ɛyɗpøməʙɸƥʘbɱβʋɓǀfʋœvθæɬtnurɜðsɹ
lƭzɐɶɘʈɳɽɤʂɑʒɻɭǂɟʐcɲçɑjʎƈkɪŋxæɰɔʟƙɡɫɵ
ɠʠʌqɴʀχɣʛʔħʕhɦyɗpøməʙɸƥʘbɱβʋɓǀfʋ
PERCEPTION AND PRODUCTION
œvθæɬtnurɜðsɹlƭzɐɶɘʈɳɽɤʂɑʒɻɭǂɟʐcɲçɑjʎ
OF THE VOWEL SCHWA /ə/ BY
COLOMBIAN SPANISH SPEAKERS
ƈkɪŋxæɰɔʟƙɡɫɵɠʠʌqɴʀχɣʛʔħʕhɦɚɝiyɪʏ
OF L2 ENGLISH
ɐɛyɗpøməʙɸƥʘbɱⱱβʋɓǀfʋœvθæɬtnurɜðs
ɹlƭzɐɶɘʈɳɽɤʂɑʒɻɭǂɟʐcɲçɑjʎƈkɪŋxæɰɔʟƙɡɫɵ
ɠʠʌqɴʀχɣʛʔħʕhɦɚɝiyɪʏɐyɗpøməʙɸƥʘb
ɱβʋɓǀfʋœvθæɬtnurɜðsɹlƭzɐɶɘʈɳɽɤʂɑʒɻɭǂɟʐ
cɲçɑjʎƈkɪŋxæɰɔʟƙɡɫɵɠʠʌqɴʀχɣʛʔħʕhɦɚ
ɝiyɪʏɐyɗpøməʙɸƥʘbɱβʋɓǀfʋœvθæɬtnurɜ
ðsɹlƭzɐɶɘʈɳɽɤʂɑʒɻɭǂɟʐcɲçɑjʎƈkɪŋxæɰɔʟƙɡ
ɫɵɠʠʌqɴʀχɣʛʔħʕhɦɚɝiyɪʏɐyɗpøməʙɸƥʘ
bɱβʋɓǀfʋœvθæɬtnurɜðsɹlƭzɐɶɘʈɳɽɤʂɑʒɻɭǂɟ
ʐcɲçɑjʎƈkɪŋxæɰɔʟƙɡɫɵɠʠʌqɴʀχɣʛʔħɛyɗ
pøməʙɸƥʘbɱβʋɓǀfʋœvθæɬtnurɜðsɹlƭzçɑj
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes
Departamento de Lingüística
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Magister en Fonética – University of Leeds
Licenciada en Inglés – Universidad Industrial de Santander
Beneficiaria – COLFUTURO 2009
Becaria – COLFUTURO – ECOPETROL 2012
PERCEPTION AND PRODUCTION OF THE VOWEL SCHWA /ə/ BY COLOMBIAN
SPANISH SPEAKERS OF L2 ENGLISH
200431134
Department of Linguistics & Phonetics
School of Modern Languages & Cultures
University of Leeds
Submitted in part fulfillment of the
requirements for the
degree of MA in Phonetics
Module LING5350M
Dissertation (Linguistics and Phonetics)
2010
Supervisor: Dr L Plug
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Perception and production of the vowel Schwa /ə/ by native Colombian Spanish
Speakers of L2 English
Table of Contents
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….…… 6
2. Literature Review ……………………………………………………………
8
2.1. Acquisition of L2 phonology……………………………………..……..… 8
2.1.1. Acquisition of L2 vowels …………………………………………... 9
2.1.2. Speech Learning Model …………………………………………..
12
2.2. L1 and L2 vowels ………………………………………………………… 14
2.2.1. Spanish vowels …………………………………………………….. 15
2.2.2. English Schwa……………………………………………………… 16
2.2.3. L1 and L2 contrastive features…………………………………...... 16
2.3. Previous research………………………………………………………….. 18
2.4. The present investigation…………………………………………………. 22
2.5. Hypotheses and research questions ………………………………………. 24
3. Methodology ………………………………………………………………..... 25
3.1. Participants ……………………………………………………………….. 25
3.1.1. Subjects …………………………………………………………… 25
3.2. Procedure ………………………………………………………………… 26
3.2.1. Language background questionnaire ……………………………... 27
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
3.2.2. Selection of experimental and control groups …………………….. 27
3.2.3. Collection of data ………………………………………………...... 28
3.2.3.1.
Experiment 1 ………………………………………………. 30
3.2.3.2.
Experiment 2 ……………………………………………….. 32
3.2.3.3.
Experiment 3 ……………………………………………….. 33
3.2.3.4.
Training …………………………………………………….. 34
3.2.3.5.
Experiment 4 ……………………………………………….. 35
3.2.4. Acoustic (Instrumental) analysis …………………………………… 35
4. Study …………………………………………………………….…………..… 37
4.1. Baseline recordings ………………………………………………………... 37
4.2. Native speakers’ results ………………………………………...…………. 39
4.2.1. Perception ……………………………………………………...….. 39
4.2.2. Production ………………………………………………………….. 41
4.3. L2 speakers’ results ……………………………………………………….. 44
4.3.1. Pre-test …………………………………………………………….. 44
4.3.1.1.
Perception ………………………………………………….. 44
4.3.1.2.
Production ………………………………………………..... 45
4.3.2. Post-test …………………………………………………………….. 54
4.3.2.1.
Perception …………………………………………………. 54
4.3.2.2.
Production ……………………………………………….… 55
4.4. Discussion ……………………………………………………………….… 60
5. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 63
6. References …………………………………………………………..……….... 64
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
7. Appendices ………………………………………………………………...… 70
Appendix 1. Letter of consent given to the participants before the experiments
started. ………………………………………………………………………….. 70
Appendix 2. Language background questionnaire given to the L2 participants
before the experiments started. ……………………………………………….... 71
Appendix 3. Experiment 2 (Spanish speakers baselines). …………………..… 72
Appendix 4. Experiment 3 (L2 speakers’ Production Pre-Test) ……………..…73
Appendix 5. Experiment 3 (Native speakers’ Production Test) …………….… 75
Appendix 6. Experiment 4 (L2 speakers’ Production Post-Test)…………….... 77
Appendix 7. Pronunciation Training Handout – Lesson 1. …………….…........ 79
Appendix 8. Pronunciation Training Handout – Lesson 2 …………….…….… 82
Appendix 9. Pronunciation Training Handout – Lesson 3 ……………..……… 85
Appendix 10. Production Results. Mean values obtained from the group of
English native Speakers. ………………………………………………………. 88
Appendix 11. Production Pre-Test Results. Mean values obtained from the group
of L2 speakers (Experimental Group) ……………………………………….…. 89
Appendix 12. Production Post-Test Results. Mean values obtained from the
group of L2 speakers (Experimental Group) ………………………………....... 90
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 13. Production Pre-Test Results. Mean values obtained from the group
of L2 speakers (Control Group)………………………………………………… 91
Appendix 14. Production Post-Test Results. Mean values obtained from the
group of L2 speakers (Control Group) …………………………………………. 92
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Abstract
This study assessed the performances of a group of speakers of English as a
second language (L2) when perceiving and producing the English vowel
Schwa. In addition, it also aimed to evaluate the hypotheses proposed by the
Speech Learning Model (SML), developed by Flege and colleagues (1988,
1992, 1995, 1999, and 2002) which suggest that L2 speakers are capable of
creating new phonetic categories for new L2 sounds. Ten L2 speakers, who
were living in England, and whose first language was Spanish (Colombian),
as well as a group of five English native speakers participated as informants.
As it had not been studied before, the effect of orthography was chosen as an
important variable that could be affecting the L2 speakers’ perceptual and
productive abilities. The study was carried out in three stages. The first stage,
evaluated the initial L2 speakers’ perceptual and productive abilities. The
second stage consisted of three sessions of pronunciation training. Finally, the
third stage aimed to evaluate whether the learners improved in a post-training
context. Perception was evaluated by having L2 informants judge several
English words that included correct and incorrect pronunciations. Percentages
of correct answers were contrasted to the results obtained from the native
speakers. Regarding production, acoustic measurements of the quality and
duration of the vowels were taken in order to be compared to the native
speakers’ productions. Results suggest that most of the L2 speakers were
influenced by the orthography of the words; therefore, they perceived and
produced the English Schwas as instances of their native vowels. In
consequence, as predicted by the SML, a blocking effect in the creation of
new L2 phonetic categories took place and no improvement was seen after the
training in terms of quality.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
1. Introduction
The acquisition of second language (L2) phonology has been found to be one of the
most challenging skills to obtain by L2 learners. Most L2 speakers are expected to
have a foreign accent, and this can be even more noticeable if they started learning
the new language after the age of 15 (Flege, Munro and McKay, 1995). Although, L2
learners are thought to be prevented from acquiring new sounds and produce them in
a native-like fashion, there is also evidence suggesting that it is possible acquire L2
vowels and consonants and produced them similarly to native speakers, and this is
even more likely if these phonemes are not similar to any L1 sound (Flege, 1988,
1995, 2003). The Speech Learning Model (SLM) created by Flege and colleagues
(1988, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2002) proposes that, even learners who started acquiring the
language at a later age are capable of learning new L2 phones. The model suggests
that the abilities that are used when acquiring the native language (L1) are retained
during the life span; therefore, these abilities can be used when learning a new
language in the same way that they are used when learning the L1. On the other hand,
the model also suggests that if phones are no assimilated as an existing category of
the L1, this learning is even more probable. Therefore, the SLM links both the
perceptual to the productive abilities in order to propose a new approach to the
acquisition of L2 phonology.
The present investigation aimed to find out how L2 English speakers, from a selected
variety of native Spanish, perceive a produce the English vowel Schwa /ə/ in respect
to English native speakers. While investigating the acquisition of this L2 phoneme,
this study also evaluated the hypotheses proposed by the SLM with the aim of finding
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
out whether L2 speakers are in fact prevented from acquiring the phonological
features of a new language, or if as predicted by the model, new phones can be
acquired in a native-like manner. One of the major innovations that was applied to
this research was the orthography variable. The influence of the written form of the
words was taken into account as a possible factor influencing the acquisition of L2
phonemes. Results obtained from the data suggest that the L2 speakers were affected
by the orthography, and therefore, they did not perceive Schwa as a new phone, but,
on the contrary, they appear to be assimilating it as several instances of their L1
vowels. At the same time, and even more interestingly, it was found that native
English speakers appear to be producing Schwas that are different from each other. In
sum, evidence shows that this phoneme was assimilated by L2 speakers as several
instances of their L1 vowels, and, as predicted by the SLM model, this appears to
have blocked the creation of a new phonetic category for this vowel.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
2. Literature Review
2.1. Acquisition of L2 phonology
Among the different areas concerning the learning of second languages, the one
regarding the acquisition of L2 phonology has successively been studied over the last
decades. Within the literature, one of the most common claims found is that the
acquisition of new sounds is possibly the most challenging skill for L2 learners to
acquire.
As a consequence, many of them tend to retain a foreign accent after
achieving proficiency in other aspects of L2 production (Flege and Bohn, 1989). To
support their claim, Flege and Bohn (1989:35), explain that factors, such as; differing
L2 rhythmic, intonational and stress patters can contribute to this unsuccessful
tendency in pronunciation. In addition, it has also been found that native-like
realisations are highly unlikely in L2 phonological acquisition. For example, the
studies by Scovel (1981) and Walsh and Diller (1981), have suggested that L2
learners face neurological constrains, such as restricted perceptual targets for new
phonetic categories, as well as motor skill limitations, such as first language (L1)
fixed articulatory habits that can hinder their performance and therefore lead to
improbable native- like productions.
Bearing in mind the apparent difficulties there seem to exist, research in the area have
looked at different aspects of L2 phonological acquisition with the aim of
understanding the processes occurring when dealing with new phonemes, either
vowels or consonants.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
2.1.1.
Acquisition of L2 Vowels
When studying the acquisition of L2 vowels, researchers have systematically looked
at several aspects involved in the learning processes. For example, research has
looked at the relationship between perceptual sharpness and productive ability, as
well as age-related factors and also the differences between L1 and L2 vowel
systems, among others. Let us now review some of the previous work that has
investigated these factors that appear to affect L2 pronunciation.
Firstly, let us look at the age-related part. Regarding age, researchers have often
divided learners into two groups: early learners, exposed to their L2 in childhood,
and late learners, exposed to their L2 in adolescence or early adulthood (i.e., Flege,
1991 and Flege and Munro, 1994). In general, what has been found is that there is a
tendency for early learners to produce L2 vowels more accurately than late learners
(i.e., Baker, Trofimovich, Mack and Flege, 2002, Flege, Munro and MacKay, 1996).
The investigation on the effects of age in the production of English vowels by Munro,
Flege and MacKay (1996) showed some age-related differences in the realisations of
the vowels studied. Results suggested that the L2 speakers who arrived to an Englishspeaking country at an early age tended to produce “unaccented” vowels whereas the
late-arriving speakers were found not to “master” any of the phonemes studied.
Accordingly, their findings suggest that the age at which learners arrived, and started
their exposure to the new vowel system, had an influence on their productions.
On the other hand, the study by Flege and Munro (1994) focused on the perception
and production of the word unit; however, it also looked at some age-related
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
differences. They found that there seems to be a difference between child and adult
L2 phonological acquisition. It was proposed that pre-existing phonetic categories in
L1, which are usually very well-fixed in adults and more flexible in children, lead to
different processing of phonetic input. This flexibility, which is not commonly found
in adults, allows children to perceive and then produce new phonemes more easily
(Flege and Munro, 1994:407). Therefore and as also claimed by Wode (1992), the
results by Flege and Munro (1994) seem to support the general claim that adults
appear to be in some way more prevented from developing phonetically accurate L2
target sounds than children.
The roles of L1 and L2 vowel systems and how the differences and similarities
between them affect learners’ productions have also been looked at. Regarding this, it
has been suggested that the L1 vowel system influences the production of L2 vowels,
especially in early stages of learning (i.e., Jun and Cowie, 1994, Major, 1987). For
example, the investigation by Major (1987) looked at the interrelationship of
phonological similarity between L1 and L2. In his study of the transfer and
markedness in the acquisition of English /æ/ and /ɛ/ by native speakers of Brazilian
Portuguese, he found that phonetic and phonological similarities between L1 and L2
vowel systems are of great relevancy. He proposed that these similarities can lead to
generalisations and interactions of the vowels within the interlanguage (Major,
1987:63).
Although it appears to be a common idea that L2 learners (especially late learners)
are prevented from producing native-like realisations, it has also been suggested that
it is possible for learners, as they become more experienced in their L2, to produce
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
vowels more accurately (Flege & Hillenbrand, 1987). Yet more interesting, some
researchers (i.e., Bohn and Flege, 1992, Flege, 1987 and Ingram and Park, 1997) have
found that even late learners can produce certain L2 vowels more accurately, when
these L2 vowels are located in an empty portion of their L1 vowel space. Let us
explore the latter idea in more depth.
The study on “new” and “similar” phones by Flege (1987) measured the ability of
three groups of L2 French speakers, who differed in the experience they had in the
French language, to produce certain phonemes. The phonemes selected for the study
were considered as “similar” or “new” phones. Flege describes “similar” phones as
the ones that differ systematically from an easily recognisable counterpart in L1; in
opposition, “new” phones are the ones that have no counterpart in the L2 and
therefore are acoustically different (Flege, 1987:47). The results obtain from the
second language learners indicated that adult speakers were capable of learning to
produce new phones as well as of modifying their articulation patterns in order to
produce similar phones in L2 (Flege, 1987:42). The findings obtained by Flege in this
study are of extreme relevance in the area of acquisition of L2 phonology. The results
open a window for L2 speakers, who are usually assumed to be prevented from
learning and producing new phones, especially if they are late learners, since in here
they are considered as capable of producing authentic L2 phonemes.
After reviewing some of the most important points in L2 phonology acquisition, there
appears to be a tendency for L2 learners to face difficulties when acquiring a new
phonological system. Even though, there seems to be agreement in the research
supporting the claim that, factors such as age, and the existence of well-fixed
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
phonetic categories can prevent accurate L2 phonetic production, it has also been
seen as possible. Regarding vowels, for example, there is evidence supporting the
theory that even late learners can accomplish proficient production of some L2
phonemes when certain conditions are given.
2.1.2. Speech Learning Model
A question of key importance when looking at the acquisition of L2 phonemes, as
explained by Flege (2003), remains on whether L2 learners are perceptually limited
from learning, regardless of their age. The Speech Learning Model (SLM), developed
by Flege and colleagues (1988, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2002), tries to answer this question
by linking perception and production. The model relates the ability to accurately
perceive speech input and sort a range of segments with common properties into
categories, to subsequently relate vocal output to the properties perceived in speech
sounds (Flege, 2003:8).
Therefore, the main aim of the SLM is to account for the changes in the learning of
segmental production and perception across the life span. To that end, the model
bases in two main assumptions. Firstly it assumes that the ability to form categories
for sound systems remains intact over the life span (Flege, 1995: 239). If that is true,
it might be possible to apply this ability, which is the same used when learning the L1
system, to L2 acquisition. On the other hand, it assumes that L1 and L2 phonetic
subsystems cannot be completely separated since bilinguals’ L1 and L2 phonetic
vowel subsystems will necessary interact because they both use the same
phonological vowel space (Flege, 2003:8-10).
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
The concepts of “new” and “similar” phones, seen in previous studies, are also crucial
in the construction of the Speech Learning Model since they are interrelated. The
model predicts that it is more likely to create a new phonetic category for an L2 sound
when this is a “new” sound. Flege (2003:10) argues that the greater is the perceived
dissimilarity of an L2 speech sound from the closest L1 sound, the more the
possibilities to establish a category for representing a novel sound. Once a new
category is created, as predicted by the SLM, bilinguals will produce sounds that are
as good as those produced by native speakers.
In other words, according to the SLM, adults can retain the capacities used by infants
when learning their L1 vowels and consonants, and then apply those to the acquisition
of L2 speech. This postulate opposes to the general claim that adults are prevented
from producing authentic L2 phonemes. Moreover, the existence of a critical period
for speech learning could be challenged (See Scovel, 1988, for more on the Critical
Period Hypothesis).
After reviewing the postulates and hypothesis presented by Flege in his Speech
Learning Model of second language sound acquisition, the present investigation
raises as a consequence of the interests in continuing testing the hypotheses forming
the model. As acknowledged by Flege (1995:239), the SML generates testable
predictions that can serve as a base for planning research. Therefore, the aim of the
present investigation is to learn more about the acquisition of “new” vowel phones
(no counterpart in L1) by using the postulates proposed by the SML as a ground base.
To that end, this study looks at both perception and production abilities and how they
interact in a group of adult second language speakers of English who have Spanish as
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
their L1. Bearing in mind that learning to produce phonemes from a second language
seems to be one of the most difficult tasks in L2 acquisition, it is appealing to
continue investigating on how this “assumed” condition can be challenged. Even
more, as proposed by the SLM, the thought of adults being prevented from producing
authentic L2 realisations remains debatable; as a result, it is worth to continue
investigating whether adults can in fact learn how to produce new phonemes.
2.2.
L1 and L2 vowels
This project will be investigating the perception and production of the English vowel
schwa /ə/ by speakers of Spanish as L1. As it was mentioned before, one of the
factors to look at when investigating the acquisition of vowel phonemes is the
differences and similarities between L1 and L2 vowel systems (i.e.; Major, 1987). In
this sense, both English and Spanish have contrastive features, not only when looking
at the vowels features specifically, but also, at some other factors such as the
rhythmic and stress patterns and the morphology of each language. These differences
and similarities can influence the way in which vowels are perceived and produced.
Let us now review the sounds that are important for the aim of this paper to
subsequently discuss how these contrastive features of English and Spanish are of
great relevancy in the acquisition of English L2 phonology, and more specifically, to
the acquisition of a new phone, such as it is schwa for Spanish speakers.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
2.2.1.
Spanish Vowels
Spanish language has five vowels which symbols are /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/. They are
generally very stable and the variation in their pronunciation is not major. When
articulating and producing them, the mouth is held in a tense position. Regarding
duration, there is not significant variation between vowels since they all seem to have
roughly the same length. Additionally, in Spanish, the stressed vowel in a word is
usually longer, however; this duration is still very short in contrast with long vowels
existing in other languages. (Barrutia and Schwegler, 1994:46). Let us now briefly
describe each of the Spanish vowels in respect to articulation and quality.
Vowel /a/, as in paso, is a low central, non-rounded phoneme articulated with the lips
in a neutral position. The second vowel; /e/, as in peso, is a mid front tense, nonrounded vowel articulated with the lips in a spread position. Vowel, /o/, as in pozo, is
mid back tense rounded vowel articulated with lips in a rounded position. The fourth
vowel, /i/, as in piso, is a high front tense non-rounded vowel. It is a tensely
articulated vowel with the lips in a tightly spread position. Finally, the vowel /u/, as in
puso, is a high back tense rounded vowel that is tensely articulated. (Hammond,
2001:91-100).
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
2.2.2.
English Schwa
The English vowel /ə/, called, Schwa is a central short vowel. It is the most common
vowel sound occurring in English. For that reason, it is a key phoneme when learning
the phonology of English as an L2. In quality, it is mid, halfway between close and
open, and central vowel, halfway between front and back. It is also described as lax
vowel; that is, not articulated with much energy. (Roach, 2009: 65).
It is worth mentioning that Schwa may represent the reduced form of any vowel or
diphthong in an unaccented position. This phenomenon that occurs in English is
known as vowel reduction. Gimson (2001:127) claims that this reduction of
unaccented vowels has been a feature of the English sound system for over a
thousand years. For that reason, and as also stated by stated by Roach (2009:65),
learners of English need to learn when it is appropriate to produce a Schwa and when
it is not. Acoustically, Ladefoged (2006:182) explains that the expected F1 and F2
values for the English Schwa are 500Hz and 1500Hz respectively.
2.2.3. L1 and L2 contrastive features
As stated above, Schwa is mostly related to weak syllables, that is; syllables in which
the vowels have undertaken a reduction process. As a result, it is important for the
aim of this paper to discuss how these processes of reduction work in the English
language and how they differentiate from what is seen in Spanish. In English, vowel
reduction can occur as a consequence of several factors. For example,
morphophonological alternations, the existence of weak and strong syllables, weak
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
and strong forms in function words, word-class pairs and finally, because of the
language rhythmic pattern.
One important factor leading vowel reductions in English is the rhythmic pattern the
language has. Usually, languages are classified as being either stress-timed or
syllable-timed. In that sense, English and Spanish are found to have different
rhythmic patterns. In one hand, English is considered to be a stress-timed language;
therefore, the intervals between the stress syllables tend to be of the same length. To
keep that rhythmic pattern regular, grammar words, such as; auxiliary verbs,
pronouns, articles, linkers and prepositions are not stressed, but on the contrary they
are usually reduced. These reduced syllables are said faster and at a lower volume
than stressed syllables, as a consequence, vowel sounds usually lose their purity, and
often become a Schwa. Oppositely, Spanish is a syllable-timed language, which
means that all the syllables have equal length and vowels are not considerably
reduced.
In addition to the rhythmic pattern of the language, in English another process leading
to vowel reduction is its vast derivational morphology, and more specifically, its
morphophonological alternations. Both Spanish and English undertake morphological
alternations that involve phonological changes. For example, the addition of certain
suffixes affects stress placement in both languages. Also, there can be changes in the
quality of the vowels in both languages when these alternations in morphology occur.
For example, we can have in Spanish, nuevo-novedad and in English botanybotanical. However, only English undertakes changes involving vowel reduction and
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
the subsequent appearance of Schwa in syllables that are unstressed. (Flege and Bohn,
1987).
In Spanish, as proposed by Delattre (1966), vowel reduction is not very important and
it only involves slight centring movements, for that reason, vowels are considered not
to lose their quality (Quilis and Fernandez, 1996). In general, in Spanish vowels are
very stable. It has been seen that all the five vowels have quite the same duration. As
a consequence, unlike English, Spanish does not have reduced vowels. More
importantly, stress is expected not to have a major effect on the quality of vowels. For
example, in the Spanish words, término (term) - termino (I terminate) - terminó
(he/she terminated) only the stress varies in the way the three words are pronounced
but the quality of the vowels remains the same in the three cases (Flege and Bohn,
1989:37). Quite the opposite, in English, reduced vowels are frequent and phonemes,
such as Schwa, have form new sound categories, becoming part of its phonological
inventory (Gómez-Lacabex, García-Lecumberri and Cook, 2005:1).
2.3. Previous Research
A vast number of studies have been carried out with the purpose of understanding the
processes occurring during the acquisition of L2 vowels. In the case of native Spanish
speakers, who aim to learn English as L2, a number of investigations have taken place
recently with the aim of providing evidence on how English vowels, vowel reduction
and specific phonemes, such as Schwa, are perceived and produced in different
contexts and under several conditions. Let us now move to reviewing some of these
studies.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Firstly, Fledge and Bohn (1989) studied vowel reduction and stress placement in
Spanish accented English. For their investigation, they focused on the vast
derivational morphology that English language takes and the morphophonological
alternations that occur as a consequence of it. Their aim was to find out how Speakers
of Spanish placed stress in morphologically alternating English words and whether
they reduced vowels appropriately or not. Their results suggested that Spanish
speakers acquired English stress patterns earlier than vowel reduction. In addition,
they discovered that L2 learners seem to acquire stress placement and vowel
reduction on a word-by-word basis.
In addition to Flege and Bohn, Gómez-Lacabex, García-Lecumberri and Cook (2005)
also studied perception and production of vowel reduction and English Schwa and by
native Spanish speakers of L2 English. For their investigation, they focused on the
difficulty that speakers of languages such as Spanish are believed to face when
dealing with vowel reduction since it is not a phenomenon they are familiarised with.
First, they focused on speakers who had not had any specific training on vowel
reduction or Schwa. They aimed to find out whether these speakers were able to
weaken unstressed syllables. Their results seem to support the idea that that simple
exposure to the L2 does not guarantee acquisition neither at the perceptual level nor at
the production level. The group of speakers could neither discriminate nor produce
vowel reduction in appropriate contexts. Subsequently, they carried out a second
investigation (Gómez-Lacabex, García-Lecumberri and Cook, 2007) aiming to
measure the effect of specific training on vowel reduction in L2 phonological
acquisition. They were also aiming to evaluate the hypothesis proposed by Flege’s
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
SLM of developing new phonetic categories for new sounds. Their study concluded
that training did have a positive effect on the learners’ perceptual skills. They claimed
that receiving training seems to have helped students developing new perceptual
abilities. (Gómez-Lacabex, García-Lecumberri and Cook, 2007:293-298). This study
only evaluated how the training affected production skills, therefore, whether students
who took the training improved their production skills, in the same way their
perceptual abilities seem to have improved, still remains a question.
In 2003, García Perez also evaluated the effects of training in the perception and
production abilities of Spanish native speakers of L2 English. Her investigation
evaluated the hypotheses proposed by the SLM as she was evaluating how speakers
perceived and produced a set of English vowels considered as “new” and “similar”
phones. She did direct comparisons between the speakers’ performances on pre-test
and post-tests. Her results suggested that improvement was significant in perception
but not in production. As a consequence, the study concluded that training can have
positive effects on students’ perceptual abilities but this was not proved to be
transferable to production (García Perez, 2003:84-86).
Aliaga-García and Mora (2007) assed the effects of phonetic training in L2 sound
perception and production. They were interested in exploring the effects of specific
phonetic training on the perceptual and productive competences. Their subjects were
speakers of Spanish and Catalan who were studying English in a classroom setting in
Spain. The phonemes studied included a set of English vowels and consonants.
Again, for this investigation the researchers where aiming to test some of the
hypotheses proposed by Flege on his SLM. For that reason, they were also looking at
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
adults’ perceptual abilities and whether these remain adaptive to new input or not.
Their results did not reveal overall significant improvement neither on perceptual or
productive competence. However, learners were found to either perceive or produce
some of the target sounds examined more accurately after training. They authors
therefore suggested that the phonetic training administered was successful since
significant improvement was seen in pronunciation accuracy of some phonemes
(Aliaga-García and Mora, 2007:23).
As it can be acknowledged from previous research, the acquisition of second
language phonology is a relevant issue in several areas (i.e., phonetics, phonology,
first and second language acquisition) and it is worth continuing research on it.
Results from the studies above mentioned show that the acquisition of certain L2
phonological features, such as vowel reduction, can be challenging for speakers who
are not familiarised with it. However, there is also evidence suggesting it is possible
to acquire specific sounds and features of a new phonological system. For example, it
was suggested that acquiring certain L2 vowels seems to be possible when these are
located in an empty portion of the L1 vowel space (i.e., Ingram and Park, 1997). In
addition to that, and as claimed by Gómez-Lacabex, García-Lecumberri and Cook
(2007) it appears that specific training in phonological features, such as, vowel
reduction, can have a positive effect on perceptual skills. On the other hand, results
from Bohn and Flege on vowel reduction suggested that L2 speakers can indeed
acquire features such as vowel reduction, although it appears to happen on a word by
word basis (Flege and Bohn, 1989).
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
2.4.
The present investigation
This study is interested in the perception and production of the English vowel Schwa
by speakers of Spanish as L1. Schwa is a key phoneme in the English language. For
Spanish native speakers, this vowel can be classified as “new” phone according to
Flege’s SLM (1988, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2002). This means that there is not a
counterpart in the Spanish vowel system because the acoustic features of Schwa are
different from those of any of the five Spanish vowels; therefore, English Schwa is
placed on an empty portion of the Spanish vowel space (see Figure 1). Moreover, the
fact that Schwa appears in English mostly as a consequence of vowel reduction,
which is a phenomenon that is not found in Spanish, makes even appealing to
investigate it. Gómez-Lacabex, García-Lecumberri and Cook (2007) explain that,
because all the above mentioned reasons, Schwa tends to be assimilated and produced
as a peripheral vowel by Spanish speakers and they also attribute this assimilation to
the influence of orthography.
Figure 1. Estimated Spanish vowels and English Schwa. Adapted from Ladefoged (2006:221)
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Although the orthography variable has been acknowledged in previous research (i.e.;
Gómez-Lacabex, García-Lecumberri and Cook, 2007) it had never been studied
systematically when investigating the acquisition of Schwa or vowel reduction. In
academic contexts, languages are usually introduced to L2 speakers in a written form,
either at the same time with pronunciation or sometimes even before pronunciation.
As a result, students might be influenced by the orthography when perceiving and
subsequently producing this phoneme. Moreover, in Spanish there is a one to one
relationship between the orthographic vowels and the vowel phonemes. Therefore,
each of the letters used for writing represent the vowels that are pronounced by
speakers (Flege, 1991). In consequence, the aim of this investigation was to evaluate
the perception and production of English Schwa by L1 Spanish speakers; however, it
did so by including the orthography as an important variable that might be
influencing the perceptual and productive competence of L2 speakers. This research
also evaluated the hypotheses proposed by the SLM suggesting that it is more likely
to create a new sound category for “new” phones in second language acquisition and
also that the abilities to acquire new phones in L2 remain intact during the life span
(Flege, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2002). To help evaluate these hypotheses, this
investigation included a stage of pronunciation training which aimed to evaluate
whether the L2 speakers’ perceptual and production competences are better in a posttraining context.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
2.5. Hypotheses and research questions
After reviewing all the literature concerning to this project the following are the
hypotheses and the research questions this study investigated:
Hypothesis: The acquisition of second language phones is one of the skills that
present more difficulty when acquiring a second language. L2 speakers are rarely
found to produce native-like realisations of L2 phonemes. Therefore, it can be
expected that Spanish speakers of English as L2 will encounter difficulty when
dealing with the L2 phone studied.
Research Question: How do Spanish native speakers perceive and produce the
English vowel Schwa in respect to native English speakers?
Hypothesis: The Speech Learning Model proposes that the perceptual and productive
abililities used by infants when learning their L1 vowels and consonants are retain
during the life span. In consequence, these abilities can be used by adults in the
acquisition of L2 speech. Additionally, the model predicts that this learning is even
more probable when the phones to be learnt are classified as “new” ones.
Consequently, the adults participating in this study are expected to show some
improvement in their perceptual and productive competences after the pronunciation
training provided, especially considering that Schwa, is a new phone for them.
Research Question: Will Spanish native speakers show improvement either at the
perceptual or productive level after being trained in the pronunciation of Schwa?
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
3. Methodology
3.1.
Participants
3.1.1. Subjects
A total of fifteen subjects participated in this investigation as informants. The
informant speakers included ten Colombian native Spanish speakers and five English
native speakers from England. The Colombian Spanish speakers were the L2 speakers
whose production and perception abilities were examined. On the other hand, the
group of English informants produced the vowels to which the L2 speakers’
realisations were contrasted to.
Firstly, the Colombian Spanish speakers were selected since the Colombian variety of
Spanish had not been studied before in this kind of second language acquisition
research. On the other hand, L2 English speakers in Colombia usually start learning
the language at a later age; therefore, they can be considered as late learners. This will
help evaluating the hypothesis proposed by the SLM that indicates that even late
learners are capable of acquiring L2 phonology in a native-like manner. Additionally,
there is an extra motivation for the selection of participants from this nationality. In
Colombia, as in many non-English speaking countries, people in general aim to
acquire English as a second language. Bearing that in mind, the Colombian
government, through its Ministry of Education, is running a National Bilingual
Programme that has been designed to help supporting the acquisition of L2 English
by all the Colombian citizens. In that order, any contribution to be made in the area of
the acquisition of L2 English by Colombian speakers will be highly appreciated by
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
the education authorities in the country. Finally, the English speakers selected all
came from England. This variety of English was chosen since the group of L2
speakers have all lived in England for a certain amount of time, therefore, this is the
native variety of English they have been exposed to.
3.2.
Procedure
3.2.1. Language background questionnaire
This questionnaire was used to establish some general aspects of the L2 speakers’
learning processes as well as to estimate the English level of each of them. All the
speakers reported to have normal hearing. The age of the informants ranged from 22
to 34 and their length of residency in The UK ranged from 4 to 34 months. On a scale
from 1 to 10, 10 being the highest, they all reported high levels of motivation in
respect to the learning of pronunciation. Only four informants reported to have started
learning English at primary school level, which means they started learning at an age
of around 6 years old. The other 6 informants reported to have started learning
English either at secondary, university level or at a private language school, which
means they started their learning process rather late. Finally, four speakers reported to
be studying English in the UK at the time the investigation took place. Table 1
(below) summarises the information obtained from the Colombian informants.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Participant
Sex
Age
LOR
Motivation
SLE
1A
M
31
6
10
2A
F
34
10
7
3A
F
25
35
10
4A
F
25
30
10
Secondary
School
Language
School
Language
School
Primary School
5A
M
22
6
10
Primary School
YES
6A
F
28
10
7
Self study
NO
7A
F
27
4
10
Primary School
YES
8A
M
27
18
10
Primary School
NO
9A
F
30
9
10
University
YES
10A
F
24
11
9
Secondary
School
NO
17.3
13.9
9.3
Mean
English in
The UK
YES
NO
NO
NO
Table 1. Summary on the information obtained from the Language Background Questionnaire.
LOR: Length of residency in The UK (Months)
SLE: Time at which informants started learning English
English in The UK: Whether informants were studying English in The UK or not.
3.2.2. Selection of experimental and control groups
As mentioned before, the present investigation included some sessions of
pronunciation training. For that reason, the bilingual subjects were assigned into two
groups, the experimental or treatment group and the control group. This procedure
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
was done in order to investigate the effects of the treatment in the experimental group
in contrast to the control group who received not training at all. When the informants
signed the consent forms, they all were informed about the nature of the investigation
and the possibility of participating in some sessions of pronunciation training. The ten
L2 speakers showed interests in participating in the training, in that order and to be
fair in the assignation of groups, the selection was done at random.
The following are all the subjects participating in this investigation and the groups
they belong to.
Group
A
Experimental:
1A – 2A – 3A – 4A – 7A
L2 Speakers
Control:
5A – 6A – 8A – 9A – 10A
English Native Speakers
Group
B
1B – 2B – 3B – 4B – 5B
Table 2. Subjects participating in this study and the groups they belong to.
3.2.3. Collection of data
For this project, two types of data were needed; perceptual and productive data. The
perceptual data consisted on a series of judgements of certain English words. On the
other hand, the productive data included tokens, both in English and Spanish, which
were recorded by the participants as required.
All the sound recording sessions followed certain established rules. First, all sessions
took place at the phonetics laboratory at the University of Leeds and the software
used to record was Praat. On the other hand, the vowels that were investigated were
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
evaluated in real words. At the same time, these words were inserted carrier phrases;
this allowed the vowels and words to be pronounced in a more natural way. Finally,
each of the tokens was recorded twice, in that way, each informant speaker recorded
two lists of words per experiment. The lists of words were randomised and also they
included some differing tokens that were not important for the aim of this research.
The fact that each informant recorded the tokens more than one ensured there was
enough data to be studied.
Regarding the times in which the data collection took place, there were five stages
and four experiments. Firstly, each of the informants was asked to take the perception
test (Experiment 1). This was a pre-test for the group of L2 speakers, however; as the
English native informants were no needed to record this more than once, they only
took this test in one occasion. A few days later, the Colombians were asked to record
a set of words in their native language to be used as baselines. Later on, both the
Colombian and the English informants were asked to record the production tests.
Again, for the Colombians this was a pre-test whereas for the English speakers this
recording took place only once. Subsequently, the experimental group of L2 speakers
undertook the pronunciation training. Finally, two weeks afterwards, all the L2
informants were asked to take the production and perception post-tests again.
The following table summarises the data collection stages, including the experiments,
the training and the order in which they took place:
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Stage
1
Experiment
Experiment 1
Group
A and B
2
Experiment 2
A
3
Experiment 3
A and B
4
Training
A
5
Experiment 4
Description
Perception experiment: Both groups
took the perception test as the first step.
Spanish Vowels: Colombian speakers
recorded a set of Spanish words
including the five Spanish to be used as
baselines.
Production experiment: Both groups
recorded a set of English words, each
including the vowel Schwa.
Pronunciation training: L2 informants
who were part of the experimental group
(Experimental took the training. Three sessions were
group)
designed in order to train these L2
informants in the perception and
production of English Schwa.
A
Production and Perception post-tests:
All the L2 speakers took the perception
and production tests for the second time.
Table 3. Summary of the stages and the experiments that took place in this investigation.
3.2.3.1.
Experiment 1
For experiment 1, a set of words including the vowel Schwa were selected. As this
study took into account the orthography; the main condition that was taken into
account when selecting the words was that all the Schwa vowel phonemes were
equivalent in orthography to the five Spanish vowel letters < a >, < e >, < i >, < o >
and < u >. The following is the list of words that were chosen for the experiment:
1. < a > cataract – embassy
2. < e > cholera – enemy
3. < i > extirpate – aspirate
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
4. < o > agony – category
5. < u > support – album
After selecting the words, the data was recorded and prepared for the experiment. To
that end, a native speaker of English, with training in phonetics and phonology,
participated by recording the words to be qualified by all the informants. Firstly, the
words were recorded as they are produced in normal speaking by the English native
speaker. Subsequently, he recorded the same words; however, this time he was asked
to produce words in which the Schwa vowels resemble more the qualities of the
Spanish vowels than those of the English Schwa. This recording could be made,
firstly because the English speaker who recorded the tokens could easily apply his
knowledge in phonetics and phonology to the production of the vowel sounds
required. Additionally, a Colombian native Spanish speaker helped by modelling the
target sounds and training the English speaker on how each of the Colombian Spanish
vowels should be produced. Finally, a number of words recorded were modified in
pitch by using the Praat software. These artificially modified words were used as an
indicator on whether the informants were focusing on the real phonetic differences
(the quality of the sounds) or if they were being influenced by other non-relevant
phonetic dissimilarities when judging the words.
After all the recordings were ready, the experiment was set up as follows. All
speakers from groups A and B were asked to carefully listen to a pair of English
words. Subsequently they were required to select the realisation (first or second) that
sounded like the best English pronunciation. A third option, where they could qualify
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
the two words as equally acceptable, was also given. The informants qualified a total
of tokens 20 (including the evaluation and control ones) x 2 repetitions. Table 4
shows the possible word combinations and examples of the tokens informants were to
hear.
Possible word combination
Example
English word vs English word resembling Spanish vowel
quality
cataract
/ˈkætərækt/
vs
cataract
/ˈkætaræct/
(Significant difference in the quality of the vowel)
album
/ˈælbəm/
vs
album
/ˈælbum/
English Word vs English Word with artificially modify
pitch.
aspirate
/ˈæspərət/
vs
aspirate
/ˈæspərət/
(No significant difference in the quality of the vowels)
enemy
/ˈenəmɪ/
vs
enemy
/ˈenəmɪ
Table 4. Word combinations and examples of the tokens judged by informants during the
perception experiments.
3.2.3.2.
Experiment 2
Informants from group A recorded a set of data that was used as a baseline. The
words selected included several instances of the five Spanish vowels. The aim of this
recording was to have an idea of each of the speakers’ vowel spaces and to be able to
obtain measurements of the quality and durations of the Colombian Spanish vowels.
These measurements were used afterwards to contrast the L2 vowel phonemes in
respect to their native language and also to the L1 English productions.
The following are the tokens that were recorded:
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
1) casa
9) rehén
17) ahora
2) casta
10) invitar
18) fósforo
3) animal
11) colibrí
19) puso
4) ala
12) piojo
20) tabú
5) perla
13) prohibir
21) último
6) comprendes
14) ola
22) virtud
7) leche
15) mano
23) suave
8) lento
16) honra
24) juntar
3.2.3.3.
Experiment 3
Experiment 3 consisted on a production experiment. This time informant speakers from
groups A and B were asked to record a set of English words. Similarly to Experiment 1,
the words chosen included Schwas that were represented in orthography by the five
Spanish vowel letters. Additionally, four pairs of morphophonological related words were
included with the aim of evaluating how both native and non-native informants reduced
the duration from full vowels to Schwa in these contexts. The following are the lists of
words selected for this experiment:
a) Simple words including Schwa:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
< a > catalysis – abstraction
< e > academy – competition
< i > civil – responsible
< o > botanical – auditory
< u > fecundate – industry
b) Morphophonological related words including reduction to Schwa
1. botany -> botanical
/ˈbɒtənɪ/ /bəˈtænɪkəl/
2. fecundity -> fecundate
/feˈkʌndətɪ/ /ˈfekəndeɪt/
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
3. competitive -> competition
/kəmˈpetɪtɪv/
/ˌkɒmpəˈtɪʃən/
4. abstract -> abstraction
/ˈæbstrəct/ /əbˈstrækʃən/
3.2.3.4.
Training
Informants from the experimental group participated in a pronunciation training designed
to provide L2 speakers with practice on the discrimination and articulation of the English
vowel Schwa. Three one-hour training sessions were administered in a period of two
weeks. The first session was devoted to perception tasks that were aimed to allow the
informants to identify the vowel Schwa in several contexts. The second session was
focused on presenting the articulatory properties of the vowel studied and it also included
several exercises involving production practice. Finally the last session was firstly aimed
to reinforce both the perception (discrimination) and production (articulation) of Schwa.
The following table summarises the structure of the training sessions.
Perception tasks




Variety of tasks
Production tasks
Identification
Discrimination
Exposure to native speaker sounds
Discrimination games



Articulatory (visual) description
of the studied vowel
Imitation
Reading aloud
Input from multiple male and female native talkers
Natural tokens in word and sentence contexts
Auditory, visual, written and computer-based visual feedback
Table 5. Summary of the structure of the pronunciation training sessions.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
3.2.3.5.
Experiment 4
Experiment 4 consisted on the post-tests. The aim of this experiment was to investigate
whether the L2 speakers’ perceptual and productive abilities improved after the
administration of the pronunciation training. In order to provide a fair judgment, the
words evaluated in the pre-tests were exactly the same for this post-test experiment.
However, the tokens were randomised in respect to the initial experiments and also
different filler words were included.
3.2.4. Acoustic (instrumental) analysis
The analysis of the recorded data was done instrumentally. Formant measurements were
taken in order to establish the qualities of all the vowels produced. To that end, the
phonetic software Praat was used to segment the studied vowels and to extract formant
and duration values. Regarding quality, the algorithm used by Praat takes formant
measurements of each of the segmented vowels at a mid point. Additionally, it avoids the
consonantal effects on the vowels. Nevertheless, all the measurements extracted from the
data by the software were individually revised in order to ensure the values were correct.
The following is a screen image taken from Praat of the segmentation of the vowel /e/ in
the Spanish word <comprendes>. There can be seen the spectrogram, waveform and
formants of the vowel studied as well as the duration in seconds.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Image 1. Screen picture taken from Praat of the segmentation
of the Spanish vowel /e/ in the word <comprendes>
Note: Sound files recorded for this investigation can be found in the following drive in
the university network:
P:\LING5310MAdvancedPhoneticAnalysis\STUDENTAREA\JohannaVera\Dissertation
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
4. Study
4.1. Baselines recordings
This session describes the quality and duration values of the five Spanish vowels
obtained from the native Spanish speakers recordings. Let us first focus on the vowel
qualities observed. By looking at the mean values obtained and contrasting them to the
cardinal vowels, some generalisations on the Colombian Spanish vowels can be made.
First, Colombian Spanish /i/ seems to be slightly less front and more open than cardinal
/i/. Secondly, Colombian Spanish /e/ is more open than cardinal /e/ but similarly front.
Spanish /a/ is as open as cardinal /a/and it has a central quality; it is neither as back as cardinal /ɒ/
nor as front as cardinal /a/. Colombian Spanish /o/ is quite similar to cardinal /ɔ/ it only differs in
that the Colombian Spanish realisation appears to be fronter. Finally, Colombian Spanish /u/ is
not as front and as back as cardinal /u/.
Table 3 shows the mean F1 and F2 values obtained for the five Spanish vowels and
Figure 2 is plot of these values in a chart representing the vowel space. The information
obtained becomes of great importance since the qualities observed can be taken as an
estimate of the Colombian Spanish vowels. Therefore, these, as well as the individual
values, can be contrasted to the productions of L2 English in order to investigate if new
phonetic categories have been created by the informants.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Vowel
a
e
i
o
u
F1
727
531
374
445
378
F2
1694
2113
2265
911
740
Table 6. Mean quality values of the Colombian Spanish vowels.
Figure 2. Vowel chart plotting the F1 and F2 values of the Colombian Spanish vowels
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
In respect to duration, as it can be seen from Figure 3 (below) the Spanish vowels are
around 96 milliseconds (mean). The vowel that seems to be the longest is /u/ with a mean
duration (among speakers) of 114 milliseconds. Oppositely, /i/ appears to be the shortest
vowel with a mean duration of 70 milliseconds.
Spanish Vowels
(Mean Durations)
120
98
100
miliseconds
114
111
80
90
70
60
40
20
0
a
e
i
o
u
Figure 3. Mean duration values of the Colombian Spanish vowels
4.2.
Native Speakers results
4.2.1. Perception
The results from the perception tests were coded as percentages of correct answers.
Informants were expected to choose the words pronounced with Schwas as the better
English pronunciations and the tokens that had only differences in pitch as both equally
acceptable. Based on that, answers were collapsed into two main categories. The first
category, which is the most important one, measures the ability of the informants to
perceive the differences in the qualities and recognise the words containing Schwas as the
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
best pronunciations. The second category, in which speakers judged pairs of words that
had no phonetic differences, was used as a reliability measurement evaluating whether
speakers were in fact focusing on the qualities of the vowels and not in other non-relevant
aspects such as pitch. Figure 3 shows the results obtained from the native speakers.
% Correct Answers
Perception Results
(Native Speakers)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
90 %
80 %
80 %
80 %
2B
3B
4B
65 %
1B
5B
Figure 4. Results on the performance of the Native English speakers on the perception test.
The English native speakers all had very high percentages of correct answers (79%
mean). This shows that, as expected, they are capable of distinguishing words that are
produced with a non-usually quality from those produced as it is expected in English. On
the other hand, the reliability measures showed very low percentages of incorrect answers
for the majority of the informants. Only informant 4B showed a high percentage (60%) of
incorrect answers when judging this reliability tokens, however; he still has a very high
percentage (80%) of correct answers. This suggests that even though this informant might
have been judging other non-relevant differences, he, as well as the other native English
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
speakers, is still capable of making appropriate judgements in the tokens in which it was
relevant.
4.2.2. Production
In this section duration and quality on the Schwa vowels produced by English native
speakers will be discussed. Let us first look at the quality. When revising the F1 and F2
values obtained from the data some very interesting tendencies were observed. At first
sight, when looking at the mean values (Table 7) Schwa seems to be very stable in
quality since the results obtained were very similar among speakers (Speaker 4B showed
a lower F2 compared to the other informants and this can be explained since he was the
male informant within the group).
Informant
F1
F2
1B
2B
3B
4B
5B
Mean
566
495
559
511
535
533
1686
1667
1588
1396
1666
1600
Table 7. Mean quality values for the English vowel Schwa.
As it can be observed, the data suggest there is a clear tendency on what the quality of
this English vowel is. However, when revising each of the different realisations of Schwa
(based on the orthography) the results previously seen seem not longer that stable. Great
variability in the formant values obtained was found. Figure 5 (below) shows the
variability that was encountered within the different realisations of the Schwa vowel
phoneme.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Figure 5. Vowel chart plotting the F1 and F2 values of the different
Schwas produced by the English native speakers.
As it can be seen in Figure 5, many of the Schwas realisations overlap in the central area
of the vowel space, as it would be expected for this vowel phoneme. However, there is
also a tendency for some of the different types of Schwa to move towards a certain area
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
of the vowel space, and this is most evident for the ə-a and ə-e types. In one hand, the ə-a
type shows high F1 values, therefore, it tends be generally more open than the other
realisations. On the other hand, the ə-e type shows higher F2 values which resembles a
fronter realisations. The ə-i type, since it was closer to the expected values for Schwa,
was selected to measure the significance of the differences that were observed. A T-Test
that compared the F1 values of ə-a and ə-i gives as a result that the difference is highly
significant (t = -3.091, p = 0.006). Additionally, a T-Test that compared the F2 of ə-e and
ə-i also gives as a result that the difference is highly significant (t = 5.430, p < 0.001).
Let us now look at the duration of the vowels. In this sense, as expected, all the
realisations were found to be shorter when compared to the full vowels. The mean
duration of all the realisations was 46 milliseconds.
Duration
Full vowels vs Schwa
80
70
68
miliseconds
60
46
50
40
30
20
10
0
Full Vowels
Schwa
Figure 6. Mean duration values of the full vowels vs Schwa
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
4.3. L2 speakers’ results
4.3.1. Pre-test
4.3.1.1.
Perception
The results obtained from the informants in group A were also coded as percentages of
correct answers. These results, compared to the performances of the English native
speakers, were slightly lower in the percentages of correct answers. Figure 4 (below)
shows the results obtained by speaker.
Perception Results
(L2 Speakers)
100
75%
% Correct Answers
80
70
60
90%
85%
90
60%
60%
80%
80%
85%
55%
50
40
30%
30
20
10
0
1A
2A
3A
4A
5A
6A
7A
8A
9A
10A
Figure 5. Results on the performance of the L2 speakers on the perception test.
In general, the L2 informants showed high levels of correct answers (70% mean). Even
though Spanish speakers are familiarised with the Spanish vowels, the results suggests
that, perceptually, they are aware of the differences between English and Spanish. This
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
can be supported by the fact that they still found most of the realisations that included the
Spanish vowels in the place of Schwa, as not good representations of the English
language. Only informant 7A showed a very low percentage of correct answers (30%),
which means that, at least at the perceptual level, she has a clear influence from her L1.
When looking at the reliability measurements, a lot of variation is seen among the
speakers. This indicates that, as opposed to the natives, the non-native speakers found it
more difficult to focus on the differences in quality and they seem to be more easily
distracted by other non-relevant factors when judging words in English. Among the
speakers, the ones that had higher percentages of incorrect answers in the reliability
tokens were 2A (65%) and 9A (75%), all the other informants had less than 50%
incorrect answers.
4.3.1.2.
Production
In this section, the performances of the L2 speakers when producing words including
Schwas will be reported. Let us start by exploring the quality values obtained from the
different Schwas produced. The analysis was done by contrasting the productions of the
different Schwa types (ə-a, ə-e, ə-i, ə-o, ə-u) to the Spanish vowels produced by of each
informants and also to the Schwas produced by the native English speakers. Results
suggest that most of the informants show a tendency to produce Schwas that resemble the
qualities of the Spanish vowels, at least for some of the different Schwa types. Among
the different Schwas, the ones that seem to present the greatest difficulty for L2 speakers
are the ones spelt with the letters < a > and < e >. For example, the ə-a realisations by
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
speakers 1A, 2A, 3A, 8A and 9A, are located in the same vowel space area of each of the
speakers’ Spanish /a/. On the other hand, the same tendency was found for speakers 1A,
2A, 3A, 4A, 6A, 7A, 8A and 9A when looking at the ə-e productions. Conversely, the
Schwas spelt with the letters < i > and < o > are the ones that appear to be less difficult
for speakers to produce. In the case of the ə-o and the ə-i types, all the informants
produced realisations that are either in a central area of the vowel space (as the English
Schwa would expected to be) or at least show a tendency to be centralised and not very
close to the Spanish /o/ and /i/ vowels. Finally, the Schwas that were spelt with the letter
< u > were more spread within the vowel space area (except for speakers 2A and 10A,
who showed centralised realisation for this vowel). The great variability seen makes it
difficult to make a judgment on whether speakers resemble either the Spanish or the
English qualities in the case of the ə-u.
Although most of the speakers showed a tendency to resemble the Spanish vowels (at
least in certain cases); evidence from data also suggests that L2 learners are capable of
creating new categories for new phones. The realisations produced by speakers 4A, 5A
and 10A (see Figures 8 and 10 below) suggests that they have created a new phonetic
category for the vowel Schwa. Most of their realisations appear to be grouped forming a
new phone category in the central area of the vowel space. Among this three speakers,
only speaker 4A showed slightly higher F2 values, which suggests her realisations are a
little fronter than those expected for a native speaker; and also this might explain why, as
reported above, her ə-e are a bit closer to her Spanish /e/.
The fact that these three speakers performed well in the production tests suggests that
there is a relationship between the perceptual and productive abilities. As explained
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
before, the results obtained from the group of L2 speakers were good in general.
However, these three speakers were found to have more the highest results in the
perception tests, together with speaker 8A, who also had a very good performance.
Among all the speakers, there are two cases that are worth highlighting since they show
the greatest opposition within the group. First, speaker 2A is the one that shows the
highest tendency to produce Schwas resembling the Spanish vowels (see Figure 6 below).
All the Schwa productions (except the ones spelt with < u >) were located in the same
area of each of the informant’s Spanish vowels. Quite the opposite, informant 10A (see
Figure 10 below) produced all the different Schwa types very far from any of her Spanish
vowels. Moreover, all the different Schwas are located, very close to each other, in the
central area of the vowel space. This suggests that speaker 10A has created a new
phonetic category for the L2 vowel Schwa. Figures 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (below) show the
scatterplots (F1 and F2) obtained from the each of the L2 speakers.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Figure 6. Scatterplots of F1 and F2 obtained from the Spanish Vowels vs Schwa for Speakers 1A and 2A
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Figure 7. Scatterplots of F1 and F2 obtained from the Spanish Vowels vs Schwa for Speakers 3A and 4A
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Figure 8. Scatterplots of F1 and F2 obtained from the Spanish Vowels vs Schwa for Speakers 5A and 6A
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Figure 9. Scatterplots of F1 and F2 obtained from the Spanish Vowels vs Schwa for Speakers 7A and 8A
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Figure 10. Scatterplots of F1 and F2 obtained from the Spanish Vowels vs Schwa for Speakers 9A and 10A
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Let us now focus on the duration results. The mean duration of Schwa for all the speakers
is 72 milliseconds. When compared to the mean duration of the native speakers (46
milliseconds); the L2 values are considerably longer. However when compared to the
mean durations of the Spanish vowels (96 milliseconds) and the full English vowels
produced; a reduction in the length of the vowels is observed. Therefore, the data
suggests that, although informants are not producing native-like durations, they have,
however; applied the rules of vowel reduction. They are producing full vowels in
English, with a very similar length to their native vowels, and from there, they applied
what seems a as reduction rule, in terms of duration.
Figure 11 below shows a
comparison of the mean durations obtained from the L2 speakers.
Mean Durations
L2 Speakers
120
millisenconds
100
96
96
71
80
60
40
20
0
Spanish Vowels
Full English Vowels
Reduced Vowels
(Schwa)
Figure 11. Comparison of the mean duration values obtained from the L2 speakers.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
4.3.2. Post-test
The results of the post-tests were analysed based on the performances of the L2 speakers
(control and the experimental groups). As expected, the performances of the informants
in the of the control group, in both perception and production, were very similar to those
observed in the pre-test. Consequently, this section will be focused on describing the
performances of the informants in the experimental group, which includes the speakers to
whom training was given.
4.3.2.1.
Perception
The results obtained from the perception test suggest that the training administered was
successful in the case of certain speakers. Speakers 2A, 3A and 7A showed higher
percentages of correct answers in respect to the pre-test. Oppositely, speakers 1A and 3A
decreased in their percentages of correct answers. In the case of speaker 1A, the
reliability measurements showed that this informant increased highly in the percentage of
incorrect answers in comparison to the pre-test. This suggests that the informant was
probably focusing in other non-relevant factors when taking the post-test and that can
explain the hindering in his performance. Figure 12 (below) shows a comparison between
the performances in the pre-test and post-tests for all the informants.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Pre-test vs Post-test
Experimental Group
% Correct Answers
100
85%
80
60
60%
50%
70%
60%
70%
65%
55%
45%
40
30%
20
0
1A
2A
3A
4A
7A
Figure 12. Comparison of results obtained in the Pre-Test and Post-Test
by the informants in the experimental group
4.3.2.2.
Production
Regarding quality, it was observed that none of the participants showed major differences
from the pre-test to the post-test. The different Schwa realisations produced in the posttest are still close to the ones produced in the pre-test. Moreover, the same tendencies
remained in the sense that the Schwas appear to move towards the areas occupied by the
Spanish vowels. In this respect, most of the specific occurrences (by informant) that were
highlighted in the analysis of the pre-test analysis were seen again the post-test. For
example, it was observed that the ə-a and ə-e types appear to be the most difficult ones to
separate from the Spanish vowels while ə-o and ə-i seem less difficult for informants.
Figures 13, 14 and 15 (below) show a comparison of the Schwas produced in the pre-test
and the post-test.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Figure 13. Scatterplots of F1 and F2 of the vowel Schwa Pre-test vs Post-test for Speakers 1A and 2A
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Figure 13. Scatterplots of F1 and F2 from the vowel Schwa produced in the Pre-test vs the Post-test for Speakers 3A and 4A
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Figure 13. Scatterplots of F1 and F2 from the vowel Schwa produced in the Pre-test vs the Post-test for Speaker 7A
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
The duration measurements, on the other hand, suggest a different result from what was
seen in the case of quality. It was observed that all the five informants in the experimental
group showed improvement reducing their vowels in duration. The duration of the
reduced syllables contrasts to the duration of the full English vowels. Regarding full
vowels, informants did not show any reduction from the pre-test to the post-test.
However, there is an important reduction from 71 to 55 milliseconds (mean) in the
syllables that included Schwa. Their results in the post-tests suggest that the realisations
of the L2 speakers were closer to the native ones (46 milliseconds) after the training.
Figure 16 (below) shows the comparison of the mean values of the pre-test vs the posttest; there, the reduction in milliseconds can be seen.
Duration
Pre-Test vs Post-Test
Experimental Group
120
milisencods
100
80
96
94
71
57
60
Full English Vowels
Reduced Vowels (Schwa)
40
20
0
Pre-test
Post-Test
Figure 15. Comparison of results obtained in the Pre-Test and Post-Test
by the informants in the experimental group
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
After revisiting all the data collected in the post-test, results suggest that the training was
partially successful. Improvement was seen in the perceptual abilities of three out of five
informants, however; in the case of production, progress was only seen in the duration of
the vowels but not in their quality. Therefore, the findings support the theory that L2
learners are capable of acquiring features of new L2 phones, however; this acquisition
appears to have been limited to certain aspects only. This can be supported by the fact
that improvement was not observed in all the L2 production features evaluated.
4.4.
Discussion
After the analysis of all the data collected, this study provided evidence on how
Colombian Spanish native speakers are producing the L2 English vowel Schwa, as well
as evidence on the factors affecting the acquisition of the L2 phone studied.
Firstly, although Schwa is considered as new phone for Spanish native speakers, since it
is located in an empty area of the Spanish vowel space, the findings suggests that this
specific L2 vowel is not being perceived as a new phone. Quite the opposite, speakers
appear to be assimilating this sound as more than one instance of an existing phonetic
category. The fact that tendencies were observed in the production of Schwa, based on
the orthography, provides evidence on that L2 learners are somehow influenced by the
written form, that is; the vowel letter they read, when producing the phoneme. In
consequence, it can be suggested that Schwa is not just being perceived and produced as
one instance of an L1 vowel, but, as several of the Spanish vowels, and apparently this
can be happening as a consequence of the orthography.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
As explained above, the two Schwa types that were found to be more difficult for
speakers to produce were the ones spelt with the vowel letters < a > and < e >. That
finding contrast with the results obtained from the group of native Speakers. As it was
acknowledged above, the mean Schwa formant values obtained from the native speakers
resemble a very stable vowel. However, when revising each of the different Schwa types
separately, a significant difference was observed between some of them. Interestingly, the
two vowel types that were found to be significantly different were the ə-a and ə-e types.
Based on that, it can be suggested that along with the orthography and the influence of
the L1 vowel system there might be another reason for L2 speakers to find it difficult to
acquire this vowel. The model Schwas produced by the native speakers also appear to be
somehow influenced by the orthography and are not as centralised as it would be
expected. This might create an extra difficulty for L2 speakers when perceiving and
subsequently producing the phoneme. Therefore, the question remains on whether the L2
productions should be considered as non-native like because they do not show the
expected formant values for Schwa. Moreover, I wonder whether there should be new
categories for classifying the different types of native Schwas, at least the ə-a and ə-e
types, since L1 English speakers appear to be producing them with different, not that
centralised, qualities.
Regarding the results obtained after training, it was seen that the L2 speakers could
improve in features such as duration but not in quality. The SLM model predicts that new
phones are more likely to be acquired by L2 speakers. However; as it was found, Schwa
appears be neither perceived nor produced as a new phone. In this respect, the SLM
predicts that there might be a blocking when the L2 speech sound persists in being
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
identified as an instance of an L1 speech sound (Flege, 2003:10). Findings propose that,
although Schwa has the features of a new phone, it is being perceived and produced as
several instances of existing L2 categories. Therefore, as the SLM predicted, a blocking
for new category formation appears to be taking place and no improvement was seen in
any of informants, as it did happen in the case of duration, where all the five speakers
showed progress.
Finally, it still remains difficult to establish a clear relationship between perception and
production. At first sight, there appears to be a connexion between the speakers that
performed well in the perception and production pre-tests, however; when contrasting the
results from both the pre-and post tests it is more difficult to establish the existence of
patterns in this respect.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
5. Conclusion
The present study intended to investigate how L2 English speakers, whose first language
was Spanish, perceived a produced the English vowel Schwa /ə/ in respect native
speakers. While doing so, it also evaluated the hypotheses proposed by Flege on his SLM
(1988, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2002). Therefore, this study investigated whether L2 speakers
are in fact prevented from acquiring new phonological features or if as predicted by
Flege’s model, new phones can be acquired in a native-like fashion. Since the influence
of the orthography had not been studied systematically before, the written form of the
words was taken into account as a possible factor influencing the acquisition of this L2
phoneme.
The results obtained from the data evidence that the L2 speakers were in fact influenced
by the written form of the words (the vowel letter they see). As a consequence, they did
not perceive Schwa as a new phone, but, on the contrary, they appear to be assimilating it
as several instances of their L1 vowels. Even more interestingly, the results obtained
from the native speakers suggest that they are, as well, producing Schwas that are
different from each other, apparently because of the different orthography types. It can be
concluded then, firstly, that evidence supports the claim that L2 speakers find it difficult
to acquire similar L2 phonemes. And secondly, that Schwa is being assimilated by the L2
speakers as several instances of their L1 vowels, and, as predicted by the SLM model,
this appears to have blocked the creation of a new phonetic category for it.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
6. References
Aliaga-García, C., and Mora, J. (2007). Assesing the effects of phonetic training on L2
sound perception and production. New Sounds 2007: Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech.
Florianópolis, Brasil.
Baker, W., Trofimovich, P., Mack, M. and Flege, J.E. (2002) The effect of perceived
phonetic similarity on non-native sound learning by children and adults. In B.
Skarabela, S. Fish and A. Do (Eds)., Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston
University Conference on Language Development. pp. 36–47. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Barrutia, R. and Schwegler, A. (1994) Fonética y Fonología Españolas. New York:
Wiley. Second Edition.
Bohn, O.S. and Flege, J.E. (1992) The production of new and similar vowels by adult
German learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 131–
158.
Delattre, P. (1996). A comparison of syllable length condition among languages.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 4, 183-189.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Flege, J.E. (1984) The detection of French accent by American listeners. Journal of
Acoustical Society of America 76, 692-707.
Flege, J.E. (1987) The production of "new" and "similar" phones in a foreign language:
Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics 15: 4765.
Flege, J.E. (1988) The production and perception of speech sounds in a foreign
languages. In: Harris Winitz (ed.) Human Communication and ItsDisorders, A
Review. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 224-401
Flege, J.E. (1991). Orthographic evidence for the perceptual identification of vowels in
Spanish and English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 701-731.
Flege, J.E. (1992) Speech learning in a second language. In: Charles Ferguson, Lise Menn and
Carol Stoel-Gammon (eds.), Phonological Development: Models, Research, and
Implications. Timonium, MD: York Press. 565-604.
Flege, J.E. (1995). Second-language Speech Learning: Theory, Findings, and
Problems. In W. Strange (Ed) Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience:
Issues in Cross-language research. Timonium, MD: York Press. 229-273.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Flege, J.E. (1999) Age of learning and second-language speech. In: David Birdsong (ed.)
New Perspectives on the Critical Period Hypothesis for Second Language
Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 101-132.
Flege, J.E. (2002) The relation between L2 production and perception. In: JohnOhala,
Yoko Hasegawa, Manjari Ohala, Daniel Granville and Ashlee Bailey (eds.)
Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetics Sciences. Berkeley,
CA: Department of Linguistics. 1273-1276.
Flege, J.E. (2003) Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and
perception. In A. Meyer & N. Schiller (Eds) Phonetics and Phonology in
Language Comprehension and Production, Differences and Similarities. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter. 319-355.
Flege, J.E. and Bohn, O. -S. (1989) An instrumental study of vowel reduction and stress
placement in Spanish accented English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
11, 35-62.
Flege, J.E. and Hillenbrand, J. (1987) Limits on pronunciation accuracy in adult
foreign language speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Societyof
America, 76, 708-721.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Flege, J.E. and Munro, M. (1994) The word unit in second language speech perception
and production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 381–411.
Flege, J.E., Munro, M., & MacKay, I. (1995) Factors affecting strength of perceived
foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
97, 3125–3134.
García Perez, G. (2003) Training Spanish speakers in the production and perception of
English vowels. Ph.D. Thesis. Simon Fraser University: Canada.
Gimson, A.C. (2001) Gimson’s pronunciation of English. London: Arnold. Sixth Edition.
Gómez-Lacabex, E., García-Lecumberri, M. and Cooke, M. (2005) English vowel
reduction by untrained Spanish learners: Perception and Production. PTLC,
London.
Gómez-Lacabex, E., García-Lecumberri, M. and Cooke, M. (2007) Perception of English
vowel reduction by trained Spanish learners. New Sounds 2007: Proceedings of
the Fifth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language
Speech. Florianópolis, Brasil.
Hammond, R. M. (2001) The sounds of Spanish: Analysis and application. Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Ingram, J. and Park, S.G. (1997) Cross-language vowel perception and production by
Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 343–370.
Jun, S. A. and Cowie, I. (1994) Interference for “new” and “similar” vowels in Korean
speakers of English, Ohio State University Working Papers, 43, 117–130.
Ladefoged, P. (2006) A course in phonetics. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth. Fifth Edition.
Major, R. (1987). Phonological similarity, markedness, and rate of L2 acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 63–82.
Quilis, A. and Fernández, J. (1996) Curso de fonética y fonología españolas para
estudiantes angloamericanos. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas. 15° Edición.
Roach, P. (2009) English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. Fourth Edition.
Scovel, T. (1981). The effects of neurological age on non-primary language acquisition.
In R. Andersen (Ed.), New dimensions in second language acquisition research
Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 33–42.
Scovel, T. 1988. A Time To Speak: A Psycholinguistic Inquiry in the Critical Period for
Human Speech. Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury House.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Walsh, T. and Diller, K. (1981). Neurolinguistic considerations on the optimum age for
second language learning. In K. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals
in language learning aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 3 – 21.
Wode, H. (1992). Categorical perception and segmental coding in the ontogeny of sound
systems. In C. Ferguson, L. Menn, & C. Stoehl-Gammon (Eds.), Phonological
development: Models, research, implications. Timonium, MD: York Press. 605–
631.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
7. Appendices
Appendix 1. Letter of consent given to the participants before the experiments started.
CONSENT FORM
Title of Research project:
Perception and Production of the vowel /ə/ Schwa by Colombian Spanish speakers of L2 English.
Name of Researcher student: Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes
Student ID number: 200431134
Degree Programme: MA Phonetics
Host department for this research: Department of Linguistics and Phonetics
Aim of the project
This research is intended to find out how Colombian speakers of English as a second language perceive and produce the
English vowel schwa /ə/ in reduced syllables in respect to English native speakers. Additionally, it will assess how
pronunciation training affects informants’ production and perception skills.
What will you be asked to do
As an informant, firstly you will be asked to listen and judge a set of English words. Additionally, you will be asked to pro duce
and record a number of data sets consisting of English words (inserted in a given sentence). If you are native Spanish
speaker, you will be asked to produce and record a list of selected words in your native language (also inserted in a given
sentence). Finally, as a native Spanish speaker, you might be asked to attend some pronunciation lessons.
How the data collected will be used
The speech samples obtained during the experiments will be analysed both auditorily and acoustically. The aim of the aim
analysis is to define the quality and duration of the vowels that concern to this research. On the other hand, the perceptio n
data will be analised and contrasted to the spoken data in order to establish the relationship between perception and
production. The results obtained after the analysis of all data will help to answer this research questions.
As a responsible researcher, I, Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes, will keep all personal information that you might reveal
completely confidential and though I quote, describe and analyse the data, all data will be presented with complete
anonymity. Additionally I will immediately withdraw your data if you should decide to withdraw from the project at any
time. And you are free to withdraw from participation at any time with no need for explanation.
To be completed by the participant
I, _______________________________, agree to participate in the above research project. I have carefully read the above
description of the project and understand that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time.
Signature:______________________________
Date:__________________________________
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 2. Language background questionnaire given to the L2 participants before the
experiments started.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SPANISH SPEAKERS
DATE: _______________________
PARTICIPANT CODE: ___________________
1.
Is your hearing normal?
Yes _______ No _______
2.
What is your first language?
____________________
3.
Where were you born?
Country ___________ City _____________
4.
What is your date of birth?
_________/_______/________
5.
When did you come to The UK?
________/______/__________
6.
Did you study English before coming to The UK?
7.
If your answer to the previous question was “yes”, please tick, as many of the following, as
Yes _______ No _______
appropriate.
At primary school ________
At secondary school
At university
At a private language school ________
________
________
Any others? __________________________________________________
8.
Have you been taking English classes in The UK?
9.
How important is it for you to improve your pronunciation? Circle one.
Not
Very Important
1
2
3
4
5
__________________________
6
7
8
9
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
10
very
Important
Appendix 3. Experiment 2 (Spanish speakers baselines)
Experiment 2
PRODUCTION
GROUP A – RECORDING 1
Code: ____________
Age: _____________
Sex: _____________
Look at the two lists of words below. Insert each word in the following sentence:
 Digo ahora _____
For example:
 Digo ahora _casa_
 Digo ahora _mano_
When ready, read all the sentences orally and record them.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 4. Experiment 3 (L2 speakers’ Production Pre-Test)
Experiment 3
PRODUCTION
GROUP A – RECORDING 2
Code: ____________
Age: _____________
Sex: _____________
Look at the two lists of words below. Check the pronunciation and stress placement (underlined
syllable). Then, insert each word in the following sentence:
 Now I say _______
For example:
 Now I say _abstract_
 Now I say __academy_
When ready, read all the sentences orally and record them.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 5. Experiment 3 (Native speakers’ Production Test)
Experiment 3
PRODUCTION
GROUP B – RECORDING 1
Code: ____________
Age: _____________
Sex: _____________
Look at the two lists of words below. Check the pronunciation and stress placement (underlined
syllable). Then, insert each word in the following sentence:
 Now I say _______
For example:
 Now I say _abstract_
 Now I say __academy_
When ready, read all the sentences orally and record them.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 6. Experiment 4 (L2 speakers’ Production Post-Test)
Experiment 4
PRODUCTION
GROUP A – RECORDING 3
Code: ____________
Age: _____________
Sex: _____________
Look at the two lists of words below. Check the pronunciation and stress placement (underlined
syllable). Then, insert each word in the following sentence:
 Now I say _______
For example:
 Now I say _abstract_
 Now I say __academy_
When ready, read all the sentences orally and record them.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 7. Pronunciation Training Handout – Lesson 1
University of Leeds
Department of Linguistics and Phonetics
Perception and production of /ə/ by native Spanish speakers of L2 English
PRONUNCIATION TRAINING
LESSON 1
VOWEL REDUCTION AND /ə/ SCHWA IDENTIFICATION
1.
Vowel Reduction
A reduction in the length of a vowel, usually accompanied by a change in its quality. The most
common form of vowel reduction is reduction to schwa. This phenomenon is extremely common
in English and it can occur in any of the following cases:
 Word-class pairs
Noun/Adjective
Conduct
Protest
Contract

Verb
Conduct
Protest
Contract
Weak and strong forms in function words (Words that are considered as grammar
words, for example; preposition, pronouns, auxiliary verbs, conjunctions).
Strong
That – I like that
Can – I think we can
Am – She is not as old as I am
Weak
I hope that she will
They can wait
Why am I here?
Other function words include: the, and, but, your, her, them, from, of, to, some, should,
must, am.

Morphophonological alternations
Derivational morphology: Derivation of words. How new items of vocabulary can be built
up out of combinations of elements.
ity – electric
ian – comedy
Ion – execute
ic – Satan
electricity
comedian
execution
satanic
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
2.
Schwa /ə/

Schwa is the most frequently occurring vowel in English.
English is a stress-timed language. The words which are most important for communication of
the message, that is, nouns, main verbs, adjectives and adverbs, are normally stressed in
connected speech. Grammar words such as auxiliary verbs, pronouns, articles, linkers and
prepositions are not usually stressed, and are reduced to keep the stress pattern of the language
regular. This means that they are said faster and at a lower volume than stressed syllables, and
the vowel sounds lose their purity, often becoming a schwa.
Listen to the two examples of the same question.

What kind of music do you like?
The first is with every word stressed and the second is faster and more natural with vowels being
reduced.
Schwa is always associated with weak syllables. It may be spelt with most vowels letters and their
combinations; for example, -a (negative), -e (hundred), -i (quantity), -o (complete), -u (suggest) ure (creature), etc. Learners of English need to know where ə is appropriate and where it is not.
3.
Identification exercise
In these examples, there has been a derivation in the words by adding a new item (a suffix).
Listen to the pairs, say whether there is a /ə/ in the new word and if so, identify the syllable
containing it.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
4.
–eous
–graphy
–ial
–ic
–ious
–ty
–ive
–logy
‘advantage’ → ‘advantageous’
‘photo’ → ‘photography’
‘proverb → ‘proverbial’
‘climate’ → ‘climatic’
‘injure’ → ’injurious’
‘tranquil’ → ‘tranquillity’
‘reflex’ → ‘reflexive’
‘embryo’ → ‘embryology’
Discrimination exercise
This is an individual perception exercise that will be run in a computer. Your results will be
recorded and you will receive feedback in the next lesson.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
References:
Carr, P. (1999) English Phonetics and Phonology: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Gimson, A.C. (1975) A practical course of English pronunciation: A perceptual approach. London:
Arnold. Sixth Edition.
Roach, P. (2009) English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. Fourth Edition.
Teaching the Schwa (2009) Retrieved July 21, 2010, from Teaching English, British Council, BBC:
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/teaching-schwa.
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 8. Pronunciation Training Handout – Lesson 2
University of Leeds
Department of Linguistics and Phonetics
Perception and production of /ə/ by native Spanish speakers of L2 English
PRONUNCIATION TRAINING
LESSON 2
/ə/ SCHWA PRODUCTION
5.
/ə/ Schwa articulation
In quality it is a mid vowel (halfway between close and open) and central (halfway between front
and back). Lips are held in a neutral position and it is not articulated with much energy.
 Tongue height
mouth.
– How much space there is between the tongue and the roof of the
[i]

[e]
[a]
Tongue backness – How far the raised body of the tongue is from the back of the mouth.
[i]
[u]
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
References:

Gimson, A.C. (1975) A practical course of English pronunciation: A perceptual approach. London:
Arnold. Sixth Edition.

Roach, P. (2009) English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. Fourth Edition.

Phonetics: The sounds of American English (2001-2005) Retrieved July 21, 2010, from Phonetics:
The
sounds
of
spoken
language:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/english/frameset.html

Teaching the Schwa (2009) Retrieved July 21, 2010, from Teaching English, British Council, BBC:
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/teaching-schwa
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 9. Pronunciation Training Handout – Lesson 3
University of Leeds
Department of Linguistics and Phonetics
Perception and production of /ə/ by native Spanish speakers of L2 English
PRONUNCIATION TRAINING
LESSON 3
SCHWA /ə/ DISCRIMINATION AND PRODUCTION
CONSOLIDATION
6.
Review /ə/ Schwa articulation
7.
Review /ə/ Schwa discrimination and production
a) Listen and repeat
Strong
the – the apple
to – To Edinburgh
do – So do I
Weak
The pear
to Leeds
So do they
b) Listen to the following sentences giving particular attention to the function words. Circle
the weak forms you hear. Finally, check the answers and rewrite the words using ə
when it occurred.
I.
We can wait
II.
_________________________________________________
She took her aunt for a drive
_________________________________________________
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
III.
The basket was full of things to eat
_________________________________________________
IV.
You ought to have your own car
V.
_________________________________________________
Have you taken them from that box?
_________________________________________________
c)
Listen and repeat to the following words and their derivations. Give particular attention
to the vowel quality changes in the underlined syllables.
–ial
–ian
–ic
colony
grammar
atom
colonial
grammarian
atomic
d) Now, listen to some similar pairs. In the new words, identify and circle the syllables that
contain a schwa.
–ial
–ial
–ion
–ic
tutor
proverb
supervise
drama
tutorial
proverbial
supervision
dramatic
e) Listen and repeat the following word-class pairs.
Noun/Adjective
Conduct
object
f)
Verb
Conduct
object
Now, in pairs. Write a sentence for each of the following word. With your partner, read
out the sentences to practice the pronunciation. Give particular attention to the syllables
containing schwa.
I.
Protest (Verb)
II.
_______________________________________________________
Protest (Noun)
III.
_______________________________________________________
Permit (Verb)
_______________________________________________________
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
IV.
Permit (Noun)
_______________________________________________________
V.
Contract (Verb)
VI.
_______________________________________________________
Contract (Noun)
_______________________________________________________
g) Pronunciation Game
LEFT: Schwa
RIGHT: No Schwa
Game 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
Tomato
Dentist
Cathedral
Bishop
Game 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
Office
Separate
abnormal
Carpet
References:

Gimson, A.C. (1975) A practical course of English pronunciation: A perceptual approach. London:
Arnold. Sixth Edition.

Roach, P. (2009) English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. Fourth Edition.

Phonetics: The sounds of American English (2001-2005) Retrieved July 21, 2010, from Phonetics:
The sounds of spoken language:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/english/frameset.html

Teaching the Schwa (2009) Retrieved July 21, 2010, from Teaching English, British Council, BBC:
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/teaching-schwa
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 10. Production Results. Mean values obtained from the group of English
native Speakers.
Informant
1B
2B
3B
4B
5B
Vowel
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
Duration
36
29
52
48
33
45
30
71
45
51
34
43
43
40
42
46
25
39
38
39
67
37
68
99
41
F1
563
861
464
516
381
645
428
477
491
418
593
620
526
532
525
718
402
495
521
555
860
384
408
537
426
F2
1788
2168
1328
1649
1431
1816
1713
1328
1731
1756
1657
1685
1333
1592
1671
1734
1886
1340
1840
1762
1534
1664
1104
1151
1569
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 11. Production Pre-Test Results. Mean values obtained from the group of
L2 speakers (Experimental Group)
Informant
1A
2A
3A
4A
7A
Vowel
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
Duration
59
55
49
57
93
59
60
102
51
67
41
89
74
62
47
44
82
91
78
86
64
70
79
111
F1
620
387
359
375
787
499
461
526
516
849
614
428
469
655
636
405
423
508
285
733
584
609
486
612
F2
1549
1743
1676
1347
1591
2082
2233
1158
1657
1733
2033
1331
1370
1990
1923
1955
1841
1418
1942
1819
1989
1697
1397
1157
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 12. Production Post-Test Results. Mean values obtained from the group of
L2 speakers (Experimental Group)
Informant
1A
2A
3A
4A
7A
Vowel
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
Duration
42
41
44
48
65
81
48
44
84
45
58
50
63
88
42
46
33
44
63
42
58
46
60
59
76
F1
693
497
370
422
313
837
528
391
566
832
754
554
385
529
395
745
479
492
615
546
764
470
599
473
404
F2
1682
1795
1511
1392
1577
1498
2172
2387
1084
1748
1777
2109
1267
1469
1603
1749
1922
1824
1454
1713
1648
1858
1725
1208
1448
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 13. Production Pre-Test Results. Mean values obtained from the group of
L2 speakers (Control Group)
Informant
5A
6A
8A
9A
10A
Vowel
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
Duration
61
87
75
86
89
47
43
64
38
86
97
108
119
113
52
72
72
112
93
86
51
39
53
69
50
F1
769
375
412
419
341
456
397
430
574
649
706
539
405
501
338
707
525
588
491
414
632
514
553
540
524
F2
1741
1668
1484
1287
1590
2006
2463
1865
1865
2275
1476
1741
1290
1253
1978
1506
2053
1741
1373
1651
1657
1754
1600
1360
1708
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009
Appendix 14. Production Post-Test Results. Mean values obtained from the group of
L2 speakers (Control Group)
Informant
5A
6A
8A
9A
10A
7A
Vowel
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
ə-a
ə-e
ə-i
ə-o
ə-u
Duration
57
81
86
99
79
27
40
47
43
33
65
41
160
62
68
64
69
72
87
59
37
31
65
59
87
58
46
60
59
76
F1
471
366
402
446
319
634
408
443
487
420
617
492
504
609
360
750
525
468
471
383
523
540
562
509
422
764
470
599
473
404
F2
1403
1465
1449
1246
1699
2151
2046
1729
1448
2220
1591
1505
1215
1735
1781
1721
2168
1819
1243
1792
1677
1899
1274
1371
1648
1648
1858
1725
1208
1448
Kelly Johanna Vera Diettes - Beneficiaria COLFUTURO 2009