1

Boundary effects in Polish English – implications for ‘similarity’ in L2 phonology1

Geoffrey Schwartz1, Grzegorz Aperliński, Anna Balas

1, Arkadiusz Rojczyk

2

1-Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań; 2- Institute of English, University of Silesia

0 – Abstract

Experimental phonetic studies examine the extent to which Polish learners of English acquire

phonological processes occurring at word boundaries in the target language. In particular, we

look at linking of vowel-initial words and the suppression of stop release in word-final stops.

Our results suggest that glottalization of vowels, which blocks linking of initial vowels, and

coda stop release production, both constitute L1 phonological interference that learners must

overcome. The phonology of these seemingly unrelated effects may be unified in the Onset

Prominence framework, in which parametric representational mechanisms govern the extent

of phonetic cohesion between segments and the formation of prosodic boundaries.

Implications for the oft-invoked notion of cross-language phonological similarity are also

discussed.

1 - Introduction

For a significant percentage, if not a majority, of studies on second language (L2) phonology,

it is segmental contrasts that constitute the linguistic focus of experimental work. Researchers

have investigated the effects of cross-language differences both in segmental inventories, as

well as the realization of phonological categories. For example, many studies are devoted to

the acquisition of new L2 vowel contrasts by speakers whose L1 lacks the opposition in

question; Escudero & Boersma’s (2004) oft-cited study examines Spanish L1 speakers’

perception of the English /iː/-/ɪ/ contrast. Another area that has received a lot of attention is

the implementation of laryngeal contrasts, measured in terms of the phonetic parameter of

voice onset time (VOT). Studies typically compare VOTs of stops in the speech of bilinguals

whose two languages differ in this parameter, such as French and English (e.g. Flege 1987) or

Greek and English (e.g. Antoniou et al. 2010). Research into the perception and production of

L2 segments has been instrumental in the formation of two of the more influential theoretical

models of L2 speech acquisition. Flege’s Speech Learning Model (SLM; Flege 1995) and

Best’s Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM; Best 1995, Best & Tyler 2007) facilitate the

formulation of important predictions concerning learners’ success or lack of success in the

acquisition of second language segments and contrasts.

When examining the research spawned by current models of L2 speech, one

encounters a crucial concept that constitutes the foundation of both the SLM and the PAM:

the notion of similarity. Difficulties in acquisition of L2 segments and contrasts are predicted

on the basis of how similar they are to those found in L1. Interestingly, similarity has been

seen as both a help (Best 1995) and a hindrance (Flege 1995) in L2 phonological acquisition.

A question that is not so frequently asked, however, is how similarity is to be defined. Flege

(1995: 264) notes this problem, stating that “an obstacle to testing hypotheses . . . is the lack

of an objective means for gauging degree of perceived cross-language phonetic distance”.

Nevertheless, while there is awareness of the issue, there remain unresolved issues with

regard to assumptions of cross-language phonetic distance (see e.g. Major 2008: 71). In

essence, the question of similarity is one of phonological representation. In what follows, we

1 This research was supported by a grant from the Polish National Science Centre (Narodowe Centrum Nauki).

Project number 2012/05/B/HS2/04036.

2

will offer enhanced representational tools that allow for a new perspective on the question of

cross-language phonetic distance. In particular, we consider the relationship between the

representation of segmental units and that of prosodic constituents and their boundaries.

Although traditional phonetic and phonological descriptions provide largely viable

options for defining segmental similarity between L1 and L2, the effects of external sandhi,

phonological processes observable at word boundaries, have been largely neglected in L2

speech research. For example, at the two previous New Sounds conferences, in Poznań,

Poland and Montreal, fewer than five out of well over 100 presentations could be claimed to

be related to boundary effects. Most of these studies addressed the well-known processes of

liaison and enchaînement in L2 French (e.g. Howard 2006, 2008; Shoemaker 2010; Sturm

2013), beyond which the acquisition of L2 sandhi remains almost entirely unexplored. Zsiga

(2011) provides a literature review that is helpful in assessing the current state of research.

She discusses just a few studies dealing with a small number of L1-L2 pairings (Catalan-

English, Cebrian 2000; English-Russian, Zsiga 2003; Spanish-German, Lleo&Vogel 2004;

Korean-English, Zsiga 2011). In sum, there is a clear need for more research on cross-

language boundary effects, which have clear implications for communicative success in the

target language.

The placement of prosodic boundaries may at first glance appear to be an

unpredictable aspect of the phonology of a given language. However, cross-language

comparisons suggest that languages may differ systematically in their boundary formation

mechanisms. Consider the sequence of /t#j/ in English got you as opposed to Polish kot jest

‘the cat is’. The English example is frequently produced without any boundary at all – the

stop and the glide are joined into an affricate and the form is pronounced gotcha. The /t/

undergoes a sandhi process of palatalization. Conversely, in Polish, such stop-glide

sequences are produced asynchronously (Święciński 2012) – the /t/ is not subject to the same

type of mutating processes that may within words. The /t/ appears to be ‘final’ in the Polish

example, while in English it is resyllabified and assimilates to the /j/. Although /t#j/ is a

‘similar’ sequence in segmental terms, there is a seemingly systematic difference in its

realization in Polish and English. In Polish /t#j/ there is a boundary, while in English there is

not. The question that remains is if there is any way to predict this state of affairs.

We suggest that the appearance of prosodic boundaries between segments has

phonological origins that may be derived within the Onset Prominence representational

environment (OP; Schwartz 2010a, 2010b, 2012, 2013a). The OP framework is a new theory

of phonological representation that encodes manner of articulation as a structural property

(cf. Aperture Theory, Steriade 1993), yielding representations in which segments and

syllables are constructed from the same materials, rather than being linked to a skeleton by

means of association lines. Prosodic boundaries arise when two adjacent segmental structures

may not be joined according to the basic constituent-forming mechanisms of the framework.

With regard to the /t#j/ example discussed above, sandhi palatalization in Polish is blocked

by a process of promotion, a kind of fortition that raises the glide to the highest level of the

OP hierarchy normally occupied by stop closure. A similar mechanism governs the

realization of word-initial vowels in Polish, which show a tendency for glottal marking that

blocks sandhi processes linking C#V and V#V sequences. By contrast, English is

characterized by a recursive submersion process, which is responsible for linking processes

that wipe out boundaries before vowel-initial words (find out ~ fine doubt; see [ʲ]everything).

The process of submersion in English also governs the realization of word-final stop

consonants, which are frequently produced without an audible release.

This paper will present phonetic data from Polish learners of English investigating

two types of boundary phenomena, which at first glance appear to be unrelated. In Section 2,

we will examine the relations between glottalization and linking of word-initial vowels in

3

both C#V and V#V contexts. Our results suggest that vowel glottalization is a form of L2

interference that hinders the acquisition of sandhi linking processes in English. The C#V

data are supplemented by additional measures of consonant voicing to explore the connection

between sandhi linking and the acquisition of ‘final’ voiced obstruents, a well-known

problem for L1 Polish learners. The V#V data include the results of an accent rating test in

which L1 English listeners judged glottalized and non-glottalized hiatus tokens on a scale of

foreign accentedness. In Section 3 we look at the production of stop release of the word-final

consonant in VC#C sequences. Our data indicate that the acquisition of target language

unreleased stops is connected with the acquisition of robust VC formant transitions

suggestive of greater articulatory coordination between the vowel and consonant. Thus, in

both of these empirical areas, native-like production in English entails a tendency for greater

phonetic cohesion between segments. These patterns are predicted by the representational

mechanisms of the OP framework, which we review in Section 4. Finally, in Section 5 we

discuss implications for the oft-invoked notion of cross-language phonological similarity.

2 Vowel-initial words in Polish English

This section will summarize data related to Polish learners’ acquisition of linking processes

involving vowel-initial words in English. In 2.1 we review previous work to provide a

comparison of the patterns of initial vowel realization in L1 English and Polish. An acoustic

study of C#V sequences is described in 2.2. In 2.3 we present a related study of V#V

sequences. Section 2.4 describes an accent rating study in which L1 English listeners judged

linked and glottalized V#V sequences.

2.1 Previous work on vowel-initial words in English and Polish

Our study is based on a claim that Polish and English are characterized by differences in the

representation of word-initial vowels. We return to the phonological underpinnings of this

claim in Section 4. For now, we suggest that word-initial vowels in Polish are inherently

more prominent prosodic entities than their counterparts in English. This claim is compatible

with previous findings that word-initial syllables in Polish are marked by some degree of

phonetic prominence (Dogil 1999; Crosswhite 2003; Newlin-Łukowicz 2012). The

consequence for Polish word boundaries is the blockage of the type of sandhi linking

processes that are common in English. A corollary of our claim is a hypothesis that Polish

initial vowels, as more prominent entities, should be more likely to be produced with

glottalization. That is, glottalization in Polish may be the fortification of a prominent prosodic

position, whereas in English it serves merely to mark the boundaries of larger prosodic

constituents. Consequently, we should expect glottalization in Polish to be more prevalent.

The difference between Polish and English with regard to linking processes involving

word-initial vowels is reflected in traditional textbook descriptions, as well as phonological

studies. With regard to English, process linking initial vowels with the preceding segment are

described. For example, McCarthy (1993) offers a phonological analysis of a process of

hiatus glide insertion in American English (see Ed [sijed], new image [nuwɪmədʒ];

McCarthy, 1993), while Uffmann (2007) discusses linking or intrusive /r/ in non-rhotic

dialects (Uffmann, 2007). For C#V contexts, Cook (2000) as well as Cruttenden describe

processes of liaison or linking (find out ~ fine doubt).2 Flapping of /t/ at C#V word

boundaries is also frequently described (e.g. Harris 1994). In the presence of such linking

2 The terms liaison and linking are used interchangeably in this paper.

4

processes, phrase-medial vowel glottalization is uncommon in English (Dilley et al. 1996).

By contrast, descriptions of Polish phonology make no mention of any linking processes.

Rubach & Booij (1990) note that C#V sequences in Polish are not resyllabified. Meanwhile,

Dukiewicz & Sawicka (1995), as well as Gussmann (2007), suggest that glottal stops are the

norm for word-initial vowels, and may even appear word-internally.

Our claim is also reflected in English pronunciation textbooks with regard to

glottalization in English. Cruttenden (2001) states that the use of glottal stops in English is

not as common as in some other languages, e.g. German, and is limited to emphatic

utterances. Lecumberri & Maidment (2000: 64) see utterance-initial glottal stop insertion in

emphatic speech as a universal phenomenon. Wells (2008: 345) claims that glottalization is

optionally used to add emphasis to syllable-initial vowels or to avoid hiatus in neighboring

syllables (V#V).

In recent years, some experimental studies have suggested that traditional English

linking processes may be in decline. Britain & Fox found that traditional hiatus fillers [j w r]

have been replaced by glottalization in culturally and linguistically diverse areas in the South

of England (cf. Britain & Fox 2008). Meanwhile, Davidson & Erker (2014) present evidence

against ‘glide insertion’ by English speakers in New York City (see 4.2 for additional

discussion of the Davidson & Erker study). Glottalization of hiatus was often observed when

the word-initial vowel is stressed. In other cases, they found that VV and V#V sequences

differ systematically from VjV and V#jV sequences.

Experimental phonetic studies also suggest that glottalization is more prevalent in

Polish than in English. Dilley et al. (1996) found a phrase-medial glottalization rate of around

17% in a corpus American English radio speech. By contrast, Malisz et al. (2013) found a

phrase–medial glottalization rate of just under 35%, about twice that of the rate found by

Dilley et al. (1996) in American English. Schwartz (2013b) found an even higher rate for

phrase-medial V#V tokens in a sentence reading task. The Schwartz (2013b) study also

examined spectral balance of hiatus in V#V contexts. Hiatus tokens without visible

glottalization were compared with initial-syllable CV tokens. The results revealed that the

hiatus vowels were produced with a higher spectral balance. This was true both overall and

across the V2 contexts. Raised spectral balance has been identified as a cue to word stress in

a number of languages (e.g. Sluijter & van Heuven 1996; Crosswhite 2003; Plag et al. 2011),

so this finding points to the prosodic prominence of Polish word-initial vowels even when no

glottalization is visible on waveform and spectrogram displays. In American English,

Garellek (2012) has found no spectral balance effect in phrase-medial postion; it was limited

to phrase-initial position. In sum, the common thread running through textbook descriptions

and phonetic studies is that Polish initial vowels are susceptible to glottalization, which

blocks the application of other linking processes characterized by modal voice quality.

Transferring these patterns to the domain of SLA allows for the formulation of a

hypothesis that glottalization of initial vowels in the speech of Polish learners of English may

be a manifestation of L1 phonological interference that hinders the acquisition of target

language sandhi processes. In what follows we shall present acoustic phonetic studies

investigating this possibility.

2.2 Production of C#V sequences by Polish learners of English

This section presents an acoustic study of C#V sequences produced by Polish learners of

English (for a related study, see Schwartz et al. 2014). The aim is to measure the degree of

acquisition of sandhi linking processes. In addition, we present acoustic measures of voicing

of the word-final obstruent in these sequences. Since word-final devoicing is a typical feature

5

of Polish-accented English, and linking results in a loss of ‘final’ status, we should expect to

find a relationship between the acquisition of final voicing and sandhi linking.

2.2.1 Participants

Our analysis is based on recordings of twelve Polish students majoring in English studies at

the University of Silesia (Uniwersytet Śląski; UŚ), Sosnowiec and Adam Mickiewicz

University (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza; UAM), Poznań. Six of the twelve subjects

were first year students, while the other eight were in higher years. In the first year of English

studies in Polish universities, students receive intensive pronunciation instruction (2*90

minutes/week). In the second year, this instruction is reduced to one meeting a week, while

students in the third year and above no longer receive explicit instruction in pronunciation.

The division into first/higher years was intended to group the students according to whether

or not they had completed the intensive first year instruction. The first year group had

completed one semester of instruction at the time of the recordings. The higher years group

had completed 3 or 4 semesters.3 None of the participants had spent significant time in an

English-speaking country. All of the participants had received passing grades in their English

pronunciation courses.

2.2.2 Materials and procedure

Data were elicited from a sentence list containing 35 English C#V sequences (see Appendix

1) in which the consonant was a voiced obstruent. The list also contained fillers, as well as

tokens used in a separate experiment. The recordings were made in soundproof recording

studios in the English departments at each of the two universities.4 The studios were

equipped with a computer monitor upon which the stimulus data were presented. First,

subjects were instructed to read the sentence presented on a slide in a Power Point

presentation. Afterwards, the presentation of the slide was accompanied by an audio

recording of one of five native speakers of English producing the stimulus with a linked C#V

production. Students were instructed to imitate the model voice. The acoustic analysis was

made on the tokens produced in the imitation task. A total of 420 tokens were collected for

analysis, of which 3 were excluded for technical reasons.

The imitation task had two primary goals. The first goal was to exert control over the

analyzed data. Glottal marking in L1 English is frequently dependent on prosodic position

(Dilley et al. 1996), which is difficult to control for in the elicitation of L2 speech. By

repeating after L1 speakers, the participants’ task was to embed the vowel-initial word in the

same prosodic context. By the same token, the task also allows us to factor out other possible

influences on glottalization, such as word frequency or the function/content word distinction.

Secondly, imitation tasks have been found to elicit phonetic convergence (Goldinger 1997;

Shockley et al. 2004; Pardo et al. 2012; for L2 studies see Rojczyk 2012, 2013; and Rojczyk

et al. 2013), by which speakers approximate non-contrastive phonetic details. As such, we

might expect the task to neutralize proficiency-based differences in non-contrastive features

3 Polish dialect background was not taken into account in our analysis. Eight of the twelve students were raised

in either the Upper Silesia or Great Poland provinces, which have been described as regions that feature a sandhi

voicing process before word-initial vowels and sonorants (see e.g. Dejna 1973). According to our auditory

impressions of these subjects’ Polish, sandhi voicing was largely absent. If, for our subjects, sandhi voicing was

indeed a factor, the effect would be to produce more voicing in final obstruents. The results to be presented

presently suggest that this is unlikely. 4 The recording studio at UAM is equipped with an Edirol UA-25 USB audio interface, while the UŚ studio

features a Sound Devices USBPre2 interface. Both devices allow for high-quality recordings directly onto a

laptop computer. At both univsities, recordings were made at a sampling rate of 48 kHz, 24-bit quantization.

6

such as vowel glottalization. That is, we might expect both groups of students to produce

similar non-glottalized tokens after the model voice. By contrast, if advanced learners

produce less glottalization in the imitation task, we might safely attribute glottalization to L1

phonological interference. In other words, proficiency-based differences that survive the

imitation task may be claimed to reflect the level of phonological acquisition.

2.2.3 Acoustic analysis

Acoustic analysis was performed manually with the help of the Praat program (Boersma &

Weenink 2011). The analysis focused on voicing parameters associated with the final

consonant, as well as the realization of the vowel. With respect to voicing, the following

measurements were made.

Duration of the preceding vowel (in milliseconds). The vowel duration measurements

included all post-vocalic sonorant consonants in which robust formant structure could

be identified.

Duration of final obstruent (in milliseconds); These measurements included both stop

closure and burst noise in the case of plosives and affricates, and frication noise in the

case of fricatives and affricates. In other words, a single measure of consonant

duration combined all aspects of obstruent articulation.

Duration of periodicity (vocal fold vibration) during the obstruent articulation (in

milliseconds).

From these measurements, voicing of the consonant was quantified according to two

calculated variables.

V/C ratio: duration of the preceding vowel divided by duration of the consonant. V/C

ratios are higher when the consonant is voiced. This effect is greater in English than in

other languages (Chen 1970), and is crucial for L1 perception. (Port & Dalby 1982)

%Voiced: the duration of the voiced period of the consonant divided by the total

consonant duration multiplied by 100. This measure allows us to describe how much

of a given consonant was in fact voiced.

With regard to the realization of the vowel in the C#V sequences, the goal of the

acoustic examination was to determine the presence or absence of glottalization. When no

glottalization or pause was visible on the vowel, the tokens were coded as Linked or Liaised.

An example of an L-annotated token is given in Figure 1, which contains a token of the

sequence showed everyone. The closure period of the stop, which is fully voiced, is selected

in the display.

7

Figure 1 – Example of token coded as Liaison; showed everyone

With regard to the glottalized tokens, we observed variable realization of glottal events (cf.

Redi & Shattuck-Hufnagel 2001). In Figure 2 we see a full glottal stop on the word-initial

vowel in showed everyone. Figure 3 shows non-modal phonation over the first 40-50 ms

after the release of the stop on the initial vowel of the name Alice, taken from the sentence,

I’m afraid Alice will be late.

Figure 2 – Glottalized with full glottal stop; showed everyone

8

Figure 3 – Glottalized token without full glottal stop; afraid Alice

Three of the four authors of the present paper were involved in annotating the acoustic

data. With regard to the calculated voicing parameters, a one way ANOVA revealed no

significant differences in either V/C ratio (F[2,315] = 0.98; p=.379) or %Voiced (F[2, 315]

=2.17; p=.120) in the measures of the three annotators. Some inter-annotator differences were

found in the durational measures from which the voicing parameters were calculated,

including vowel duration (F[2, 315]=4.93; p=.009) and voicing duration (F[2,315] = 5.72;

p=.005), but not consonant duration (F[2,315] = 0.81; p=.449). In particular, one annotator’s

vowel duration and voicing duration measures were shorter than those of the other annotators.

Post-hoc Bonferroni tests revealed that one of three pairwise differences was significant for

vowel duration, and two of three were significant for voicing duration. Nevertheless, these

differences were not reflected in the calculated voicing parameters.

With regard to the coding of the initial vowels, the calibration analyses revealed a

high level of agreement in the case of tokens coded as liaised (unanimous agreement in

88.5% of cases; Fleiss’ Kappa = 0.72 for two categories, liaised vs. glottalized). In some

cases glottalization was visible on the vowel, but not immediately. These tokens appeared to

contain an intrusive vowel, in which a short vocoid is visible between the final consonant and

the glottal event. We interpret intrusive vowels as an attempt to produce a voiced obstruent

before a glottalized vowel (see Schwartz et al 2014). For the present analysis, all of these

were coded simply as ‘glottalized’ to avoid annotation discrepancies.

2.2.4 Results

The first set of results we will present shows glottalization/linking rates as a function of

learner group. The first year group produced glottalized vowels in just under 60% of the

tokens, and linked C#V sequences in just over 40% of the tokens. The advanced group

showed the opposite pattern, producing less glottalization (37.7%) and more linked C#V

sequences (62.3%). A binary logistic regression analysis with linking as the dependent

variable and learner group (Advanced) as a predictor variable showed a significant effect of

learner group (B=.889; p<.001). The linking/glottalization results are summarized graphically

in Figure 4.

9

Figure 4 – C#V context glottalization rates by learner group

The results for the voicing parameters as a function of learner group are shown in Figures 5

and 6. Figure 5 shows the mean values for %Voiced (47.7 for First Year, 81.0 for Advnced).

A one-way ANOVA revealed that this difference was significant (F[1,415]=149, p<.001).

Figure 5 - %voiced measure by learner group. Error bars denote 95% confidence interval

In Figure 6 we see the mean values for V/C duration as a function of learner group. The First

Year group had an average V/C ratio of 1.96, compared to 3.28 for the Advanced group

(F[1,415]=72.6, p<.001)

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

First Year Advanced

Linked C#V

Glottalized

10

Figure 6 – V/C ratio by learner group. Error bars denote 95% confidence interval

The next set of results concerns the link between the realization of the word-initial vowel and

the voicing of the preceding consonant. For both the %Voiced and V/C ratio measures, one-

way ANOVAs revealed that linked tokens showed a higher degree of voicing than glottalized

tokens. The mean results for %Voiced are summarized in Figure 7. The results for V/C ratio

are shown in Figure 8. Liaised tokens were voiced on average through 75.2% of their

duration, while voicing in the glottalized tokens averaged 52.3% (F[1,415]=56.7, p<.001).

The results for V/C ratio as a function of glottalization/linking are given in Figure 8. Linked

tokens showed a V/C ratio of 3.01, while the preceding vowel in glottalized tokens was on

average 2.2 times longer than the consonant (F[1,415]=24.6, p<.001).

Figure 7 - %voiced measures by vowel realization. Error bars denote 95% confidence interval

11

Figure 8 – V/C ration as a function of linking. Error bars denote 95% confidence interval.

Finally, we checked the extent to which Linking was correlated with voicing in the

productions of the individual participants. Spearman’s rho was calculated between the

percentage of linked items produced by each individual and each speaker’s mean values for

the voicing parameters. In both cases, the correlation coefficient was significant (ρ=.627,

p=.029 for V/C ratio; ρ=.666, p=.018 for %voiced).

2.2.5. Discussion

Our findings may be summarized as follows. In the production of both linking and final

obstruent voicing, Advanced learners produced more native-like tokens than the First Year

group. In an imitation task in which some degree of phonetic convergence is to be expected,

remaining differences between learner groups may be attributed to phonological factors.

Since both linking and final voicing revealed differences between groups, we suggest that

glottalization, which blocks linking, must be a form of phonological interference. We will

return to the phonological discussion in Sections 4 and 5.

A phonological interpretation is also suggested by the robust relationship between

linking and final voicing. The devoicing of final obstruents is a phonetically motivated

process. Linking in L1 English serves to alter the prosodic position of the voiced obstruent to

facilitate voicing. Since final devoicing is a notorious problem for Polish learners, we suggest

that learners who receive explicit instruction in C#V linking will be better equipped to

overcome problems with final voiced obstruents. A classroom-based study is underway to

test this prediction.

2.3. V#V production study

A related study was carried out with learners productions of V#V sequence. The participants

and data-gathering procedure were the same as in the C#V study described above, while the

stimulus materials are given in the appendix. The stimuli included 26 V#V sequences (see

Appendix 2). A total of 312 tokens were collected for analysis. As in the C#V study, an

imitation task was employed with an eye to controlling for effects of prosodic position and

other factors.

2.3.1. Acoustic analysis

12

In the vowel hiatus study, tokens were toked as either Modally voiced, suggesting linking of

the two vowels, or Glottalized. Again, we did not distinguish between full glottal stops and

glottalized tokens (see Schwartz et al. 2013 for a more detailed look at the realization of

glottalized tokens). Again, 3 of 4 authors were involved in the annotation of glottalization.

Calibration analyses revealed a high level of inter-annotator agreement (90.5%, Fleiss’ Kappa

= 0.78 for two categories, Modal vs. Glottalized).

2.3.2. Results

As with the C#V study, the first year group showed more glottalization than the advanced

group. A binary logistic regression analysis with Modal voice as the dependent variable and

Learner Group as the predictor variable revealed a significant effect of Learner Group on the

likelihood of linking; the Advanced group was more likely to produce linked tokens with a

modal voice quality (B=.784, p=.003). These results are shown graphically in Figure 9. The

advanced group produced linked vowels in 81% of the tokens, while the first year group

linked only 66% of the V#V tokens.

Figure 9 – V#V glottalization rates

2.3.3. Discussion

As in the case of the C#V study, the imitation task performed by the students did not

neutralize learner group differences in hiatus linking. More advanced students produced

more linking and less glottalization. One potentially significant observation, however, is that

the hiatus context appeared to be more conducive to linking than the C#V context. Overall,

74% of the hiatus tokens were produced without glottalization, while 51% of the C#V tokens

were linked. This may be attributable to the presence of word-internal vowel hiatus in Polish,

which is typically produced without glottalization. In addition, it is worth noting one aspect

of the differences between the C#V and V#V studies. In particular, the C#V data revealed a

close link between linking and the suppression of L1 final devoicing, which is an

‘established’ feature of a Polish accent in English. In the case of vowel hiatus, there is no

such connection with other segmental phenomena. Thus, the hiatus data raise questions about

the degree to which the failure to suppress glottalization in V#V sequences might contribute

to the perception of a foreign accent by L1 English listeners. At this point we take up this

question.

2.4. Hiatus linking and glottalization in foreign accent ratings

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

first year advanced

%Modal

13

The aim of this experiment was to assess the effect of vowel hiatus realization on the

perceived accentedness of non-native speech (cf. Derwing & Munro, 1997; Munro, 2008).

To explore the relationship between these variables, an on-line listening test was carried out.

2.4.1 Participants and stimuli

Forty-two native speakers of English participated in the foreign accent rating study. The

experimental stimuli were taken from recordings obtained in the production study. Each

stimulus consisted of utterances of between three and seven words. The total number of

tokens used was 36. Out of these, 12 pairs (i.e. 24 tokens) contained non-native utterances

with vowel hiatuses. That is, each member of the pair was the same utterance, but one was

produced with a modal realization of the hiatus, while the other had a glottalized realization. The tokens were checked by two professional pronunciation teachers for additional

segmental errors. Four glottalized tokens were judged to contain additional pronunciation

errors, while three tokens with modal realization were found to exhibit additional errors.

Appendix 3 provides a summary of the utterance pairs and errors identified. Aside from the

12 pairs, the stimuli contained six additional tokens of native English utterances taken from

target recordings used for the repetition task in the production study. Finally, six other non-

native tokens without vowel hiatus were used as distractors.

2.4.2 Procedure

The survey was built using Google Forms software and were additionally customized by

hand to include audio files and additional data validation. The surveys were made available

online and distributed using their URL addresses. Cooke et al. (2013) discuss the merits and

drawbacks associated with web-based speech perception studies. We feel that the merits

outweigh the drawbacks. One advantage is the highly voluntary nature of the participants.

Another advantage is the feasibility of recruiting a large number of L1 English listeners in a

non-English speaking country, particularly those who do not have everyday experience with

Polish-accented English. Nevertheless, we are in the process of attempting to replicate this

study in an on-site experiment. The survey consisted of two parts. The first part was comprised of a short linguistic

background questionnaire that was followed by the second part that included perception

tasks. Each perception task contained a recording and a question to answer, i.e. ‘Which of the

descriptions below best describes the speaker's pronunciation?’. The task was to answer the

question by choosing one of the five available options. Listeners rated the degree of non-

native accent in the utterances (5 – clearly native; 1 – clearly foreign). All descriptions and

instructions in both surveys were delivered in English. While completing the surveys listeners could not compare two recordings to each

other. Only one question could be viewed at a time and the participants could not continue to

the next question without first answering the current one. It was also impossible to return to a

previously answered question. The participants could only rely on their own impressions

when making perception judgments. In addition, each survey attempt was unique in the sense

that the order of all perception tasks was randomized when the survey was accessed. This

helped limit the effect of question order on the responses.

As mentioned above, the experiment was conducted via the internet. Consequently,

the participants completed the tasks remotely on their own computers. The survey was

distributed among the participants using the following URL address: http://goo.gl/Hsypq7

14

Participants were instructed to complete the survey only once and to use headphones to listen

to the stimuli in order to ensure sound fidelity. All participants were unaware of the purpose

of the experiment. When participants accessed the surveys they were first asked to provide information

about their linguistic background and then they moved on to the experiment proper that

consisted of 36 perception tasks. No indication of this division was given to the participants. When completing the surveys, the participants were presented with only one question at a

time. In each question, the participants were instructed to do the following: Click on a play button and listen to a short recording of an utterance. The recordings

could be replayed if needed.

Answer the question by choosing one of the five available options numbered 1–5. The

participants could not proceed without first answering the current question. No

feedback was presented for answering a question. Click on ‘next’ to continue to the next question.

The participants continued until they answered all the questions. At this point, the ‘submit’

button became active and the listeners could click on it to send their responses. A

confirmation screen concluded the experiment.

2.4.3 Data Analysis

A total of 1512 responses were obtained in the experiment (36 tokens * 42 listeners = 1512).

The responses to filler tokens without vowel hiatuses were excluded from the analysis. The

remaining responses were used to calculate the mean values of comprehensibility and

accentedness ratings for each participant. The means were then analyzed by taking into

account the following factors: Realization (whether the hiatuses in the utterance tokens were produced with a non-

native glottal or modal realization or were produced by a native speaker, i.e. had a

native modal realization)

Other errors (whether the stimuli contained other errors identified by pronunciation

teachers that could have influences the rating) The mean comprehensibility and accentedness rating values for all stimuli types (glottal vs.

modal vs. native) were calculated and compared using a repeated measures ANOVA to

determine the effect vowel of hiatus realization (glottalized vs. modal vs. native) on

perceived accentedness of L2 English speech. In addition, the same means and statistical

analyses were obtained for tokens with and without other pronunciation errors in order to

evaluate the effects of these errors on the listeners’ judgments.

2.4.4 Results

The mean values of the accentedness ratings for all three stimuli types are presented in Figure

10. For the mean values of the accentedness rating, the lowest score was found for

glottalized tokens (M = 2.23, SD = .47), followed by modal tokens (M = 2.96, SD = .52).

Tokens produced by native speakers obtained the highest scores for accentedness (M = 4.51,

SD = .56).

15

Figure 10. Mean Accentedness ratings of glottalized, modal and native tokens.

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with the Accentedness scores as the dependent

variables and the hiatus realization (glottalized vs. modal vs. native) as the independent

variable. The results of the analysis are discussed below.

The analysis of the means of accentedness ratings (N = 42) showed violation of

sphericity in Mauchly’s test, χ2(2) = 31.36, p < .001. Degrees of freedom were corrected

using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .65). A significant effect of hiatus

realization on perceived accentedness of an utterance was found, F(1.30, 53.13) = 257.25, p

< .001. Significant differences between all pairs of token types were found in post-hoc

Bonferroni tests, p < .001. The results indicate that when L1 English listeners were asked to

assess the degree of non-native accentedness of utterances, judgments were affected by the

way vowel hiatus was realized. Specifically, the results suggest that non-native utterances

with glottalized vowel hiatuses are perceived as the most foreign by native speakers of

English, followed by non-native utterances with modal realizations. Utterances produced by

native speakers were perceived as the least foreign. Since some of the non-native tokens were judged to contain additional pronunciation

errors, we carried out an additional analysis to investigate whether the results reported above

were indeed due to vowel glottalization rather than other factors. Specifically, mean values

were obtained for non-native glottalized and modal tokens with and without other errors to

determine whether the same trends would be identified for utterances without errors and to

explore the effect of other errors on listeners’ judgments. The mean values of the perceived accentedness ratings for glottalized and modal

tokens with and without other errors are shown in Figure 11. Glottalized tokens without other

errors were given lower scores (M = 2.29, SD = .53) than modal tokens without pronunciation

errors (M = 3.13, SD = .51). When both token types contained other pronunciation errors, the

difference was smaller but still noticeable (glottalized: M = 1.92, SD = .57; modal: M = 2.35,

SD = .66).

0

1

2

3

4

5

Glottalized Modal Native

Mean AccentednessRating

16

Figure 11.Mean ratings of accentedness for tokens with and without other segmental errors

The statistical analysis involved a paired-samples T-Test carried out for accentedness

with a number of within-subject conditions. The values for tokens without other

pronunciation errors were compared in order to confirm whether the same tendencies could

be attested as for all analyzed tokens. Significant differences between glottalized (M = 2.29,

SD = .53) and modal tokens (M = 3.13, SD = .50) were found, t(41) = 13.07, p < .001. These

results match the ones reported above, confirming that glottalized utterances were perceived

as more foreign accented by native speakers even when there were no other pronunciation

errors involved.The same analyses were conducted for tokens with other pronunciation

errors. Significant differences were found between glottalized (M = 1.92, SD = .57) and

modal tokens (M =2.35, SD = .66), t(41) = 4.00, p < .001. This implies that vowel

glottalization continued to play a crucial part in in increasing the foreign accentedness of

even in comparison to modal tokens containing other foreign accent features.

The effect of the glottalization of vowel hiatus on foreign accent perception is further

evidenced when the scores for tokens without other errors and for tokens with other

pronunciation errors are compared. A paired samples T-Test demonstrated that the difference

between mean accentedness scores for glottalized tokens without other errors (M = 2.29, SD

= .53) and modal tokens with errors (M =2.35, SD = .66) was non-significant, t(41) = -.62, p

> .05. These results indicate that the glottalization of vowel hiatus, even alone, was just as

indicative of a foreign accent as the segmental errors in modal tokens.

2.4.5 Discussion

With regard to accentedness ratings, our results point to a direct effect of hiatus glottalization.

Overall glottalized tokens were rated lower than modal tokens (2.23 vs 2.96). These

differences held in tokens both with and without other segmental errors. Interestingly, the

magnitude of this difference was greater in the case of the tokens without additional errors.

Such tokens may be claimed to have isolated the effects of the glottalized hiatus realization.

Finally, in the accentedness ratings, modal tokens with other errors were judged the same or

even slightly more native-like (2.35) than glottalized tokens without other errors (2.29). This

finding suggests that L1 English listeners are particularly sensitive to target-like boundary

realization in making accentedness judgments, and that boundary effects such as hiatus

linking are indeed an aspect of L1 English phonology.

2.5. Final remarks on word-initial vowels

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

with other errors without other errors

Glottalized

Modal

17

The results of the production studies and the accent rating test suggest that for Polish learners

of English, the suppression of glottalization in word-initial vowels represents an important

stage of phonological acquisition, facilitating the learning of target language sandhi linking

processes. In Section 4, we shall show how these facts fall out from aspects of phonological

representations within the Onset Prominence framework. Before proceeding to the

phonological discussion, however, we now turn to data from a seemingly unrelated

phenomenon: the realization of word-final stop consonants in C#C contexts.

3 Stop release and vowel quality in VC#C sequences

This section will summarize data from VC#C sequences in the speech of Polish learners of

English (for a related study, see Schwartz et al. 2014). In particular, we look at the link

between the production of plosive release and the production of the preceding vowel. The

basic hypothesis is that Polish learners learn to suppress release bursts in L2 English, a

process that goes hand in hand with the acquisition of robust VC formant transitions

suggestive phonetic cohesion.

3.1. Stop release in cross-language phonology

Although coda stop release is not a contrastive property, certain cross-language patterns

suggest that it is more than just a phonetic detail. Stated briefly, languages seem to adopt one

of three systems. Stop release may be (1) obligatory, (2) optional, or (3) always absent. Polish

exemplifies the first pattern (with the exception of homorganic CC sequences), English

follows the second pattern, while in Korean coda stops are always unreleased. Such

systematic differences suggest that coda stop release is phonological and subject to

parametric variation. Due to its non-contrastive status however, there has been only a small

amount of work on stop release in the literature on cross-language phonological interaction.

One important study is by Kang (2003), who looked at English loanword into Korean.

She showed that the probability of epenthetic vowels following English coda stops in

loanwords into Korean is strongly correlated with the probability of stop release in the speech

of L1 speakers. When the source language stops are more likely to be released, such as when

the stop is voiced, the Korean adaptations tended to appear with an epenthetic vowel and an

additional syllable (pad /pæ.tɨ/). By contrast, the adaptations of English words with a

voiceless stops, which are more likely to be unreleased, matched with the native Korean

pattern of suppressed stop release (pack /p k /). Clearly Korean listeners hear released

stops as containing a full ‘syllable’. In the context of L1 Polish speakers learning English,

previous studies by Bergier (2010) and Rojczyk et al. (2013) have studied the production of

L2 English unreleased stops. To our knowledge, only the Schwartz et al. (2014) study has

investigated the link between the suppression of stop release and the quality of the preceding

vowel.

3.2 Participants, procedure, and materials

Data were collected from 12 Polish learners of English, divided into two groups of six along

similar criteria to the initial vowel studies described in Section 2. Data were elicited by

presenting stimulus tokens on a Power Point slide. However, this study did not involve an

imitation task – participants read what was on the slide without audio input. The students had

one ‘practice’ round before they produced the tokens used in the analysis. The linguistic

material was made up of 18 VC#C sequences with equal distribution of the primary place of

18

articulation (labial, coronal, dorsal) in the first consonant. Care was taken to eliminate

homorganic consonant sequences, which constitute the only context in which stop release in

Polish may be suppressed (Dukiewicz & Sawicka 1995). The vowel in 12 of the tokens was

/æ/, while it was /ɪ/ in the other 6 tokens. A total of 216 tokens (12 speakers * 18 examples)

was collected for analysis.

3.3. Acoustic analysis

Acoustic analysis was performed by hand with the help of the Praat program (Boersma &

Weenink 2011) and focused on both the release of the post-vocalic stop consonant and the

VC formant transitions. With regard to stop release, tokens were tagged as either Yes or No,

on the basis of whether there was both a visual spike in the waveform as well as an audible

burst. With regard to the vowels in the VC sequences, the following acoustic measurements

were made.

Overall vowel duration (including pre-vocalic /r/ and /l/) in milliseconds

Duration of VC transition in milliseconds, from the end of the steady-portion of the vowel

to the onset of stop closure.

From these measurements, one additional measure of VC formant transitions was calculated,

%VC, defined as the transition duration divided by the vowel duration multiplied by 100.

That is, the measure defines the percentage of the vowel occupied by the VC transition.

3.4. Results

The first set of results shows the rate of stop release as a function of learner group. First year

students produced an audible release burst in 90.7% of the tokens, while the advanced

produced release bursts at a rate of 63.4%.

The next set of results looked at %VC as a function of stop release across learner

groups. A one way ANOVA revealed that the VC transition occupied on average 34.5% of

the vowel duration in unreleased tokens, while in the released tokens the mean %VC was

27.3% (p<.001). This is shown in Figure 12. Another one way ANOVA revealed that the

advanced group produced a slightly higher mean value for %VC (30.2%) than the first year

group (27.8%). This difference was significant (p=.027), and is illustrated in Figure 13.

19

Figure 12 - %VC as a function of stop release. Error bars denote 95% confidence interval

Figure 13 - %VC by learner group. Error bars denote 95% confidence interval.

To evaluate the role of learner group and %VC in determining the likelihood of stop release

production, a binary logistic regression analysis was performed with release as the dependent

variable and %VC and Learner Group as predictor variables. Both predictor variables turned

out to be significant (p<.001).

3.5 Discussion

The results of the stop release study may be summed up as follows. The likelihood of stop

release in VC#C sequences is linked to the %VC parameter, the percentage of the preceding

vowel occupied by the VC transitions. If more of the vowel taken up by the transition, the

the chances that the stop may be produced without a release burst. This pattern may be

understood in the context of Lindblom’s (1990) H&H theory of speech production, which

20

posits that speaker behavior is governed by a principle of ‘sufficient discriminability’. In

other words, speakers spend the minimal effort possible to produce a comprehensible

utterance. With more more robust VC transitions, listeners may identify the final stop without

a release burst, so speakers can spare the effort required to produce the burst. The acoustic

patterns associated with the %VC parameter suggest that in unreleased tokens, there is greater

phonetic coordination between the word-final consonant and the preceding vowel. Thus, the

fact that the Advanced group produced more unreleased stops, as well as more higher %VC

measures, suggests that the acquisition process involves the learning of this phonetic

coordination. In what follows, we shall investigate the phonological considerations that

underlie the empirical patterns we have observed.

4. Boundary formation in the Onset Prominence representational environment

In this section we will review the representations and mechanisms of the OP framework, in

order to derive the boundary effects we have observed in the speech of Polish learners of

English. We shall see that OP representations offer a perspective from which the formation of

prosodic boundaries may be linked to other segmental features such as vowel glottalization

and the behavior of coda stops. A mechanism of submersion in English allows for a unified

account of the seemingly unrelated phonetic properties we have examined, as well as the

acquisition patterns on the part of Polish learners.

4.1. Preliminaries

The Onset Prominence framework is a theory of phonological representation in which

segments and prosodic constituents (such as ‘syllables’) are constructed from the same

building block, a hierarchy of phonetic events shown in (1).

(1) The Onset Prominence representational hierarchy

Each node of the structure is derived from a phonetic event associated with a stop-vowel

sequence. The highest level node is associated with stop closure (Closure), this is followed by

burst/frication/aspiration noise after the stop release (Noise). The Noise node is followed by

the Vocalic Onset (VO) node, which derives from the initial portion of vowels in a CV

sequence. VO is followed by the Vocalic Target (VT) level. The tree in (1) represents a

unversal CV ‘syllable’ in which the C is a stop. The representational split between VO and

VT encodes the built-in ambiguity of CV transitions with regard to the consonant-vowel

distinction. While phonetically vocalic, the initial portion of vowels typically carries acoustic

information crucial for the identification of the preceding consonant. Thus, the VO node may

be contained in either consonant or vowel representations (see 4.2., and Schwartz 2013a).

21

The representations of individual segments are extracted from the hierarchy in (1). A

sample of these is given in (2). The segmental symbols act as shorthand for place and

laryngeal specifications, which are for the most part beyond the scope of this paper. Manner

of articulation is represented in the structural levels contained in a given segmental tree,

creating a partial scale of sonority and consonantal strength. Binary nodes are active in a

given segment’s representation, while unary nodes act as placeholders that define hierarchical

levels. Stops contain Closure, Noise, and parametrically VO. Nasals lack an aperiodic noise

element, so the Noise node is not active in /m/. Fricatives lack complete closure, so the

Closure node is not active in /f/. Approximants such as /w/ contain the Vocalic Onset node

(VO), but are missing the top two nodes associated with obstruents. Vowels are specified

under the Vocalic Target (VT) node. One item that should be noted at this time is that

terminal nodes of the structures that are not shown with melodic specifications are not

necessarily ‘empty’. Thus, in the structure of /p/, a labial specification that is assigned at the

Closure level, ‘trickles’ down the structure to occupy the Noise and VO nodes (see Schwartz

2014).

(2) Manner distinctions in the OP environment

By considering the relationship between the building block in (1) and the individual

segmental trees in (2), we can establish motivation for representational adjustments that

produce well-formed prosodic constituents. This may be thought of as follows. The tree in (1)

is a well-formed CV ‘syllable’ against which the well-formedness of individual segmental

structures in (2) is measured. In (3) we see a string of segmental structures /t/ and /a/. Neither

of these segments contain the entire four layer hierarchy, motivating a process of absorption,

by which the lower-level /a/ is merged with the higher level /t/ to its left, resulting in a well-

formed constituent /ta/.5 The /t/ lacks an active VT node, while the /a/ lacks the higher level

nodes. By absorbing the /a/ into the /t/, well-formed CV is produced.

(3) Absorption in a /ta/ sequence

5 Reversing the order of these segments would require either the submersion or promotion mechanisms that will

be discussed in due course.

22

The structures in (3) suggest a minimality requirement for well-formed structures, given in

(4).

(4) MINIMAL CONSTITUENT (MC) – A minimal prosodic constituent contains active (binary)

nodes both above and below the VT level

The MC requirement eliminates the need for constraints such as ONSET, PEAK, and *CODA

that impose requirements or restrictions on the segmental content of ‘syllables’. The

empirical generalizations that such constraints are intended to describe may be read directly

from OP representations. Additionally, the sharing of representational materials provides a

perspective from which a theory of boundary formation and representation may be

formulated. Prosodic domains are built from combinations of segmental trees, and boundaries

fall out naturally from the mechanisms involved. Parameters associated with these

mechanisms allow us to make predictions about where boundaries will arise.

4.2 Submersion in English yields sandhi linking and optional stop release

A single parametric mechanism, submersion, active in English and absent in Polish, may

account for the apparently diverse data observed in this paper. We shall start by illustrating

the most basic form of submersion involving ‘coda’ consonants, after which we shall

motivate submersion in vowel-initial words.

In (5), we see a string of segmental structures for the English word click. By

absorption, the vowel and the lateral /l/ are joined with the initial /k/ into a single structure.

Due to its high position in the representational hierarchy, the final /k/ may not undergo

absorption into the preceding constituent. In words of this shape, English licenses a process

of submersion, which places the final /k/ underneath the constituent built down from the

initial /k/, as is shown in the right-most structure.6

(5) Submersion of final /k/ in English click

Submersion of post-vocalic consonants is parametric. It is absent in Polish. In (14) we see

Polish klik ‘click’ on the left, alongside the English click with a submerged coda.

(6) Polish klik (left) and English click

6 For an analogous proposal by which coda consonants may reflect syllabic recursion, see van der Hulst (2010).

23

On the right, the final stop in English click is submerged under the preceding constituent. On

the left the final /k/ in Polish klik is not submerged, but is joined with preceding segments at a

higher level of structure that is not shown. From the representations in (6), it is predicted that

coda stops in Polish and English should behave differently, since they are structurally

distinct. The English coda is in a lower prosodic position in the OP hierarchy. Associating

lower hierarchical levels with prosodic weakness, we should expect the English coda to be

subject to lenition processes such as the repression of stop release. In addition, since the

submerged coda stops are joined into the same constituent structure as the preceding vowel in

English, the representations capture phonetic interaction between the vowel and consonant in

VC sequences. This was seen in our phonetic data in the %VC measure. The submersion

parameter has other implications for English and Polish phonology that are largely beyond

the scope of this paper. Submerged structures are associated with prosodic weight (absent in

Polish) and lenition in VCV contexts (absent in Polish). For discussion see Schwartz

(submitted). Now, we turn to the issue of linking of vowel-initial words.

Submersion is a mechanism that repairs structures that do not satisfy the MC

requirement by joining them with the preceding structure. In this connection, a key question

in determining sandhi application in English as opposed to Polish concerns the prosodic

status of word-initial vowels. That is, do word-initial vowels satisfy MC? We claim that this

another parametric decision. Word-initial vowels in Polish contain the VO node and satisfy

MC, word-initial vowels in English do not (see Schwartz 2013a). These parameters are

shown in (7). The tree on the left representing the Polish vowel, is a well-formed structure.

The tree on the right, representing the English vowel, is not. The result of these parameters is

that vowel-initial words in English are subject to sandhi linking processes while in Polish

they are not.

(7) VO parameters for vowels

Sandhi linking with initial vowels in English is due to submersion. Consider the English

phrase keep out. The /p/ is typically linked to the following vowel. This is represented by the

24

submersion of the structure for out, shown in (8). Since out does not contain active nodes

above the VT level, it does not meet the MC requirement. The sub-minimal out is therefore

submerged below the structure of keep, producing a well-formed constituent that we see on

the right. Analogous structures in Polish contain VO and are not subject to submersion.

(8) Submersion in keep out

Notice that the /p/ in keep has already undergone submersion, and is housed under the VT

level. If it had not, the /p/ would be built down from the Closure level, and the context for

absorption would be created. Absorption would mean that the final /p/ would become initial.

This, however, cannot be the case for English, since the /p/ in keep out is not aspirated – keep

out is clearly distinct from key pout. The linking that occurs in English is not the same

process as enchaînement or liaison that is found in French, which we would represent with

absorption. Thus, the /p/ in keep must already be submerged.

We have seen that submersion, a process absent in Polish, is responsible for sandhi-

linking in vowel-initial words in English. At this point we must consider more closely the

links between the OP representations and the phonetic data that we and others have observed.

The first issue to be discussed concerns the status and frequency of vowel glottalization, after

which we shall turn to the issue of linking in V#V sequences.

Although we have observed a tendency for more frequent and robust vowel

glottalization in Polish than in English, we should not expect an absolute opposition between

the two languages. That is, not all Polish initial vowels are glottalized, and some English

initial vowels are. In OP structures, glottalization may be represented as the activation of the

closure node, and the addition of some kind of specification denoting properties of non-modal

phonation. This is shown in (9). The tree on the left is a glottalized vowel of the type in

Polish containing VO, while on the right we see the a glottalized vowel without VO. Note

that both of these structures satisfy MC – they are both well-formed constituents. The

difference is that in Polish, glottalization fortifies a structure that is already well-formed. In

English, Closure activation repairs an ill-formed structure to denote higher-level constituent

edges. Thus, glottalization in the two languages has a different status that contributes to the

observed tendencies. In English it is a phrase-level phenomenon, while in Polish it may reach

further down into the realm of segmental representation. However, these differences do not

imply that the opposition between the two languages is absolute.

(9) Glottalization in VO-specified Polish vowel (left) and English vowel (right)

25

In the case of word-boundary vowel hiatus in English, OP representations offer a

useful perspective from which linking glides are distinct from lexical glides (cf. Levi 2008).

This is shown in (10). The two left-most structures show a sequence of two vowels in which

the second is subject to submersion. The second structure from the right contains the vowel

sequence, which may have produced the percept of a glide in previous descriptions. The

right-most structure contains a ‘lexical’ glide. English pronunciation textbooks have noted a

distinction between lexical and linking glides. Here that distinction is captured.

(10) Submersion in /ua/ sequence, as well as lexical /w/

Capturing the contrast between linking and lexical glides can aid phonological interpretation

of boundary phenomena. Consider Davidson & Erker (2014), who provide evidence against

‘glide insertion’ at hiatus sequences, showing that hiatus glides are distinct from lexical

glides. As an alternative, they suggest that glottalization is the preferred hiatus filler in

American English, as suggested by a relatively high glottalization rate (45%) in their data.

However, their glottalization rate may have been skewed by the fact that 18 of 24 of their

stimulus items contained stressed word-initial vowels. With the representations advocated

here, we do not need glottalization as an alternative to ‘glide insertion’. Non-glottalized

hiatus is captured, and is distinct from lexical glides. That is, we can argue against glide

insertion, as Davidson & Erker successfully do, without making the controversial claim that

glottalization is the preferred hiatus filler.

5 OP and similarity in L2 phonology

In our discussion so far, we have seen how the representations of the OP environment may

offer tools for predicting cross-language differences in boundary effects. At this point we turn

to the wider implications of the OP representational environment for the study of second

26

language speech. Our ultimate goal is to offer new perspectives on the oft-invoked principle

of similarity in L2 speech learning. As an introduction to this discussion, it is worth

considering the OP perspective on what is to our knowledge the only serious proposal

regarding interlanguage boundary effects: Cebrian’s (2000) Word Intergrity constraint.

5.1 Word Integrity vs. L1 interference.

Our studies have noted a significant degree of glottalization of word-initial vowels in the

speech Polish learners of English. We suggested that OP representational parameters may

account for these patterns. As an alternative to our representational hypothesis, the observed

glottalization in the speech of Polish learners of English may be claimed as evidence for a

more general Word Integrity constraint in the speech of L2 learners (Cebrian 2000). To

address this question, we will look at two previous studies of L2 learners by Cebrian (2000)

and Lleo & Vogel (2004). In both cases, there is evidence that learners suppress L1 processes

that weaken prosodic boundaries. However, it is not obvious that these results support the

proposed WI constraint. In the first case there is a simpler alternative explanation. In the

second case, learners’ failure to acquire a target language boundary strengthening process

casts doubt on the WI hypothesis (see Zsiga 2011 for additional doubts about the WI

proposal).

Cebrian’s proposal of Word Integrity was borne out of a discrepancy in the transfer of

L1 Catalan phonological processes into L2 English. Catalan is characterized by two processes

that neutralize laryngeal contrasts: final obstruent devoicing and voicing assimilation at word

boundaries. Examples are given in (11).

(11) Word-final devoicing and voicing assimilation in Catalan (Cebrian 2000)

vas ‘glass’

vazos ‘glasses’

vas petit ‘small glass’

vaz gran ‘big glass’

Final devoicing is a domain-internal process. Voicing assimilation is a sandhi process that

spans prosodic constituents. In the speech of Catalan learners of English, Cebrian found that

devoicing is widespread, but the assimilation process is not. It thus appears as though the

sandhi process is not a candidate for L1 interference, leading Cebrian (2000: 19) to claim the

existence of “an interlanguage prosodic constraint that treats every word as a separate unit

and prevents the synchronization of sounds belonging to different words”. On the face of it,

this would appear to be quite a strong claim. However, there is an alternative explanation for

Cebrian’s data.

The relatively low rates of transfer for voicing assimilation might reflect learners’

successful acquisition of short-lag VOT in the target language /b d g/, and the suppression of

the pre-voicing that is found in the L1 realizations of these stops. In other words, pre-voicing

facilitates regressive voicing assimilation, so the absence of this process suggests that

learners may have acquired the laryngeal qualities of the L2 stops, instead of transferring

their pre-voiced L1 stops. The final devoicing process remains however, since the acquisition

of VOT associated with the initial stops does not necessarily imply the acquisition of distinct

cues relevant for final stops. This is particularly true for English, in which final voiced

obstruents are often partially devoiced, yet remain distinct from the underlying voiceless

obstruents due to their duration relative to the preceding vowel (e.g. Port & Dalby 1982). In

short, the apparent discrepancy in transfer between L1 final devoicing and L1 voicing

27

assimilation may be attributable to the realization of laryngeal contrasts, and does not

necessitate any universal claims of Word Integrity.

In a study with more direct bearing on our work on initial glottalization, LLeo &

Vogel (2004) investigated the acquisition of L2 German by Spanish L1 speakers. Their

results were somewhat ambiguous with regard to the Word Integrity proposal. The focus of

their analysis included two phonological processes with implications for WI. One of these

was a sandhi spirantization process in L1 Spanish, by which word-initial voiced stops are

realized as fricatives between vowels. Another process they looked at was harter Einsatz or

‘glottal stop insertion’ on initial vowels in L2 German (e.g. Wiese 1996). Suppression of

spirantization accompanied by the acquisition of glottalization, both resulting in stronger

word-initial segments, would provide strong support for the WI hypothesis. Lleo & Vogel’s

analysis revealed conflicting results. The learners in their study managed for the most part to

suppress the spirantization process (around 80%), yet their acquisition of harter Einsatz was

less successful (under 50%). A universal WI constraint would predict that Spanish learners

should have little trouble acquiring harter Einsatz, which serves to enhance Word Integrity.

In accordance with the representational perspective advocated here, we postulate that

Word Integrity cannot be a uniform constraint that exerts equal force across all L1

backgrounds. Rather, we should expect differing degrees of Word Integrity as a function of

L1. The relative frequency of vowel glottalization in various L1s may therefore act as a

predictor of greater Word Integrity. To investigate this, we are engaged in a comparison of

L1 German and English speakers learning Polish as an L2. If English and German speakers

produce L2 Polish initial vowels with comparable rates of glottalization, we may conclude

that an L2 WI constraint may override the L1 English tendency for linking at word

boundaries.

In the present study, we looked at the vowel glottalization by Polish learners in L2

English, exploring the hypothesis that it is a form of L1 interference. Since the glottalization

of vowels has received only limited attention in the literature on L2 speech, it is worth

considering the phenomenon from the perspective of current models of second language

phonology. In this connection, we must consider the concept of cross-language similarity.

5.2 Vowel glottalization and cross-linguistic similarity

A comparison of the acquisition of harter Einsatz and the suppression of spirantization in

Lleo & Vogel’s study of Spanish learners of German may serve as an illustration of the

problematic concept of ‘similarity’ that is employed by current models of L2 speech. With

regard to both phonological and phonetic parameters, it is not obvious if either of these L2

phenomena is more similar to the corresponding structure in L1. Characterizing harter

Einsatz as ‘glottal stop insertion’, the appearance of a new segment, implies that this process

in L2 should be less similar to L1 than the suppression of spirantization. Under this view, the

former process produces a new segment [ʔ], while the latter simply adjusts the manner

specification of an existing segment. If [ʔu] is taken as a postional allophone of /u/, then the

two processes would have similar phonological status - both the glottalized vowel and the

unspirantized stop are variants of L1 phonemes appearing in a new prosodic context.

Alternatively, the relative infrequency of phonemic glottal stops across languages suggests

that the glottalized vowel should be more similar, since it involves the addition of a feature

that is non-contrastive in most languages. Thus, phonologically, one might argue for any of

three different interpretations with regard to the cross-language similarity of the two

processes.

In phonetic terms, it is equally difficult to gauge the relative similarity of the two

processes. Assuming equivalence in F1-F2 vowel space, a glottalized and non-glottalized

28

vowel should have similar formant frequencies, so they might be classified as similar. Yet the

voice source characteristics that distinguish them contribute to differences in perceived

loudness and have been identified as a cue to prominence in many languages (Sluijter & van

Heuven 1996; Kreimann & Gerratt 2010) and may be assumed to be perceptually robust.

Spirantization eliminates stop closure, an important acoustic landmark in the speech signal

(see Stevens 2002), yet stops produced with incomplete closure (e.g. Crystal & House 1988)

are typically perceived as stops, suggesting that listeners reconstruct the closure (cf. Ohala

1981). Thus, from the phonetic point of view, one could argue that either of the two target

language phenomena are more similar. In sum, defining similarity often requires weighing

the effects of conflicting phonetic and phonological parameters.

From the perspective afforded by the Onset Prominence framework, we gain new

tools for comparing segmental and prosodic representations across languages, and explicit

new parameters for the definition of similarity. Consider the trees in (12), which shows OP

representations for the German stop and glottalized vowel (first and third trees from the left),

alongside L1 Spanish representations of the spirantized stop (2nd

from the left) and the

unglottalized vowel (far right). The glottalized vowel (2nd

tree from the right) is represented

as a VO-specified vocalic structure with additional glottal specification an active Closure

node. The spirantized stop (2nd

tree from the left) is characterized by a deactivated (unary)

Closure node.

(12) German stop (left) vs Spanish spiranatized stop; German initial vowel vs. Spanish vowel

The structures in (12) suggest that harter Einsatz is less similar to the corresponding

L1 structure than the supression of spirantization. The dissimilarity is based on structural

differences among the pairs of corresponding sounds. For L1 speakers of Spanish, vowel

glottalization represents a more dramatic prosodic change, with two additional active layers

of structure, than the suppression of spirantization. Moreover, the structural change is

enhanced by an additional glottal specification on the VO node. By contrast, the structural

change involved in the repression of spirantization is less dramatic, involving only the

activation of the Closure node without any alteration to the underlying levels of the hierarchy.

Thus, the glottalized vowel is further from the L1 structure since its representational changes

entails both greater structural displacement and an additional melodic specification.

One of the hypotheses of Flege’s Speech Learning Model predicts that sounds that are

similar across languages may be subject to equivalence classification that prevents the

formation of a new perceptual category by L2 learners. Flege (1987) observed compromise

values in the speech of English-French bilinguals both in both vowel quality and VOT

parameters, which he attributed to equivalence classification. If harter Einsatz produces a

sound that is less similar to the corresponding L1 structure than the suppression of

29

spirantization, Lleo & Vogel’s results for Spanish learners of German would appear to be at

odds with the SLM. Our representations suggest that equivalence classification should be

more likely in the case of the non-spirantized stop, which is more similar to the L1 structure.

Consequently, the SLM might predict that L1 Spanish learners of German should have less

success in the suppression of spirantization. This is, of course, in opposition to Lleo &

Vogel’s findings.

An examination of the features that have been found to undergo equivalence

classification may point to a possible reconciliation of these apparently conflicting

predictions. Vowel quality, VOT, and the contrast between /l/ and /r/ constitute the phonetic

focus of a majority of the documented cases of equivalence classification. In the OP

environment, these properties differ crucially from spirantization and vowel glottalization

shown in (11) in that they are based solely on melodic specifications rather than structural

properties. Thus, we propose a modification to the SLM hypothesis by which equivalence

classification should impede the acquisition of melodically similar, rather than structurally

similar sounds. We suggest that parameters such as formant frequencies and VOT are by

nature more gradient than those associated with manner, and should be more likely to show

compromise values predicted by equivalence classification.7

5.3 Coda behavior and interlanguage epenthesis

In Section 3 we presented data on stop release in Polish English to suggest that the

acquisition of unreleased coda stops, as represented by submersion, is an integral part of the

learning process. The representations discussed in Section 4 provide a perspective from

which ‘coda’ consonants come in two varieties: submerged and non-submerged. Unreleased

coda stops are associated with submerged structures. Unsubmerged structures are always

released. These differences are represented prosodically in the OP environment, yet concern

the behavior of individual segments. That is, OP representations can describe the relationship

between segmental and prosodic representation in a way that traditional structures cannot. In

what follows, we shall examine the implications of this perspective, with particular attention

to Korean speakers’ treatment of coda consonants both in their L1 and in L2 English. First,

we shall consider perceptual epenthesis, by which Korean listeners hear vowels after English

coda stops (De Jong & Park 2012). We shall then consider Korean phonotactic constraints

with respect to contrast neutralization.

De Jong & Park (2012) studied perceptual epenthesis by Korean learners of English.

Their stated goal was to test the predictions of two explanations for epenthesis. According to

the first, which attributes epenthesis to ‘functional reparsing’, the process is motivated by the

need to license consonant manner and laryngeal contrasts in a new prosodic position.8 That is,

it serves to ease the task of identifying the consonant in question. In the other model, under

the heading of ‘perceptual misanalysis’, epenthesis is the reinterpretation of consonant release

as the ‘onset’ to an additional syllable, whose ‘nucleus’ is filled by an epenthetic vowel. De

7 Recent research has provided evidence that bidirectional phonetic drift attributable to equivalence

classification may be due to language context (Grosjean 1998). Antoniou et al. conducted two studies in which

they examined VOT values for early bilingual speakers of Greek and Australian English. The first experiment

(Antoniou et al 2010) was conducted in monolingual mode in the two languages, and monolingual-like

realization was observed in both. In a second experiment (Antoniou et al 2011), phonetic code switching was

induced by manipulating the alphabet used in the eliciting the stimulus, and L1 interference on L2 was observed,

but L1 was largely unaffected.

8 Since Korean features unreleased stops in which place is encoded in coda positions, it might be expected that

Korean listeners should be quite accurate at identifying the place of articulation of coda consonants.

30

Jong and Park note that authors who have argued for these models often claim that segment-

based and syllable-based explanations for epenthesis are incompatible. To test the two models De Jong & Park (2012) carried out a perceptual experiment in

which L1 Korean listeners engaged in two tasks with stimuli from American English: a

syllable counting task and a segment identification task. Their predictions with regard to the

aforementioned models were as follows. A negative relationship between segment

identification and syllable counting would provide support for the contrast-based model. That

is, more accurate segment identification comes at the cost of less accurate prosodic parsing,

since the additional syllable is claimed to aid in identification of the newly reparsed

consonant. No correlation between the two tasks would support the syllable-based model.

Finally, they posit that a positive relationship between the two tasks would support an

alternative model in which segmental identification and prosodic parsing are two aspects of

the same perceptual process. Their findings showed a positive correlation between syllable

counting and segmental features across individual subjects. Learners who were more accurate

in the syllable counting task (i.e. less likely to hear epenthetic vowels) tended to be more

accurate in identifying segmental features. Thus, it appears that neither of the two tested

models was supported. Rather, as they point out, ‘the present results suggest an overall model

. . . wherein listeners jointly interpret the details of segments and the syllabic position from an

integrated percept (De Jong & Park, 2012: 150)’.

The integrated percept proposed by De Jong & Park is captured in the Onset

Prominence representational environment, in which segmental and syllabic structures are

constructed from the same hierarchy. Crucially, manner of articulation is a prosodic

specification as well as a segmental feature. Instead of a segmental specification attaching to

prosodic structure by means of association lines, manner is prosodic structure. Thus, any

percept of manner is inevitably integrated with prosody, as De Jong & Park propose. It is also

worth noting that manner accuracy showed the most robust correlation with syllable counting

accuracy in De Jong & Park’s experiment (2012: 145, Figure 4).

Epenthesis in the adaptation of English codas into Korean has been classified as a case

of ‘unnecessary repair’ (Kang 2011), since L1 Korean does allow coda stops. However,

Korean codas are restricted in two important ways. First, the suppression of stop release is

obligatory. In addition, manner and laryngeal contrasts are neutralized. To provide some

perspective on Korean coda restrictions constraints, OP representations for the three Korean

labial stops are proposed in (9). Crucially, the framework allows for the possibility that

different melodic specifications may be housed at different levels of the OP hierarchy in

accordance with their phonetic realization. Place is specified as a [labial] annotation on the

Closure node. This is to be expected since it is the location of the closure that defines stop

place of articulation. By contrast, laryngeal features, whose phonetic realization may be

impeded by stop closure, may be assigned at lower levels. This is shown in (13). Aspiration,

which is of course associated with aperiodic noise, is shown as a [spread glottis] specification

on the Noise node. Tenseness is represented as a [constricted glottis] ([cg]) annotation on the

VO node. This feature is associated with a stiffer voice quality on the onset of the following

vowel (e.g. Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996), so the VO node is a natural structural position for

[cg] specifications. With these representations in mind, we may turn to the representation of

codas in Korean, which are characterized by the presence of place contrasts, but neutralized

manner and laryngeal contrasts.

(13) Proposed representations of Korean /p/, /pʰ/, and /p*/

31

In the OP environment, Korean codas may be attributed to submersion, producing the

structure in (14).

(14) Korean CVC sequence

To explain the fact that Korean maintains place contrasts in coda stops, but

neutralizes laryngeal constrasts, we need only propose a constraint against multiple layers of

submerged structure. That is, Korean, like many other languages, appears to restrict the size

of syllable rimes. The claim would be that Korean only allows a single node under the VT

level. The laryngeal specification loses its structural housing and is not realized in this

position. This is shown in (14) as the crossed-out labels of the lower Noise and VO nodes.

Thus, the apparent mismatch in Korean between a licensed place contrast and neutralized

laryngeal contrast may be explained as a single constraint on the size of prosodic

constituents.9 With the submerged Noise and VO nodes eliminated in (14), it also falls out

naturally that coda stops in Korean are always produced without an audible release. The only

remaining part of the stop is Closure; the lower nodes associated with stop release have been

eliminated.

Kang (2003) provides evidence that the presence of epenthesis in English loanwords

in Korean is closely related to the probability that the English coda stops are produced with

an audible release. Epenthesis is expected when the target language coda is more likely to

contain a release burst, which in Korean only occurs in syllable onsets. Thus, released stops

are adapted with an additional prosodic constituent whose prominence is enhanced by the

epenthetic vowel. In other words, when Korean listeners hear a release burst, the attribute it

to a non-submerged structure. Thus, from this perspective epenthesis is not at all an

‘unnecessary’, but is required to repair released consonants that are not followed by a vowel.

9 This restriction may capture the fact that coda fricatives are also realized as unreleased stops. Space

restrictions prevent us from explaining this in detail.

32

Polish requires stop release in codas, and as such does not submerge its codas. Thus,

epenthesis after coda stops is standard in the speech of Korean learners of Polish

(Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, p.c.). It is not subject to the same variability found in Korean English.

Kang attributes the link between epenthesis in Korean English and target language

stop release to ‘perceptual similarity’, arguing for the importance of a non-contrastive

phonetic detail, stop release, in the mechanism of loanword adaptation. From the OP

perspective, stop release, though non-contrastive, is not merely a phonetic detail. It is

predictable on the basis of phonological parameters. The lack of release is surely a systemic

element of Korean phonology; it should be representable in phonological terms. The OP

environment offers phonological tools for the representation of such non-contrastive

phenomena.

5 Conclusion

This paper has presented data on vowel-initial words and final stop consonants in the speech

of Polish learners of English. Although at first glance these phenomena seem to be unrelated,

the representations of the OP framework offer a unified explanation for the observed patterns.

In both areas, L2 acquisition involves learning submersion, a mechanism that facilitates the

phonetic coordination of neighboring segments, and allows for predictions with regard to

boundary formation in Polish and English.

33

References

Antoniou, M.,Best,C.T.,Tyler,M.D.,&Kroos,C. (2010). Language context elicits native-like

stop voicing in early bilinguals’ productions in both L1 and L2. Journal of Phonetics,

38, 640-653.

Antoniou, M.,Best,C.T.,Tyler,M.D.,&Kroos,C. (2011). Inter-language interference in VOT

production by L2-dominant bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 558-570.

Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In W.

Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language

research (pp. 171-204). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception:

Commonalities and complementarities. In M. J. Munro & O.-S. Bohn (Eds), Second

language speech learning – the role of language experience in speech perception and

production (pp. 13-34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bissiri, M. P., Lecumberri, M. L., Cooke, M., & Volín, J. (2011). The role of word-initial

glottal stops in recognizing English words. Proceedings of Interspeech 2011. Florence,

Italy.

Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. [Computer

program].Version 5.2.18.

Britain, D. & S. Fox. (2008). Vernacular universals and the regularisation of hiatus

resolution. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 57, 1-42.

Cebrian, J. (2000). Transferability and productivity of L1 rules in Catalan-English

interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 1-26.

Chen, M. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant

environment. Phonetica, 22, 129-159.

Cook, A. (2000). American Accent Training. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s.

Crosswhite, K. (2003). Spectral tilt as a cue to word stress in Macedonian, Polish, and

Bulgarian. In Sole, M.J., D. Recasens & J. Romero (eds.). Proceedings of XVth

International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, 767-770.

Cruttenden, A. 2001. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English (6th

ed.). London: Arnold.

Crystal, T. & A.S. House. (1988). The duration of American English stop consonants: an

overview. Journal of Phonetics, 16, 285-294.

Davidson, Lisa & Daniel Erker (2014). Hiatus resolution in American English: the case

against glide insertion. Language 90 (2). 482-514.

Dejna, K. (1973). Dialekty Polskie [Polish dialects]. Krakow: Ossolineum.

Dogil, G. (1999). The phonetic manifestation of word stress in Polish, Lithuanian, Spanish,

and German. In H. van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of

Europe (pp. 273-311). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Downing, Laura. 1998. On the prosodic misalignment of onsetless syllables. Natural

Language & Linguistic Theory, 16, 1-52.

De Jong, K. & H. Park. (2012). Vowel epenthesis and segmental identity in Korean learners

of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 127-155.

Dilley, L., S. Shattuck-Hufnagel & M. Ostendorf. (1996). Glottalization of word-initial

vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 423-444.

Dukiewicz, L. & I. Sawicka. (1995). Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego – fonetyka i

fonologia [Grammar of modern Polish – phonetics and phonology]. Krakow:

Wydawnictwo Instytutu Języka Polskiego PAN.

Escudero, P. & Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research

and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 551-585.

34

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, 47-65.

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 (pp. 233–277). Baltimore: York Press.

Garellek, M. (2012). Word-initial glottalization and voice quality strengthening.

UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 111, 92-122.

Goldinger, S. (1997). Perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In Johnson, K.

Mullennix, J. W. (eds.). Talker Varioability in Speech Processing (pp. 33-66). San

Diego: Academic Press.

Goldinger, S. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological

Review, 105 (2), 251-279.

Gussmann, E. (2007). The phonology of Polish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hall, N. (2006). Cross-linguistic patterns of vowel intrusion. Phonology, 23, 387-429.

Harris, J. (1994). English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.

Howard, M. (2006). Variation in advanced French interlanguage: A comparison of three

(socio) linguistic variables. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue

canadienne des langues vivantes, 62 (3), 379-400.

Howard, M. (2008). 'On the role of naturalistic and classroom exposure in the acquisition of

socio-phonological variation: A longitudinal study of French liaison'. Journal of

Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 159-179.

Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model. In

K. Johnson & J. Mullennix, (Eds.). Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145-

166). San Diego: Academic Press.

Kang, Y. (2003). Perceptual similarity in loanword adaptation: English post-vocalic word-

final stops to Korean. Phonology 20 (2): 219-273.

Kang, Y. (2011) Loanword phonology. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth

Hume, and Keren Rice, eds., Companion to Phonology. Wiley-Blackwell.

Kreimann, J. & B. Gerratt. (2010). Perceptual sensitivity to first harmonic amplitude in the

voice source. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128 (4), 2085-2089.

Lecumberri, M. & J. Maidment (2000). English transcription course. Oxford: Routledge.

Levi, S. (2008). Phonemic vs. derived glides. Lingua, 118,1956-1978.

Lindblom, B. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J.

Hardcastle and A. Marchal (eds.) Speech Production and Speech Modelling. The

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 403-439.

LLeo, C. & I. Vogel. (2004). Learning new segments and reducing domains in German

L2 phonology: The role of the Prosodic Hierarchy. International Journal of

Bilingualism, 8, 79-104.

McCarthy, J. 1993. A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics,

38.169-95.

Malisz, Z, M. Żygis & B. Pompino-Marschall. (2013). Rhythmic structure effects on

glottalisation: a study of different speech styles in Polish and German. Laboratory

Phonology, 4, 119-158.

Major, R. (2008). Transfer in second language phonology: a review. In: Hansen Edwards, J.

& M. Zampini. Phonology and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 63-94). Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.

Marlett, S. & J. Stemberger. (1983). Empty consonants in Seri. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 617-

639.

Nespor, M. and I. Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

35

Newlin-Łukowicz, L. (2012). Polish Stress: looking for phonetic evidence of a bidirectional

system. Phonology, 29(2), 271-329.

Ohala, J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In: C. S. Masek, R. A. Hendrick,

& M. F. Miller (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior

(pp.178-203). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Pardo, J. S., Gibbons, R., Suppes, A. & Krauss, R. M. (2012). Phonetic convergence in

college roommates. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 190-197.

Plag, I., G. Kunter, & M. Schramm. (2011). Acoustic correlates of primary and secondary

stress in North American English. Journal of Phonetics,39, 362-374.

Port, R. & J. Dalby. (1982). C/V ratio as a cue for voicing in English. Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America, 69, 262-274.

Redi, L. & S. Shattuck-Hufnagel. (2001). Variation in the realization of glottalization in

normal speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 407-429.

Rojczyk, A. (2012). Phonetic and phonological mode in second-language speech. VOT

imitation. Paper presented at EUROSLA 2012, Poznań, Poland, September 5-8 2012.

Rojczyk, A. (2013). Phonetic imitation of L2 vowels in a rapid shadowing task. In Lewis, J &

LeVelle, K. (eds). Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning

and Teaching Conference (pp. 66-76). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Rojczyk, A., Porzuczek, A. & Bergier, M. (2013). Immediate and distracted imitation in

second-language speech: Unreleased plosives in English. Research in Language, 11, 3-

18.

Rubach, J. & G. Booij (1990b). Syllable structure assignment in Polish. Phonology 7. 121-

158.

Scheer, T. (2008). Why the Prosodic Hierarchy is a diacritic and why the Interface must be

Direct. In Hartmann, Jutta, Veronika Hegedus & Henk van Riemsdijk, (eds.). Sounds of

Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology (pp. 145-192). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Schwartz, G. (2010a). Auditory representations and the structures of GP 2.0. Acta Linguistica

Hungarica, 57, 381-397.

Schwartz, G. (2010b). Phonology in the signal – unifying cue and prosodic licensing. Poznań

Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(4), 499-518.

Schwartz, G. (2012a). Glides and initial vowels within the Onset Prominence representational

environment. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 48 (4), 661-685.

Schwartz, G. (2012b). Initial glottalization and final devoicing in Polish English. Research in

Language, 10, 159-171.

Schwartz, G. (2013a). A representational parameter for onsetless syllables. Journal of

Linguistics, 49 (3), 613-646. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000436.

Schwartz, G. (2013b). Vowel hiatus at Polish word boundaries – phonetic realization and

phonological implications. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 49 (4), 557-

585.

Schwartz, Geoffrey & Grzegorz Aperliński (2014). The phonology of CV transitions. In

Eugeniusz Cyran & Jolanta Szpyra-Kozłowska (eds.) Crossing phonetics-phonology

lines. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 277-298.

Schwartz, Geoffrey, Anna Balas & Arkadiusz Rojczyk (2014a). Stop release in Polish

English – implications for prosodic constituency. Research in Language 12(2). 131-

144.

Schwartz, Geoffrey, Anna Balas & Arkadiusz Rojczyk (2014b). External sandhi in L2

segmental phonetics – final (de)voicing in Polish English. Concordia Working Papers

in Applied Linguistics 5. 637-649.

Shockley, K., Sabadini, L. & Fowler, C. A. (2004). Imitation in shadowing words. Perception

and Psychophysics, 66, 422-429.

36

Shoemaker, E. (2010). Nativelike Attainment in L2 Listening: The segmentation of spoken

French. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., M. Wrember & M. Kul (eds.) Proceedings of the

6th international symposium on second language speech, New Sounds 2010, Poznań,

Poland 1-3 May 2010. 433-438.

Sluijter, Agaath M.C. & Vincent J. van Heuven. 1996. Spectral balance as an acoustic

correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2471-

2485.

Steriade, Donca. 1993. Closure, release, and nasal contours. In M. K. Huffman and R. A.

Krakow (Eds.). Nasals, nasalization, and the velum (pp. 401−470). San Diego:

Academic Press.

Strycharczuk, P. (2012). Phonetics-phonology interactions in pre-sonorant voicing. Ph.D.

dissertation. University of Manchester.

Sturm, J. (2013). Liaison in L2 French: The effects of instruction. In. J. Levis & K. LeVelle

(Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th

Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and

Teaching Conference, Aug. 2013 (pp. 157-166). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Święciński, R. (2012). Acoustic aspects of palatalization in Polish and English – a study in

laboratory phonology. Ph.D. dissertation. Marie Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin.

Uffmann, C. 2007. Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants. Language Sciences, 29.

451-76.

Umeda, N. (1978). Occurrence of glottal stops in fluent speech. Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America, 64, 81-94.

Wells, J.C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3rd

ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education

Limited Wiese, R. (1996). The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wright, R., S. Frisch & D. Pisoni. (1997). Speech Perception. Research on Spoken Language

Processing, Progress Report No. 21. Ms., Indiana University.

Wright, R. (2004). Perceptual cue robustness and phonotactic constraints. In Hayes, B., R.

Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds). Phonetically Based Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 34-57.

Zsiga, E. (2003). Relearning consonant timing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25,

399-432.

Zsiga, E. (2011). External sandhi in a second language: The phonetics and phonology of

obstruent nasalization in Korean and Korean-accented English. Language 87. 289 -

345.

37

Appendix 1 – Stimuli for C#V production experiment

They had evenings free

The child had red ears

They made everyone stay quiet.

There is a big dark cloud overhead.

I found out too late about the party.

The band bowed after playing the song.

Frank showed everyone his new pad.

Hard apples are my favorite.

The kids made excellent cookies.

Bill stayed after class to talk to the teacher.

I’m afraid Alice will be late.

The band played easy songs to dance to.

We paid everyone about two pounds.

I tried everything but I couldn’t make it work.

Brad even forgot the car keys

They should arrive around eight.

The judge ordered us to pay the fine

I’ve had easier tests than this one.

We stayed out all night

I tried out the new computer

She was all tired out after work

They earned equal amounts of money

Her friend Eve is very nice

I tried eel for the first time in a Japanese restaurant

Ted's apples are hard and sour

Rob avoids Alice’s uncle

Mary's earrings are made of aluminium

I bought five extra pounds of apricots

Peg's other sister likes to ride every day

George often sings after school

Fred's aunt is 80 years old

Jazz always was Adam’s favorite music

Today's express train was over three hours late

Fred always fills up his tank

Appendix 2 – stimuli for V#V production experiment

1-stay out 2-try out

3-see all 4-way out 5-go out 6-know everything

7-saw everything 8-be unable

9-know Alex 10-how interesting

38

11-know after 12-grow excellent 13-try each 14-they always 15-go every day

16-they actually 17-car always 18-your idea 19-the other 20-the end

21-they asked 22-be afraid

23-tell me all 24-I often 25-sure I 26-holiday activities

Appendix 3 – Stimuli for V#V listening test, with additional segmental errors identified by

pronunciation teachers

Utterance Errors in glottal token Errors in modal token

and they asked me – –

I go every day – –

his car always breaks

down – short VOT in /k/,

devoiced /z/ in his

and always

I’ll know after the exam vowel quality in

know –

I’m sure I heard a

telephone ringing – ng in ringing

I often imagine things vowel quality, ng –

I saw everything – –

see all the pictures unaspirated /p/ vowel quality in all

why did you stay out all

night – –

they actually like quality of /æ/ in

actually

–

they always have

something prepared – –

we’ll be unable to send – –