Vokalperzeption und natürliche Phonologie

Hentschel, Gerd

doi:10.3726/b12325

Cited by 1 publication

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As concerns the productions of the German short vowels /ɔ/ and /a/, Polish L2 German learners produced the L2 vowel qualities native-like. As was shown earlier in the discussion of Hentschel's (1986) perceptual data, these two German categories are clearly mapped onto the respective Polish categories and are very similar acoustically (see Figure 1). German /ε/ and /aː/ show a little less overlap, in that German /aː/ is produced slightly higher and German /ε/ slightly further back by the learners.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…These acoustic data are supported by perceptual data presented in Hentschel (1986). In this early study on the perception of German vowels by speakers with Polish as an L1, all German vowels were presented auditorily to naïve Polish listeners, who were asked to label these German vowels as one of the six Polish vowel categories (or as 'foreign', if they found them to be too different).…”

Section: Vowel Qualitymentioning

confidence: 59%

“…The quality analysis of German /oː/ and /eː/ showed that these two vowels are produced very differently by Polish L2 German learners in comparison to German native speakers. Unlike the other vowel categories, /oː/ and /eː/ are perceptually mapped onto two different Polish categories (Hentschel, 1986). As described in Section III, German /eː/ is perceived as Polish /i/ or /ɨ/, and German /oː/ is perceived as Polish /u/ or /o/.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight of these 15 vowel phonemes are considered long, as they are on average twice as long as their short counterparts (Antoniadis and Strube, 1984). Polish, on the other hand, is described as a language with only six (short) vowel phonemes without any vocalic length contrasts (Gussmann, 2007;Hentschel, 1986;Sadowska, 2012).…”

Section: The German and Polish Vowel Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, it is not impossible to attain high levels of pronunciation abilities in an L2 (Bongaerts et al, 1997;Moyer, 1999). One of the greatest challenges for Polish native speakers (L1) with German as an L2 is the German vowel system (Hentschel, 1986;Hirschfeld, 1998;Morciniec, 1990). In contrast to Polish, which has six vowels and no phonological vowel length contrast, German exhibits a relatively high number of 15 vowel phonemes and makes use of a phonological distinction between long/tense and short/lax vowels (Pompino-Marschall, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

On the role of orthography in L2 vowel production: The case of Polish learners of German

Nimz

Khattab

2019

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the role of orthography in German vowel production by Polish L1 speakers with German as an L2. Eighteen intermediate to advanced Polish L2 German learners and 20 German native speakers were recorded during a picture-naming task in which half of the experimental items were explicitly marked in their orthographic representation for their vowel length (short or long). Duration measurements revealed that explicit orthographic marking helped the Polish L2 German learners produce the short-long contrast more nativelike. The analysis of vowel quality further showed that (in)congruencies between L1 and L2 grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences may influence L2 vowel production as well. These findings have important implications for models of L2 speech learning and pronunciation training. 1997; Moyer, 1999). One of the greatest challenges for Polish L1 speakers with German as an L2 is the German vowel system (Hentschel, 1986; Hirschfeld, 1998; Morciniec, 1990). In contrast to Polish, which has six vowels and no phonological vowel length contrast, German exhibits a relatively high number of 15 vowel phonemes and makes use of a phonological distinction between long/tense and short/lax vowels (Pompino-Marschall, 2009). This leads to a number of minimal pairs that could potentially cause communication problems for L2 learners of German (e.g., Höhle /høːlə/ "cave" versus Hölle /hoelə/ "hell" or fühlen /fyːlən/ "to feel" versus füllen /fʏlən/ "to fill"). From an orthographic point of view, the long vowels in Höhle and fühlen are explicitly marked for their length by so called Dehnungs-h ("lengthening h"), which is a silent letter and a reliable marker for a preceding vowel to be ON THE ROLE OF ORTHOGRAPHY IN L2 VOWEL PRODUCTION long (Eisenberg, 2013). At the same time, the short vowels in Hölle and füllen are also explicitly marked for their length in that all German vowels which are followed by double consonant letters are short (Ramers, 1999). Since not all short and long vowels are explicitly marked for their length (e.g., Boden /boːdən/ "floor" or Wolke /vɔlkə/ "cloud") 1 , German is an ideal testing ground for the investigation of the effects of orthographic markings on L2 vowel productions. ON THE ROLE OF ORTHOGRAPHY IN L2 VOWEL PRODUCTIONL2 pronunciation researchers and teachers assume that orthographic cues such as lengthening h can help German L2 learners establish different phonetic categories for short and long vowels and hence produce them more native-like (e.g., Dieling, 1983; Dieling & Hirschfeld, 2007). However, experimental evidence to test this assumption is still missing.Furthermore, German and Polish use the same graphemes to represent similar vowel phonemes. Escudero et al. (2014) have shown that the "congruency" between L1 and L2 grapheme-to-phoneme (G-P) correspondences plays an important role in L2 sound perception and can both help and hinder L2 word learning. The influence of (in)congruencies between L1 and L2 G-P mappings might also be relevant for L2 vowel production. Polish L2...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Vowel Qualitymentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%