Phonetic bases of similarities in cross-language production: Evidence from English and Catalan

Previous research has shown that speakers do not produce all non-native phonotactic sequences with equal accuracy. Several reasons for these accuracy differences have been proposed, including markedness, analogical extension from permitted sequences, and language-independent phonetic factors. In this study, evidence from the production of unattested obstruent-initial onset clusters by English and Catalan speakers tests the viability of these explanations. Variables manipulated in this study include the manner, place, and voicing of the consonant clusters, and the input modality of the stimuli—whether speakers were presented the stimuli in an audio+text condition, or in an audio-only condition. Results demonstrate none of the linguistic factors interacted with language background; all speakers were less accurate on stop-initial sequences than fricative-initial ones, and on voiced sequences than voiceless sequences. It is argued that the fact that the particular accuracy patterns are independent of language background is incompatible with an analogy-based explanation, and is better accounted for by language-independent phonetic factors. However, the role of the native language phonology is reflected in the preferred repair types, which vary by native language. Finally, while the presence of text improves performance, the patterns of accuracy are still largely the same for both audio+text and audio-only input, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms responsible for speech production are independent of input modality. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Errors in the production of non-native phonotactics Previous research in cross-language speech production and second language acquisition has shown that speakers do not produce different types of sequences that violate their native phonotactics with equal accuracy. For example, Vietnamese speakers’ second language (L2) accuracy varied on different types of coda consonants that are all unattested in Vietnamese (Hansen, 2004), Japanese and Korean speakers were more accurate on voiceless stop-initial onset clusters than voiced ones (Broselow & Finer, 1991; Eckman & Iverson, 1993), and Mandarin speakers produced voiceless coda stops more accurately than voiced ones, even though Mandarin does not permit stops in codas at all (Broselow, Chen, & Wang, 1998). Various explanations have been provided for the discrepancies in accuracy produced by the speakers in all of these studies. In some cases, phonological concepts of markedness have been invoked to account for the findings. Broselow and Finer (1991) appeal to minimal sonority distance, arguing that speakers are more accurate on sequences that have a greater increase in ll rights reserved. sonority from the first consonant to the second. In the case of the Mandarin speakers (Broselow et al., 1998), voiced stops are often devoiced, which Broselow et al. attribute to the ‘‘emergence of the unmarked’’ (McCarthy & Prince, 1994); that is, speakers produce a less marked version of a prohibited phonotactic element when faced with a target that is more marked. However, providing traditional markedness explanations of accuracy becomes more difficult when other factors known to affect phonological processing both in perception and production are considered. In a cross-language speech production study, Davidson (2006a) examined the performance of English speakers on word-initial fricative-obstruent and fricative-nasal consonant sequences that are possible in some Slavic languages. Results showed that speakers’ performance depended on the identity of the first consonant. Specifically, speakers were most accurate on /f/-initial sequences (e.g. /ft]ke/), followed by /z/-initial sequences (e.g. /zd]nu/), and then by /v/-initial sequence (e.g. /vb]co/). At least within the voiced clusters (though possibly also across all of the clusters, depending on one’s theory of sonority), the change in place of articulation alone does not change the status of sonority distance for these sequences, so sonority sequencing cannot account for these findings. Davidson (2006a) considered various factors that could potentially explain the pattern of results. First, it was shown that