On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:28:53 -0700, Annette Taylor wrote: >Would this shaping of the vocal tract explain why some people >have such distinct accents when they learn a second language >whereas some people don't? I always just "assumed" it had >something to do with how well some people can hear--some >being better able to hear the fine nuances between sounds. And >the tongue of course--some of the musculature develops differently >across languages.
I'm not really familiar with the research in this area but here are a few points. (1) Janet Werker's research has provided two important results: (a) all infants can discriminate all phonemes at birth but lose this ability by 1 year of age, discriminating only those phonemes they have had experience since birth, and (b) knowledge of those unused phonemes is not lost, rather, one can as an adult learn to discriminate those phonemes through dedicated practice. (2) If one uses a Motor Theory of Speech Percpetion framework, we perceive human speech in part because the articulatory mechanisms needed to produce those speed sounds are simultaneously activated as we access stored information about how those phonemes are combined with other phonemes, what roles those phonemes play syntactically and semantically. Phonemes that are regularly used will reinforce this "circuit" between perception and production. In some sense, this is an embodied intelligence that drives this aspect of language comprehension. (3) Having an accent, I believe, means that one has gotten used to pronouncing words or generating speech in a particular articulatory manner. Since phoneme perception of unused phonemes is possible, it is reasonable to assume that speech production of these new phonemes should also be possible. The only question is "What is criterion that qualifies as 'correct' speech?" Sociolinguistcs becomes relevant at this point because "correct speech" is often defined by social factors, such as race, socioeconomic status, and other factors. Deviations from this standard may make one rate the speech as being "inferior" in some sense but this has less to do with linguistics than sociology. (4) People have differing degrees of mastering speech which may explain why some people speak a particular language with an "accent". It probably has very little to do with hearing per se, rather it may be other factors that determine whether an accent is maintained or eliminated. George Bernard Shaw's play "Pygmalion" is a classic example of how a linguistic or a phoneticist or a speech coach/therapist can train a person to speak with a particular accent through dedicated practice. Though fiction, there are many cases where such transformations have been performed. For example, in biographies of Charlie Chaplin (the film comic), it was often pointed out that as a young man he had a very thick accent which the fictional Henry Higgins would have identified as coming from the lower classes in a particular area of London. In most of the comedy that Chaplin engaged in, first in vaudeville and latter in silent movies, this accent would not play much of a role. However, when talking pictures marked a major transition for the movies circa 1927, it was clear that Chaplin and other actors would have to do something with speech. Alpha male actors with squeaky effeminate voices soon learned that their movie careers were over unless they did something to "butch up" their speech (in the film version of "Boys in the Band" Cliff Gorman gives an excellent example of this). Chaplin atttempted to continue to make silent films well into the talking period but he knew it was only a matter of time before the little tramp would have to speak on film. I have not found details about his speech training but I iimagine that it had to be quite intense for when Chaplin ultimately spoke on film, it was with only a mild accent. Such ability is often displayed by actors who are required to use a particular dialect in a movie role. It is one thing to hear Hugh Jackman, Hugo Wearing, Russel Crowe, Eric Bana, Nicole Kidman, Rachel Griffiths and other Australians speak in various English dialects and then to hear them in "real life" with their Aussie accents. There are cases such as Henry Kissinger who seem to serve as an example of a persistent accent throughout one's life -- until one finds out that his brother who was in the U.S. as long as Henry speaks with no accent at all. It has been speculated that Henry Kissinger maintains the accent as a way of maintaining an air of mystery. Many people see no reason to duplicate the accent of some English "standard" and as long as they are able to function in English society, there is no incentive to engage in the dedicated practice need to alter accents. To take this back to the beginning, part of this practice would be learning how to manipulate the vocal tract to produce the new variations on speech that one wants to imitate. And, as in sports, dancing, or singing, it take both cognitive and motor learning to achievce some level of performance. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2242 or send a blank email to leave-2242-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
