On Sociophonetic Competence

Abstract

The data from this study investigate phrase-final vowel devoicing in Metropolitan French among L1 and L2 speakers, in terms of number of times a speaker devoices a phrase-final high vowel and percentage of the vowel that is devoiced. The goal is to assess whether experienced L2 speakers use style-based variation in response to the same factors as native speakers. Results from a set of role playing and word list tasks revealed that L2 devoicing rates matched those of the natives, but were conditioned by different factors in each group. The duration of L2 speaker devoicing, however, was found not to match native levels. Notable differences emerged in response to shifts in style: L1 speakers showed higher rates and enhanced degrees of devoicing in pragmatic contexts that favored either slower or more formal speech, while L2 speakers responded very little to pragmatic shifts within role plays, instead responding more pronouncedly to different tasks.

Redefining Sociophonetic Competence: Mapping COG Differences in Phrase-Final Fricative Epithesis in L1 and L2 Speakers of French

“…This finding observes another instance of L1 speakers favoring low-energy profiles in the articulation of PFFE, while L2 speakers exhibit more and different higher-energy profiles. This is not only consonant with the H & H Theory (Lindblom 1990) offered above but also highlights the greater degree of variation among the L2 population, which may be suggestive of varied exposure times and degrees of involvement in L1 communities where the use of sociophonetic variables, including PFFE, are robust (Dalola and Bullock 2017).…”

“…Since PFFE is a sociophonetic marker in CF (Dalola 2014(Dalola , 2016, it presents an interesting testing ground for comparing spectral values across native and non-native speakers. While previous work has reported production differences in rate and degree of devoicing between native and non-native French speakers (Dalola and Bullock 2017), it has yet to extend the comparison to investigate the phonetic quality of the variable emergent fricatives. Combined with the many known articulatory differences and false similarities in vowel production between French and English (the L1 of the non-native population in this and previous studies), it is reasonable to expect that articulatory issues may arise, even among advanced L2 speakers (Flege and Hillenbrand 1984;Flege 1985Flege , 1987among others).…”

“…Given its salient phonetic energy and robust distribution among native francophone populations, it is somewhat unsurprising to learn that PFFE, despite its status as a sociophonetic variable, is also readily employed by L2 French speakers (Dalola and Bullock 2017). Investigating the nature of L1 and L2 PFFE as produced in different genres of speech, Dalola and Bullock (2017) revealed subtle but nuanced differences at every level of production.…”

“…Given its salient phonetic energy and robust distribution among native francophone populations, it is somewhat unsurprising to learn that PFFE, despite its status as a sociophonetic variable, is also readily employed by L2 French speakers (Dalola and Bullock 2017). Investigating the nature of L1 and L2 PFFE as produced in different genres of speech, Dalola and Bullock (2017) revealed subtle but nuanced differences at every level of production. For rates of use of PFFE, L1 and L2 speakers performed similarly overall but were motivated by different genres of speech: L1 speakers used more PFFE in role-plays while L2s were more likely to use it when reading wordlists.…”

“…Inspired by the task and pragmatic effects findings of Dalola and Bullock (2017) and several studies' reports of PFFE's robustness among news anchors reading off teleprompters (Paternostro 2008;Candea 2012;Candea et al 2013), participants were asked to complete a reading task that consisted of 106 single sentences containing 98 phrase-final tokens of /i,y,u/, occurring after all licit (C)C(C) onset sequences in one-to three-syllable real words in French (see Table 1 for a breakdown of consonant environments). w,kl,bl,p4,t4,k4,b4,d4,f4,s4,n4,l4,lw,bw,fw,lw,nw,pl4,tr4/…”