The L2 Acquisition of Spanish Rhotics by L1 English Speakers: The Effect of L1 Articulatory

Routines and Phonetic Context for Allophonic Variation

Author(s): Michael K. Olsen
Source: Hispania, Vol. 95, No. 1 (March 2012), pp. 65-82
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41440363 .
Accessed: 01/09/2014 12:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Hispania.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The L2
Acquisition
of
Spanish
Rhotics
by
LI
English Speakers:
The Effect of LI
Articulatory
Routines
and Phonetic Context for
Allophonic
Variation
Michael K. Olsen
University of Pittsburgh,
USA
Abstract: This article offers a
fine-grained investigation
of how
first-language (LI) phonetics involving
English
rhotics affect
Spanish
rhotic
production by second-language (L2)
learners.
Specifically,
this
study investigates
how different LI
English
rhotic
articulatory
routines
(retroflex-like
and
bunched-like)
and the
phonetic
context that
produces allophonic taps
in
English
affect the
accuracy
of
Spanish
rhotic
pronunciation by
L2 learners.
Tap
and trill
accuracy
rates as well as
English
rhotic articulation were
calculated from
recordings
of
forty-eight beginning-level university Spanish
students
reading
texts in
Spanish
and
English.
Results from
multiple
linear
regressions
show that
English
rhotic articulation is a
significant predictor
of trill
accuracy
and is a
predictor
of
tap accuracy
when
controlling
for amount of
Spanish exposure.
These results
suggest
that LI
articulatory
routines affect the
accuracy
of
tap
and trill
production.
Results from a
paired samples
/-test show that a
significantly high percentage
of
accurately
produced taps
in
Spanish
were found in words that follow the same
articulatory
context that
produces
taps
in
English.
These results
suggest
that an
overarching theory
of the second
language acquisition
of
phonology
should consider how subtle differences in LI
articulatory
routines and transfer of LI
phonetic
context of
allophones
to L2
phonemes
influences L2
speech production.
Keywords: acquisition expectations/expectaciones
de
adquisicin, acquisition
of
rhotics/adquisicin
de
rticos,
LI influence/influencia de
LI,
L2
phonetics/fontica
de
L2,
L2
phonology acquisition/adquisicin
fonolgica
de
L2, second-language acquisition/adquisicin
de
segunda lengua, Spanish phonology/
fonologia
de
espanol, Spanish
rhotics/rticos en
espafiol
1. Introduction
The
representations
described
task that
in terms
learners
and
of how
how
have
distinctive
the
when
learner's
acquiring
acoustic
first
second
material
language
language
is
(LI)
mapped
phonetic
(L2)
onto
phonology
different
repertoire
abstract
can
and
be
described in terms of how distinctive acoustic material is
mapped
onto different abstract
representations
and how the learner's first
language (LI) phonetic repertoire
and
phonology
interact with the L2
phonological system.
This
study
seeks to further examine how
LI
phonetics
influence L2
phonology acquisition. Recently,
a number of studies have come to
light
that have looked at rhotic
perception
and
production
in L2
Spanish
learners. Face
(2006)
investigated
intervocalic rhotics
among
intermediate and advanced L2
Spanish
learners whose
LI was
English noting
the
developmental trajectory
of
phones
used in L2
Spanish
rhotics.
Rose
(2010a)
tested the
predictions
of the
Perceptual
Assimilation Model
(Best 1995)
in L2
learners'
perceptual
discrimination of rhotics and found that
perception generally
increased with
proficiency
level. Rose
(2010b)
described the
range
of
phones
that LI
English speakers
utilize
for L2
Spanish
rhotics in intervocalic
position.
The results of this
study suggest
that L2 learners
employ [j]
in all
Spanish
rhotic contexts at
first, moving
to more
[r]
-dominant articulations in
all rhotic contexts and
finally differentiating
between
[r]
and
[r]
at the more advanced levels.1
While these studies have added to our
understanding
of what to
expect
in the
development
of
AATSP
Copyright
2012
Hispania
95.1
(2012):
65-82
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66
Hispania
95 March 20 1 2
L2
Spanish rhotics, starting
with the LI
phones leading
to the L2
phones,
and have utilized
acoustic
analysis
to
categorize rhotics, they
did not
investigate
the influence of LI
phonetics
on
L2
accuracy directly.
Another recent
study
that
investigated
L2
Spanish
rhotics is Hurtado and
Estrada
(2010).
This
study investigated linguistic
factors
(phonological
environment and
tap/trill
pronunciation)
as well as various
sociolinguistic
factors that contributed to the
pronunciation
of
Spanish
rhotics
by
LI
English speakers
and found that
linguistic
factors and
input
received
through study
abroad and
explicit
instruction
improved pronunciation.
This
investigation
is
important
because it
shows,
as did the
previously
mentioned
studies,
that L2
Spanish
rhotic
pronunciation
can
improve
over time. Waltmunson
(2005) investigated
the relative
difficulty
of the
acquisition
of rhotics with
respect
to Iii and /d/. This
study places
the
acquisition
of
L2
Spanish
rhotics relative to the
acquisition
of other L2
Spanish phones;
which furthers our
knowledge
of where rhotics are situated in terms of the
larger picture
of the
acquisition
of L2
Spanish phonology. Although
these studies have contributed to our
understanding
of the factors
that affect the
production
of
Spanish
rhotics
by
LI
English speakers,
which necessitates the
incorporation
of LI and L2
phonetics,
how LI
English articulatory
routines and
phonetic
context
for LI
allophonic
variations influence the
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics has
largely
been left out.
One LI
articulatory phenomenon
that
may
influence the L2
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics
is the
range
of articulations that
English speakers employ
for the
English
rhotic III.
English
rhotic articulations are
usually thought
of as two
maximally
distinct articulations
-
retroflex
and
bunched; although
intermediate variation does exist across
speakers (Alwan, Narayanan,
and Haker
1997; Espy-Wilson
et al.
2000).
The distinct articulations that LI
English speakers
employ
can be described as
within-category subphonemic (as opposed
to
allophonic)
variants
since
speakers
do not
perceive
differences between
articulations,
nor are
they governed by
phonetic
context across
speakers.
In other
words,
LI
English speakers assign
a
variety
of
different articulations to one
category;
in this case /j/. These
English within-category
differ-
ences are relevant to the
study
of the
acquisition
of L2
Spanish
rhotics
because, although
these
differences are not
perceived
in the
LI,
differences in
articulatory
routine
may
still affect the
accurate
production
of L2
Spanish
rhotics.2
Spanish speakers produce
rhotics
by raising
the
apex
of the
tongue
towards the alveolar
ridge, making
a
very
brief closure for
taps
and
multiple
closures for trills. While dialectal and
individual variations do
exist, usually occurring
as fricatives or
approximants (Blecua 2001;
Hammond
1999;
Lindau
1985), apical taps
and trills are
generally
what
English-speaking
learners of
Spanish
are
taught
in a classroom
setting (Face 2006).
The
important point
is that
in both rhotics of standard
Spanish, speakers
raise the
apex
of the
tongue
toward the alveolar
ridge (Blecua 2001).
Because LI
English
retroflex rhotics
require
the
speaker
to raise the
tongue
apex
towards the alveolar
ridge,
the
production
of both
Spanish
rhotics should be facilitated
when
they
are
represented
in the
interlanguage phonology
as
allophones
of 111 since both
Span-
ish rhotics necessitate a raised
tongue apex.
On the other
hand, production
of
Spanish
rhotics
would be
impeded
when
English speakers employ
a bunched-like
[j]
because
they
are used to
the
opposite
direction of movement of the
tongue apex.
Another LI
English phenomenon
that
may
influence L2
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics is
the
phonetic
context that converts the alveolar
stops
Iii and Idl to
taps
in
English,
which are
physiologically
similar to
Spanish taps.
While this is a
completely
different
phenomenon
than
the influence of
articulatory routines,
because it involves the transfer of an LI
phonological
rule and not muscle
movements,
this is another
largely unexplored phenomenon
in the
acquisi-
tion of
Spanish
rhotics.
Ladefoged (2006)
formulates this
production
as a
phonological rule,
stating
"alveolar
stops
become voiced
taps
when
they
occur between two vowels the second
of which is unstressed"
(74).
Alternations in atomic and atom
exemplify
this rule. The word
atomic
[9'thamik]
shows that when Iii is the onset of a stressed
syllable,
it is realized as
[th].
The
word atom
['aeram]
shows that
[r]
alternates with
[th]
when stress falls on a
syllable
that does
not contain Iii in its onset.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Olsen / L2
Acquisition
of
Spanish
Rhotics 67
A
phonological
rule is needed to
explain
the distribution of
taps
because
they
are
allophonic
in
English. Spanish taps
are
phonemic
in the sense that a rule is not needed to
explain
their
distribution.
Taps
can be realized in both stressed and unstressed environments as
exempli-
fied in the words
mejoro [me'xoro] 'improve (first person singular)'
and
mejor [mexo'ro]
'improved (third person singular)'.
Stress does not influence
tap
distribution in
Spanish
as it
does in
English.
While intervocalic
taps may
be
represented phonemically
in
Spanish, they
are
neutralized with trills in other contexts
and,
in that
sense, taps
are not
completely phonemic
in
the same manner as other
Spanish phonemes (e.g.,
/d/ which has
allophonic
variants
[d]
and
[]
found in
complimentary distribution).
If the
English phonetic
context that
produces taps
influ-
ences the
production
of
Spanish taps,
learners of
Spanish
should be able to
produce taps
more
accurately
when in environments similar to the
predictable
environments in which
they
exist
in
English (following
a stressed
syllable
and in the onset of an unstressed
syllable).
Because
trills do not exist in Standard American
English,
no LI
phonetic
context is
predicted
to affect
their
acquisition.
Differences in LI
articulatory routines,
such as retroflex and bunched
[j]
and the LI
phonetic
context that
produces allophonic taps, may
both affect the
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics. As
beginning
learners assimilate L2
segments
to their
existing
LI
segments,
LI
phonetics
should
dominate the
production
of L2 sounds. Results of this
study expand
our
knowledge
of how the
LI influences the
acquisition
of L2
phonology.
If both
types
of LI
phonetic phenomena
influence
L2
production,
L2
acquisition
of
phonology
is influenced not
only by
LI abstract
phonological
categories,
but also
by articulatory
routines found in the LI as well as
phonetic
contexts that
create
allophonic variants, regardless
of the
similarity
of
phonemes
that the context affects in
each
language.
Colantoni and Steele
(2008)
discussed the need to
incorporate phonetic
constraints into
hypotheses regarding
L2
phonology acquisition. They
showed that
specific
LI
articulatory
conventions that are not
necessarily predisposed by aerodynamics (i.e., tongue shape
in
English
rhotic
articulation)
also influence L2
speech production.
Because of
this,
it is
important
to
carry
out studies on LI
phonetic phenomena
that
may
influence the
acquisition
of L2
phonological
systems. Therefore,
the
hypothesis
tested in this
study
is that LI
articulatory
routines and LI
phonetic
contexts influence the
production
of L2
phonology.
The
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics
by English speakers
is
revelatory regarding
the cur-
rent
hypothesis
because distinct
predictions
can be made
regarding
the influence of both LI
articulatory
routines and
phonetic
context due to the differences in rhotics between these two
languages.3
The
present study investigates beginning
L2
Spanish
learners' rhotic
production
in intervocalic
position. Specifically,
it examines the
possible
effect LI
articulatory
routine
differences
(i.e.,
the
differing
routines involved in retroflex-like articulations vs. bunched-like
articulations as described
above)
have on
Spanish
rhotic
production,
and the effect that an
English
LI
phonetic
context that
produces allophonic
variation
(i.e.,
the context that
produces
taps
as
allophones
of alveolar
stops
as described
above)
has on accurate L2
pronunciation
to
test the
hypothesis
that both
types
of
phonetic
factors contribute to L2
phonology acquisition.
This
study
also
provides
a better
understanding
of
English-Spanish interlanguage phonology
regarding
rhotic
acquisition
of
beginners.
The
specific
research
questions
addressed in this
study
are:
1 . Does the L 1
within-category
difference manifested in different manners of American
English
rhotic articulation
(i.e.,
retroflex-like or
bunched-like)
affect the facilitation
of
Spanish
rhotic
production?
2. Does the
phonetic
context that
produces allophonic taps
in
English
affect
accuracy
in
Spanish
rhotic
production?
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68
Hispania
95 March 20 1 2
2.
Interlanguage Phonology System
English
has one
phonemic
rhotic 111 which can be
produced utilizing
two
maximally
distinctive articulations with intermediate variations. One is known as the retroflex
[j]
and the
other as the bunched
[j]. Speakers
who
employ
more retroflex-like
[j]
articulations lift the
apex
of their
tongue up
and
point
it toward the alveolar
ridge, keeping
the
tongue
dorsum
relatively
low in the oral
cavity. Speakers
who
employ
more bunched-like
[j]
articulations contract
their
tongue tip
back and raise the
tongue
dorsum toward the
palate.
Other constrictions in
the vocal tract
(lips
and
pharynx)
do contribute to the
production
of
English rhotics; however,
the variation across
speakers
lies in the differences in
tongue
constriction in the
palatal region
(Espy-
Wilson et al.
2000).
Whether or not the different
ways
of
producing English
rhotics have
an acoustic effect is not as
important
for the
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics
(although
acoustic
effects
may
be
important
for learners of L2
English)
as the
physiological aspect
of the
differing
articulations and the
way
to measure such articulations
-
F5-F4 distance with a
greater
F5-F4
difference
indicating
a more retroflex-like articulation and a smaller difference
indicating
a more
bunched-like articulation
(Zhou
et al.
2008).
The reason that acoustic effects of
English
rhotics
are not
important
is that the acoustics of
English
and
Spanish
rhotics are
completely
different
and there is no
logical
reason to assume
any type
of transfer based on acoustic similarities or
differences. The
physiologically
different
articulations, however,
are
comparable (in
the case of
retroflex
articulations)
and contrastable
(in
the case of bunched
articulations)
between
English
and
Spanish. Although taps
are not
usually
associated with rhotics in
English,
because
they
occur as
allophones
of alveolar
stop
consonants /t/ and I A! as in the word matter
[maeq], they
are
important
to this
study
because of their rhotic status in
Spanish. Speakers produce taps by
raising
the
apex
of the
tongue
towards the alveolar
ridge
and
making
a
very
brief closure.
Spanish,
unlike
English,
has two distinct
phonemic
rhotics
-
a
tap
/r/ and a trill
/r/,
illustrated
by
the minimal
pairs foro [foro]
'forum'/
forro [foro] 'lining'.4 Spanish speakers produce taps
in the same
way
as the
allophonic tap
in
English
and are described in a manner similar to the
description already
mentioned
by
Tomas
(1921).
Trills differ in that the number of closures
is
greater.
Sol
(2002)
noted that trills
usually
entailed
four,
and sometimes five or six
quick
successive closures. It has also been noted that
subjects
often
hyperarticulate
in
laboratory
conditions,
and that less
taps
are more common in
speech
that is more casual
(Blecua 1999).
Although
variation in
articulatory gestures assigned
to Irl exist for native
speakers,
rhotics that
L2 learners are
taught
in classroom
settings
in the United States can be described
simply
as
alveolar
taps
and alveolar trills
(Face 2006).
2.1
Interlanguage
Rhotic
Phonological
Structure
In the case of LI
English speakers learning Spanish
as an
L2,
learners must
acquire
a
new
speech sound,
the trill
/r/,
and must
reassign
an
English allophone
of alveolar
stops [r]
to
become its own
phoneme
Id. Because
English speakers' phonetic
inventories do not contain
trills, they
are more
easily acquired
than
taps (Flege 1995).
This is because
speakers
do not need
to
reassign
an
existing phone
in their
LI,
and are able to construct a new
phoneme. However,
this does not mean that learners
accurately produce
trills before
taps.
Due to the
articulatory
difficulty
of
trills, they actually
show
up
later in rhotic
development
than
taps (Face 2006).
Figure
1 shows the native structure of
English taps
and
Spanish
rhotics.5 The
allophonic tap
is
found in
complementary
distribution of alveolar
stops
/t/ and Id/. The
connecting
lines between
the
phonemes
and the
[r]
indicate this
relationship.
Because both
Spanish
rhotics hold
phonemic
status,
the lines show the
Spanish phonemes connecting directly
to their
corresponding phones.
Figure
2 shows the
process
that native
English speakers
must
undergo
to
acquire
a
target-like
phonological system regarding
rhotics. The broken lines indicate the
process
of disassociation
from alveolar
stops
in the LI and the arrow indicates the
phonemicization process
that
[r]
must
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Olsen / L2
Acquisition
of
Spanish
Rhotics 69
Figure
1.
Phonological
Structure of
English Tap
and
Spanish
Rhotics
Figure
2.
Phonological Restructuring
of
English Tap
and
Spanish
Rhotics
undergo.
Learners must also
acquire
the
trill,
which does not exist in
English.
This
process
occurs as learners notice
(subconsciously)
that the distribution of
taps
is no
longer predictable
and a
separate phoneme
must be
posited.
While the
acquisition process
alone is
quite complicated,
there are also other
confounding
factors.
Orthography
is one
important
factor that can have a
negative
influence on the
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics
(Koda 1989;
Munro and
Derwing 1994; Zampini 1994).
Because
taps
and
non-intervocalic trills are
represented orthographically
as
<r>,
classroom learners'
(with
no
prior experience)
immediate
response
is to refer to the
English
rhotic 111 which shares the same
grapheme.
Instead of
activating
the
tap already
existent in their
phonological representation,
the alveolar
approximant
111 is activated. While this
orthographic
influence is
probably stronger
for
taps,
it is
possible
that
<rr>,
the intervocalic
grapheme
for
trills,
also activates the alveolar
approximant.
An
interlanguage phonological system regarding
rhotics
(after
a contrast between
all rhotics involved is
perceived)
consists of the two
phonemes
Id and Irl. The former is realized
as the
allophones [r]
and
[i]
and the latter is realized as
[r]
and
[j]. Figure
3 shows the
typical
interlanguage
structure of
beginning
L2
Spanish
learners as seen in the data of the
present study.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70
Hispania
95 March 20 1 2
Figure
3.
Interlanguage Phonological
Structure of Rhotics
3. L2
Phonological Acquisition
Although
learners
go through
a
process
of
learning phonology starting
with their LI and
moving
towards an
L2,
the
language phenomena
evident in this
process
sometimes do not
resemble the LI or the L2 as shown in
Figure
3
(Ellis 2008).
Differences in
interlanguages may
occur because the
acquisition
of
phonology
relies on
phonetically
encoded
phonemic categories
as well as individual differences in learners' abilities to form
phonetic-phonemic mappings.
One L2
phonological acquisition
model that describes
acquisition
in terms of differences
between LI and L2 articulations is
Flege's (1995) Speech Learning
Model
(SLM). According
to the
SLM,
L2 learners
perceive
all L2 sounds in terms of established LI
segments
in their
phonological system
from the onset of L2
exposure. Through experience,
L2 learners notice
phonetic
differences between
target segments
and LI
segments
and are able to create a different
phonetic category
for the
target language segment.
This means that native
English speakers
would,
at
first, interpret
the voiced interdental fricative
[]
found in the word cada
[kaa]
'each'
as a voiced alveolar
stop [d].
Over
time, speakers
would
recognize
that the L2
phone
is not
the same as the LI form and formulate a
separate segment
in their
phonological system.
The
SLM also
predicts
that
separating
L2
segments
from LI
segments
that are
phonetically
closer
to those LI
segments (e.g., [t]
and
[th])
will be more difficult than
separating
L2
segments
from LI
segments
that have more
phonetic
distance between them
(e.g., [j]
and
[r]).
Because
L2
segments
that are more distant from LI
segments
are more
easily separated,
the SLM also
predicts
that L2 learners more
easily produce
them.
In terms of the
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics within the
SLM,
rhotics would at first be
perceived
as the
English [j]
because of a
sufficiently
small
perceived phonetic
distance between
the L2 and LI
phones
and because of the
orthographic
influence mentioned above.
Spanish
rhotics will also be
produced by
L2 learners as
English [j]
because
they
are influenced
by
the
phonological
structure of those LI
categories
to which
they
are most
similar,
at least at the
early
stages
of L2
development.
This means that
taps
should be more
accurately produced
in contexts
where
they
are
produced
in the LI
(i.e.,
the onset of an unstressed
syllable following
a stressed
syllable).
Because
articulatory
routines for
taps
are more similar to routines used
by speakers
who
employ
retroflex articulations for LI
English rhotics,
these
speakers
are
predicted
to more
accurately produce Spanish
rhotics.
Therefore,
LI
within-category
differences
may
affect the
accurate
pronunciation
of
Spanish
rhotics even when
they
are not
perceived by
LI
speakers,
because of their
degree
of
similarity
to
target phones.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Olsen / L2
Acquisition
of
Spanish
Rhotics 7 1
4. Current
Study
The current
study investigated
one LI
articulatory
routine difference and one LI
phonetic
context that influence the
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics
by English speakers. Specifically,
this
study
addressed the effects of the different
ways
to
produce [j]
in
English.
It also addressed the
influence that the
phonetic
context
involving [r]
in
English
has on the
acquisition
of the same
phone
in
Spanish.
The remainder of this
paper
consists of a
description
of the
participants
and
the
procedures
used in the
study, analytical results,
and a discussion on what the results indicate.
4.1
Participants
and Procedures
Fifty-one
native
English-speaking
adults from
university beginning Spanish
classes
par-
ticipated
in this
study.
Five native
Spanish-speakers (three
females and two
males) representing
dialects from a
variety
of South American countries and
Spain
also
participated
to
provide
a
base for rhotic
accuracy
rates. The data from three of the native
English-speaking participants
are not included in this
study
because either an instrument malfunction or user error occurred
rendering
their
recordings
inaudible.
Therefore,
the data elicited from a total number of
forty-eight participants
were included in the
analyses. Participants
filled out a
questionnaire
that asked them to indicate if
English
was their native
language
and to rate their
exposure
to
Spanish (i.e.,
classroom-based
exposure
and
exposure through media)
before
taking
the
Spanish
class in which
they
were
currently
enrolled on a Likert scale from 1-7 where 1
=
'no
exposure'
and 7= 'extensive
exposure'.
All L2
Spanish
learners indicated that
they
were native
English
speakers.
Participants
recorded themselves
reading
a text in
Spanish adapted
from a
reading
found
in Mosaicos
(4th ed.) (Castells, Guzman, Lapuerta,
and Garcia
2006) designed
to elicit the
same number of
possible tap
and trill articulations from each
participant
in order to calculate
accuracy
rates.
They accomplished
this task on Macintosh
computers equipped
with headsets
using
Audio Recorder 3.2. The
Spanish
text contained a total of
thirty-two
intervocalic
taps.
Nineteen
taps
occurred in the onsets of unstressed
syllables
where the
preceding syllable
was
stressed
(the
same environment in which alveolar
stops
become
taps
in
English),
as in the word
pero ['pero]
'but'. Thirteen
taps
occurred in other intervocalic environments
(i.e., occurring
after an unstressed
syllable
and
comprising
the onset of either a stressed or unstressed
syllable),
as in the words
diferente [dife'rente]
'different' or numro
['numro]
'number'. The text also
contained four intervocalic trills as in the words cierran
['sjeran]
'close'
(third person plural)
or correos
[ko'reos]
'mail'
(plural).
In order to determine the
type
of
English
rhotic articulation
employed, participants
also recorded themselves
pronouncing
four
English
words
containing
[j]
-
arrow
, car, proud,
and heart
, along
with a
prolonged [j] pronunciation. They
were asked
to
pronounce
each word twice and to hold out the
[j]
for a few seconds.
All
recordings
were
analyzed using
Praat
(Boersma
and Weenink
2009).
Successful
taps
were counted when there was a clear closure of the vocal tract indicated in the
spectrogram by
a brief break in the formant structures. Successful trills were counted
following
Sol
(2002)
and
Blecua
(1999),
when at least two successive closures of the vocal tract were evident.
Figure
4
shows an
example
of an accurate
tap
articulation and
Figure
5 is an
example
of an accurate
trill articulation.
Manner of articulation of
English [j]
in each
participant
was calculated
by averaging
the
distances between F4 and F5 taken from each of the
pronounced English
words and the
pro-
longed [j].
The distance between F4 and F5 of the
[j]
articulations in each word was
produced
by averaging
all of the F4 and F5
frequencies
measured at 6.25 millisecond intervals
throughout
each
pronunciation
and
subtracting
the F4
average
from the F5
average.
Care was taken to
exclude
any surrounding
sounds from the
[j]
measurements.
Figure
6 shows an
example
of a
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72
Hispania
95 March 2012
Figure
4.
Example
of Accurate
Tap
Articulation
Figure
5.
Example
of Accurate Trill Articulation
window from which F4 and F5 measurements were obtained
(measured every
6.25 milliseconds
within the
window).
As mentioned
previously,
a
greater
distance between F4 and F5 indicates a more retroflex-
like articulation whereas a lower distance between F4 and F5 indicates a more bunched-like
articulation
(Zhou
et al.
2008). Figure
7 is a
spectrogram
of a bunched
[j]
articulation and
Figure
8 is a
spectrogram
of a rhotic
[j]
articulation. As can be
seen,
the distance between F4
and F5 in
Figure
7 is
relatively
small
compared
to the distance between F4 and F5 in
Figure
8.
Zhou et al.
(2008)
found that differences between F4 and F5 for
participants (males
with
similar vocal tract
length) employing
retroflex articulations were around 1400
Hz,
while
differences for
speakers employing
bunched articulations were around 700 Hz. The
average
distance between F4 and F5 varied
among speakers
in the
present study, ranging
from 525 Hz
and 1603 Hz with a mean of 1057 Hz and a standard deviation of 219 Hz. This broad
range
of differences is not
surprising
because of the
possibility
of intermediate articulations across
speakers.
Because
English
rhotic articulations in this
study
fell
along
a continuum with retroflex
and bunched
poles, they
were
analyzed
as such.
Tap accuracy
rates were calculated for each student
by dividing
the total number of accurate
taps by
the total number of
possible taps. Tap accuracy
rates were also calculated for
taps
in
phonetic
environments that
produce taps
in
English
as well as
taps
in other environments to test
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Olsen / L2
Acquisition
of
Spanish
Rhotics 73
Figure
6. Measurement of
[j]
Articulations
Figure
7.
Spectrogram
of Bunched
[j]
Articulation
Figure
8.
Spectrogram
of Retroflex
[j]
Articulation
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74
Hispania
95 March 20 1 2
for the
possible
influence that the
English tap
rule has on
accuracy
of the
production
of
Spanish
taps.
Trill
accuracy
rates were calculated in the same manner.
4.2 Results
The
participant responses
to the Likert scale
ranking task,
which asked them to rank
themselves
according
to the amount of
exposure
to
Spanish prior
to
enrolling
in their
Spanish
class,
created a normal distribution with a
peak
around the second
ranking (little exposure).
The
percentage
of
participants
that indicated
having
little
exposure
was 37.5%
(N= 18).
Two
participants
indicated that
they previously
had a fair amount of
exposure
to
Spanish (Likert
ranking
of
5),
and no
participants
indicated that
they
had
undergone
considerable
(Likert ranking
of
6)
or extensive
(Likert ranking
of
7) exposure
to
Spanish prior
to
enrolling
in this course.
Figure
9 shows the distribution of
participant responses.
Figure
9. Distribution of
Exposure
to
Spanish
Prior to Enrollment
Thirty-one English-speaking participants (64.6%)
were able to
produce
at least one
tap
accurately (as judged by
the
investigator using spectrograms).
While
participants
that were not
able to
produce
at least one
tap
where found in all of the
experience levels,
the
majority
were
found in the lower
experience levels, indicating
that
tap production
increases with
experience.
Successful
taps
consisted of a clear closure of the vocal tract and successful trills consisted of
at least two successive closures. Of the
accurately produced taps, accuracy
rates
ranged
from
3.1%
(1/32)
to 1 00%
(32/32)
with a mean of 56.3%.
Tap accuracy
rates for the native
Spanish-
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Olsen / L2
Acquisition
of
Spanish
Rhotics 75
speaking participants ranged
from 96.9%
(31/32)
to 100%
(32/32)
with a mean of 97.5%. An
independent-samples
/-test was
performed
to test the
significance
of the difference between the
means of
Spanish tap accuracy
rates between the
participant groups.
The difference between
English-speaking participants' tap accuracy
rates
(M=36.3, SD=36.1)
and
Spanish-speaking
participants' tap accuracy
rates
(M=97.5, SD=1.4)
was
significant, f(51)=11.661,/?<.001.
A linear
regression
was
performed (a= .05)
to test whether
English
rhotic articulation
(more
retrofiex-like articulations
predicting
better
accuracy) predicted tap accuracy
with
participants'
tap accuracy
rates as the
dependent
variable and
English
rhotic articulation
(distance
between
F4 and F5 for each
participant)
as the
predictor
variable. For
tap accuracy,
rhotic articulation
(fi2=.057)
alone was not a
significant predictor (=.239,p=.102). Figure
10 is a scatter
plot
of the
relationship
between
tap accuracy
rates and
English
rhotic articulation. A
multiple
linear
regression
was then
performed
to test whether
English
rhotic articulation was a
predictor
of
tap accuracy,
this time
controlling
for
exposure
to
Spanish (a
second
predictor variable).
This
test showed a
significant
effect for
English
rhotic articulation
(=.320, p=.010)
as well as
Figure
10. Correlation between
Tap Accuracy
and
English
Rhotic Articulation
amount of
exposure
to
Spanish (=.564,/?<.001),
which combined accounted for 37% of the
variance
(R2=. 369).
Because
English
rhotic articulation was
only
a
significant predictor
when
controlling
for
amount of
exposure
to
Spanish, participants
were
split
into
groups according
to the amount
of
exposure
to
Spanish they
had indicated and
separate regressions
were
performed
on each
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76
Hispania
95 March 20 1 2
group. English
rhotic articulation
(ft2=.235)
alone
proved
to be a
significant predictor (=.484,
/?=.042)
for the
participants
who ranked themselves as
having
little
prior exposure
to
Span-
ish
(2
on the Likert
scale).
For
participants
who
reported having
some
prior exposure
to
Spanish
(3
on the Likert
scale), English
rhotic articulation
(R2=. 321) approached significance
as a
predictor
of
tap accuracy (=. 567,/?=. 088).
For all other
participants, English
rhotic articula-
tion was not a
significant predictor
of
tap accuracy (R2=. 215, =. 464,/?
=.209 for
group 1;
R2
=
. 1 6 1
,
=
.40 1
, p
=
.285 for
group 4).6
F
igure
1 1 shows the
relationship
between
tap accuracy
rates and
English
rhotic articulation
separated by Spanish exposure group.
The data
points
in
the second
group
better fit the
regression line, showing
a
significant
correlation. The data
points
in the third
group
also indicate a weak
relationship
to the
regression
line. The other
groups
do
not show
strong
correlations.
Figure
11. Correlation between
Tap Accuracy
and
English
Rhotic Articulation
by
Exposure Group
To see whether the
English phonetic
context that
produces taps
affected
Spanish tap
accu-
racy,
a
paired-samples
t- test was
performed.
This test
compared
the means of the
accuracy
rates
of
taps (including only
the
participants
that
produced
accurate
taps, N=31)
found in
phonetic
environments that
pattern
like the
English tap
rule
(M=61 .6,
SD=3 1
.4)
and
taps
found in other
environments
(M=45.4, SD=30.9).
A
significant
difference was found between these
means;
/(30)=4.845,/?<.001. Figure
12 shows the means of the accurate
taps
in the
English tap
rule
environment
compared
to the accurate
taps
in other environments. As the bars
indicate,
the
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Olsen / L2
Acquisition
of
Spanish
Rhotics 77
Figure
12. Means of
Accuracy
Rates of
Taps
in Different Environments
mean
accuracy
of
taps
in
English tap
rule environments is
significantly higher
than the mean
accuracy
of
taps
in other environments.
Seven
English-speaking participants
out of the
forty-eight (14.6%)
were able to
produce
at
least one accurate trill. Of the
accurately produced trills, accuracy
rates
ranged
from 25%
(1/4)
to 50%
(2/4)
with a mean of 35.7%. Trill
accuracy
rates
among
the native
Spanish-speaking
participants ranged
from 50%
(2/4)
to 100%
(4/4)
with a mean of 85%. An
independent-samples
t-tQSt was
performed
to
compare Spanish
trill
accuracy
rates between the
participant groups.
The test showed a
significant difference, /(5
1
)
=
1 1
.724, p<
.00 1
,
between the
English-speaking
participants'
trill
accuracy
rates
(N=48, M=5.2,
SD=
13.6)
and
Spanish-speaking participants'
trill
accuracy
rates
(N=5, M=85.0, SD=22.4).
A linear
regression
was
performed (a=.05)
to test whether
English
rhotic articulation
predicted
trill
accuracy
with
participants'
trill
accuracy
as the
dependant
variable and
English
rhotic articulation
(distance
between F4 and F5 for each
participant)
as the
predictor
variable.
For trill
accuracy,
rhotic articulation alone
(/?2=.110)
was a
significant predictor (=.332,
p=. 021).
A
multiple
linear
regression
was also
performed
to account for
exposure
to
Spanish
in trill
accuracy
rates. This test showed that
English
rhotic articulation
(=. 364, p
=.01
2)
was
also a
significant
factor
controlling
for
exposure
to
Spanish (=
.2 1
S,p=
.
122),
which combined
accounted for 16% of the variance
(/?2=.157). Figure
13 shows the correlation between trill
accuracy
rates and
English
rhotic articulation.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7 8
Hispania
95 March 2012
Figure
13. Correlation between Trill
Accuracy
and
English
Rhotic Articulation
5. Discussion and
Implications
Results from the
regressions performed provide
answers to the first research
question
repeated
here:
1 . Does the LI
within-category
difference manifested in different manners of American
English
rhotic articulation
(i.e.,
retroflex-like or
bunched-like)
affect the facilitation
of
Spanish
rhotic
production?
The
regressions
showed that
English
rhotic articulation is a
predictor
of accurate trill
production
at the
beginning
levels of L2
Spanish phonology acquisition.
That is to
say,
those learners who
employ
more retroflex articulations in
English
were
initially
able to
produce
trills with a
higher
accuracy
rate than those who
employ
more bunched articulations.
However,
the small number of
trills
produced by participants
should be taken into consideration and is a limitation of this
study.
Although
results were
positive
for trill
production
both alone and
accounting
for
prior
exposure
to
Spanish,
results of this
study
showed that there was no
significant relationship
between
tap accuracy
rates and
English
rhotic articulation alone. When
taking prior exposure
to
Spanish
into
consideration, however, English
rhotic articulation did correlate with
tap accuracy
rate. This result is in line with Face's
(2006) findings
that with more
experience,
rhotic
accuracy
rates
improve.
These results also extend the idea that
experience
is one of the main factors in
the
acquisition
of
Spanish
rhotics. Even
relatively
small differences in the amount of
exposure
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Olsen / L2
Acquisition
of
Spanish
Rhotics 79
time at the
beginner
level make a difference in L2
Spanish
rhotic
accuracy.
When
controlling
for amount of
exposure
to
Spanish, English
rhotic articulation did have an effect on
tap accuracy
rates.
Therefore, although experience
is the main factor in accurate
tap production
in
Spanish,
English
rhotic articulation does influence the
accuracy
of
tap production,
at least at certain
stages
of
acquisition,
and should be taken into consideration
by
learners and instructors.
Because the
English
rhotic articulation became a
predictor
of
tap accuracy only
when
controlling
for
exposure,
self-ranked
exposure
to
Spanish groups
were
split
to further examine
the effect of
English
rhotic influence on each individual
group.
Results showed an effect for the
second and third self-ranked
groups (only
the second
group
was
statistically significant)
and
not for other self-ranked
groups.
These
results, along
with the results from the
multiple
linear
regressions showing
that
exposure
to
Spanish
is a
significant predictor
of
tap accuracy, suggest
a
crucial
difference
measure much like Wode's
(1976)
"crucial
similarity measure,"
where transfer
only begins
when learners notice similarities between the LI and the L2. Influence
involving
LI
phonetic
factors
(e.g., English
rhotic
articulation)
and
production only
become evident at
the
point
where L2 learners notice differences between the LI and the L2 articulations.
At
first,
the amount of
exposure
to
Spanish
and
speaking practice
is minimal and
may
not
be sufficient for learners to
distinguish
between
English
and
Spanish
rhotic articulations. At
the
point
where a crucial difference is noticed
(shown by
the results in
groups
two and
three),
learners
begin
to
produce Spanish
rhotic articulations because
they recognize
when
they
are
producing English
rhotic articulations and when
they
are
producing Spanish
rhotic
articulations,
and that
they
are not the same
(onset
of
segmental acquisition).
At this
point, English
rhotic
articulation becomes a factor in
tap accuracy
rates. Retroflex-like articulations facilitate accurate
tap production
relative to bunched-like articulations
because,
once
target language
articulation
is
distinguished
from LI
articulations, speakers
that
employ
retroflex-like articulations are used
to
raising
the
apex,
as is
necessary
for
Spanish
rhotics. After more
experience
with
Spanish,
LI
phonetic
factors become less
important.
Learners who
employ
bunched-like articulations
also learn to
produce
accurate
taps.
Further research
employing
cross-sectional or
longitudinal
design
and a
higher
number of elicited trills would be able to test the
validity
of such a crucial
difference measure and indicate whether trills also follow the described measure.
Concerning
the effect of LI
phonetic
context on the
production
of
Spanish rhotics,
results
show that out of the
accurately produced taps,
a
significantly high percentage
of them were in
words in which
primary
stress was contained in the
syllable
before the
tap, equal
to those found
in
English
words that create
tapped
realizations of Iii and Id/. These results
provide
an answer to
the second research
question repeated
here: Does the
phonetic
context that
produces allophonic
taps
in
English affect accuracy
in
Spanish
rhotic
production?
The results to this
question
are
interesting
for two reasons.
First,
the correlation of similar
patterns
of stress in relation to
taps
across
languages
and effective
production
of
taps
indicates that the subconscious
phonological
English tap
rule interacts with L2
Spanish
utterances in a
way
that facilitates similar
phonetic
effects across the two
languages.
That
participants
more
accurately produced taps
in environ-
ments that also render
taps
in their LI shows an LI influence of
phonetic
context.
Second,
that
phonetic
contexts of an
allophone
associated with Iii and Idl
(both
of which are also
phonemes
in
Spanish)
facilitates the
production
of
taps only
in environments that are similar to
English
provides
evidence that these
participants
have not
yet sufficiently augmented
the
possible
phonetic
contexts in which
Spanish [r]
can occur
past
LI
phonetic
contexts.
Although
this
process
is
underway,
indicated
by
instances of accurate
tap productions
in environments unlike
English, beginners
have not
yet
reallocated
taps
in their
phonemic
inventories from an
English
allophone
of Iii and /d/ to a
separate Spanish phoneme.
In other
words,
these learners have
begun
to associate
[r]
with
Spanish rhotics,
but hold onto the
phonetic
contexts that
produces
taps
in
English.
The
phonological
structure of learners in this
study
is in an
interlingual state,
as seen in
Figure
3 above.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80
Hispania
95 March 20 1 2
Interestingly,
results showed that the
phonetic
context that
produces allophonic taps
in
English
have a
longer lasting
effect than
within-category subphonemic
variants of
[j]
on the
production
of L2
Spanish
rhotics. Because LI
English taps
are
represented
in the
phonological
system
as an
allophone
of alveolar
stops
It / and
/d/,
it is more salient to the learner's LI
system.
Because the differences in LI
articulatory
routine are
represented
at an even less conscious
subphonemic level,
the effects shown in this
study
are
easily
overcome because of the lack
of salience to the LI
system.
These results are
interesting
because
they
indicate
that, although
differences in LI
articulatory
routines do affect L2
phonology acquisition,
influence from LI
phonetic
context is more difficult to overcome.
Including
more advanced learners in future
studies that focus on LI
phonetic
influence would reveal the extent of these
phonetic
factors
in L2
phonology acquisition.
These results can be
partially explained by
current models that have been
purported
to
explain
L2
phonology acquisition.
The
Speech Learning
Model
(SLM) (Flege 1995),
the Native
Language Magnet
Model
(NLM) (Iverson
and Kuhl
1996),
and the
Perceptual
Assimilation
Model
(Best 1995)
all
predict
that L2
input
will at first be
categorized
with
respect
to LI cat-
egories.
Learners are able to form L2
categories
as
they
receive more
exposure.
Results herein
showed that learners with less
experience produce
LI
phones
that
they perceive (largely
due
to
orthographic influence)
to be closest to the actual L2
phone.
As learners
perceive phonetic
differences between L2 and LI
rhotics, they begin
to
stop using phonetic
articulations
mapped
to /i/ and start
using phonetic
articulations
mapped
to
[r],
which are closer to the L2 articulation.
They begin
to formulate a
separate category
for
taps. However,
at this
point,
the
phonetic
context
that
produces allophonic taps
in
English
continues to influence the
accuracy
of
tap production
in L2
Spanish.
In this
sense,
the LI
category
that is associated with L2
taps changes
with more
experience.
That the LI influence shifts from one LI
phone ([j],
as evidenced in the
production
of learners with
very
little
exposure
to
Spanish)
to a different LI
phone ([r],
as evidenced in
the
accuracy
rates of learners with more
exposure
to
Spanish)
is not
predicted
in the current
models mentioned. A more
fine-grained phonetic analysis
is
necessary
to account for the data
analyzed
in this
study.
The current
study
has
implications
for
interlanguage phonological theory.
As
proposed
by
Colantoni and Steele
(2008),
theories that
explain
and
predict interlanguage phonology
should address both
phonological
and
phonetic phenomena.
The results obtained
by
this
study
provide
evidence for this
proposal.
That
phonetic
factors
(LI articulatory
routine variation and
LI
phonetic
context for
allophonic variation)
have an effect on the
accuracy
rates of
Spanish
rhotics
by
L2 learners lends
support
for the
hypothesis
tested in this
study.
Both LI
articulatory
routine
variation, exemplified by
different
English
rhotic
articulations,
and LI
phonetic context,
exemplified by
the
phonetic
context that
produces taps
in
English,
do affect the
acquisition
of
an L2
phonology
in terms of native-like
pronunciation,
albeit at different intensities. Because
results showed that both
types
of factors did influence
target-like
learners'
pronunciation,
both
should be considered in L2
acquisition
theories. The current
study
has also shown that the LI
phones
that influence accurate
pronunciation
in
Spanish
rhotics
change
over time. Current L2
phonology acquisition
models do not account for such shifts. This
may
be
accomplished by
attributing
this shift to different levels of
representation.
The first LI
phone
that influences L2
Spanish
rhotic
production, /j/,
is at the
phonemic
level and is the closest
phoneme
that exists
in the LI to the
target phoneme.
As differences in articulation are
noticed,
and a
separate tap
category
is
created,
the
phonetic
context that
produces allophonic taps
in the LI continue to
influence L2
Spanish taps
because of the
allophonic
status that this
phone
has in the LI . As for
the effect of
articulatory routines,
because
they
are neuromotor routines that LI
English speak-
ers use to articulate
/j/,
once learners have made the transition to
articulating taps,
differences
in
English
rhotic
articulatory
routines have less of an influence on accurate
tap production.
In
other
words,
once learners with bunched-like articulations have a sufficient amount of
practice
articulating taps
in
Spanish,
the
advantage
for learners with retroflex-like articulations
disap-
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Olsen / L2
Acquisition
of
Spanish
Rhotics 8 1
pears.
Future studies
focusing
on LI
phonetic
influence at different levels of
proficiency
as well
as studies
investigating
the influence of different LI
phones
are needed to further understand
the effect of LI
phonetics
on L2
phonology development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Alan
Juffs,
Erin
O'Rourke,
Carlos
Ramirez,
and Jeff
Lingwall
for
their
helpful
comments and
indispensable insights.
NOTES
!Rose
(2010b) suggests
a more
fine-grained sequence
of
phone production
than
presented
here.
However,
I have
presented
the
general sequence suggested by
her results.
2
The term
"articulatory
routine" is used herein to refer to neuromotor routines
employed by speakers
which involve the
physical
movement of the articulators to
consistently produce
the acoustic effects that
listeners
interpret
as
particular phones.
In this
case,
the
articulatory
routines
investigated
are the
physical
differences in
tongue position
between retroflex-like and bunched-like rhotic articulations.
3
All instances of the word
English
refer to Standard American
English spoken
in the mid- Atlantic
United States.
4
Some researchers
only posit
one
phonemic
rhotic in
Spanish (Hualde 2005).
5
A
complete phonological
structure would include other
allophones
of Iii and
/d/; only
the
phonologi-
cal structure
relating
to
taps
is relevant for this
study.
6
Because
only
two
participants
indicated that
they
had a fair amount
(Likert ranking
of
5)
of
exposure
to
Spanish prior
to
enrolling
in the
course,
a linear
regression
could not be
performed.
WORKS CITED
Alwan, Abeer,
Shrikanth
Narayanan,
and Katherine Haker.
(1997).
"Toward
Articulatory-acoustic
Models
for
Liquid Approximants
Based on MRI and EPG data. Part II. The Rhotics." Journal
of
the Acoustical
Society of
America 101: 1078-89. Print.
Best,
Catherine T.
(1995).
"A Direct Realist
Perspective
on
Cross-language Speech Perception." Speech
Perception
and
Linguistic Experience:
Issues in
Cross-language Speech
Research. Ed. Winifred
Strange. Timonium,
MD: York. 167-200. Print.
Blecua,
Beatriz.
(1999).
"Caracteristicas acusticas de la vibrante
multiple
del
espanol
en habla
espontnea."
Proceedings of the 1st Congress of "Experimental Phonetics". Tarragona, Spain.
119-26. Print.

.
(2001).
Las vibrantes del
espanol: Manifestaciones
acusticas
y procesos fonticos.
Diss. U
Autnoma de Barcelona. Print.
Boersma, Paul,
and David Weenink.
(2009).
Praat:
Doing
Phonetics
by Computer.
Version 5.1.04.
Software.
Carlisle,
Robert S.
(1988).
"The Effect of Markedness on
Epenthesis
in
Spanish/English Interlanguage
Phonology."
Issues and
Developments
in
English
and
Applied Linguistics
3: 15-23. Print.
Castells,
Matilde
O.,
Elizabeth
Guzman,
Paloma
Lapuerta,
and Carmen Carcia.
(2006).
Mosaicos:
Spanish
as a World
Language.
4th ed.
Upper
Saddle
River,
NJ: Pearson. Print.
Colantoni, Laura,
and
Jeffrey
Steele.
(2008). "Integrating Articulatory
Constraints into Models of Second
Language Phonological Acquisition." Applied Psycholinguistics
29.3: 489-534. Print.
Ellis,
Rod.
(2008).
The
Study of
Second
Language Acquisition.
2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP. Print.
Espy- Wilson,
Carol
Y.,
Suzanne E.
Boyce,
Michel
Jackson,
Shrikanth
Narayanan,
and Abeer Alwan.
(2000).
"Acoustic
Modeling
of American
English
/r/." Journal
of
the Acoustic
Society of
America
108.1: 343-56. Print.
Face, Timothy
L.
(2006).
"Intervocalic Rhotic Pronunciation
by
Adult Learners of
Spanish
as a Second
Language."
7th
Conference
on the
Acquisition of Spanish
and
Portuguese
as First and Second
Langauges.
Ed. Carol. A. Klee and
Timothy
L. Face.
Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla. 47-58. Print.
Flege,
James E.
(1995).
"Second
Language Speech Learning: Theory, Findings
and Problems."
Speech
Perception
and
Linguistic Experience:
Issues in
Cross-language Speech
Research. Ed. Winifred
Strange. Timonium,
MD: York. 233-72. Print.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82
Hispania
95 March 20 1 2
Hammond,
Robert.
(1999).
"On the Non-occurrence of the Phone
[r]
in the
Spanish
Sound
System."
Advances in
Hispanic Linguistics.
Ed. Javier Gutirrez-Rexach and Fernando Martinez-Gil. Somer-
ville,
MA: Cascadilla. 290-304. Print.
Hualde,
Jos I.
(2005). "Quasi-Phonemic
Contrasts in
Spanish."
WCCFL 23
Proceedings.
Ed.
Benjamin
Schmeiser,
Vineeta
Chand,
Ann
Kelleher,
and
Angelo Rodriguez. Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla.
374-98. Print.
Hurtado,
Luz.
M.,
and Chelsea Estrada.
(2010).
"Factors
Influencing
the Second
Language Acquisition
of
Spanish
Vibrants." Modem
Language
Journal 94.1 : 74-86. Print.
Iverson, Paul,
and Patricia K. Kuhl.
(1996).
"Influences of Phonetic Identification and
Category
Good-
ness on American Listeners'
Perception
of Irl and /l/." Journal
of
Acoustic
Society of
America 99.2 :
1130-40. Print.
Koda,
Keiko.
(1989).
"Effects of LI
Orthographic Representation
on L2
Phonological Coding Strategies."
Journal
of Psycholinguistic
Research 18.2: 201-22. Print.
Ladefoged,
Peter.
(2006).
A Course in Phonetics. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth. Print.
Lindau,
Mona.
(1985).
"The
Story
of /r/." Phonetic
Linguistics
:
Essays
in Honor
of
P
Ladefoged.
Ed.
Victoria Fromkin. New York: Academic. 157-67. Print.
Munro, Murray J.,
and
Tracey
M.
Derwing. (1994).
"Evaluations of
Foreign
Accent in
Extemporaneous
and Read Material."
Language Testing
1 1.3: 253-66. Print.
Rose,
Marda.
(2010a).
"Differences in
Discriminating
L2 Consonants: A
Comparison
of
Spanish Taps
and
Trills." Selected
Proceedings of
the 2008 Second
Language
Research Forum. Ed. Matthew T.
Prior,
Yokiko
Watanabe,
and
Sang-Ki
Lee.
Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla. 181-96. Print.

.
(2010b).
"Intervocalic
Tap
and Trill Production in the
Acquisition
of
Spanish
as a Second
Language."
Studies in
Hispanic andLusophone Linguistics
3.2: 1-41. Print.
Sol, Maria-Josep. (2002). "Aerodynamic
Characteristics of Trills and
Phonological Patterning."
Journal
of
Phonetics 30.4: 655-88. Print.
Tomas,
Tomas N.
(1921).
Manual de
pronunciacin espanola.
Madrid:
Filologia espafiola.
Print.
Waltmunson, Jeremy
C.
(2005).
"The Relative
Degree
of
Difficulty
of
Spanish It,
d
/, Trill,
and
Tap by
LI
English Speakers: Auditory
and Acoustic Methods of
Defining
Pronunciation
Accuracy."
Diss.
U of Washington. Print.
Wode,
H.
(1976). "Developmental Sequences
in Naturalistic L2
Acquisition." Working Papers
on
Bilingualism
11:1-13. Print.
Zampini, Mary
L.
(1994).
"The Role of Native
Language
Transfer and Task
Formality
in the
Acquisition
of
Spanish Spirantization." Hispania
77.3: 470-81. Print.
Zhou, Xinhui,
Carol Y.
Espy- Wilson,
Suzanne
Boyce,
Mark
Tiede, Christy Holland,
and Ann Choe.
(2008).
"A
Magnetic
Resonance
Imaging-Based Articulatory
and Acoustic
Study
of 'Retroflex' and
'Bunched' American
English
Irl." Journal
of
the Acoustic
Society of
America 123.6: 4466-81. Print.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:10:20 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions