Наслеђе 55 (2023), стр. 67-87

АУТОР(И): Danica M. Jerotijević Tišma

Е-АДРЕСА: danica.tisma@filum.kg.ac.rs

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/NasKg2355.067JT


Previous findings of SLA research underlined the significance of differential substitution as one of the most common strategies for overcoming difficulties in pronouncing English consonants. The acquisi- tion of /v/-/w/ contrast seems particularly demanding for Serbian EFL learners, due to diverse factors, the dominant one being mother tongue interference and the resulting perceptual assimilation. Having the previously stated in mind, as well as the scarcity of research in the Serbian scientific context, the present study aimed at investigating instances of differential substitution of the English labiodental fricative and the labial-velar approximant in relation to the phonetic context and the formality of task type. Both the perception and production of a total of 72 English-major students were tested using different instruments, including phonemic discrimination task, wordlist as well as paragraph reading, and the interview. The obtained data were quantitatively ana- lyzed and supported by spectrogram illustrations of both native and non-native speakers of English. The results indicate a greater frequency of /v/-substitution ([w] being the main substitute) with phonetic con- text and task type playing a statistically significant role in differential substitution. Instances of substitution of the labial-velar approximant were not as frequent and are said to be characteristic of a specific group of learners (Serbian labiodental sonorant [ʋ] being the main sub- stitute). The results underscore the variability and complexity of the interlangauge system and the importance of valuing the process, and not merely the outcomes of L2 sound acquisition.


/v/-/w/ contrast, substitution, interphonology, Serbian, English


  • Ankerstein, Morschett 2013: Ankerstein, C. A., Morschett, R. Do you hear what I hear? A comparison of phoneme perception in native and Saarlandian Ger- man non-native speakers of English, Saarland Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 1-8.
  • Aoyama et al. 2004: Aoyama K., Flege J. E., Guion S. G., Akahane-Yamada R., Yam- ada T. Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: the case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/, Journal of Phonetics, 32, 233-250. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00036-6
  • Aoyama et al. 2023: Aoyama, K., Hong, L., Flege, J.E., Akahane-Yamada, R., Yam- ada, T. Relationships Between Acoustic Characteristics and Intelligibility Scores: A Reanalysis of Japanese Speakers’ Productions of American Eng- lish Liquids, Language and Speech, 66(1), (pre-print online first). https://doi. org/10.1177/00238309221140910
  • Baart 2010: Baart, J.L.G. A Field Manual of Acoustic Phonetics, US: SIL International. Belić 1972: Belić, A. Osnovi istorije srpskohrvatskog jezika I – Fonetika, Beograd:Naučna knjiga.
  • Best 1994: Best, C. The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model, in: J. Goodman and H. Nusbaum (Eds.), The Development of Speech Perception: The Transition from Speech Sounds to Spoken Words (pp. 167-224), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Best 1995: Best, C.T. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception, in: Strange, W. (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience. Theoretical and Methodological Issues (pp. 171-203), Baltimore: York Press.
  • Best et al. 2001: Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., Goodell, E. Discrimination of Non-Native Consonant Contrasts Varying in Perceptual Assimilation to the Listen- er’s Native Phonological System. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109 (2), 775-794.
  • Best, Tyler 2007: Best, C., Tyler, M. Non-native and second-language speech percep- tion: Commonalities and complementarities, in: M.J. Munro and O.-S. Bohn (Eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13-34), Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Bettagere, Fucci 1999: Bettagere, R., Fucci, D. Magnitude-estimation scaling of com- puterized (digitized) speech under different listening conditions,. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88(3/2), 1363-1378.
  • Boersma, Weenink 2016: Boersma, B., Weenink, D. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.02.3) [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/. > 21. 6. 2016.
  • Brannen 2002: Brannen, K. The role of perception in differential substitution. Cana- dian Journal of Linguistics, 47(1), 1-46.
  • Brown 2000: Brown, C. The interrelation between speech perception and phonologi- cal acquisition from infant to adult, in: J. Archibald, editor, Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory (pp. 4-63), Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Bundgaard-Nielsen et al. 2011: Bundgaard-Nielsen R. L., Best C. T., Tyler M. D. Vocabulary size matters: the assimilation of second-language Australian English vowels to first-language Japanese vowel categories, Applied Psycho- linguistics, 32, 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000287
  • Čubrović 2011: Čubrović, B. Voice Onset Time in Serbian and Serbian English, Eng- lish Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, VIII, Spring, 9-18.
  • Čubrović 2013: Čubrović, B. Initial and medial voiceless stops in Serbian: an acoustic analysis, Nasleđe, 26, 1-19.
  • Cutler et al. 2004: Cutler, A., A. Weber, R. Smits, N. Cooper. Patterns of English pho- neme confusions by native and non-native listeners, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3668-3678.
  • De Jong et al. 2009: de Jong, K., Hao, Y.C., Park, H. Evidence for featural units in the acquisition of speech production skills: Linguistic structure in foreign accent, Journal of Phonetics, 37, 357-373.
  • Díaz-Campos 2004: Díaz-Campos, M. Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language phonology, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 249-274.
  • Ercan 2018: Ercan, H. Pronunciation problems of Turkish EFL learners in Northern Cyprus. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 5(4), 877-893.
  • Field 2009: Field, A. Discovering statistics using SPSS, UK: SAGE Publlications Ltd. Flege 1987: Flege, J.  The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign lan-
  • guage: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification, Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47-65.
  • Flege 1995: Flege, J. E. Second language speech learning theory, findings and prob- lems, in: W. Strange (Ed.) Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross Language Research (pp. 233-277), Baltimore, MD: York Press.
  • Flege et al. 2003: Flege J., Schirru C., MacKay I. Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems, Speech Communication, 40, 467-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00128-0
  • Flege, Bohn 2021: Flege, J. E., Bohn, O. S. “The revised speech learning model (SLM- r),” in R. Wayland (Ed.) Second Language Speech Learning: Theoretical and Empirical Progress, (pp. 3–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gimson1978: Gimson, A.C. An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English: ELBS. Guion еt al. 2000: Guion, S., Flege, J., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pruitt, J.C.  An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English consonants, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2711-2725.
  • Hansen 2001: Hansen, J. Linguistic constraints on the acquisition of English syllable codas by native speakers of Mandarin Chinese, Applied Linguistics, 22, 338-365. Harrington 2010: Harrington, J. Phonetic analysis of speech corpora, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Holstein, Gabrium 2004: Holstein, J.A., Gubrium, J.F. Active interviewing, in: Silver- man D. (ed) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (pp. 140-161), London: Sage.
  • Ingram 1991:  Ingram, D.  Toward  a theory of phonological acquisition, in: Miller    J, editor. Research on child language disorders: A decade of progress (pp. 55-72), Austin, Tx: Pro-Ed.
  • Iverson et al. 2008: Iverson, P. Ekanayake, D., Hamann, S., Sennema, A., Evans, B. G. Category and perceptual interference in second-language phoneme learning: An examination of English /w/-/v/ learning by Sinhala, German, and Dutch speakers, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Perfor- mance, 34, 1305-1316.
  • Jakovljević 2011: Jakovljević, B. Auditory Perception of Serbian and English Voiceless Stops by Serbian Speakers and Interference, Zbornik za jezike i književnosti Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu I, 47-55.
  • Jerotijević 2014: Jerotijević, D. Uticaj fonetskog okruženja na usvajanje interdental- nih frikativa u englesko-srpskoj međujezičkoj fonologiji, Zbornik sa V skupa mladih filologa Srbije, održanog 30. marta 2013., Savremena proučavanja jezika i književnosti, knjiga 1, Filološko-umetnički fakultet, Univerzitet u Kragujevcu, 395-406.
  • Jones 1979: Jones, D. An outline of English phonetics, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
  • Jones 2012: Jones, D. Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, 18 Ed. (PB+CD-ROM), Cambridge University Press.
  • Kent, Read 2002: Kent, R. D., Read, C. The acoustic analysis of speech, London – San Diego: Whurr Publishers – Singular Publishing Group.
  • Kim 2023: Kim, J.Y. Spanish-English Crosslinguistic Influence on Heritage Bilin- guals’ Production of Uptalk, Languages, 8(1):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages8010022
  • Labov 1984: Labov, W. Field methods of the Project on Linguistic Change and Var- iation: in: J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (eds.), Language in Use. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, (pp. 43-70), Intensity. GURT, 84.
  • Ladefoged 2003: Ladefoged, P. Phonetic Data Analysis: An Introduction to Phonetic Fieldwork and Instrumental Techniques, Maldan, MA: Blackwell.
  • Ladefoged 2006: Ladefoged, P. A course in phonetics (5th ed.), Belmont, CA: Thomp- som Wadsworth.
  • Laméris et al. 2023: Laméris, T. J., Li, K.K, Post, B. Phonetic and Phono-Lexical Accuracy of Non-Native Tone Production by English-L1 and Mandarin-L1 Speakers, Language and Speech, 66(1), (pre-print online first). https://doi. org/10.1177/00238309221143719
  • Lee 2006: Lee, J. Typology of interdental fricatives with reference to loanword adapta- tion, Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology, 12(1), 127-148.
  • Lisker 1995: Lisker, L. English /w, j/: Frictionless approximants or vowels out of place?, in: F. Bell Berti & L. Raphael (eds.), Producing speech: contemporary issues. For Katherine Safford Harris (pp. 129-142), Woodbury, NY. NY: AIP Press.
  • Lombardi 1995: Lombardi, L. Why Place and Voice are Different: Constraint-specific Alternations in Optimality Theory, Univeristy of Maryland, College Park.
  • Machač, Skarnitzl 2009: Machač, P., Skarnitzl, R. Principles of Phonetic Segmentation, Praha: Epocha Publishing House.
  • Markham, Hazan 2002: Markham, D., Hazan, V. UCL Speaker database, Speech, Hearing and Language: Work in progress, 14. Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, 1-17.
  • Miletić 1933: Miletić, B. Izgovor srpskohrvatskih glasova, Srpski dijalektološki zbornik, knjiga V, Beograd: Zadužbina Milana Kujundžića, 1-160.
  • Paunović 2011: Paunović, T. Sounds Serbian? Acoustic properties of Serbian EFL stu- dents’ speech, in: Kitis, E., N. Lavidas, N. Topintzi & T. Tsangalidis (Eds.) Selected Papers from the 19th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, April 3-5 2009, Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, School of English, Department of Theoretical & Applied Linguistics, 357-369.
  • Peterson, Lehiste 1960: Peterson, G. E., Lehiste, I. Duration of Syllable Nuclei in Eng- lish, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32, 693-703.
  • Petrović, Gudurić 2010: Petrović, D., Gudurić, S. Fonologija srpskoga jezika, Beograd: Institut za srpski jezik SANU.
  • Piyamat, Deekawong2021: Piyamat, B., Deekawong, K. Phonological Variations and Problems in English Pronunciation among Thai EFL Learners: A Case Study of Undergraduate Students at Huachiew Chalermprakiet University, Liberal Arts Review, 16(1), 70-84.
  • Rapley 2004: Rapley, T. Interviews, in: C. Seale, G. Gobo, J.F. Gubrium and D. Silver- man (eds) Qualitative Research Practice, Sage Publications: London, Thou- sand Oaks and New Delhi.
  • Rau et al. 2009: Rau, V., Chang H., Tarone E. Think or Sink: Chinese Learners’ Acqui- sition of the English Voiceless Interdental Fricative, Language Learning, 59(3), 581-621.
  • Roach 1990: Roach, P. English phonetics and phonology – A practical course, Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rubach 1993: Rubach, J. The Lexical Phonology of Slovak, Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni- versity Press.
  • Saunders et al. 2003: Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Busi- ness Students, Harlow: Pearson Education.
  • Silbert et al. 2015: Silbert, N. H., Smith, B. K., Jackson, S. R., Campbell, S. G., Hughes, M. M., Tare, M. Non-native phonemic discrimination, phonological short term memory, and word learning, Journal of Phonetics, 50, 99-119.
  • Sredović-Trpeski 2013: Sredović-Trpeski, G. S. Usvajanje engleskih dentalnih fri- kativa /Θ/ i /∂/ kod mlađih učenika u učenju engleskog jezika kao stranog, Nasleđe, 10(26), 99-114.
  • Ternström 2008: Ternström, S. Hi-Fi voice: observations on the distribution of energy in the singing voice spectrum above 5kHz, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 3379.
  • Tyler et al. 2014: Tyler M., Best C., Faber A., Levitt A. Perceptual assimilation and discrimination of non-native vowel contrasts, Phonetica, 71, 4-21. https://doi. org/10.1159/000356237
  • Zhou, Rato 2023: Zhou, C., Rato, A. Syllable position effects in the perception of L2 Portuguese /l/ and /ɾ/ by L1 Mandarin learners, Second Language Research, 39(2) (pre-print online first). https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221137713
  • Zsigri 1998: Zsigri, G. Parametrical domains and clusters: An OT approach to voice agreement and final devoicing, Ms., József Attila University, Szeged, Hungary.