成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	白宛立 Pai, Wan-Li
論文名稱：	基於 VOT 的視覺－觸覺教學法與語言遺產語言錨定：應用於台灣學習者法語清濁音發音區辨 A VOT-Based Visual-Tactile Pedagogy with Heritage-Language Anchoring for French Voicing Distinction in Taiwanese Learners
指導教授：	羅勤正 Lo, Chin-Cheng
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	文學院 - 外國語文學系 Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年：	2026
畢業學年度：	114
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	574
中文關鍵詞：	發音起始時間（VOT）、第二語言語音習得、視覺－觸覺回饋、傳承語言語音錨定、法語塞音、台灣法語學習者、發音教學
外文關鍵詞：	Voice Onset Time (VOT), L2 Phonetic Acquisition, Visual-Tactile Feedback, Heritage-Language Phonological Aanchoring, French Stop Consonants, Taiwanese Learners of French, Pronunciation Pedagogy
相關次數：	點閱：108 下載：3
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究探討一種以發音起始時間（Voice Onset Time, VOT）為基礎，結合視覺與觸覺回饋，並運用傳承語言（即台灣閩南語）作為語音錨定之教學法，對提升台灣學習者法語塞音清濁對立之成效。對以華語為母語的學習者而言，法語濁塞音具挑戰性，原因在於其母語主要透過送氣而非清濁對立來區分塞音。本研究旨在探討，結合視覺與觸覺回饋以及傳承語言提示，是否能有效促進第二語言清濁對立的習得。
本研究奠基於感知－動作、語音運動控制及第二語言語音習得理論，強調透過 Praat 語音軟體進行波形視覺化觀察、喉部震動的觸覺感知，以及以台灣閩南語作為發音參照，來整合多重感官回饋。
在理論層面上，本研究亦採取整合性的喉音音韻觀點，結合喉頭素性理論（laryngeal realism）以及感知－動作語音模型，主張第二語言清濁對立的習得並非僅源於知覺分類或音系重組，而是來自抽象制約系統、發音實現以及多模態回饋重新校準之間的交互作用。
本研究對象為十名來自國立成功大學的大學生（五名男性、五名女性，年齡介於20至25歲），其法語程度為A1+至B1，且接受過約200至400小時的法語學習。研究採四次個別訓練設計，並於訓練前及一週後分別進行前測與延遲後測。第一節課包含前測，並介紹法語濁塞音的發音機制、VOT 概念、塞音類型（清音、濁音、送氣音）、Praat 波形視覺化，以及三組法語塞音對。接著，受試者透過觸覺監測與傳承語言提示（台語中的濁音 /b/）練習第一組 /p, b/。第二與第三節課分別針對 /t, d/ 與 /k, g/ 進行練習，同樣結合視覺－觸覺回饋與傳承語言提示（/d/、/g/）。第四節課則回顧前測錯誤，訓練受試者使用 Praat 自我診斷發音，並為期一週的自主練習做準備。一週後進行後測，包含聲學分析與自我評估問卷。
研究結果顯示，受試者在濁塞音的 VOT 準確度上有顯著提升，尤其在句子層級的表現改善尤為明顯。訓練前，學習者雖能在單字層級表現較佳，但在連續語流中常出現清濁對立的錯誤。經過視覺－觸覺訓練及一週使用 Praat 的自主練習後，受試者在句子中產出目標濁音的能力顯著提升，同時無聲塞音的過度送氣現象減少，且重複產出的一致性提高。此外，受試者亦回報其語音覺察能力提升、自我監控能力增強，並認為觸覺與傳承語言輔助具有實用價值。
本研究結果為一種非單純依賴語音輸入的多模態教學模式提供實證支持，顯示結合發音回饋與傳承語言提示，有助於改善以送氣為主要對立機制之學習者在法語清濁對立上的困難。更廣泛而言，本研究有助於發展第二語言語音習得的整合模型，強調音韻結構、喉音實現與感知－動作回饋系統三者在穩定語音類別形成中的共同作用。

This study investigates the effectiveness of a VOT-based, visual-tactile pedagogy with heritage-language phonological anchoring, i.e. Taiwanese Southern Min, for improving French stop consonant voicing among Taiwanese learners. French voiced stops are challenging for Mandarin-speaking learners because their native language realizes stop consonant contrasts through aspiration rather than voicing. This study aims to explore whether combining visual and tactile feedback with heritage-language cues can facilitate accurate L2 voicing acquisition. Grounded in sensorimotor, motor, and L2 speech acquisition theories, this approach emphasizes the integration of visual waveform inspection using Praat, tactile awareness of laryngeal vibration, and the use of Taiwanese Southern Min as a heritage-language articulatory reference.
Beyond its pedagogical design, this study is theoretically informed by an integrated perspective on laryngeal phonology, combining insights of laryngeal realism, and sensorimotor speech models. It proposes that L2 voicing acquisition is not solely a matter of perceptual categorization or phonological restructuring, but emerges from the interaction between abstract constraint systems, articulatory implementation, and multimodal feedback-driven sensorimotor control.
Ten university students (five males, five females; aged 20~25) from National Cheng Kung University, with A1+ to B1 French proficiency and approximately 200~400 hours of prior instruction, participated in a four-session individual training program. A pre-test and a delayed post-test were conducted, each spaced one week apart. Session 1 included a pre-test then introduced the mechanism of pronouncing French voiced stops, VOT concepts in French language, stop consonant types (voiceless, voiced, aspirated), Praat waveform visualization, and an overview of three pairs of French stop consonants. Participants then practiced the first pair (/p, b/) using tactile monitoring and heritage-language cues (the voiced consonant /b/ in Taiwanese). Sessions 2 and 3 provided targeted practice for the second (/t, d/) and third (/k, g/) pairs, respectively, using visual-tactile feedback and also heritage-language cues, i.e. /d/ and /g/. Session 4 reviewed pre-test errors, trained learners to diagnose their own pronunciation with Praat, and prepared them for one week of self-directed home practice. One week after, implementation of the post-test assessments included acoustic measurements and self-evaluation questionnaires.
Results indicate substantial improvement in VOT accuracy for voiced stops, with a particularly notable effect in sentence-level production, which had been more challenging than single-word targets. Before training, learners often produced incorrect voicing in sentences despite relatively better performance on isolated words. Following the visual-tactile training and one week of self-directed practice with Praat, participants showed marked improvement in producing target voiced stops within sentences, as well as reduced over-aspiration in voiceless stops and greater consistency across repeated tokens. Participants also reported heightened phonetic awareness, improved self-monitoring skills, and perceived usefulness of tactile and heritage-language support.
These findings provide empirical support for a non-input-based, multimodal pedagogical framework, demonstrating that combining articulatory feedback with heritage-language cues can effectively address French voicing contrasts in learners whose dominant language realizes consonantal contrast primarily via aspiration rather than voicing. More broadly, the study contributes to an emerging interface model of L2 phonetic acquisition, in which phonological structure, laryngeal implementation, and sensorimotor feedback systems are jointly responsible for the emergence of stable L2 speech categories.

A VOT-Based Visual-Tactile Pedagogy with Heritage-Language Anchoring for French Voicing Distinction in Taiwanese Learners	i
基於 VOT 的視覺－觸覺教學法與語言遺產語言錨定：應用於台灣學習者法語清濁音發音區辨	i
中文摘要	i
Abstract	iii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION	1
1 The Functional Importance of Phonological Contrast	2
2 Stop Consonants and Cross-Linguistic Contrast Systems	4
3 The Challenges of Taiwanese Learners of French	6
3.1 Perceptual Challenges in Acquiring French Stop Voicing	9
3.2 Articulatory Challenges in Producing French Stop Voicing	10
3.3 Word-Level and Connected-Speech Production	12
3.4 Heritage-Language Experience as an Articulatory Resource	13
4 Research Gap and Motivation	14
5 Purpose of the Study	16
6 Research Questions	16
7 Significance of the Study	17
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW	19
1 Consonants and Vowels: Phonetic Foundations and Functional Asymmetry	19
2 Functional Load and the Consonantal Basis of Lexical Representation	23
3 Writing Systems and the Primacy of Consonants	27
4 Stop Consonants: Articulatory and Phonological Characteristics	31
5 Phonological Contrast and Voice Onset Time (VOT)	33
5.1 Historical Development of VOT Research	36
5.2 Cross-linguistic VOT Systems	38
5.3 Cross-linguistic VOT Patterns	39
French.	40
Mandarin Chinese.	40
Taiwanese Southern Min.	41
6 Cross-Linguistic Stop Systems: Voicing and Aspiration	44
7 Models of L2 Speech Perception and Production	46
8 Theoretical Extensions for Laryngeal Phonology Acquisition	48
8.1 Speech Learning Model and the Acquisition of L2 Phonetic Categories	48
8.2 Laryngeal Realism (Matsui, 2017)	52
9 Visual Feedback in L2 Pronunciation Training	54
10 Tactile Feedback, Kinesthetic Awareness, and Articulatory Learning	56
11 Heritage-Language Phonological Anchoring	58
11.1 Cross-Linguistic Transfer in L2 Phonological Acquisition	58
11.2 Heritage Languages as Phonological Resources	59
11.3 Embodied Cognition and Articulatory Memory	61
11.4 Heritage-Language Phonological Anchoring	62
12 Theoretical Integration	63
13 Summary and Research Gap	65
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY	68
1 Research Design	68
2 Participants	69
3 Target Sounds and Materials	69
3.1 Target Sounds	70
3.2 Lexical Stimuli	71
3.3 Sentence-Level Stimuli	74
3.4 Native-Speaker Reference Recordings	75
4 Multimodal Training Framework	76
4.1 Acoustic-Visual Channel (VOT Visualization)	77
4.2 Articulatory-Tactile Channel	78
4.3 Heritage-Language Anchoring Channel	79
5 Experimental Procedure	81
6 Data Collection	83
7 Acoustic Analysis and Measurement Procedures	83
8 Self-Evaluation Questionnaire	87
9 Summary	88
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS	92
1 Descriptive Statistics	93
1.1 Word-Level Production	95
1.2 Sentence-Level Production	103
1.3 Native French Reference Data	110
1.4 Summary of Descriptive Statistics	114
2 Overall Results	117
2.1 Overall Change in Mean VOT	117
2.2 Magnitude of Improvement	118
2.3 Development of Voicing Contrast	119
2.4 Changes in Production Variability	120
2.5 Overall Interpretation	120
3 Comparison between Group A and Group B	121
3.1 Pre-test Comparison	121
3.2 Delayed Post-test Comparison	123
3.3 Comparison of Learning Gains	124
3.4 Change in Production Stability	125
3.5 Reduction in Differences between Group A and Group B	126
3.6 Summary of the Group Comparison	128
4 Comparison across Places of Articulation	129
4.1 Improvements across Places of Articulation	129
4.2 Native-likeness across Places of Articulation	131
4.3 Production Stability across Places of Articulation	132
4.4 Comparison of Improvement, Native-likeness and Stability	133
4.5 Summary of Place-of-Articulation Effects	135
5 Word-level and Sentence-level Production	136
5.1 Overall Comparison between Word-Level and Sentence-Level Production	136
5.2 Word-Level Production	137
5.3 Sentence-Level Production	138
5.4 Comparison of Improvement across Speech Contexts	139
5.5 Generalization from Word-Level to Sentence-Level Production	141
5.6 Production Stability across the Two Contexts	141
5.7. Summary of Word-Level and Sentence-Level Results	142
6 Learner Self-Evaluation Results	143
6.1 Perceived Improvement in Pronunciation	143
6.2 Perceived Usefulness of Visual VOT Feedback	144
6.3 Perceived Usefulness of Tactile Feedback	145
6.4 Role of Heritage-Language Anchoring	146
6.5 Changes in Phonetic Awareness	147
6.6 Relationship between Self-Evaluation and Acoustic Results	147
6.7 Summary of Self-Evaluation Results	148
7 Individual Differences in Learning Outcomes	150
7.1 Overall Patterns of Individual Variation	151
7.2 Rapid Adapters	152
7.3 Gradual Improvers	153
7.4 Limited Responders	154
7.5 Individual Differences across Places of Articulation	154
7.6 Individual Differences across Speech Contexts	155
7.7 Developmental Interpretation of Individual Variation	156
7.8 Summary of Individual Learning Outcomes	157
8 Within-Speaker Consistency and Production Stability	158
8.1 Overall Changes in Production Variability	158
8.2 Word-Level Production Stability	159
8.3 Sentence-Level Production Stability	160
8.4 Stability across Places of Articulation	161
8.5 Stability of Voiced and Voiceless Stops	162
8.6 Reduction in Variability as Evidence of Phonetic Stabilization	163
8.7 Summary of Production Stability	164
9 Overall Comparison with Native French Reference Values	165
9.1 Native French Reference Patterns	165
9.2 Voiceless Stops: Convergence toward Native French	166
9.3 Voiced Stops: Development of Native-Like Prevoicing	167
9.4 The Difference between Improvement and Native-Likeness	168
9.5 Native-Likeness across Places of Articulation	169
9.6 Word-Level and Sentence-Level Native-Likeness	170
9.7 Overall Native-Likeness Ranking	171
9.8 Summary of Native-Likeness	172
10 Chapter Summary	173
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION	180
1 Processes Underlying Improvement in Voicing Production	181
1.1 Development of Phonological Categories	182
1.2. Sensorimotor Control and Articulatory Recalibration	185
1.3 Multimodal Integration as a Mechanism for L2 Voicing Acquisition	188
1.4 Convergence across Learner Groups	191
1.5 Learning Gain, Native-Likeness, and Production Stability in Voiced Stops	196
1.6 Integrated Interpretation	202
2 Differential Difficulty Across Places of Articulation	205
2.1 Articulatory Accessibility and Place of Articulation	205
2.2 Aerodynamic Constraints on Voicing	207
2.3 Sensorimotor Learning and Feedback Across Places of Articulation	210
2.4 Pedagogical Implications for Multimodal Pronunciation Training	212
2.5 Integrated Interpretation	215
3 Visual Feedback as Temporal Externalization of Phonetic Structure	221
3.1 Making Invisible Acoustic Events Visible	222
3.2 Visual Feedback and Error Detection	225
3.3 Visual Feedback and Sensorimotor Learning	228
3.4 Pedagogical Value of Praat-Based Training	232
3.5 Integrated Interpretation	236
4 Tactile Feedback and Embodied Voicing Awareness	239
4.1 Tactile Feedback as Access to Hidden Articulatory Processes	240
4.2 Kinesthetic Awareness and Voicing Acquisition	241
4.3 Tactile Feedback and Sensorimotor Learning	242
4.4 Implications for L2 Pronunciation Instruction	243
4.5 Integrated Interpretation	244
5 Heritage-Language Anchoring as Sensorimotor Mediation	245
5.1 Beyond Interference: Reconsidering Cross-Linguistic Transfer	245
5.2 Heritage Language as a Phonological Resource	247
5.3 Articulatory Memory and Embodied Transfer	249
5.4 The Role of Taiwanese Southern Min in French Voicing Acquisition	250
5.5 Heritage-Language Anchoring as Sensorimotor Mediation	251
5.6 Pedagogical Implications	253
5.7 Integrated Interpretation	254
6 Sentence-Level Improvement and Phonological Reorganization	255
6.1 From Word-Level Accuracy to Sentence-Level Stability	256
6.2 Stronger Target-Like Realization at the Sentence Level	257
6.3 Cognitive Load and Connected Speech	261
6.4 Automatization of Voicing Control	262
6.5 Evidence of Phonological Reorganization	264
SLM Interpretation.	266
PAM-L2 Interpretation.	267
Integrating SLM and PAM-L2.	267
6.6 Integrated Interpretation	268
7 Interpreting the Findings through Laryngeal Realism	271
7.1. Overview of Laryngeal Realism	271
7.2 French and Mandarin from a Laryngeal Realist Perspective	271
7.3 Interpretation of the Present Findings	272
8 Qualitative Observations of Learner Production Patterns	278
8.1 Pre-test Production Characteristics	278
8.2 Post-test Qualitative Changes	280
8.3 Production Strategies and Voicing-Timing Patterns	281
8.4 Individual Variation Patterns	282
9 Learner Perceptions and Self-Evaluation	284
9.1 Overall Perceptions of Improvement	284
9.2 Perceived Effectiveness of Different Modalities	284
9.3 Heritage-Language Anchoring from the Learners’ Perspective	285
9.4 Word-Level and Sentence-Level Development	285
9.5 Integrated Interpretation	285
10 Integrated MSVA - Laryngeal Realism Framework (Proposed Model)	289
Why an Integrated Framework Is Needed	289
10.1 Rationale for the Framework	291
10.2 Components of the MSVA Framework	292
10.3 Interaction among Modalities	293
10.4 Overall Architecture of the Model	294
10.5 Multimodal Mediation and Pedagogical Interface	297
10.6 Functional Integration of Theoretical Components	299
10.7 Comparison with Existing Approaches	300
10.8 Pedagogical Implications	301
10.9 Theoretical and Empirical Implications	302
11 Chapter Summary	303
CHAPTER SIX PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROPOSED PEDAGOGICAL MODEL	309
1 Rationale	313
2 Conceptual Foundations	315
3 The Sensorimotor-Based Multimodal Pedagogical Model	324
3.1 Heritage-Language Anchoring	326
3.2 Multimodal Phonetic Input	327
3.3 Phonetic Awareness and Sensorimotor Mapping	328
3.4 Controlled Production and Stabilization	328
3.5 Contextual Generalization	329
3.6 Autonomous Monitoring and Production	330
3.7 The Adaptive Feedback Loop	330
3.8 Core Principles of the Model	331
4 Instructional Cycle	332
4.1 Stage 1: Diagnostic Assessment	333
4.2 Stage 2: Phonetic Anchoring	334
4.3 Stage 3: Multimodal Demonstration	335
4.4 Stage 4: Guided Sensorimotor Practice	336
4.5 Stage 5: Controlled Production	336
4.6 Stage 6: Stabilization and Feedback	337
4.7 Stage 7: Contextual Generalization	338
4.8 Stage 8: Autonomous Monitoring and Reassessment	339
4.9 The Adaptive Nature of the Cycle	339
4.10 Summary of the Instructional Cycle	340
5 Mechanisms Underlying the Model	342
5.1 Cross-Modal Integration	342
5.2 Sensorimotor Mapping	343
5.3 Externalization of Phonetic Information	344
5.4 Heritage-Language Mediation	345
5.5 Motor Stabilization and Variability Reduction	346
5.6 Transfer and Generalization	347
5.7 From External Regulation to Autonomous Control	348
5.8 Interaction among the Mechanisms	349
5.9 The Proposed Mechanistic Account	350
6 Potential Applications Beyond French	351
6.1 Application to Other Stop-Consonant Contrasts	352
6.2 Application to Other L2 Phonetic Contrasts	352
6.3 Application to Other Learner Populations	353
6.4 Conditions for Successful Transfer	354
6.5 Potential Application to Technology-Assisted Pronunciation Learning	355
6.6 Potential Application Beyond Pronunciation Instruction	356
6.7 Scope and Boundaries of the Model	357
7 Chapter Summary	358
CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION	361
1 Answers to the Research Questions	362
1.1 Research Question 1: Effectiveness of the VOT-Based Visual–Tactile Pedagogy	362
1.2 Research Question 2: Development toward Native-Like French VOT Patterns	365
1.3 Research Question 3: Generalization from Word-Level to Sentence-Level Production	367
1.4 Research Question 4: The Role of Heritage-Language Phonetic Anchoring	369
2 Major Findings	370
2.1 VOT Reorganization and Increased Category Differentiation	371
2.2 Improvement Was Accompanied by Greater Production Stability	371
2.3 Development Varied by Place of Articulation	371
2.4 Word-Level Improvement Generalized to Sentence-Level Production but Remained Less Stable	372
2.5 Heritage-Language Experience Functioned as a Potential Pedagogical Resource	372
2.6 Individual Differences Were an Important Dimension of Development	373
2.7 Overall Developmental Pattern	373
3 Contributions of the Study	374
3.1 Theoretical Contribution	374
3.2 Methodological Contribution	375
3.3 Pedagogical Contribution	377
4 Broader Implications	379
4.1 Implications for L2 Pronunciation Research	379
4.2 Implications for Multilingual and Heritage-Language Pedagogy	380
4.3 Implications for Pronunciation Teacher Education	380
4.4 Implications for Technology-Assisted Pronunciation Learning	381
4.5 Implications for Curriculum Design	381
4.6 Implications for the Conceptualization of Pronunciation Learning	381
5 Limitations and Future Directions	382
6 Final Conclusion	384
References	389
Appendices	398
Appendix A: Instruction Procedure Design, Word List and Target Items	398
Appendix B: Instructional Materials (Slides or Visuals)	404
Appendix C: Sample Spectrograms of French Native Speakers	420
i. French female’s (Paris suburb) sample	420
ii. Belgian male’s (Liège) sample	442
Appendix D: Overall Raw Data: Pre-test	456
Appendix E: Overall Raw Data: Delayed Post-test	467
Appendix F: Group Raw Data: Pre-test	478
Appendix G: Group Raw Data: Post-test	505
Appendix H: Self-Evaluation survey	532
Appendix I: Participant Consent Form	540
                                    

Archibald, J. (1998). Second language phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Arvaniti, A. (2007). Greek phonetics: The state of the art. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 8(1), pp. 97–208.
Benmamoun, E., Montrul S, and Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and Challenges for Linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton. Theoretical Linguistics, 39 (3-4), pp. 124-181.
Best, C. T. (1995). A Direct Realist View of Cross-Language Speech Perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research, pp. 171-204. York Press.
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). "Nonnative and second-language speech perception." In O.-S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning.
Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge University Press.
Boersma, P. & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(1), 45–86.
Boersma P. & Weenink D. (1992-2025). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6443, retrieved 17 September 2025 from https://praat.org.
Bonatti, L. L., Peña, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2005). Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: The role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychological Science, 16(6), 451–459.
Botinis, A., Fourakis, M., & Prinou, D. (2001). Prosodic organization of Greek speech. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modelling and technology (pp. 195–210). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Campbell, L. (2013). Historical linguistics: An introduction (3rd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
Caramazza, A., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Zurif, E. B., & Carbone, E. (1973). The acquisition of a new phonological contrast: The case of stop consonants in French-English bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54(2), 421–428.
Catford, J. C. (2001). A practical introduction to phonetics. Oxford University Press.
Chen, L-M, Chao, K-Y, and Peng, J-F. (2007). VOT productions of word-initial stops in Mandarin and English: A cross-language study. ROCLING 2007 Poster Papers, pp. 303–317. Taipei, Taiwan. The Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (ACLCLP).
Cho, T., & Ladefoged, P. (1999). Variation and universals in VOT. Journal of Phonetics, 27(2), pp. 207–229.
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row.
Chung, R.-F. (1996). The segmental phonology of Southern Min in Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Company.
Coulmas, F. (2003). Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Cutler, A., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Soler-Vilageliu, O., & van Ooijen, B. (2000). Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic Comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 28(5), pp. 746-755.
Daniels, P. T. (1996). The study of writing systems. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 3–17). Oxford University Press.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Duanmu, S. (2007). The Phonology of Standard Chinese (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Dresher BE. (2009). The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Escudero, P. (2005). Linguistic Perception and Second Language Acquisition: Explaining the Attainment of Optimal Phonological Categorization. Utrecht: LOT.
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.
Flege, J. E., & Bohn, O.-S. (2021). The Revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r). In: Wayland R, ed. Second Language Speech Learning: Theoretical and Empirical Progress. Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-83.
Fougeron, C., & Smith, C. L. (1993). Illustration of the IPA: French. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 23(2), 73–76.
Gil Fernández, J. (2007). Fonética para profesores de español: de la teoría a la práctica. Madrid, Arco Libros.
Gelb, I. J. (1963). A study of writing (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Guenther, F. H. (2006). Cortical interactions underlying the production of speech sounds. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39(5), 350–365.
Guenther, F. H. (2016). Neural Control of Speech. MIT Press.
Hardison, D.M. (2003). Acquisition of Second-Language Speech: Effects of Visual Cues, Context, and Talker Variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, pp. 495-522.
Hockett, C. F. (1967). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Hualde, J. I. (2005). The sounds of Spanish. Cambridge University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1968). Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague: Mouton.
Jakobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. MIT Press.
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.
Kartushina, N., Hervais-Adelman, A., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Golestani, N. (2015). The effect of phonetic production training with visual feedback on the perception and production of foreign speech sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138(2), 817–832.
Kartushina, N., & Martin, C. D. (2019). Talker and acoustic variability in learning to produce nonnative sounds: Evidence from articulatory training. Language Learning, 69(1), pp. 71–105.
Katz, W. F., & Mehta, S. (2015). Visual feedback of tongue movement for novel speech sound learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 612.
Keating, P. A. (1984). Phonetic and phonological representation of stop consonant voicing. Language, 60(2), 286–319.
Kessinger, R. H., & Blumstein, S. E. (1997). Effects of speaking rate on voice-onset time in Thai, French, and English. Journal of Phonetics, 25(2), 143–168.
Kingston, J., & Diehl, R. L. (1994). Phonetic knowledge. Language, 70(3), 419–454.
Kobozono, H. (2015). Handbook of Japanese phonetics and phonology. De Gruyter Mouton.
Kuhl, P. K. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories. Perception & Psychophysics, 50(2), 93–107.
Kuhl, P. K. (2000). A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(22), 11850–11857.
Kubler, C. C. (1985). The influence of Southern Min on the Mandarin of Taiwan. Anthropological Linguistics, 27(2), 156–176.
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors (Vol. 1). Blackwell.
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change: Social factors (Vol. 2). Blackwell.
Ladefoged, P., & Johnson, K. (2014). A course in phonetics. Cengage Learning.
Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Blackwell.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press.
Li, P., Baills, F., Baqué, L., & Prieto, P. (2023). The effectiveness of embodied prosodic training in L2 accentedness and vowel accuracy. Second Language Research, 39(4), 1077–1105.
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74(6), 431–461.
Liberman A. M. & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21(1), pp. 1-36.
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A.
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops. Word, 20, 384–422.
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge University Press.
Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 403–439). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Martinet, A. (1960). Elements of general linguistics. University of Chicago Press.
Matsui松井真雪. (2017). 喉頭素性理論「Laryngeal realism」に関する一論考―類型論の視座から― [A note on the “laryngeal realism”: A typological perspective]. 北海道言語文化研究, 15, 147–166.
Montrul, S. (2016). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge University Press.
Munro, M.J. and Derwing, T.M. (1995), Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the Speech of Second Language Learners. Language Learning, 45: 73-97.
Nespor, M., Peña, M., & Mehler, J. (2003). On the different roles of consonants and vowels in speech processing and language acquisition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(11), 849–857.
Offerman, H. M. (2014). The Effect of Visual Feedback on Voice Onset Time Productions by L2 Learners of Spanish. Open Access Theses.
Offerman, H. M., & Olson, D. J. (2016). Visual feedback and Second Language Segmental Production: The Generalizability of Pronunciation Gains. Purdue e-Pubs, Purdue University.
Offerman, H. & Olson D. J. (2016). Visual Feedback and Second Language Segmental Production: the Generalizability of Pronunciation Gains. System, 59, pp. 45-60.
Olson, D. J. (2014). Benefits of visual feedback on segmental production in the L2 classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 173–192.
Ozakin, AS. Xi, X. Li, P, Prieto, P. (2023). Thanks or Tanks: Training with Tactile Cues Improves Learners’ Accuracy of English Interdental Consonants in an Oral Reading Task. Language Learning and Development, 19 (4), pp. 404-419.
Preston, J. L., McCabe, P., Rivera-Campos, A., Whittle, J. L., Landry, E., & Maas, E. (2014). Ultrasound visual feedback treatment and practice variability for residual speech sound errors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(6), 2102–2115.
Putnam, M. T., & Sánchez, L. (2013). What’s so Incomplete about Incomplete Acquisition? A prolegomenon to Modeling Heritage Language Grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), pp. 478-508.
Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters.
Saito, K. (2011). Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and comprehensible pronunciation development: An instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology. Language Awareness, 20(1), 45–59.
Saito, K. and Lyster, R. (2012), Effects of Form-Focused Instruction and Corrective Feedback on L2 Pronunciation Development of /ɹ/ by Japanese Learners of English. Language Learning, 62: 595-633.
Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z. and Polinsky, M. (2015). Heritage Language and Linguistic Theory. Frontiers in Psychology. 9 (6). 1545, pp. 1-20.
Serniclaes, W. (1984). Production and perception of French stops by moderately deaf subjects. Speech Communication, 3, 185–198.
Serniclaes, W. (1987). Étude expérimentale de la perception du trait de voisement des occlusives du français [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Université Libre de Bruxelles.Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics. MIT Press.
Takada, H. (1999). Japanese voiced obstruents: A study of VOT and phonological contrast. Journal of Phonetics, 27(2), 167–195.
Tourville J. A., & Guenther, F. H. (2011). The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Lang Cogn Process, 26(7), pp. 952-981.
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 1–30.
Tsimpli, I. M. (2014). Early, late or very late? Timing acquisition and bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(3), pp. 283-313.
Wang Y, Jongman A, Sereno JA. Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Feb;113(2):1033-43.
Zampini, M. L. (1998). The relationship between the production and perception of L2 Spanish stops. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 3(3), 85–100.

校外：立即公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文