  The ratio of liquids to the syllable (Speaker S5) ………………................................49
Figure 3.20  Formant averages and maximum and minimum values for the native speaker …….51
Figure 3.21  Formant averages for Speaker S1……………………………………........................52
Figure 3.22  Formant averages for Speaker S2……………………………………........................52
Figure 3.23  Formant averages for Speaker M1……………………………………......................53
Figure 3.24  Formant averages for Speaker M2…………………………………..........................53
Figure 3.25  Formant averages of Speaker S3……………………………………........................ 54
Figure 3.26  Formant averages for Speaker S4……………………………………....................... 54
Figure 3.27  Formant averages for Speaker S5……………………………………........................55
Figure 3.28  Formant frequencies and range of liquids by Speaker M1 & M2……………….......58
Figure 3.29  Formant frequencies and range of liquids by Speaker S3 & S5……….....................58
Figure 4.1  Interaction of syllable type by voicing. .......…………………………................…… 67
Figure 4.2  Different patterns in the interaction of syllable type by voicing………………...........70
Figure 4.3  Different patterns in the interaction of voicing by liquid…………………………..…72
Figure 4.4  Different patterns in the interaction of voicing by syllable type by group………........72
Figure 5.1  Error rates between production and perception…………………………………….....80
Figure 5.2  Error rates between production and perception (identification): the same speakers….80
Figure 5.3  Error rates for each error type: production experiment……………………………….82
Figure 5.4  Error rates for each error type: perception experiment (identification) ……………...82
Figure 5.5  Error rates for voicing contrast: Strong Performers……………………………….… 83
Figure 5.6  Error rates for voicing contrast: Weak Performers………………………………...….84
Figure 5.7  Error rates for liquids: Strong Performers…………………………………............….84
Figure 5.8  Error rates for liquids: Weak Performers…………………………………..............….84



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1  The markedness of consonant clusters..............................................................................8
Table 1.2  Assimilation types of PAM............................................................................................12
Table 2.1  Number of tokens in this experiment..............................................................................21
Table 2.2  Error types in the production of English clusters by TM speakers.................................22
Table 2.3  Results of ANOVA..........................................................................................................25
Table 2.4  Error rate for the interaction voicing (vd vs. vl) ×Number of syllables (1 vs. 2) ×group...............................................................................................................................31
Table 3.1  Formant frequencies (in Hz) across all speakers in prevocalic position (male and female)(Espy-Wilson1992) ...........................................................................................36
Table 3.2  Formant frequencies (in Hz) and standard deviation (in parentheses) for male and female speakers (Dalston 1976).....................................................................................36
Table 3.3  Formant frequencies and standard deviation of /r/ (male) (Hagiwara 1995)..................37
Table 3.4  Mean formant frequencies (in Hz) and range in consonant cluster and word-initial position (Kinnaird and Zapf 2004).................................................................................37
Table 3.5  VOT of the native speaker. Two sets of values are given for /b d g/..............................38
Table 3.6  VOT of the speaker M2. Two sets of values are given for /b d g/..................................41
Table 3.7  VOT values of all speakers except speaker M2..............................................................41
Table 3.8  Subtypes of errors...........................................................................................................46
Table 3.9  The average formant values of liquids for the native speaker and Strong Performers...51
Table 3.10  The average formant values of liquids for Weak Performers........................................54
Table 3.11  Corpus in 2nd production experiment: initial /r/ and /l/.................................................57
Table 4.1  Mean percent correct identification of English CCV and C□CV syllables by TM speakers..........................................................................................................................65
Table 4.2  Identification of CCV and C□CV analysis of variance...................................................66
Table 4.3  Identification of CCV and C□CV analysis of variance: group factor..............................68
Table 4.4  Mean percent correct identification of English CCV and C□CV syllables by Strong Performers & Weak Performers......................................................................................69
Table 4.5  Mean percent correct discrimination of CCV and C□CV English words.......................70
Table 5.1  Error rates of production and perception experiments: six speakers..............................80





LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Words used in Production experiment (Chapter 2).....................................................103
Appendix 2: Error types and corresponding spectrograms..............................................................104
Appendix 3: The stimuli of Perception Experiment and their acoustic correlates (Chapter 4)........110
Appendix 4: Questionnaire of language background (Chapter 4)....................................................121
Appendix 4.1: Questionnaire of language background (English version)........................................123
Appendix 5: Self-assessment of English ability (Chapter 4)............................................................125

                                

REFERENCE

Ainworth, W.A. and Paliwal, K.K. 1984. Correlation between the production and perception of English glides /w, r, l, j/. Journal of Phonetics, 12, 237-243.
Alwan, A., Narayanan S., and Haker, K. 1997. Towards articulatory-acoustic models for liquids consonants based on MRI and EPG data. Part II: the rhotics. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 101(2), 1078-1089.
Anderson, Janet I. 1987. The markedness differential hypothesis and syllable structure difficulty. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (eds.), Interlanguage Phonology: The acquisition of second language sound system, 279-291. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., and Vaknin, V. 2007. What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition, 104(3), 591-630.
Best, C.T., McRoberts, G.W., and Sithole, N.M. 1988. Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu clicks discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 4, 45-60.
Best, Catherine T. and Winifred Strange. 1992. Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of phonetics, 20, 305-330
Best, Catherine T., Gerald W. McRoberts, & Elizabeth Goodell. 2001. Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 109(2), 775-794.
Best, Catherine T. 1994. The emergence of native-language phonological influence in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In J. Goodman and H. Nusbaum (eds.), The Development of Speech Perception: The Transition from Speech Sounds to Spoken Words, 167-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Best, Catherine, T. 1995. A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (ed), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-language Speech Research, 167-200. Timonium, MD: York Press.
Borden, G. Gerber, Milsark, A. G. 1983. Production and perception of the /r/-/l/ contrast in Korean adults learning English. Language Learning, 33(3), 499-526.
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D.B., Akahane-Yamada, R. and Tohkura, Y. 1997. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 101(4), 2299-2310.
Broselow, Ellen and Finer, Daniel. 1991. Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research, 7(1), 35-59.
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1995. Dynamics and articulatory phonology. In T. van Gelder and R.F. Port (eds.) Mind as motion, 175-193. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1936. Types of plosives in Chinese. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 106-110.
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1948. Mandarin Primer: An Intensive Course in Spoken Chinese. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chen, Mei-lien. [陳美璉] 1998. Interlanguage Phonology of EFL Students. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Chen, Yang. 1999. Acoustic characteristics of American English produced by native speakers of Mandarin. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Cheng, Chin-chuan. 1973. A Synchronic Phonology of Mandarin Chinese. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cutler, Anne. 1986. Phonological structure in speech recognition. Phonology, 3, 161-178
Dalston, Rodger M. 1975. Acoustic characteristics of English /w, r, l/ spoken correctly by young children and adults. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 57(2), 462-469.
Davidson, L. and Stone, M. 2004. Epenthesis versus gestural mistiming in consonant cluster production. In Vineeta Chand et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), 165-178. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Davidson, Lisa. 1997. An Optimality Theoretic Approach to Second Language Acquisition. Senior Honors Thesis, Brown University.
Davidson, Lisa. 2003. The Atoms of Phonological Representations: Gestures, Coordination and Perceptual Features in Consonant Cluster Phonotactics. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.
Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dupoux, E. and Gout, A. 2000. Electrophysiological correlates of phonological processing: a cross-linguistic study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(4), 635-647.
Delattre and Freeman. 1968. A dialect study of American r’s by X-ray motion pictures. Linguistics 44, 29-68.
Duanmu, San. 2000. The Phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Dupoux, E., Kakehi, K., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C., & Mehler, J. 1999. Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1568-1578.
Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Kakeshi, K., and Mehler, J. 2001. New evidence for prelexical phonological processing in word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 491-505.
Eckman, Fred, and Iverson, Gregory. 1993. Sonority and markedness among onset clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Second Language Research, 9, 234-252.
Espy-Wilson, Carol Y. 1992. Acoustic measures for linguistic features distinguishing the semivowels /w j r l/ in American English. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 92: 736-757.
Flege, J. E. & Eefting, W. 1986. Linguistic and developmental effects on the production and perception of stop consonants. Phonetica, 43, 155-171.
Flege, James E., Ocke-Schwen Bohn and Sunyoung Jang. 1997. Effect of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics 25, 437-470.
Flege, J.E. 1981. The phonological basis of foreign accent. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 443-55.
Flege, J.E. 1988. The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In H Winitz (ed.) Human Communication and its Disorders, vol.2, 224-401. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Flege, J.E. 1991. Perception and production: The relevance of phonetic input to L2 phonological learning. In T. Heubner & C. Ferguson (Eds) Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, 249-289. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Flege, J. E. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (ed) Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-language Speech Research, 233-272. Timonium MD: York Press
Flemming, Edward. 2002. Auditory Representations in Phonology. Routledge: London.
Flemming, Edward. 2004. Contrast and perceptual distinctness. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (eds.) Phonetically-Based Phonology, 232-276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goto, H. 1971. Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds "l" and "r". Neuropsychologia, 9, 317-323.
Hagiwara, Robert. 1995. Acoustic realization of American /r/ as produced by women and men. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetica, 90, 2-187.
Hall□, P. A., Segui, J., Frauenfelder, U., and Meunier, C. 1998. Processing of illegal consonant clusters: A case of perceptual assimilation? Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 24(2), 592-608.
Hancin-Bhatt, Barbara and Bhatt, Rajesh. 1998. Optimal L2 syllables: Interactions of transfer and developmental effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 331-378.
Hardcastle, W.J. 1985. Some phonetic and syntactic constraints on lingual co-articulation during /kl/ sequences. Speech communication, 4, 247-263.
Hardcastle, W. and Barry. W. 1989. Articulatory and perceptual factors in /l/ vocalization in English. Journal of International Phonetic Association, 15, 3-17.
Hardcastle W. and John, Laver. 1997. The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hayes, B. and Steriade, D. 2004. A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In Hayes et al (eds.) Phonetically based phonology, 1-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, B., Kirchner, R.M., and Steriade, D. 2004. Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henly, E. and Sheldon, A. 1986. Duration and context effects on the perception of English /r/ and /l/: a comparison of Cantonese and Japanese speakers. Language Learning, 36, 505-521.
Ho, Tah-an. 1987. Historical phonology: concepts and methods. [聲韻學中的觀念和方法] Taipei: Tah-an Publishing Co.
Howie, John Marshall. 1976. Acoustic Studies of Mandarin Vowels and Tones. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ingram, J.C.L. & Park, S.-G. 1998. Language, context and speaker effects in the identification and discrimination of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese and Korean listeners. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 103, 1-14.
International Phonetic Association. 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association : A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ioup, Georgette and Steven Weinberger. 1987. Interlanguage Phonology: The Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers.
Iverson, P, Kuhl, P.K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E. Tohkura, Y, Kettermann, A. and Siebert, C. 2003. A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87, B47-57.
Iverson, Paul, and Patricia K. Kuhl. 1996. Influence of phonetic identification and category goodness on American listeners’ perception of /r/ and /l/. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1130-1140.
Johnson, K., Flemming, E., and Wright R. 1993. The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets are hyperarticulated. Language, 69, 505-528.
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1926. Etude sur las Phonologie Chinoise. Leiden: E. J. Brill.《中國音韻學研究》[中譯本，趙元任、羅常培、李方桂譯]，商務印書館 1940，上海。
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kent, R.D. and Read, C. 1992. The acoustic analysis of speech. California: Singular Publishing Group.
Kinnaird, Susan Kuzniak and Jennifer Zapf. 2004. An Acoustical Analysis of a Japanese Speaker’s Production of English /r/ and /l/. Indiana University Linguistics Club Working Papers Online https://www.indiana.edu/~iulcwp/contents.cgi?which=4 Access date: 2006/9/6
Klatt, Dennis H. 1975. Voice onset time, frication, and aspiration in word-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18, 686-706.
Kuhl, P.K., William, K.A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K.N., and Lindblom, B. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255, 606-608.
Kuhl, Patricia K. 1991. Human adults and human infants show a ‘perceptual magnet effect’ for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics, 50(2), 93-107.
Lee, W. and Zee, E. 2003. Illustration of the IPA: Standard Chinese (Beijing). Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33(1), 109-112.
Liberman, A. M. & Mattingly, I. 1985. The motor theory revised. Cognition, 21, 1-36.
Liberman, A.M, Cooper, F.S., Shankweiler, D.P., and Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1967. Perception of speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
Lin, Yen-hwei. 1989. Autosegmental Treatment of Segmental Processes in Chinese Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Lin, Yuh-huey [林玉惠]. 2001. Interlanguage variability: studies on L2 consonant clusters simplification. Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua University.
Lisker, Leigh and Abramson, Arthur. S.1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word, 20, 3, 384-422.
Lisker, Leigh, and Abramson, Arthur S. 1967. Some effects of context on voice onset time in English stops. Language and Speech, 10, 1-28.
Lively, S. E., Pisoni, D. B., and Logan, J. S. 1992. Some effects of training Japanese listeners to Identify English /r/ and /l/. In Y. Tohkura, E. Vatikiotis-Bateson, and Y. Sagisaka (eds.) Speech Perception, Production and Linguistic Structure, 175–196. Tokyo: Ohmsha-IOS.
Locke, J. L. 1983. The prediction of child speech errors: implications for a theory of acquisition. In G. Yeni-Komshian, J. F & Kavanagh, & C. A. Ferguson, (eds) Child Phonolgoy: Volume 1, Production, 193-207. New York: Academic Press.
Logan, J.S., Lively, S.E., and Pisoni, D.B. 1991. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 89(2), 874-886.
Mann, Virginia. 1986. Distinguishing universal and language-dependent levels of speech perception: evidence for Japanese listeners’ perception of “l” and “r”. Cognition, 24, 169-196.
Massaro, Dominic and M. Cohen. 1983. Phonological context in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 34(3), 338-348
Moreton, Elliott. 2002. Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition, 84, 55-71.
Narayanan, S., A. Alwan, and K. Haker. 1997. Towards articulatory-acoustic models for liquid consonants based on MRI and EPG data. Part I: The laterals. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 101(2), 1064-1077.
Newman, Rochelle S. 2003. Using links between speech perception and speech production to evaluate different acoustic metrics: a preliminary report. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 113(5), 2850-2860.
Nittrouer, S., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and McGowan, R. S. 1989. The emergence of phonetic segments: Evidence from the spectral structure of fricative-vowel syllables spoken by children and adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 120–132.
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paliwal, K.K., Lindsay, D., and Ainsworth, W.A. 1983. Correlation between production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 77-83.
Perkell, Joseph S., Guenther, Frank H., Lane, Harlan, Matthies, Melanie L., Stockmann, Ellen, Tiede, Mark, and Zandipour, Majid. 2004. The distinctness of speakers’ productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of contrasts. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 116(4), 2338-2344.
Pickett, J.M. 1999. The Acoustics of Speech Communication: Fundamentals, Speech Perception Theory, and Technology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Pitt, Mark. 1998. Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception and Psychophysics, 60(6), 941-951
Polka, L. and Werker, J. 1994. Developmental changes in perception of non-native vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and Performance, 20, 421-435.
Polka, Linda. 1991. Cross-language speech perception in adults: phonemic, phonetic and acoustic contributions. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 89, 3, 2961-2977
Polka, Linda. 1992. Characterizing the influence of native language experience on adult speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 52(1), 37-52.
Rochet, Bernard L. 1995. Perception and production of second-language sounds by adults. In W. Strange (ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language research, 379-410. Timonium MD: York Press.
Rvachew, Susan. 1994. Speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 347-357.
Sato, Charlene. 1987. Phonological processes in second language acquisition: another look at interlanguage syllable structure. In G. Ioup and S.Weinberger (eds) Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system, 248-260. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Segui, Juan, Frauenfelder, Ulricht, and Halle, Pierre. 2001. Phonotactic constraints shape speech perception: implications for sublexical and lexical processing. In Dupoux, Emmanuel (ed.) Language, Brain and Cognitive Development, 195-208. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Sheldon, A. and Strange, W. 1982. The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: evidence that speech production and precede perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 243-261.
Sproat, R. and O. Fujimura. 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 291-311.
Strange, Winifred. 1995. Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-language Speech Research. Timonium MD: York Press.
Stevens, K.N., Liberman, A.M., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and □hman, S.E. 1969. Crosslanguage study of vowel perception. Language and Speech, 12, 1-23.
Stevens, Kenneth, Samuel Keyser & Haruko Kawasaki. 1986. Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In: J.S. Perkell & D.H. Klatt (eds.) Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes, 426-449. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Stoel-Gammon. C. and Dunn. C. 1985. Normal and disordered phonology in Children. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Strange, Winifred. 1995. Cross-language studies of speech perception: A Historical Review. In W. Strange (ed.) Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-language Speech Research, 167-200. Timonium MD: York Press.
Takagi, N. and Mann, V. 1995. The limits of extended naturalistic exposure on the perceptual mastery of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 379-405
Tarone, Elaine. 1987. Some influences on ht syllable structure of interlanguage phonology. In Georgette Ioup and Steven Weinberger (eds.) Interlanguage Phonology: The Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers.
Trubetzkoy, N.S. 1939/1969. Principles of Phonology, translated by C.A. Baltaxe. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Tsushima, T., Takizawa, O., Sasaki, M., Shiraki, S., Nishi, K., Kohno, M., Menyuk, P., and Best, C. 1994. Discrimination of English /r-l/ and /w-y/ by Japanese infants at 6-12 months: language-specific developmental changes in speech perception abilities. Papers presented at the International Conference of Spoken Language Processing, 1695-1698.
Wang, Chilin. 1995. The acquisition of English word-final obstruents by Chinese speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY.
Wang, Li [王力]. 1980. Hanyu yinyun [Chinese Phonology], 2nd ed. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Werker, J.F. and Logan, J.S. 1985. Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 37(1), 35-44.
Werker, J.F. and Tees, R. 1984. Cross language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49-63. Republished in Infant Behavior and Development, 25 (2002) 121–133.
Wright, Richard. 2004. A review of perceptual cues and robustness. In Steriade, Kirchner, and Hayes (eds.) Phonetically based phonology, 34-57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Yamada, Reiko and Tohkura, Yoh’ichi. 1992. The effects of experimental variables on the perception of American English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese listeners. Perception and Psychophysics, 52, 376-392.
Yamada, R.A., Strange, W., Magnuson, J.S., Pruitt, J.S., and Clarke III, W.D. 1994. The intelligibility of Japanese speakers: productions of American English /r/, /l/, and /w/, as evaluated by native speakers of English. Proceedings of International Conference of Spoken Language Processing, 2023-2026.
Yamada, R. A. 1995. Age and acquisition of second language speech sounds: perception of American English /r/ and /l/ by native speakers of Japanese. In W. Strange (ed.) Speech perception and language experience: issues in cross-language research, 305–320. Timonium, MD: York Press.
Yang, Byungguon. 1996. A comparative study of American English and Korean vowels produced by male and female speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 245-261.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文