An Acoustic Analysis of Brazilian Portuguese Nasal Vowels by Native Speakers and Second Language Learners Ann Aly Bailey

Home , Nasal vowel, Portuguese phonology

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2012 How Nosy Are You?: An Acoustic Analysis of Brazilian Portuguese Nasal Vowels by Native Speakers and Second Language Learners Ann Aly Bailey

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

HOW NOSY ARE YOU? AN ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS OF BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE

NASAL VOWELS BY NATIVE SPEAKERS AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS

ANN ALY BAILEY

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2012

Ann Bailey defended this thesis on June 11, 2012.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Carolina González Professor Directing Thesis

Michael Leeser Committee Member

Gretchen Sunderman Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my major professor, Dr. Carolina González for being an incredible mentor to me over the past three years that I have worked with her. Dr. González is always very supportive, encouraging, and patient with her students and this has helped me achieve more than I would have thought possible of myself during my time as a graduate student. Dr. Michael Leeser has also been a wonderful advisor, professor, and source of statistical expertise throughout my two years in the Spanish department. These two professors have played such a big role in my academic and professional development both in their classes, with my thesis, and as I move on to study my PhD in Hispanic Linguistics. I would also like to express how grateful I am for my other professors I have had as a graduate student at Florida State: Drs. Reglero, Sunderman, and Sharpe. I have learned invaluable things in their classes, both relating to linguistics, language, and the Hispanic and Lusophone culture. Their knowledge and enthusiasm for the field makes them role models for us as students in the department. This project would not have been possible without the help of several universities and students who took the time to help me. My fellow students Tina Weissglass, Patricia Atchley, and Jamile Forcelini helped me through statistics, abstract writing, and translations that I could not have done myself. The universities in Passo Fundo, Itajubá, and Manaus, Brazil were generous in the help they provided me when I collected data, and I could not be more grateful. Although I rarely left the department, I also received an incredible amount of support and encouragement from my family, particularly my husband Ryan and sister Debra, which is what propels me through the difficult points of graduate school. I truly could not have accomplished this project or my graduate studies without the help of those mentioned as well as many others.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... v

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………..………viii

ABSTRACT ...... ix

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

METHODOLOGY ...... 16

RESULTS ...... 24

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ...... 46

APPENDICES

LANGUAGE HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 55

INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 57

TASKS ...... 59

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTERS ...... 61

REFERENCES ...... 64

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 68

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Occurences of nasalization based on phonological context from Abaurre and Pagotto (1996)...... 11 Table 2: Vowel quality by phonological context, adapted from Fails (2011: 459)...... 12 Table 3: Participant demographics...... 18 Table 4: Spanish tokens ...... 19 Table 5: Portuguese tokens ...... 20 Table 6: Mean F1 frequencies of Portuguese vowels, all participants ...... 24 Table 7: Mean frequencies for F1 of Portuguese oral vowels by gender ...... 25 Table 8: Mean F1 frequencies of Portuguese nasal vowels by gender ...... 26 Table 9: Mean frequencies for F1 of Portuguese oral vowels by L1 ...... 27 Table 10: Mean frequencies for F1 of Portuguese nasal vowels by L1 ...... 27 Table 11: First formant frequency for Portuguese nasal and Spanish nasalized vowels, L1 Spanish participants ...... 28 Table 12: Mean F1 frequencies for Portuguese and Spanish oral vowels, L1 Spanish participants ...... 28 Table 13: Mean frequencies for second formant (F2) of Portuguese vowels, all participants ..... 29 Table 14: Mean F2 frequencies for Portuguese oral vowels, by L1 ...... 29 Table 15: Mean F2 frequencies for Portuguese nasal vowels, by L1 ...... 30 Table 16: Mean frequencies for F2 of Portuguese oral vowels by gender ...... 30 Table 17: Mean frequencies for F2 of Portuguese nasal vowels by gender ...... 31 Table 18: Mean F2 frequencies for Portuguese nasal vowels and Spanish nasalized vowels, L1 Spanish participants ...... 31 Table 19: Mean F2 frequencies for Portuguese and Spanish oral vowels, L1 Spanish participants ...... 32 Table 20: Mean duration (ms) for Portuguese vowels, all participants ...... 36 Table 21: Mean duration for Portuguese vowels, L1 Portuguese participants ...... 36 Table 22: Mean duration for Portuguese vowels, L1 Spanish participants ...... 37 Table 23: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /a/ by gender ...... 38 Table 24: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /e/ by gender ...... 38 Table 25: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /i/ by gender ...... 39 Table 26: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /o/ by gender ...... 39 Table 27: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /u/ by gender ...... 40 Table 28: Mean durations (ms) for nasal murmurs of Portuguese nasal vowels by L1 ...... 41 v

Table 29: Mean durations (ms) for nasal murmurs of Portuguese nasal vowels, L1 Portuguese by gender ...... 41 Table 30: Mean durations (ms) for nasal murmurs of Portuguese nasal vowels, L1 Spanish by gender ...... 41 Table 31: Duration (ms) of Portuguese nasal and Spanish nasalized vowels, L1 Spanish participants ...... 42 Table 32: Duration (ms) of Portuguese and Spanish oral vowels, L1 Spanish participants ...... 42 Table 33: Mean values for first two anti-resonances of Portuguese nasal vowels by L1 ...... 44 Table 34: Mean values of first two anti-resonances of Portuguese nasal vowels, L1 Portuguese by gender ...... 44 Table 35: Mean values of first two anti-resonances of Portuguese nasal vowels, L1 Spanish by gender ...... 45

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: BP oral vowels...... 2 Figure 2: BP nasal vowels...... 2 Figure 3: Spanish vowels ...... 2 Figure 4: Panda (Spanish); nasal consonant marked with „n‟...... 5 Figure 5: Santos (Portuguese); nasal murmur marked with „n.m.‟ ...... 5 Figure 6: Spectral slice of /a/; first formant area circled ...... 7 Figure 7: Spectral slice of / /; first (anti) formant area circled ...... 7 Figure 8: Locations of data collection ...... 17 Figure 9: Formant frequencies for Portuguese oral and nasal vowels, all participants ...... 32 Figure 10: Formant frequencies for Portuguese oral and nasal vowels, L1 Portuguese ...... 33 Figure 11: Formant frequencies for Portuguese oral and nasal vowels, L1 Spanish ...... 33 Figure 12: Formant frequencies for Portuguese nasal and Spanish nasalized vowels, L1 Spanish participants ...... 34 Figure 13: Formant frequencies for Portuguese and Spanish oral vowels, L1 Spanish participants ...... 34

vii

ABBREVIATIONS

L1 First language

L2 Second language

L3 Third language

BP Brazilian Portuguese

PPH Phonological Permeability Hypothesis (from Cabrelli Amaro and Rothman 2010)

SLA Second language acquisition

TLA Third language acquisition

FSU Florida State University

F1 First formant

F2 Second formant

AR Anti-resonance

VOT Voice-onset timing

SLM Speech Learning Model (from Flege 1995)

OPM Ontogeny Phylogeny Model (from Major 2001)

OT Optimality Theory (from Prince and Smolensky 1993)

viii

ABSTRACT

Although it is acknowledged that Portuguese has a phonemic contrast between oral and nasal vowels, few acoustic studies examine their acoustic traits and differences. Some of these studies include Kelm (1989), which focuses on the difference between oral and nasal /a/ in southern Brazil, Gigliotti de Sousa (1994), which investigates nasal and oral monophthongs in southern Brazil, and Moraes et al. (2002) gives an acoustic description of oral vowels from various regions of Brazil. The present study contributes to the investigation of vowels in Portuguese with an acoustic study of oral and nasal vowels in 6 speakers from various regions of Brazil. In addition, it examines the acoustic realization of oral and nasal vowels in 4 L1 speakers of Spanish learning Portuguese as an L3, on which there are no previous studies. The main objectives are (i) to compare articulatory differences between oral and nasal vowels, such as height, advancement, and duration and (ii) to examine whether L3 Portuguese speakers are able to contrast between oral and nasal vowels in Portuguese. Data was analyzed using Praat (Boesrma and Weenink 2012). The experimental design involved 22 tokens with oral and nasal(ized) monophthongs in Portuguese and Spanish. Tokens were disyllabic words with the target vowel in the tonic syllable (Tables 1 and 2). Two tasks were used: a series of naturalistic sentences, and carrier sentences with the structure „diga…também‟ (“say…as well”), which were repeated L1 Spanish speakers also participated in a third task, which included reading Spanish words in a paragraph. This allowed the comparison of their Spanish and Portuguese vowels. Results for vowel duration reveal a significant effect for type of vowel (oral or nasal) for all cases except /a/. The difference between oral and nasal vowels was mediated by the L1 only for /i/. There was also a significantly longer duration within both groups for and when compared to their oral counterparts. Because the production of nasal vowels includes velic lowering (Kelm 1989), it is expected that nasal vowels differ in height from oral vowels. Analysis of formant frequencies showed a significant height difference for / /, but not the other vowels examined. Anti-resonance frequencies showed high amounts of variation, which could be due to the small sample size or individual differences in vocal tract size. There were no significant differences due to L1 for nasal murmurs, formants, or anti-resonances, which

ix suggests that the L1 Spanish participants are at a level of competence which allows for inhibition of their L1 in contexts that would result in negative transfer while still allowing positive transfer to occur in the appropriate contexts.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Objectives and Background

This study aims to provide an acoustic description and analysis of Brazilian Portuguese nasal and oral monophthongs as produced by both native and non-native speakers. There are few existing studies with acoustic data on Portuguese vowels, most of which focus solely on oral vowels (i.e Fails and Clegg 2002; Rauber 2008; Moraes et al. 2002). There are currently no studies featuring acoustic data of vowels from non-native speakers of Portuguese. Participants include native Portuguese speakers from the south, southeast, and northwest of Brazil as well as native Spanish speakers from various countries who have learned Brazilian Portuguese as an L3 (L2 English). This introductory chapter will discuss several topics. An overview of the historical developments of vowels from Latin to Spanish and Portuguese will be provided, focusing on how these two languages differ today. The phonemic status of nasal vowels will then be discussed, drawing on the arguments of several frameworks of phonological theory. The acoustic and phonetic characteristics of nasal vowels will also be explained before concluding with a review of previous studies on Portuguese vowels. Spanish and Portuguese both evolved from Latin, but underwent several distinct processes in their phonological developments. Pharies (2007:81) and Penny (2002:52) discuss how Spanish endured several phases of vocalic reductions that eliminated the long vowels from atin ([aː eː iː oː uː]) as well as converted the mid-open vowels (/ɛɔ/), to the diphthongs [je] and [we].On the other hand, Portuguese maintained the open-mid vowels and also went through a phase of nasal assimilation, which resulted in a set of nasal vowels. These nasal vowels can also contrast with their oral counterparts, as seen in minimal pairs such as lá „there‟ [la] and lã „yarn‟ [l ]; lido „read (past participle)‟ [ˈli.dʊ] and lindo „beautiful‟ [ˈl .dʊ]; and pais „parents‟ [pajz] and pães „breads‟ [p jz]. The nasal consonants /m/ and /n/ weakened in word-medial and word-final positions until their nasal quality was transferred to the preceding vowel (Mateus and D‟Andrade 2000:130) For example, the word sim „yes‟ is phonetically transcribed in Portuguese as [ˈs ] reflecting the loss of the /m/ and the nasal quality of the vowel (in some cases, the nasality is transferred to a following vowel, such as the word mãe „mother‟ [m j]). Sampson (1999:25)

1 describes these two contexts as progressive (the latter) and regressive (the former), based on the direction in which the nasality is propagated onto the vowel. Sampson explains that regressive assimilation is the more common of the two processes, both cross-linguistically and in Portuguese. The following charts show the present-day vocalic inventories for both Portuguese and Spanish1:

Figure 1: BP oral vowels Figure 2: BP nasal vowels Figure 3: Spanish vowels

Several dialects of Spanish show nasalization tendencies, although only at the allophonic level. Terrell (1975), Canfield (1981:42), Hualde (2005:110) document the tendency for Caribbean speakers to weaken nasal consonants in coda-position, which causes a regressive assimilation of the nasal consonant to the vowel that precedes it. Sampson (1999:170) accounts for Peninsular dialects of Spanish and states that not only do Andalusian and Extremadura dialects feature the regressive assimilation of nasals seen in Caribbean dialects, but also spontaneous nasalization in contexts without a nasal consonant. According to Sampson (1999:27), the cause of spontaneous nasalization is a consonant with aspiration or “high-flow friction”. In these dialects the presence of the glottal fricative [h] is the usual trigger for spontaneous nasalization of the surrounding vowels, such as the case of cerrojo (bolt) [se.ˈr .h ] (Sampson 1999: 171). The difference between these processes in these dialects and those of Portuguese is that Spanish nasalization occurs only dialectally and with a high level of variation with regards to both phonetic realization and frequency of use (Resnick 1975:156), and there are currently no minimal pairs with which a surface contrast can be suggested.

1 Charts based on IPA illustrations from JIPA BP charts based on Barbosa and Albano (2004:229); Spanish chart based on Martínez-Celdrán et al. (2003:256) 2

Phonemic Status of Portuguese Nasal Vowels

From a phonological standpoint, the phonemic status of nasal vowels in Portuguese varies according to the theoretical framework. Kelm (1989:853) outlines the various approaches to categorize Portuguese nasal vowels, differentiating between two main proposals; the first is that nasal vowels have an underlying form of an oral vowel followed by a nasal consonant, or archiphoneme, represented as /N/ in the example of vento „wind‟ veNto (Mattoso-Câmara 1972; Morais Barbosa 1965), and the second proposing that nasal vowels are independent phonemes from oral vowels (Back 1973, Head 1964, Lopes 1976).Kelm (1989:853-854) also discusses pre-nasalization and morpho-phonological approaches. The pre-nasalization proposal, states that nasal vowels are allophones of the (non-nasal) consonant that follows the V+N (vowel+nasal consonant) sequence, where vento „wind‟ is transcribed as [ˈv .ntʊ], and [nt] is an allophone of /t/ (Hall 1943, Feldman 1967). The generativists who investigate the morpho- phonological relationships also claim a mono-phonemic status for nasal vowels similar to earlier structuralists, but based on pairs of morphologically related words such as bem „good‟ [b j] and benfício „benefit‟ [be.ne.ˈfi.sjʊ]. Because these words are derived from the same morphological root, |ben+e|, they suggest similar underlying forms of the words bem and benefício, which includes a V+N sequence that does not reflect the nasality of bem at this level of representation (Azevedo 1981, Brakel 1985, Mira Mateus 1982). Mateus and D‟Andrade (2000:2 ) refers to three phonotactic and morphological arguments in favor of the mono-phonemic status of nasal vowels: (i) because [ʀ] only appears in (European) Portuguese after a coda consonant, but appears in words such as honra „honor‟ [ˈ .ʀ ], there must be a nasal consonant in the underlying form (/onʀ /), to account for the presence of [ʀ] in this context ; (ii) the morphological relationships between words such as bem „good‟ and benefício „benefit‟ which suggest that words with the same morphological root would have similar underlying phonological forms; and (iii) because penultimate heavy syllables must be stressed in Portuguese, words like cómodo „suitable‟ k modu could not be realized as *[ˈkɔ.m .du] but rather [ˈk m.o.du]. The ungrammatical realization*[ˈkɔ.mõ.du] has a heavy syllable (V+N sequence), which would incorrectly predict the stress to be shifted to the penultimate syllable. In order to generate a grammatical realization with, the V+N sequence must be in the first syllable for the word to be realized with preparoxytone stress.

The numerous possibilities for the phonological classification of Portuguese nasal vowels is further complicated by the disconnect that exists between the phonological frameworks and the phonetic tendencies and data of nasal vowels. Kelm (1989:854) notices the discrepancy between the phonological and phonetic descriptions of nasal vowels in his study, and says that more phonetic data is needed to accurately interpret and categorize these segments. Sampson (1999:20) claims that not only does the phonological feature [±nasal] not account for the varying degrees of acoustic nasality that can occur in a nasal vowel, but also that not classifying nasal vowels as phonemes when minimal pairs exist between oral and nasal vowels in Portuguese can be problematic (Sampson 1999:177). This author proposes that the orthographic nasal consonant that follows nasal vowels may only be a „psychological‟ phoneme that is not actually realized nor perceived acoustically and refers to nasal vowels that are not followed by a “fully articulated and readily perceived nasal consonant” (Sampson 999: 77) as phonemes. Fails (20 :443) also discusses the discrepancies related to the existence and realization of the nasal consonant in nasal vowel contexts, in which some studies claim that the nasal consonant is realized phonetically (Lacerda and Hammarstrom 1957, Cagliari 1982) and others that claim that there is no nasal consonant in the phonetic form (Stavrou 1947, Azevedo 1981). Although there have been several studies since Kelm (1989), there still exists a divide between the phonological and phonetic characteristics and classifications of Portuguese nasal vowels. Due to the phonetic and articulatory nature of the present study, nasal and oral vowels will be considered as two different types of segments for analysis and comparisons between groups.

Clarification of Terminology

Because this study‟s objective is to acoustically describe Portuguese nasal vowels, it will use the standard phonetic transcriptions that do not include the nasal consonant after a nasal vowel. Although the phonetic transcription of sim „yes‟ in Portuguese shows no consonant ([ˈs ]) there remains a shortened consonantal phase, which will be referred to as the nasal murmur, as defined by Gigliotti de Sousa (1994:14). Therefore, a phonetic symbol of a nasal vowel (such as [ ]) will represent both the vowel and the nasal murmur. The difference between a nasal murmur and nasal consonant is shown spectrographically in Figures 4 and 5 below. In Figure 4, the portion marked „n‟ is a nasal consonant whereas in Figure 5 the portion marked „n.m ‟ is a nasal

4 murmur. The nasal murmur has a much shorter duration and less intensity (as seen in the lighter color of its formant structure) when compared with the full nasal consonant.

Figure 4: Panda (Spanish); nasal consonant marked with ‘n’.

Figure 5: Santos (Portuguese); nasal murmur marked with ‘n.m.’

This study will also differentiate between nasal vowels and nasalized vowels, following the distinctions seen in two recent studies: Fails (2011) and Medeiros (2011). In Fails (2011), the airflow through the oral and nasal cavities was measured during the production of oral and nasal(ized) vowels in Spanish and Portuguese. The results of Fails (2011) revealed that

Portuguese nasal vowels have a higher level of nasal airflow than Spanish nasalized vowels. Medeiros (2011) investigates the articulatory differences in nasal and nasalized vowels of Brazilian Portuguese in terms of airflow and duration. Similar to Fails (2011), Madeiros (2011) found higher levels of nasal airflow for nasal vowels than nasalized vowels, as well as higher levels of nasality occurring earlier in the vowel for nasal vowels when compared to nasalized vowels. Both of these studies will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming section of the chapter.

Characteristics of Nasal Vowels

Nasal vowels have several unique characteristics, both in their articulatory and acoustic properties. In the production of nasal vowels, the velum is lowered, which allows airflow in both the oral and vocal tracts simultaneously (Schwarz 1968b:135-136).Sampson (1999:8) discusses some of the most common characteristics mentioned in the descriptions of nasal vowels, which include a weak first formant (in terms of intensity of amplitude), extra formants (also called nasal formants) that can appear at variable frequencies, formants with wider bandwidths, and also the presence of anti-resonances (or anti-formants), which can cancel out formants and change the resonance patterns that would be expected in oral vowels. Silverman (2006:43-44) discusses the process which causes anti-formants. When the velum is lowered, the passage to the nasal cavity is opened, but the passage to the oral cavity is not totally sealed off. This causes resonance in both chambers, but the resonance in the mouth is cannot escape as easily as the resonance in the nose and is reflected back into the nasal/laryngeal tube. This boomerang effect of resonance is the anti-resonance, which can cancel out energy and formants produced in the main cavity (in this case, the nasal cavity). The difference in resonance patterns between oral and nasal vowels is shown in the following spectral slices below, where the first formant area of both Figure 6 and 7 are circled in blue. The first formant of the oral vowel in Figure 6 has a higher level of intensity than the first formant of the nasal vowel shown in Figure 7; in Figure 6, no peaks dip below 0 dB, but in Figure 7, the peak of the formant has intensity of -7 dB.

Figure 6: Spectral slice of /a/; first formant area circled

Figure 7: Spectral slice of /ɐ ; first (anti) formant area circled

The range of differences between oral and nasal vowels could also present perceptual difficulties to speakers whose native language does not contain nasal vowels. Akerberg (1999) tested various levels of L1 Spanish speakers learning Portuguese on their perception of nasal and oral vowels in Portuguese. Her results showed that nasal vowels were mistaken for oral vowels two-thirds of the time, and that this tendency held throughout the various proficiency levels. If

7 non-native speakers of Portuguese have difficulty perceiving the difference between oral and nasal vowels, they might also have problems producing these sounds.

Previous Studies Portuguese oral vowels Although studies on Portuguese phonetics and phonology are limited the language‟s oral vowels have been investigated more than its nasal vowels. Several of these relevant studies will be discussed. Delgado-Martins (1973), one of the first studies on Portuguese oral vowels, is considered a classic study on the theme. Her study investigates the oral tonic vowels of eight male speakers of European Portuguese (EP). Participants were recorded reciting carrier phrases and their formant values were plotted and discussed. She concludes that the oral vowels of EP occupy a large amount of acoustic space, and that the most stable vowel amongst participants was /i/, and the least stable was /u/ (51). As this study is one of the first on the theme and has a limited number of participants and phonetic contexts, Delgado Martins encourages further study on the topic. Godínez (1981) compares the oral tonic vowels of Brazilian Portuguese (BP) and Mexican Spanish using six males from Tijuana, Mexico and nine Brazilian males from various regions. Like Delgado Martins (1973), participants read the tokens in carrier sentences while being recorded. Godínez plotted the first two formant values of each speaker on a vowel chart, circling the acoustic space occupied by each vowel. The charts show that for these speakers, all Spanish vowels except /a/ are lower than their Portuguese counterparts and that /i, e, u/ occupy less acoustic space in Spanish than in Portuguese. Similar to Delgado Martins (1973), this study only uses carrier sentences, which may not capture tendencies present in natural speech and only includes male participants. Fails and Clegg (1992) investigates tonic and atonic oral vowels of ten Brazilian males from various regions. Participants were asked to read from a word list as well as several sentences. This study also plotted the formant values onto a chart and concluded that there were “no appreciable difference[s]” (Fails and Clegg 992:40) between tonic and atonic vowels as well as vowels in open and closed syllables. Fails and Clegg (1992:41) also found a tendency for pre-tonic /a/ to be lower in height and for post-tonic vowels to neutralize. No statistical analyses are included in this study.

Rauber (2008) investigates the oral tonic vowels of twelve speakers (six male, six female) from three non-capital cities of southern Brazil. Participants were recorded while reading carrier sentences. The formant values and duration were plotted onto charts to compare the differences between the cities and gender of the participants. The results of all speakers showed no significant differences between the cities, but a significant difference in the duration of vowels by their height (low>mid>high), due to the amount of time needed to produce vowels of different heights (Rauber 2008:237). With respect to gender differences, this study shows that the females‟ vowels occupied a greater and more symmetrical acoustic space than the male speakers and that there was no significant difference between genders for vowel duration (Rauber 2008:236). Moraes et al (2002) analyzes the tonic and atonic oral vowels of fifteen speakers of BP from various regions (gender of the participants is not specified). Data was used from interviews recorded with the participants in order to capture spontaneous speech for a total of 3,645 tokens. The formant values of these participants are discusses by regions and also compared to EP, using the values given in Delgado Martins (1973) and Catford (1988).With respect to regional differences within BP, Moraes et al (2002:41) found that São Paulo (south) was the region whose vowels occupied the most acoustic space, and Porto Alegre (southeast) had the most compact vowel system. Recife and Salvador‟s (northeast) vowel systems approximated that of Porto Alegre, although not as compact, and Rio de Janeiro (south) occupied an intermediate position between São Paulo and the other regions. Like Fails and Clegg (1992), this study also showed the tendency for post-tonic vowels to neutralize. The comparison between EP and BP revealed a lower and more central position for high vowels in BP and a higher and more fronted /a/ in EP. Overall, the oral vowels of EP occupy a greater acoustic space than those of BP. This study included no statistical analyses for these comparisons. Portuguese nasal vowels Less common than studies on Portuguese oral vowels, acoustic research on Portuguese nasal vowels consists mostly of studies or doctoral dissertations from Brazil. Four studies that focus on the nasal vowels of BP will be discussed. Kelm (1989) investigates the difference between tonic /a/ and / / within thirty male BP speakers from São Paulo. The tokens used were incorporated into carrier sentences, natural sentences, and word lists to be read at both normal and high- velocity speeds. The results revealed a significant difference in height and advancement between

9 the oral and nasal /a/ in normal-velocity speech, where the nasal vowel was both higher and further fronted than its oral counterpart. In high-velocity speech, the / / centralized and was significantly higher than the / / in normal-velocity settings. With regards to duration, / / (not including the nasal segment/murmur) was shorter in duration to /a/, although determining significance was difficult due to variations in syllable structure within the tokens. Kelm (1989:859) concludes by saying that the binary value of the feature [±nasal] may not be a sufficient descriptor for BP vowels, and encourages further research of the vowels of BP as well as with non-native speakers of Portuguese. Gigliotti de Sousa (1994) researches the nasal and oral tonic vowels of twelve male speakers of BP from various regions. Tokens used include both nonce and real words in carrier sentences. Spectrograms were used to examine several variables, including the first four formants, duration (vowel, syllable, nasal murmur and word) and intensity. Charts for each variable were included to compare each participant as well as to provide a description of the vowels‟ characteristics. Results showed that nasal vowels were longer than their oral counterparts (the nasal murmur was considered part of the nasal vowel); nasal murmurs were present in most of the nasal vowels analyzed; the intensity of nasal vowels was less prominent and less variable than that of oral vowels; and that and had the highest level of variability as well as a tendency to diphthongize when compared to their oral counterparts. Abaurre and Pagotto (1996) investigate the patterns non-distinctive nasalization in thirty speakers (gender not specified) from various regions of Brazil. Participants were interviewed for ten minutes each, and tokens were taken from their spontaneous speech (n = 4624). The tokens were divided by phonological context and differences between regions were also compared2. The following table represents the distribution of vowel nasality within the five phonological contexts observed:

2 Abaurre and Pagotto (1996) does not specify if their analysis was acoustic or impressionistic, but no acoustic software or measurements were cited in the methodology of the study. 10

Table 1: Occurences of nasalization based on phonological context from Abaurre and Pagotto (1996). Context Example Number Percentage Between words Ess[a] menina 17/918 2%

Followed by palatal nasal g[ ]nhou 511/511 100% In tonic syllable ch[ ]ma 1815/1968 93% Followed by bilabial nasal dr[ ]ma 420/1078 39% Followed by dental nasal m[ ]nutenção 425/607 70%

Based on these results, Abaurre and Pagotto (1996:522) conclude that there is quasi- categorical nasalization in tonic syllables, except between words, and that there is also a hierarchy of factors that can either block or enable nasalization to occur. With respect to the nasal consonant that follows the vowel (regressive nasalization), the palatal nasal enables nasalization the most, followed by the dental nasal, and then the labial nasal. When morphological context is considered, nasalization is blocked in between words, but enabled within a word, especially within the root (as opposed to a suffix or prefix). The results also show evidence of progressive nasalization in BP. In these contexts, nasalization was enabled most when the onset was a nasal consonant, but blocked in other contexts, such as the absence of an onset (such as the first segment of análise „analysis‟ [a.ˈna.li.sɪ]) or a non-nasal onset (as seen in the third syllable of exatamente „exactly‟ [e.za.ta.ˈm .tʃɪ]). Regional differences were also considered to document the frequency with which participants from each region nasalized vowels. Of the five regions represented, Recife and Salvador (northeast) showed the most instances of nasalization, while Porto Alegre and São Paulo (south) showed the least amount of nasalization. Rio de Janeiro (also a southern region) occupied an intermediate position between the other regions mentioned, as was seen with formant structure in Moraes et al (2002). Fails (2011) compares the degree of nasalization used in producing vowel in BP and Mexican Spanish. In this study, nasalization was measured by the openness of the nasal cavity during production of vowels. The participants of this study were two male speakers, one from São Paulo and one from Mexico City. Participants were recorded in a laboratory as they read isolated words with a delay of approximately one minute in between each token. Tokens included vowels in

11 three contexts: oral, nasal (Portuguese) and nasalized (Spanish). The degree of nasalization used to produce each type of vowel was measure with a Kay Nasometer, and the threshold points for nasal, nasalized and oral were taken from Moraes (1997). The results from the Nasometer revealed several interesting trends about the degree of nasality used when producing vowels in different phonological contexts. Overall, the vowel quality with the most nasality was nasal (or oronasal, as it is referred to by Fails), followed by nasalized (oronasalized) and oral having the least amount of nasality. The most nasal vowel in all three categories of vowel quality was /i/, whereas the other vowels had a larger range of variability. The following chart from Fails (2011:459) displays the resulting vowel qualities for Spanish and Portuguese within the different phonological contexts:

Table 2: Vowel quality by phonological context, adapted from Fails (2011: 459). Context Tonic vowel (BP) Atonic Vowel (BP) Tonic vowel (SP) Atonic vowel (SP) CV$C Oral Oral Oral Oral CV$N Oronasal Oral Oral/oronasalized Oral /VN Oronasal Oral/oronasal Oral Oral NV$C Oral/oronasal Oral/oronasal Oral Oral NV$N Oronasal ------Oral/oronasal ------CVN$C Oronasal Oral/oronasalized Oral Oral NVN$C Oronasal ------Oral ------CVN# Oronasal ------Oronasal ------

Like Abaurre and Pagotto (1996), this study shows that phonological context can be an important factor in the resulting quality of a vowel. Fails (2011:460) acknowledges the limitations present in this study, but encourages future research to include more phonological contexts as well as more detailed focus on the high level of nasality of the /i/ and the possible reasons why certain contexts (i.e. CVN# in Spanish) was the only context to consistently produce a nasal (oronasal) vowel. Medeiros (2011) investigated the articulatory differences between nasal and nasalized vowels in Brazilian Portuguese. The data analyzed came from five participants (two female, three

12 male3). The participants produced bi-syllabic real and nonce-words in carrier sentences, in which the target vowels (nasal and nasalized /i/ and /a/) were in the tonic syllable. Both nasal airflow and segment duration were measured in this study. The results of Medeiros (2011) corroborate the results of several of the previous studies discussed: similar to Gigliotta de Souza (1994), nasal vowels were longer than other types of vowels (in this case, nasalized vowels) when the murmur segment was included in the duration, and similar to Fails (2011), there were higher levels of nasal airflow for nasal vowels than nasalized vowels. Medeiros (2011) also revealed that nasality (in terms of airflow) begins sooner in nasal vowels and comes to a high peak during the murmur portion of the vowels, whereas the level of nasality in nasalized vowels begins later in the vowel and plateaus at a lower level during the nasal consonant that follows. The author concludes that nasal and nasalized vowels are different both phonetically and phonologically on the basis of their articulatory gestures, and claims previous generativist approaches do not capture the interaction and overlapping of these gestures when referring to phonemes and underlying forms. L3 phonological systems Most studies about non-native phonological realizations and mental systems focus on a second language (L2), but studies concerning languages learned beyond the L2 are emerging and providing the groundwork for understanding how additional languages fit into or differ from the findings of L2 research. A few recent studies that look at L3 phonology will be discussed. Gut (2010) examined the English and German production of four trilingual speakers of various L1 backgrounds (Spanish, Polish, Hungarian, and Russian) to determine if transfer could be attributed to either the L1 or L2 of the participants. Two of the participants had English as an L2 and German as an L3 and the other two had German as an L2 and English as an L3. Participants were recorded as they read short stories, narrated photos, and during a short interview. The recordings were then analyzed for both a segmental aspect (vowel reduction) and a suprasegmental aspect (speech rhythm, measured as durational difference between reduced and full syllables). The results did not show direct influence of the participants‟ on their 3 for the variables measured, and had mixed results for the influence of the L2; although three of the participants (L1s Spanish, Polish, and Hungarian) did not produce native-like vowel reduction in

3 Medeiros (2011:33) does not specify their region of origin, but states that southeastern dialects were excluded, due to this dialect‟s tendency to diphthongize /o/ and /e/. 13 the L2 or L3, they produced reduced vowels with compromise values different than that of their (non-vowel reducing) L1s. The researcher interprets these participants‟ vowel reduction as positive L2 influence: although their values are not native-like, the vowel reduction strategy itself must have transferred from their L2 to their L3, as their L1s do not have reduced vowels. Gut (2010:34) also claims that there was no negative regressive transfer in the study‟s participants; L3 English speakers did not produce German vowels with English-like (more reduced) durations. Llama et al (2010) investigated two groups of L3 Spanish speakers (L1 speakers of L1 English, L2 French and 11 speakers of L1 French, L2 English) to determine whether the L2 or typological distance of the languages in question would have a greater effect on L3 production. The voice onset timing (VOT) of stop consonants /p, t, k/ (which are aspirated in English, but not in Spanish or French) was analyzed from word lists read by the participants. The results showed that the L2 had a greater effect on the L3 than language typology; both L1 groups showed compromise VOTs for their L2 and L3 different than the average VOTs of their L1s. The L1 English participants produced similar (compromise) VOTs in both Spanish and French, and L1 French participants produced longer VOTs in English than in Spanish, but their Spanish values were still much higher than their L1, which does not aspirate stops. The researchers conclude that the L1 also plays a role, being that the compromise VOT values produced by participants represented a mix of the L1 and L2/L3. Therefore, they claim a mix of L2, L1 and L3 properties help shape and constrain the production of languages beyond the L2. A study that investigates linguistic demographic similar to the present study is Cabrelli Amaro and Rothman (2010). Their study tests the Phonological Permeability Hypothesis (PPH), which states that if native and (stable) non-native language systems are formed similarly, then an additional non-native language should affect both previous languages similarly; conversely, if native and non-native systems are formed differently, then an additional language will affect the non-native language as proficiency in the newest language increases. This hypothesis was tested with a year-long longitudinal methodology which focused on two L3 speakers of Brazilian Portuguese (BP): one participant was a successive English-Spanish bilingual and the other a simultaneous English-Spanish bilingual. Four different segmental aspects were measured in the

14 participants‟ speech: vowel nasalization which is phonemic in BP but allophonic4 in Spanish; spirantization of stop consonants, which occurs only in Spanish; atonic vowel reduction, which only occurs in BP; and non-spirant coda treatment, which tends to be spirantized or deleted in Spanish and epenthesized in BP. The researchers report that these preliminary results suggest that native and non-native phonological systems are inherently different; the successive bilingual showed greater negative regressive transfer from L3 to L2 concerning the variables measured as L3 proficiency improved, whereas the simultaneous bilingual showed no regressive transfer from L3 to L1s5, but progressive negative transfer from L1 (Spanish) to L3 that did not improve as quickly as with the successive bilingual. The English production of these participants was not analyzed to determine any possible effect of the L3 on this system. Although each of the studies discussed has its own limitations, these studies also provide valuable insight to several aspects of Portuguese phonology and third-language acquisition (TLA) that have little empirical precedence. The current study hopes to add to this growing area of research by continuing to acoustically describe oral and nasal vowels of BP, as well as include acoustic data from non-native speakers of Portuguese (L1 Spanish) for a glimpse into the process of acquisition of these sounds by speakers of a typologically similar language. The present study will use both Gigliotti de Sousa (1994) and Kelm (1989) as its starting point, examining both the difference between oral, nasal, and nasalized vowels in terms of vowel duration, murmur duration, and formant frequencies as was done in Gigliotti de Sousa (1994) as well as test the generalizability of the results for oral and nasal /a/ found by Kelm (1989) to the other oral and nasal vowels. The following chapter will discuss in more detail the experimental design and methodology of the present study, as well as the hypotheses motivating the research.

4 Previous studies (such as Fails 2011 and Medeiros 2011, as discussed in the present study) have shown that (allophonic) nasalized vowels also have less nasal airflow than (contrastive) nasal vowels. 5 This study assumes that the simultaneous bilingual has two native language systems. 15

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY

This chapter will introduce the hypotheses motivating this study, as well as the method used to collect and analyze data. The participant demographics, tasks, procedure, and variables used are discussed in detail and examples of materials used (as well as IRB approval) are included in the appendix of the present study.

Hypotheses

There are three main hypotheses motivating this study: 1. Nasal vowels will be higher and more fronted than oral vowels, due to velic lowering in the production of nasal vowels as seen with oral and nasal /a/ in Kelm (1989). o Female participants will produce higher and more fronted vowels, resulting in an overall more dispersed vowel space than male participants, due to smaller vocal tract and vocal cord sizes, as seen in studies such as Diehl et al (1996), Simpson (2000), and Rauber (2008). 2. Nasal vowels will have a longer duration than oral vowels, due to the nasal murmur phase of nasal vowels, as found in Gigliotti de Sousa (1994) and Medeiros (2011). o Female participants will produce vowels and murmurs with longer durations than male participants, as seen in previous studies such as Simpson (2000) and Simpson and Ericsdotter (2003). 3. Spanish speakers‟ data will approximate Spanish values more than Portuguese values due to several reasons: nasal vowels are marked segments (Eckman 1977) and more difficult to acquire than non-marked L2 segments (Eckman 1991); and the difficulty in suppressing and inhibiting transfer from a typologically related L1 (Flege 1995, Trude and Tocowicz 2011). o Spanish speakers‟ formant values will be closer to those of Spanish vowels than Portuguese vowels. o There will be a contrast in duration between nasal and oral vowels for L1 Spanish speakers.

. The nasal murmur period will look more like a full nasal consonant than a nasal murmur when a nasal consonant is written, which will increase the total duration of the vowel. o L1 Spanish speakers will have different anti-resonance patterns than L1 Portuguese speakers due to different levels of nasality when producing vowels between the groups.

Participants

There were ten participants in this study: six native Brazilian Portuguese (BP) speakers and four native Spanish speakers who learned BP as an L3 (L2 English). The BP participants represent three distinct regions of Brazil: Amazônas in the northwest; Minas Gerais in the Mantequeira mountain region of the south east; and Rio Grande do Sul, which is in the southernmost part of the country. The native Spanish speakers represent Latin American, Caribbean and Peninsular varieties of Spanish and all reported studying Portuguese for at least two semesters in a university setting, and Participant 7 reported studying abroad in Brazil for nine months. The red points on the following public domain map show the three geographical locations where data was collected:

Figure 8: Locations of data collection

All participants were university students between the ages of 18-26 at the time of the experiment. Table 3 below offers a more detailed account of each participant based on a language history questionnaire that was administered before beginning the experiment.

Table 3: Participant demographics Participant L1 Age Gender Region Other languages 1 Portuguese 22 Male Amazônas ------2 Portuguese 20 Female Amazônas Spanish 3 Portuguese 21 Male São Paulo English, Spanish, Italian 4 Portuguese 18 Female Minas Gerais ------5 Portuguese 21 Male Rio Grande do English Sul 6 Portuguese 22 Female Rio Grande do English Sul 7 Spanish 26 Male Canary Islands English, Portuguese 8 Spanish 20 Female US/ English, Dominican Portuguese Republic 9 Spanish 23 Male Bolivia English, Portuguese 10 Spanish 27 Female Spain English, Portuguese, French

Tasks

Three tasks were included in this experiment, and each task was repeated twice by each participant. The first task (Task 1) was completed by L1 Spanish speakers only, and used Spanish tokens in order to compare the Spanish participants‟ production of Spanish and Portuguese vowels. This task consisted of a paragraph about a fictional panda bear that included tokens with all five Spanish oral monophthongs as well as tokens with these five vowels in nasalized contexts. The Spanish oral tokens will be compared with the Portuguese oral tokens, because Portuguese also contains these same five vowels in its inventory, and the Spanish nasalized tokens will be compared to the Portuguese nasal tokens, due to the similar orthographic contexts of many words that are nasalized contexts in Spanish, but nasal contexts in Portuguese. All tokens were bi-syllabic with the target vowel in the stressed syllable. All of the tokens except for one were real words. The nonce word „pento‟ was used to maintain a similar syllable structure and phonological context as the other tokens. All target oral vowels were preceded by a fricative or stop for clear acoustic distinction between segments. All target nasalized vowels were preceded by the voiceless stop /p/, also for acoustic clear distinction between segments and followed by n or its allophone [ŋ] to create a nasalized environment. The full paragraph used for task one is included in the appendix. The following table shows all tokens used for Task 1:

Table 4: Spanish tokens Oral vowels Nasalized vowels Orthography Transcription Orthography Transcription

„faro‟ lighthouse [ˈfa.ɾo] „panda‟ bear [ˈpãn.da] „velo‟ veil [ˈbe.lo] „Pento‟(nonce [ˈp n.to] word) „fila‟ line [ˈfi.la] „pinta‟ pint [ˈp n.ta] „foro‟ forum [ˈfo.ɾo] „pongo‟ I put [ˈp ŋ.ɡo] „fuga‟ escape [ˈfu.ɡa] „punto‟ point [ˈp n.to]

Before continuing to Task 2 native Spanish participants completed a “spot the differences” task which involved looking at two similar photos of a pet shop (adapted from Sol y Viento, 2nd edition6) and determining the differences between the photos. Participants completed this task in English in order to clear their short term memory from the Spanish task before moving onto the Portuguese tasks, due to orthographically similar tokens used in the Spanish and Portuguese tasks. This task was not recorded, and the pictures used are included in the appendix. Task 2 was completed by all participants. This task consisted of 27 Portuguese sentences formed around the content of the token words. Approximately every other sentence, beginning with the first sentence, is a distractor sentence that contains no tokens, but is approximately the same length as the token sentences. Some sentences included more than one token. There are a total of twelve Portuguese tokens that include oral monophthongs as well as nasal monophthongs. All Portuguese tokens were bi-syllabic real words with the target vowel in the stressed syllable. The open-mid oral vowels /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ do not have nasal counterparts in Portuguese, but were included in the analysis to provide a more complete acoustic description of BP‟s vocalic inventory. All target monophthongs were preceded by a fricative to allow for clear acoustic distinction between segments. A full list of sentences is included in the appendix. The Portuguese tokens are shown below in Table 5:

Table 5: Portuguese monophthongs

Oral vowels Nasal vowels

Orthography Transcription Orthography Transcription

„fado‟ [ˈfa.dʊ] „santo‟ holy, sacred [ˈs .tʊ]

„vejo‟ I see [ˈve.ʒʊ] „vento‟ wind [ˈv .tʊ]

„veto‟ veto [ˈvɛ.tʊ] ------

6 VanPatten, Bill et al. (2008) Sol y Viento: Beginning Spanish. NY, NY: McGraw Hill. 20

Table 5: Portuguese monophthongs, continued Oral vowels Nasal vowels Orthography Transcription Orthography Transcription „fica‟ he/she stays [ˈfi.ka] „vindo‟ I come [ˈv .dʊ] „fofo‟ cuddly, cute [ˈfo.fʊ] „fonte‟ fountain [ˈfõ.tʃi] „fora‟ out, outside [ˈfɔ.ɾa] ------„fuga‟ escape [ˈfu. ɡa] „fundo‟ bottom [ˈf .dʊ]

Task 3 was also completed by all participants. This task was also in Portuguese and included the same tokens as Task 2. This task contained the tokens as well as 29 distractor words in the blank space of the carrier sentence “Diga ____ também” (“Say ____ as well”). The purpose of this task was to place the tokens in a more controlled phonetic environment than the naturalistic sentences of Task 2. The distractor words were random nouns taken from the sentences in Task 2, so that familiarity with the words from Task 2 would not reveal the tokens. This task was used in order to control the entire environment of the sentence, in the event that Task 2‟s variations in sentences should have an effect of the participants‟ production of the tokens. These tasks yielded 68 tokens for native Spanish speakers, and 48 tokens per participant for native Portuguese speakers for a total of 480 analyzable tokens.

Procedure

Informed consent was obtained before recording participants. All L1 Spanish participants except Participant 7 were recorded in the phonetics laboratory (Diffenbaugh 327) at Florida State University (FSU). This laboratory provided a small, quiet atmosphere for recording participants. All L1 Portuguese participants and Participant 7 were recorded in a small, quiet room in the cities of Manaus, Itajubá, and Passo Fundo, Brazil. Only the participant and the researcher were in the room at the time of the recording. Participants were recorded using an Olympus LS-11

21 voice recorder that was set on a tri-pod on a table in front of the participants. Participants were recorded using a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz and 16 bit rate. Recordings were saved as .wav files. The L1 Spanish participants recorded at FSU were greeted and given instructions for the tasks in English. The L1 Spanish participant recorded in Brazil was greeted and given instructions in Spanish. All L1 Portuguese participants were greeted and given instructions in Portuguese. The participants were able to read through each task before recording and were allowed to ask what any unfamiliar words meant, but not how they were pronounced. Tasks 1 and 2 were printed each on a single piece of paper that the participants held as they read out loud, and each sentence from Task 3 was written on forty-one 3X5 index cards that the participants read one at a time out loud in a random order during the recording process.

Measurements

The data was analyzed using Praat version 5.2.22 (Boersma and Weenink 2011). The following dependent variables were measured in this experiment:  Vowel duration: measured in ms using spectrograms and waveforms from the beginning of periodicity to the end of periodicity or the beginning of the next segment, in the case of adjacent periodic segments. For nasal vowels, this value includes the nasal murmur. Nasal murmur durations were also recorded as a separate value in ms.  First and second formants: measured in Hz using a 20-30 ms spectral slice taken from the stable (middle) part of the vowel.  Anti-resonance: The first two occurrences of anti-resonance were recorded in Hz for nasal vowels only. Based on Silverman‟s (2006:44) description of anti- resonances/anti-formants as frequency areas with little or reduced energy, the current study will consider frequencies under 0 dB anti-resonances for the purposes of analysis. The following independent values were considered for this experiment:  Native language (L1): Spanish or Portuguese  Gender: Male or female  Type of vowel:

o Nasal: Vowel produced using both the oral and nasal cavities, with the majority of the airflow passing through the nasal cavity. o Oral: vowel pronounced using the oral cavity as the main resonance chamber, although some airflow may also pass through the nasal cavity (Fails 2011). o Nasalized: similar to nasal vowel in that both the oral and nasal cavities are used, but nasalized vowels have less airflow through the nose (only relevant for Spanish data from Task 1). The data from the experiment was analyzed according to the variables and measurement thresholds clarified in this chapter. The following chapter will discuss the results of the experiment, including statistical analyses and general trends and observations encountered in the data. The hypotheses and their relevance to the current study‟s results will be revisited in Chapter 4, along with the discussion of the results.

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS

This chapter will discuss the findings of the present study. The results will be divided by independent variable and language. Formant frequencies will be discussed first, followed by vowel duration and anti-resonance frequencies. The chapter will conclude with a summary of results found.

Formants F1 Portuguese vowels Except for /a/7 and /i/, all oral vowels have a lower F1 than their corresponding nasal vowels, which signifies that these nasal vowels have a lower tongue height than oral vowels. The F1 of the oral and nasal /i/ is very similar, signifying almost a near-equal tongue height. A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA revealed several differences with respect to F1 frequency. Both the main and simple effects found for F1 will be discussed by variable. Type of vowel The ANOVA showed a significant main effect for type of vowel for /a/, F (1, 6) = 49.68, 2 2 p < .001, η p = .89 and /e/, F (1, 6) = 6.06, p = .049, η p = .50. An analysis of simple main effects (Bonferroni adjustment) revealed that all participants produced a significantly higher F1 (lower tongue position) for /a/ than / /, p ≤ .006. The overall mean frequencies for F1 are displayed in Table 6.

Table 6: Mean F1 frequencies of Portuguese vowels, all participants Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz)

/a/ 792 102 / / 585 102 /e/ 452 59 491 45

7 The phonetic symbol for oral vowels will represent both the oral and nasal version of the vowels for the duration and formant variables until the analysis of simple main effects, where the type of vowel affected will be specified. 24

Table 6: Mean F1 frequencies of Portuguese vowels, all participants, continued Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) /ɛ/8 554 74 ------/i/ 455 64 452 50 /o/ 474 54 490 62 /ɔ/ 565 77 ------/u/ 439 89 452 65

Gender Tables 7 and 8 show that all female participants produced higher F1 values (greater tongue height) for all nasal and oral vowels when compared to male participants. The statistical 2 analyses revealed a significant main effect for gender for /a/, F (1, 6) = 10.72, p = .017, η p = .64, 2 and approached significance for /u/, F (1, 6) = 5.28, p = .062, η p = .47. Both interactions found in the ANOVA are also related to gender: there was a significant interaction between type of 2 vowel an gender for /u/, F (1, 6) = 6.42, p = .045, η p = .52, and an interaction that approached 2 significance for L1 and gender for /e/, F (1, 6) = 4.9, p = .069, η p = .45. The analysis of simple main effects revealed that within gender groups, all males produced a higher F1 for nasal vowels than oral vowels for /e/ (p = .021) and /u/ (p .035). Between genders males of both groups produced higher F s than female participants of both groups for (p .025) and this value approached significance for (p = .068). The mean F1 frequencies by gender are displayed for oral vowels in Table 7 and nasal vowels in Table 8.

Table 7: Mean frequencies for F1 of Portuguese oral vowels by gender Males (both L1s) Females (both L1s) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) /a/ 714 24 /a/ 870 76

8 The mid-open vowels /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ could not be included in the ANOVA, as they did not have a corresponding nasal vowel.

Table 7: Mean frequencies for F1 of Portuguese oral vowels by gender, continued Males (both L1s) Females (both L1s) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) /e/ 418 50 /e/ 486 51 /ɛ/ 147 33 /ɛ/ 168 32 /i/ 424 46 /i/ 486 69 /o/ 464 62 /o/ 484 50 /ɔ/ 144 37 /ɔ/ 194 48 /u/ 375 51 /u/ 503 70

Table 8: Mean F1 frequencies of Portuguese nasal vowels by gender Males (both L1s) Females (both L1s) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz)

/ / 533 85 / / 637 97 486 17 495 65 424 38 479 48 474 74 505 50 420 74 484 39

L1 When the F1 values are split by L1, the data show a tendency for L1 Spanish participants to produce higher F1 values than the L1 Portuguese participants (Tables 9 and 10). This tendency for greater tongue height in the L1 Spanish group is seen in the oral vowels for /a, e, ɛ, i, o/ and in the nasal vowels for / . These differences between groups did not reach statistical significance, but the F1 of /o/ approached significance for the variable L1, F (1, 6) = 4.87, p = 2 .070, η p = .45, in which /o/ was produced with a higher F1 in the L1 Spanish group than the L1 Portuguese group. The mean F1 frequencies by L1 are shown in Table 9 for oral vowels and Table 10 for nasal vowels

Table 9: Mean frequencies for F1 of Portuguese oral vowels by L1 L1 Portuguese L1 Spanish Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) /a/ 781 100 /a/ 809 118 /e/ 442 67 /e/ 467 51 /ɛ/ 607 104 /ɛ/ 501 51 /i/ 456 49 /i/ 452 91 /o/ 440 38 /o/ 524 27 /ɔ/ 617 98 /ɔ/ 514 56 /u/ 455 82 /u/ 417 107

Table 10: Mean frequencies for F1 of Portuguese nasal vowels by L1 L1 Portuguese L1 Spanish Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (Hz)

/ / 549 115 / / 638 53 499 51 478 36 460 46 439 61 478 72 508 47 449 57 456 85

Spanish vowels The Spanish group‟s production of Spanish and Portuguese vowels was compared with a paired samples t-test. The analysis revealed no significant differences in F1 frequency between Spanish nasalized vowels and Portuguese nasal vowels. A marginal difference emerged only of /a/, in which / / had a lower F1 than its nasalized counterpart /ã/, t (6) = 2.07, p = .084. Similar to the nasal and nasalized vowels, there was only one marginal difference in the F1 frequencies of Spanish and Portuguese oral vowels: L1 Spanish participants produced Spanish /e/ with a higher F1 frequency than its Portuguese counterpart, t (6) = 2.38, p = .055. The F1 frequency means for nasal and nasalized vowels are displayed in Table 11, and in Table 12 for oral vowels.

Table 11: First formant frequency for Portuguese nasal and Spanish nasalized vowels, L1 Spanish participants Portuguese nasal vowels Spanish nasalized vowels Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (ms) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (ms)

/ / 617 120 /ã/ 730 80 502 49 467 70 454 64 478 97 505 75 511 101 472 137 406 65

Table 12: Mean F1 frequencies for Portuguese and Spanish oral vowels, L1 Spanish participants Portuguese oral vowels Spanish oral vowels Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (ms) Vowel F1 (Hz) S.D. (ms) /a/ 809 118 /a/ 674 131 /e/ 467 51 /e/ 509 130 /i/ 452 91 /i/ 418 56 /o/ 524 27 /o/ 509 44 /u/ 417 107 /u/ 393 77

F2 Portuguese vowels Vowel type Like the F1 frequencies, which tended to be higher (lower tongue height) for nasal vowels when compared to oral vowels, the F2 frequencies of nasal vowels are higher (have a greater advancement) than their corresponding oral vowel for the low and back vowels /a, o, u/. These differences in F2 did not reach statistical significance. The overall means for F2 frequencies of Portuguese vowels are displayed in Table 13.

Table 13: Mean frequencies for second formant (F2) of Portuguese vowels, all participants Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz)

/a/ 1384 156 / / 1453 157 /e/ 2114 240 2100 289 /i/ 2444 199 2427 338 /o/ 892 108 930 103 /u/ 836 61 922 135

L1 Although no statistical differences were found between L1 groups for F2 frequencies, the L1 Portuguese groups tended to produce higher F2 frequencies (greater advancement) for oral vowels than the L1 Spanish group. This trend was seen for all oral vowels except /i/. However, a different trend is seen for oral vowels; the L1 Portuguese group tended to produce lower F2 values than the L1 Spanish group, which is seen for / . The means for F2 frequencies for both L1 groups are displayed in Table 14 for oral vowels and Table 15 for nasal vowels.

Table 14: Mean F2 frequencies for Portuguese nasal vowels, by L1 L1 Portuguese L1 Spanish Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) /a/ 1392 131 /a/ 1373 209 /e/ 2156 120 /e/ 2052 375

/ɛ/ 1973 175 /ɛ/ 1935 373 /i/ 2392 205 /i/ 2521 187

/o/ 897 120 /o/ 885 104 /ɔ/ 1074 133 /ɔ/ 925 140

/u/ 843 65 /u/ 826 63

Table 15: Mean F2 frequencies for Portuguese nasal vowels, by L1

L1 Portuguese L1 Spanish

Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz)

/ / 1431 176 / / 1488 141

2144 124 2032 463

2401 348 2468 369

924 118 938 91

952 171 887 39

Gender A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for gender for /a/, F (1, 6) = 2 2 11.56, p = .015, η p = .66; /e/, F (1, 6) = 13.10, p = .011, η p = .67; /i/, F (1, 6) = 6.75, p = .041, 2 2 η p = .53, and approaches significance for /o/, F (1, 6) = 4.48, p = .078, η p = .43. The F2 for these vowels was higher for females of both L1 groups than males of both L1 groups. Although it does not reach statistical significance, females also produced a higher F2 for oral and nasal /e/, oral and nasal /u/ were the only vowels in which males of both L1 groups produced similar or higher F2 frequencies than the female participants. The overall means for F2 are shown in Table 23, and are divided by gender in Tables 16 and 17.

Table 16: Mean frequencies for F2 of Portuguese oral vowels by gender Males (both L1s) Females (both L1s) Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) /a/ 1261 90 /a/ 1507 93 /e/ 1942 179 /e/ 2286 156 /ɛ/ 1762 151 /ɛ/ 2165 214 /i/ 2309 182 /i/ 2578 102 /o/ 815 56 /o/ 969 91 /ɔ/ 980 97 /ɔ/ 1022 97 /u/ 837 67 /u/ 836 64

Table 17: Mean frequencies for F2 of Portuguese nasal vowels by gender Males (both L1s) Females (both L1s) Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz) Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (Hz)

/ / 1362 104 / / 1545 154 1931 245 2268 238 2249 301 2606 293 901 82 959 122 961 173 884 85

Spanish vowels

A paired samples t-test was used to determine any differences between L1 Spanish participants‟ production of Spanish and Portuguese vowels. The analysis revealed a significantly lower F2 for /e/, in which the nasal vowel had a lower F2 than its nasalized counterpart, t (6) = 2.67, p = .037; and a marginal effect for /u/, in which the nasal vowel also had a lower F2, t (6) = 1.96, p = .097. Within the oral vowels, Spanish /o/ was produced with a significantly higher F2 than Spanish /o/, t (6) = 3.13, p = .021. Spanish /o/ was also the only oral vowel to have a higher frequency than its Portuguese counterpart. The mean F2 frequencies for nasal and nasalized vowels are shown in Table 18 and for oral vowels in Table 19.

Table 18: Mean F2 frequencies for Portuguese nasal vowels and Spanish nasalized vowels, L1 Spanish participants Portuguese nasal vowels Spanish nasalized vowels Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (ms) Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (ms)

/ / 1446 97 /ã/ 1402 213 1708 149 2136 470 2278 412 2474 724 938 104 906 145 883 115 749 83

Table 19: Mean F2 frequencies for Portuguese and Spanish oral vowels, L1 Spanish participants Portuguese oral vowels Spanish oral vowels Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (ms) Vowel F2 (Hz) S.D. (ms) /a/ 1373 209 /a/ 1205 177 /e/ 2052 375 /e/ 1526 404 /i/ 2521 187 /i/ 2067 438 /o/ 885 104 /o/ 999 106 /u/ 826 63 /u/ 804 27

The following scatterplots attempt to visually display the interactions between F1 and F2. The x- axis represents the advancement of the vowel in the oral tract, with the higher end of the scale as more fronted vowels and the lower end of the scale as back vowels. The y-axis represents tongue height; the lower the frequency, the higher the vowel and vice versa. Figure 9 has the overall means for formant frequencies; Figures 10 and 11 are divided by L1 and gender; and Figure 12 as the Spanish group‟s production of Spanish nasalized and Portuguese nasal vowels.

Figure 9: Formant frequencies for Portuguese oral and nasal vowels, all participants

Figure 10: Formant frequencies for Portuguese oral and nasal vowels, L1 Portuguese

Figure 11: Formant frequencies for Portuguese oral and nasal vowels, L1 Spanish

Figure 12: Formant frequencies for Portuguese nasal and Spanish nasalized vowels, L1 Spanish participants

Figure 13: Formant frequencies for Portuguese and Spanish oral vowels, L1 Spanish participants

Summary of formant results With regards to Portuguese vowels, the results revealed several differences in the height (F1) and the advancement (F2) of the vowels. All participants had a significantly higher / / than /a/, and all male participants produced significantly higher F1 for and than their oral

34 counterparts and male participants of both groups produced a significantly higher F for than female participants of both L1 groups. All female participants produced higher formant values than male participants, and this difference reached statistical significance for the F1 of /a/ and /u/ and the F2 of /a/, /i/, and /o/. There were few differences in the Spanish group‟s production of Spanish and Portuguese vowels. The comparison between Spanish nasalized and Portuguese nasal vowels revealed only one significant difference for F1 frequency: the nasal vowel / / had a lower F (greater height) than its nasalized counterpart. Similar to the F results the statistical analysis revealed only one significant difference for F2 frequencies in which the nasal vowel had a lower frequency than its nasalized counterpart. The comparison of Portuguese and Spanish oral vowels revealed only one significant difference, in which the F2 of Spanish /o/ was higher than the corresponding Portuguese vowel. Vowel Duration Portuguese vowels A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA was performed to investigate the effects of vowel type, gender, and L1 on vowel duration for Portuguese vowels. The results of the ANOVA will be discussed by variable and vowel. Type of vowel Table 20 displays the overall means for vowel duration. This data shows that all nasal vowels had a longer duration than their oral counterparts. Statistically, an ANOVA revealed this 2 difference to be significant for all vowels except /a/; /e/, F (1, 6) = 9.27, p = .023, η p = .61; /i/, F 2 2 (1, 6) = 48.58, p < .001, η p = .89; /o/, F (1, 6) = 20.06, p = .004, η p = .77; /u/, F (1, 6) = 75.61, 2 p < .001, η p = .93. L1 There were no significant main effects for L1 with respect to vowel duration, but the data in Tables 21-22 reveal several trends. Concerning oral vowels, the L1 Portuguese participants produced longer vowels than L1 Spanish participants for all vowels except the mid vowels /e/ and /ɛ . These two mid vowels had similar durations in both groups. Both groups also produced similar vowel durations for all nasal vowels except and which had longer durations in the L1 Spanish group. Other L1-related interactions will be discussed in more detail in a following section.

Gender Female participants tended to produce vowels with longer duration than male 2 participants, and this difference reached statistical significant for /e/, F (1, 6) = 6.17, p = .048, η p 2 = .51; and approached significance for /i/, F (1, 6) = 4.79, p = .071, η p = .44, and /o/, F (1, 6) = 2 4.31, p = .083, η p = 42. Gender and its interaction with L1 will be discussed more in detail in the following section and will be accompanied visually with Tables 23-27.

Table 20: Mean duration (ms) for Portuguese vowels, all participants Oral Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Nasal Vowels Duration (ms) S.D. (ms)

/a/ 176 41 / / 188 29 /e/ 165 37 204 50 /ɛ/ 156 34 ------/i/ 103 25 190 38 /o/ 153 37 190 43 /ɔ/ 169 50 ------/u/ 131 32 203 40

Table 21: Mean duration for Portuguese vowels, L1 Portuguese participants Oral Vowel Duration (ms) S.D (ms) Nasal Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms)

/a/ 189 40 / / 189 20 /e/ 165 25 206 40 /ɛ/ 132 33 ------/i/ 112 27 173 22 /o/ 167 33 195 57 /ɔ/ 184 46 ------/u/ 134 29 190 26

Table 22: Mean duration for Portuguese vowels, L1 Spanish participants Oral Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Nasal Vowel Duration (ms) S.D.(ms)

/a/ 156 40 / / 186 28 /e/ 166 56 202 68 /ɛ/ 132 36 ------/i/ 90 12 213 35 /o/ 133 36 182 34 /ɔ/ 154 53 ------/u/ 127 41 218 56

Interactions between variables and simple main effects The ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between L1 and type of vowel for /i/, F 2 (1, 6) = 75.61, p < .001, η p = .93, and a marginal interaction between L1 and gender for /e/, F 2 (1, 6) = 4.44, p = .080, η p .44.To further investigate the interactions found in the repeated measures ANOVA an analysis of simple main effects with a Bonferroni adjustment was performed. The interaction between and type of vowel is seen for and which both L1 groups pronounced with significantly longer durations than their oral counterparts (ps ≤ .043). Only the Portuguese group produced a significantly longer than e (p .042). The Spanish group produced with a longer duration than the Portuguese group, and this difference approached significance (p = .064). The L1 Spanish group produced a longer / / than /a/ and this also approached significance (p = .051). The analysis of simple main effects revealed several differences concerning the L1 and gender interaction. These results will be discussed individually by vowel. Oral and nasal /a/ Although all female participants produced longer nasal and oral /a/ than male participants, there were no significant gender-specific differences in duration for this vowel. The mean durations by L1 and gender are displayed in Table 23.

Table 23: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /a/ by gender L1 Spanish males L1 Spanish females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms)

/ / 167 26 / / 204 17 /a/ 129 11 /a/ 182 43 L1 Portuguese males L1 Portuguese females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms)

/ / 178 44 / / 201 20 /a/ 187 42 /a/ 191 47

Oral and nasal /e/ Within the L1 Spanish group, L1 Spanish females produced a significantly longer than L1 Spanish males (p = .015). Within the L1 Portuguese group, females had an overall longer duration than males (p = .038). L1 Spanish females produced a longer /e/ than males, which approached significance, p = .078.

Table 24: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /e/ by gender L1 Spanish males L1 Spanish females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms)

153 52 250 43

/e/ 121 2 /e/ 213 34

L1 Portuguese males L1 Portuguese females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) 198 52 213 34 /e/ 164 7 /e/ 165 40

Oral and nasal /i/ There were no statistically significant gender-specific differences in duration for this vowel, but this vowel followed a similar trend as the other vowels discussed in which female participants produced longer oral and nasal /i/ than male participants.

Table 25: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /i/ by gender L1 Spanish males L1 Spanish females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) 192 10 /i/ 235 42 /i/ 83 15 /i/ 97 .53 L1 Portuguese males L1 Portuguese females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) 154 34 187 22 /i/ 106 30 /i/ 120 29

Oral and nasal /o/ Females from both L1 groups produced a longer /o/ than the males of both L1 groups (p = .035). Within the L1 Portuguese group, females produced a longer /õ/ than males and this value approached significance (p = .077).

Table 26: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /o/ by gender L1 Spanish males L1 Spanish females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) /õ/ 154 5 /õ/ 210 72 /o/ 109 2 /o/ 156 42 L1 Portuguese males L1 Portuguese females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) /õ/ 180 49 /õ/ 211 57 /o/ 144 28 /o/ 190 20

Oral and nasal /u/ Portuguese males produced a longer than Spanish males and this value approached significance (p = .076).

Table 27: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese oral and nasal /u/ by gender L1 Spanish Males: Duration S.D. L1 Spanish Females: Duration S.D. 185 9 250 72 /u/ 114 19 /u/ 145 53 L1 Portuguese Males: Duration S.D. L1 Portuguese Females: Duration S.D. 202 30 180 21 /u/ 124 42 /u/ 144 4

Nasal murmur duration The nasal murmur section of nasal vowels was also measured and its duration was compared amongst the two L1 groups in the study. The means by L1 displayed in Table 28 show that L1 Spanish participants produced longer murmurs than the L1 Spanish participants for all vowels, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. The results by L1 and gender are displayed in Tables 29 and 30, and show that in both L1 groups, females produced longer nasal murmur than males for all vowels except /õ/ (both groups) and ( Portuguese only) which were similar for both genders. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main 2 effect for for F (1, 6) = 7.78, p = .032, η p .57 which also approached significance for 2 F (1, 6) = 5.94, p = .051, η p .50. An analysis of simple main effects (Bonferroni adjustment) revealed that Spanish females produced longer nasal murmurs for and than L1 Portuguese females.

Table 28: Mean durations (ms) for nasal murmurs of Portuguese nasal vowels by L1 L1 Portuguese L1 Spanish Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms)

/ / 59 24 / / 71 15 56 21 68 26 63 18 96 17 47 9 56 9 48 14 78 17

Table 29: Mean durations (ms) for nasal murmurs of Portuguese nasal vowels, L1 Portuguese by gender L1 Portuguese males L1 Portuguese females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms)

/ / 56 26 / / 91 27 50 25 61 22 62 7 63 27 45 11 49 7 50 19 47 11

Table 30: Mean durations (ms) for nasal murmurs of Portuguese nasal vowels, L1 Spanish by gender L1 Spanish males L1 Spanish females Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms)

/ / 66 11 / / 77 19 51 15 81 31 92 14 100 24 56 13 57 7 69 22 85 7

Spanish vowels The Spanish participants‟ production of Spanish vowels (both oral and nasalized) was compared with their production of Portuguese vowels (oral and nasal). With respect to duration, a paired-samples t-test revealed that for L1 Spanish participants, all Portuguese nasal vowels were longer than the respective Spanish nasalized vowel except for /o/: /a/, t (6) = 7.4, p < .001; /e/, t (6) = 11.74, p < .001; /i/, t (6) = 20.15, p < .001; and /u/, t (6) = 3.84, p = .008. With respect to oral vowels in Spanish and Portuguese, Portuguese oral vowels tended to have longer durations than Spanish oral vowels, but no significant differences in duration were found. The means for nasal and nasalized vowel duration are displayed in Table 31, and the means for oral vowels are in Table 32.

Table 31: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese nasal and Spanish nasalized vowels, L1 Spanish participants Portuguese nasal vowels Spanish nasalized vowels Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms)

/ / 157 12 /ã/ 106 29 133 44 93 43 185 18 85 26 150 16 131 48 171 17 128 45

Table 32: Mean durations (ms) of Portuguese and Spanish oral vowels, L1 Spanish participants Portuguese oral vowels Spanish oral vowels Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) Vowel Duration (ms) S.D. (ms) /a/ 156 40 /a/ 129 44 /e/ 166 56 /e/ 131 83 /i/ 90 12 /i/ 77 42 /o/ 133 36 /o/ 119 61 /u/ 127 41 /u/ 130 57

Summary of duration results The results for vowel duration revealed several trends. Both groups produced longer nasal vowels than oral vowels in Portuguese (with the exception of oral and nasal a in the Portuguese group) and this difference in duration reached significance for and . There were also several differences between oral and nasal vowels that only occurred in one L1 group: only the L1 Spanish group produced a longer nasal / than oral a which approached significance and the Portuguese group produced a significantly longer than e . The only durational difference between groups was seen with which the Spanish group produced with a significantly longer duration than the Portuguese group. Differences in vowel duration due to gender were seen mostly for the mid-vowels and ; females from both groups produced longer vowels than males. One gender-related difference surfaced for in which Portuguese males produced a significantly longer than Spanish males. The results for nasal murmur duration did not reveal many differences between or within groups; for the high vowel Spanish females produced a significantly longer murmur than L1 Portuguese females. The comparison of Spanish nasalized vowels and Portuguese nasal vowels (as produced by the L1 Spanish group) revealed significantly longer durations for all nasal vowels except /õ/, whereas there were no significant differences in duration between oral vowels in Spanish and Portuguese for this group. Anti-resonance Portuguese nasal vowels When the anti-resonance values are considered in terms of L1 group (Table 33), the data shows that the L1 Spanish participants produced both the first and second anti-resonance (AR) at a higher frequency than the L1 Portuguese group for all vowels measured. No statistically significant differences were seen between L1 groups when both genders were collapsed in each group. However, when the AR values were split by the L1 and gender of the participants (Tables 34 and 35), several other trends arise. Within L1 groups, L1 Portuguese males tended to produce higher AR values than L1 Portuguese females, and the reverse trend is seen in the L1 Spanish group: L1 Spanish males produced lower AR values than L1 Spanish females. To investigate statistical significance, a 2 x 2 ANOVA revealed a main effect for L1 for 2 the first anti-resonance value of /õ/, F (1, 6) = 7.23, p = .036, η p = .55. The vowels / / and /õ/

2 approached significance for L1 on their second AR value, F (1, 6) = 5.26, p = .062, η p = .47; F 2 (1, 6) = 4.98, p = .067, η p = .45, respectively. An analysis of simple main effects (Bonferroni adjustment) revealed L1 Spanish females had a significantly higher frequency for the AR1 of /õ/ than L1 Portuguese females (p = .019) and this value approached significance between these same groups for the AR2 of / / and /õ/ (ps = .055).

Table 33: Mean values for first two anti-resonances of Portuguese nasal vowels by L1 L1 Portuguese L1 Spanish Vowel AR1 S.D. AR2 S.D. Vowel AR1 S.D. AR2 S.D. (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz)

/ / 1127 415 1587 458 / / 1893 632 2454 576 911 396 1246 384 1452 488 2069 875 863 304 1217 310 1009 295 1320 365 904 293 1293 337 1388 313 1757 259 873 218 1308 282 1152 353 1559 446

Table 34: Mean values of first two anti-resonances of Portuguese nasal vowels, L1 Portuguese by gender L1 Portuguese males L1 Portuguese females Vowel AR1 S.D. AR2 S.D. Vowel AR1 S.D. AR2 S.D. (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz)

/ / 1044 212 1515 404 / / 1203 609 1652 596 1082 419 1389 395 740 359 1103 389 878 248 1171 221 851 410 1255 432 1015 167 1354 165 792 388 1231 496 931 158 1322 156 815 289 1295 417

Table 35: Mean values of first two anti-resonances of Portuguese nasal vowels, L1 Spanish by gender L1 Spanish males L1 Spanish females Vowel AR1 S.D. AR2 S.D. Vowel AR1 S.D. AR2 S.D. (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz)

/ / 1751 1040 2336 966 / / 2036 184 2572 74 1411 716 1936 1133 1493 442 2203 970 1114 457 1446 523 905 95 1193 248 1175 153 1583 15 1602 296 1932 281 984 508 1285 506 1321 43 1833 200

Summary of anti-resonance results Several trends were seen with the AR data. The L1 Spanish group produced higher AR values than the L1 Portuguese group for all vowels. When the data was split by L1 and gender, L1 Portuguese males tended to produce higher AR values than L1 Portuguese females, and this L1 and gender trend was reversed for the L1 Spanish group. The statistically significant difference seen between groups for AR values was the first anti AR of /õ/, which L1 Spanish females produced at a higher frequency. There were no other significant differences between or within L1 groups. The following chapter will discuss the results found in more detail, linking the findings back to the hypotheses posed at the beginning of the present study as well as connecting them to previous empirical work or theories, if applicable. The following and final chapter will conclude with a summary of the major findings from the present study directions for future research.

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

This final chapter will expand upon the results found in Chapter 3 and discuss the implications of these findings with respect to the fields of phonetics and second language acquisition. The discussion will make reference to all independent variables in general before comparing participants by L1 and gender, as well as provide limitations of the present study and directions for future research before concluding.

Formants

The results concerning formant frequencies of Portuguese vowels revealed several trends. The overall results showed that nasal vowels generally had a lower tongue height and were further fronted than their oral counterparts. These results only partially confirm this study‟s first hypothesis, which predicted that nasal vowels would be higher and further fronted than their oral counterparts, as seen with oral and nasal /a/ in Kelm (1989). A higher nasal vowel was seen for / (all participants) and (male participants only) and although nasal vowels tended to be further fronted than oral vowels, these differences did not reach significance. Silverman (2006:252) reports several tendencies about nasal(ized) vowel height, and states that low nasal vowels, such as /a/, typically have a much lower F1 (greater height) than their oral counterparts, and that the opposite is true for high nasal vowels, such as /i/ and /u/; mid vowels (/e/ and /o/) typically do not have different F1s when nasal(ized), which results in few languages that have contrastive mid nasal vowels. Silverman‟s (2006) observations were corroborated for both low and mid vowels in the present study, but not high vowels; /u/ was only produced with a higher F1 (lower height) by male participants and there was no significant difference between the F1 of oral and nasal /i/. These results suggest that acoustic differences between oral and nasal vowels have more than one cue depending on the class of the vowel in question. The comparisons between L1 groups did not reveal any significant differences with regards to formant values of Portuguese vowels, although the L1 Spanish group tended to produce Portuguese nasal vowels with a lower tongue height and less advancement than the L1 Portuguese group. This does not support this study‟s hypothesis that Spanish and

Portuguese participants would produce Portuguese vowels with differing heights and advancement. This could be due to the overlap in the vowel inventory between Spanish and Portuguese: the vowels examined could share similar acoustic spaces in the two languages. A comparison between the Spanish participants‟ production of Spanish and Portuguese vowels revealed differences only for the height between nasal and nasalized a and the advancement of nasal and nasalized and (oral) o in which the Portuguese vowels (nasal and oral) had lower frequencies than the Spanish (oral and nasalized) vowels. These results suggest that the differences in formant frequencies between Portuguese and Spanish oral and nasal(ized) vowels are minimal, which results in similar formant frequencies for these vowels in both L1 groups. These similarities between languages could facilitate positive transfer between Spanish and Portuguese for the L1 Spanish group, which would result in the production of native-like formant frequencies for Portuguese vowels. The between-gender comparisons revealed females tended to produce vowels with higher frequencies for both the F1 and F2, resulting in lower tongue height and further fronted vowels than the male participants, as predicted in the current study‟s hypotheses. owever the statistical analyses also revealed that all male participants produced a significantly higher F frequency for one vowel ( ) than female participants and that all female participants produced significantly higher F2 frequencies for oral and nasal /a/, /e/, and /i/ when compared to male participants. These differences in formant frequencies are expected on the basis of anatomical and behavioral differences between males and females: females usually produce higher frequencies due to smaller vocal tract and vocal cord sizes than males, and results from (Diel et al 1996) suggest that the higher fundamental frequencies associated with smaller vocal tracts can lead to greater vowel dispersion in female speech in order to achieve greater intelligibility while producing higher formant frequencies. Greater vowel dispersion in female speakers was also seen in the acoustic data of Rauber (2008), which examined BP production of oral vowels.

Vowel Duration

The results of the vowel duration data revealed that nasal vowels tended to have longer duration than oral vowels. This result reached statistical significance in both groups for three vowels: and . These results partially confirm the second hypothesis of this study, which

47 predicted that nasal vowels will have a longer duration than oral vowels, as was seen in Gigliotti de Sousa (1994) and Medeiros (2011)9. The nasal murmur may not be the only cause for longer nasal vowel duration, as hypothesized in the current study, because not all nasal vowels measured had a significantly longer duration than their oral counterparts. Because of the high position /i/ and /u/ have in the acoustic outskirts, duration may be a way of contrasting these vowels with their oral counterparts more than height or advancement. On the other hand, the opposite effect in seen for / /, which contrasted from its oral counterpart more in height than duration or advancement. This suggests that high vowels (in this case /i/ and /u/) contrast between oral and nasal vowel type with duration, whereas low vowels like /a/ contrast between oral and nasal vowel type with tongue height. When the duration data is split by L1 group, several tendencies are revealed. The L1 Portuguese group tended to produce oral vowels with a longer duration than the L1 Spanish group, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. Durations for nasal vowels were very similar between the two groups. The only significant difference in duration seen between groups‟ production of nasal vowels was for which was longer in the Spanish group. The other four vowels measured did not reveal a significant difference in duration between the groups, which suggests that the two groups produce nasal and oral vowels within the same durational range. Within L1 groups, only the L1 Portuguese group made a significant durational distinction between / and /e/ and only the L1 Spanish group made a durational distinction between / / and /a/. Another trend found in this study is that females from both L1s tended to produce longer vowels than males which confirms the current study‟s predictions regarding gender and vowel duration. Although this was not found between L1 Portuguese males and females in Rauber (2008), this trend is also found in research on English and Swedish by Simpson (2000) and Simpson and Ericsdotter (2003). These studies argue both biological and social factors for this difference between males and females. In reference to biological differences, Simpson and Ericsdotter (2003) argue that the different articulatory dimensions of males and females allow men to navigate their articulatory spaces (although larger than that of females) with more speed, resulting in shorter phonetic realizations, whereas females have a slower articulatory navigation,

9 Medeiros (2011) found that nasal vowels were longer when the murmur (or coda) segment was included in the duration, which is how nasal vowels are measured in the current study. 48 which could result in longer phonetic realizations. The authors also mention the social tendency for females to speak with more clarity in order to be intelligible, which includes slower speech greater duration of vowels, and greater durational difference between short and long vowels. Therefore, longer female vowel durations could stem from either a social or biological source, or a mixture of both factors.

Nasal Murmur Duration

The results of the nasal murmur duration revealed two main trends: L1 Spanish participants produced longer nasal murmurs that L1 Portuguese participants, and all female participants produced longer nasal murmurs than male participants. owever the statistical analysis revealed only one significant difference: Spanish females produced a longer murmur for than Portuguese females. The lack of (statistically significant) durational differences between L1 groups suggests that both groups produce nasal murmurs of similar lengths, which provides evidence against this study‟s prediction that Spanish participants would produce nasal murmurs like full nasal consonants. This also suggests that the L1 Spanish speakers in this study have developed a new phonetic category (Flege 1995) which differentiates between a nasalized vowel followed by a nasal consonant in Spanish and a nasal vowel followed by a nasal murmur in Portuguese, despite the similar orthography present in these contexts between Spanish and Portuguese. Trude and Tocowicz (2011) found evidence for negative transfer when English- Spanish bilinguals pronounced Portuguese, especially when pronouncing cognates. However, the participants in Trude and Tocowicz (2011) were naïve speakers of Portuguese who were only trained on how to pronounce words in Portuguese. The participants in the current study had completed at least two semesters of an accelerated Portuguese course for Spanish speakers, so their greater level of experience with Portuguese may have allowed positive transfer from Spanish in appropriate contexts, such as the formant values, and could have lessened the amount of negative transfer, even in orthographically similar contexts, like nasalized and nasal vowels environments.

Anti-resonance

Although the results for anti-resonance frequencies revealed that the L1 Spanish group produced anti-resonances at higher frequencies than the L1 Portuguese group, there were no statistically significant differences based on L1 alone. Only one significant difference emerged based on L1 and gender, in which L1 Spanish females produced a higher anti-resonance for /õ/ than L1 Portuguese females. The anti-resonance results do not support this study‟s prediction that there would be significant cross-linguistic differences in participants‟ resonance patterns due to varying levels of nasality present in their nasal vowels. The lack of any (statistical) difference for anti-resonance could have several possible sources. The standard deviations of the anti- resonance values reveal a high amount of variation between both between and within both L1 groups, which could have resulted in a data distribution that is not compatible for parametric statistical analyses. Individual differences in the vocal tract size of the participants could be a potential factor for the high levels of variance, which could be neutralized in a bigger sample or measured and normalized to account for such differences in a smaller sample.

Multilingual phonological systems: issues and implications for theoretical frameworks

There are several factors that may have influenced the production and developing systems of the current study‟s participants related to their multilingual status. All of the L1 Spanish participants are trilingual10 and have lived in an English-speaking environment for at least a year as university students. The linguistic environment of the university may require that these participants use English with more frequency than Spanish or Portuguese, and may have affected their language mode during the experiment. Previous works (i.e. Grosjean 1998; Zampini 2008) have suggested that bilingual (or multilingual, in this case) speakers are more likely to produce native-like speech if only that particular language is activated at a time. For the L1 Spanish participants, English was activated during the experiment as a result of the interactions with the researcher (and the context of the university), but they were required to produce Spanish and Portuguese. This mixed language mode may have affected their production in both languages as a result of having all three languages activated within a short period of time.

10 Participant 10 also reported French as a language she spoke, but reported speaking it less than once a month. 50

Conversely, the L1 Portuguese participants were only addressed in Portuguese by the researcher and only required to produce Portuguese for the experiment. Additionally, as these participants were recorded in Brazil, the likelihood of influence from other known languages11 is relatively low in this context when compared to the L1 Spanish participants. Although the current study‟s primary focus is the influence that (L1) Spanish may have on the production of (L3) Portuguese, the role and possible influence of the L2 (English) may also provide some insights to the effects of multiple non-native phonological systems. The L1 Spanish participants in this study produced Portuguese nasal vowels with similar acoustic properties (in terms of duration and formant frequencies) when compared with the L1 Portuguese participants, although nasal vowels are marked segments (Eckman 1977) that are represented in similar orthographic contexts in both languages; that is, nasal vowels in Portuguese and nasalized vowels in Spanish often share similar orthographic contexts12 (i.e. Spanish-Portuguese cognates such as pinta „he she paints‟ and lindo „beautiful‟). Models of L2 phonology such as Flege‟s ( 995) Speech earning Model (S M) and Major‟s (200 ) Ontogeny Phylogeny Model (OPM) predict that this mixture of (orthographic) similarity and marked segment status would make Portuguese nasal vowels difficult to acquire segments (as opposed to completely different un- marked segments, which these models predict would be the easiest L2 segments to acquire) for Spanish speakers. However, this prediction does not take into account other existing non-native language systems. English, a language with high levels of allophonic (regressive and progressive) nasalization across all dialects (Ladefoged and Disner 2012:174-175), may have affected the level of difficulty predicted in acquiring or producing these sounds in a positive manner. Therefore, as seen in studies such as Gut (2010) and Llama et al (2010), the L2 may have facilitated or help create bilingual compromise values for the L3 segments analyzed in addition to the positive transfer observed in the Spanish participants‟ production of Spanish and Portuguese oral vowels, which had similar duration and formant frequencies. As seen in Cabrelli Amaro and Rothman (2010), there was no clear indication of negative regressive transfer from L3 to L1 with these participants, which suggested the concreteness of native language systems, yet without a comparison group of successive English-Spanish bilinguals who have learned Portuguese as an L3, or any English data from the current participants, the current

11 As shown in Table 3, four of the six L1 Portuguese participants reported being bi- or trilingual. 12 This claim does not refer to nasal contexts in Portuguese in which a diacritic marks a nasal vowel, such as lã „yarn‟ or pão „bread‟ which does not occur in Spanish. 51 study can make no claims concerning the PPH or the role of the L2 in either progressive (to the L3) or regressive (from the L3) transfer.

Conclusion

The current study sought to analyze and describe the oral and nasal vowels of Brazilian Portuguese through the laboratory speech of six native BP speakers from three distinct regions and four native Spanish speakers who learned BP as a third language. The samples were analyzed acoustically, measuring and comparing vowel and nasal murmur duration, formant frequencies, and anti-resonances. The results revealed several trends regarding the differences between Portuguese oral and nasal vowels. Overall, vowel duration was the most salient cue in differentiating between oral and nasal vowel type, occurring in /i, o, u/ for all participants, /e/ only in the L1 Portuguese group and /a/ only in the L1 Spanish group. Significant differences in vowel height between oral and nasal vowels were seen only for /a/, which occurred in both L1 groups and /e/ and /u/ for male participants. Differences between male and female participants in the present study were consistent with previous observations (such as Diehl et al 2006, Simpson 2000, and Rauber 2008) that female speakers tend to produce vowels with longer durations, higher formant frequencies, and have a more dispersed, symmetrical vowel space as a result of anatomical differences and the sociolinguistic goal for intelligibility when speaking. The results from the L1 Spanish group revealed that the oral vowels of Spanish and Portuguese share similar height, advancement, and duration. The data of Spanish nasalized vowels showed that like Portuguese nasal vowels, the most salient cue differentiating Spanish nasalized vowels from oral vowels was longer duration. The statistical analyses showed few differences between the L1 Spanish and L1 Portuguese groups in reference to duration, formants, or anti-resonance values, which suggests that the L1 Spanish group is at a level in their development where they are able to transfer phonologically similar material from their L1 while inhibiting negative transfer, which was seen in their native-like production of nasal murmurs.

Limitations and Directions for Future Investigation

The current study, due to the time limitation of phonetic research, had a small sample size, which could be a source of high variation within participant groups as well as lack of generalizability. Furthermore, although the tasks used attempt to capture both controlled and more naturalistic speech, a laboratory study with pre-determined stimuli does not adequately represent the complexities and variation present in truly spontaneous speech. The present study also only includes one proficiency level of Portuguese learners, whereas several levels of proficiency could reveal trends about the language acquisition process for L1 Spanish speakers who learn Portuguese. Although the current study attempted to include participants of various dialects of Spanish and Portuguese, this linguistic diversity could have also contributed to some of the high levels of variation seen in the study. Finally, the results found in this study may not be generalizable to non-Brazilian dialects of Portuguese, such as European or African varieties. There are several future avenues for future research on this topic. A larger, more diverse (in both dialect and proficiency level) population of participants could be studied in order to test the applicability of the present study‟s results to other groups of Portuguese speakers. Specifically, participants who have acquired English, Spanish and Portuguese in different orders may provide insights to the interaction of non-native language systems as well as the role of language typology on acquisition, which is still not definitive in the existing, nascent field of TLA. A comparison of trilinguals with different orders of language acquisition may also contribute to investigations which seek to explain the role of universal language strategies in non-native language production; that is, similar production strategies by speakers with distinct acquisition orders may help separate which aspects of non-native speech are transfer-driven, and which are not related to previously acquired languages. Insights to the function and uses of universals could inform models such as Major‟s (200 ) OPM which predicts that universals increase in the interlanguage as transfer decreases and Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993), which claims that non-native language systems are driven by constraints, whose rankings are determined both by universal linguistic tendencies and the individual‟s previously acquired language(s). Concerning the type of stimulus analyzed, oral and nasal diphthongs and triphthongs could also be investigated to see how these complex vocalic segments differ and overlap with monophthongs in both native and non-native speakers. Due to the typical small

53 sample size of participants in phonetics research, measures to normalize the duration and formant frequencies of the participants could be implemented to account for individual differences in production due to gender and vocal tract size.

APPENDIX A LANGUAGE HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE (Available in English, Spanish, or

Portuguese)

Subject #______Date______

Language History Questionnaire

General questions:

1. Gender: □ Male □ Female

2. Age: ____ years

3. Native country: □ Brazil □ Other: ______

4. Nativecity and province: □ ______

5. What is your native language? a. Spanish □ Portuguese □ Other: ______

6. What is the language most commonly spoken in your home? a. Spanish □ Portuguese □ Other: ______

7. Please list all of the languages you speak and indicate how often you speak them.

□ ______(daily) (monthly) (almostnever)

8. Please indicate how much time you have spent abroad and where you were.

Place Time □ ______

□ ______

APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Available in English, Spanish, or Portuguese)

Informed Consent Form

This study is part of research intended to provide information about the way native Portuguese speakers and Spanish speakers learning Spanish say certain sounds. My name is Ann Bailey and I am inviting you to participate in this study. If at any time during participation you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me.

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to read Portuguese sentences printed on a sheet of paper while being recorded. You will also complete a short questionnaire asking about your experience with languages other than Portuguese. You may decline to answer specific questions. The entire session will last about one hour and will take place in a quiet room or in a phonetic laboratory.

YOUR PARTICIPATION IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY AND YOU MAY STOP PARTICIPATION AT ANYTIME. THERE IS NO EXPECTED RISK DURING THE SESSION. HOWEVER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE SESSION AT ANY TIME WITHOUT ANY PENALTY.

Your performance and any information obtained during the course of the study will remain confidential, to the extent allowed by law. Your identification code will be replaced with a number for the purpose of coding and analysis of data. Only the primary researcher will have access to the codes. The data will be stored in a locked file cabinet in Diffenbaugh 356 at Florida State University in the United States and will be destroyed by June 30th, 2015.

You are encouraged to ask any questions that you might have about this study before, during and after your participation in the study. However, answers that could influence the results of the experiment will be deferred to the end of the experiment. You will also receive a debriefing explanation upon completion of the study, fully explaining the goals of the research.

If you have any questions about this research or your rights as a participant in this study or if you feel you have been placed at risk please contact the researcher Ann Bailey at (239) 770-5404, or by email at or the supervising professor Dr. Carolina González, Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Florida State University at (850) 644 8187 or by email at You can also contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President for the Office of Research at (850) 644- 8633 or by email at [email protected]. ______

I understand the above information and voluntarily consent to participate in this study of my own free will. I am 18 years of age or older.

I understand that I am free to discontinue participation at any time without explanation. I understand that this form will not be used in conjunction with the results of the study so that my identity will be protected. I understand that I will receive a signed copy of this consent form upon request.

Name ______Date and place ______

Signature ______

APPENDIX C TASKS

Task 1: Spanish Oral Vowels (native Spanish speakers only)

Lea el párrafo siguiente en voz alta: Read the following paragraph out loud:

Érase una vez, un oso panda que se llamaba Pento vivía en un faro. Pento se sentía solo en el faro, pero cada día, a las cinco en punto, hablaba con otros pandas en un foro de internet. Como Pento siempre quería regresar a China un día dijo “Voy a hacer una fuga a mi país nativo. Me pongo un velo para disfrazarme y me voy de aquí.” Con solo una pinta de agua, se marchó y esperó en la fila del aeropuerto. Se sentía muy feliz al pensar en reunirse con los otros osos.

Once upon a time, a panda bear named Pento lived in a lighthouse. Pento felt lonely in the lighthouse but every day at five o‟ clock sharp (point), he talked with other pandas on an internet forum. Since he always wanted to return to China one day he said “I‟m going to escape from here. I‟ll put on a veil to disguise myself and I‟ll leave this place.” With only a pint of water, he left and waited in the line at the airport. He felt very happy to think about reuniting with the other bears.

Task 2: Portuguese Naturalistic Sentences (All participants)

Leia as frases seguintes em voz alta. (Read the following sentences out loud.)

 No verão passado, viajei à praia por uma semana com minha família. (This past summer, I went to the beach for a week with my family.)  Nunca vejo ninguém quando tem vento forte lá fora. (I never see anyone when there is strong wind outside).  Prefiro correr para fazer exercício(s), mas meu noivo prefere nadar. (I prefer to run for exercise while my boyfriend prefers swimming.)  O rapaz que sempre me sauda tem boa formação na minhaopinião. (That boy who always greets me has good manners in my opinion).  É importante usar protetor solar quando faz calor lá fora. (It is important to wear sunscreen when it is hot outside.)  É triste as percepçõesque muita gente tem sobre o fanho que mora aqui. (It‟s sad the perceptions that many people have about the man with the nasal voice that lives here.)  Faz três anos que conheci meu melhor amigo na universidade. (It‟s been three years since I met my best friend at the university.)  Tenho que falar pelo telefoneàs oito da manhã com meus pais. (I have to talk on the phone at eight in the morning with my parents).

 Agora, tenho interesse nas comidas saudáveis e naturais. (Now, I am interested in healthy and natural foods.)  A seiva das árvores é boa para a saúde das pessoas. (The sap of trees is good for people‟s health).  Eles vão me telefonar depois de chegaremno aeroporto. (They are going to call me after they arrive at the airport.)  Ele me disse que fica na suite do hotel perto da minha casa. (He told me that he stays in the suite of the hotel close to my house.  Tenho perguntas sobre a leitura que temos para a aula. (I have questions about the reading we have for class.)  Quando estiver vindo a minha casa, quero lhe mostrar meu cachorro fofo e a fonte nova no jardim. (When you‟ve come, I want to show you my cuddly dog and the new fountain in the yard.)  A cidade onde moro tem várias espécies de animais selvagens. (The city where I live has various species of wild animals.)  Não posso entender a fuga da minha tartaruga do fundo do aquário. (I cannot understand my turtle‟s escape from the deep (water) of the aquarium).  Não podemos ter um cachorro no apartamento onde moramos. (We can‟t have a dog in the apartment where we live.)  Recomendei que eles falassem com o policial depois do acidente. (I recommended that they speak with the police after the accident).  Sempre quería estudar medicina para ser médico. (I always wanted to study medicine to be a doctor.)  Sería interessante visitar todos os sítios santos e os capitais do país. (It would be interesting to visit all the country‟s holy sites and capitals.)  Há uma loja perto da minha casa que vende roupas bonitas. (There‟s a store close to my house that sells pretty clothes.)  Vou assistir ao filme Capitãesda Areia na sexta-feira. (I‟m going to see the movie Captains of Sand this Friday.)  A tarefa para a segunda-feira é difícil na minha opinião. (The homework for Monday is difficult in my opinion.)  O presidente faz o veto sobre a lei que discrimina muita gente. (The president makes a veto against the law that discriminated against many people.)  Minha amiga vai me visitar este sábado para meu aniversário. (My friend is going to visit me this Saturday for my birthday.)  Há músicos lá fora que estão tocando o fado para a festa. (There are musicians outside playing fadofor the party.)  Para o jantar, quero cozinhar uma comida saudável. (For dinner, I want to cook healthy food.)

Task 3: Carrier task with Portuguese tokens (All participants)  “Diga ______também” written on cards with tokens and distracters  12 tokens  29 distracters  Random order

APPENDIX D HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTERS

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 3/25/2011

To: Ann Bailey

Address: 2060 Continental Ave Apt 104 Tallahassee, Fl 32304 Dept.: MODERN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research How nosy are you? An acoustic analysis of Brazilian Portuguese nasal vowels by native speakers and second language learners

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 3/22/2012 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is

61 reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Carolina Gonzalez, Advisor HSC No. 2011.6055

RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 1/17/2012

To: Ann Bailey

Address: 2060 Continental Ave Apt 104 Tallahassee, Fl 32304 Dept.: MODERN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Re-approval of Use of Human subjects in Research How nosy are you? An acoustic analysis of Brazilian Portuguese nasal vowels by native speakers and second language learners

Your request to continue the research project listed above involving human subjects has been approved by the Human Subjects Committee. If your project has not been completed by 1/15/2013, you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the committee.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your renewal request, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this re-approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting of research subjects. You are reminded that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report in writing, any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor are reminded of their responsibility for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in their department. They are advised to review the protocols as often as

62 necessary to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

Cc: Carolina Gonzalez, Advisor HSC No. 2011.7582

REFERENCES

Abaurre, María & Emilio Pagotto. 1996. Nasalização vocálica no português do Brasil. In Ingedore Villaça Koch(ed). Gramática do português falado, vol. 6: Desenvolvimentos, 495-526. Campinas, SP: Editora de Unicamp.

Akerberg, Marianne. 1999. The nasal vowels of Portuguese-A problem of perception. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 17. 37-52.

Azevedo, Milton. 1981. A contrastive phonology of Portuguese and English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Back, Eurico. 1973. São fonemas as vogais nasais do português? Constructura 4: 297-317.

Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2012. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.13, retrieved 11 April 2012 from http://www.praat.org/

Brakel Jr., Arthur. 1985. Reflections on the analysis of exceptions to the rule of Iberian Portuguese vowel reduction. Hispanic Linguistics 2: 63-85.

Cabrelli Amaro, Jennifer & Jason Rothman. 2010. On L3 acquisition and phonological permeability: A new test case for debates on the mental representation of non-native phonological systems. International Review of Applied Linguistics 48(10): 275-296.

Cagliari, Luiz Carlos. 1982. Elementos de fonética do português brasileiro. São Paulo: Contexto.

Canfield, D. Lincoln. 1981. Spanish pronunciation in the Americas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Catford, J. C. 1988. A practical introduction to phonetics.Oxford [England]: Clarendon Press.

Delgado-Martins, Raquel Maria. 1973. Análise acústica das vogais tónicas de português. Boletim De Filologia, 3(4). 73-84.

Diehl, Randy L., Björn Lindblom, Kathryn A. Hoemeke, & Richard P. Fahey. 1996. On explaining certain male-female differences in the phonetic realization of vowel categories. Journal of Phonetics 24 (2) (4): 187-208.

Eckman, Fred. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27: 315-330.

Eckman, Fred. 1991. The Structural Conformity Hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. SSLA 13: 23-41.

Fails, Willis. 2011. O grau de nasalização das vogais oronasais no português paulistano e no espanhol mexicano: Um estudo experimental comparativo. Hispania 94 (3): 442-461.

Fails, Willis & J. Halvor Clegg. 1992. A spectrographic analysis of Portuguese Stressed and Unstressed Vowels. In Dale Koike and Donald Maicedo (eds.), Romance linguistics: The Portuguese Context, 31-42. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Feldman, David. 1967. A comparison of the segmental phonemes of Brazilian Portuguese and American Spanish.Linguistics 29: 44-57.

Flege, James. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross- linguistic research, 101-131. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gigliotti de Sousa, Elizabeth Maria. 1994. Para a caracterização fonético-acústico da nasalidade no português do Brasil. Campinas, SP: Universidade Estadual de Campinas thesis.

Godínez Jr., Manuel. 1981. An acoustic study of Mexican and Brazilian Portuguese vowels. Hispania, 64(4). 594-600.

Grosjean, Francois. 1998. Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 131-149.

Gut, Ulrike. 2010. Cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1): 19-38.

Hall Jr, Robert A. 1943. The unit phonemes of Brazilian Portuguese. Studies in Linguistics 1: 1-6.

Head, Brian. 1964. A comparison of the segmental phonology of Lisbon and Rio de Janeiro. PhD dissertation, UT Austin.

Hualde, José Ignacio. 2005. The sounds of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kelm, Orlando. 1989; 1989. Acoustic characteristics of oral vs. nasalized /a/ in Brazilian Portuguese: Variation in vowel timbre and duration. Hispania 72 (4) (Dec): 853-861.

Ladefoged, Peter & Sandra Ferrari Disner. 2012. Vowels and consonants. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell.

Llama, Raquel, Walcir Cardoso, & Laura Collins. 2010. The influence of language distance and language status on the acquisition of L3 phonology. International Journal of Multilingualism 7(1): 39-57.

Lopes, Eduardo. 1976. Fundamentos da lingüística contemporánea. São Paulo: Editora Cultrix.

Major, Roy. 2001. Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbraum Associates.

Martínez Celdrán, Eugenio. 1998. Análisis espectrográfico de los sonidos del habla.Barcelona: Editoria Ariel, S.A.

Mateus Maria & Ernesto D‟Andrade. 2000. The phonology of Portuguese. New York: Oxford University Press.

Medeiros, Beatriz Raposo de. 2011. Nasal coda and vowel nasality in Brazilian Portuguese. In Scott Alvord (ed), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Romance Phonology, 33-45. Cascadilla Proceedings: Somerville, MA.

Mira Mateus, Maria Helena. 1982. Aspectos da fonologia portuguesa. 2nd ed. Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Investigação Científica.

Moraes, João. 1997. Vowel nasalization in Brazilian Portuguese: An articulatory investigation. Proceedings of the Eurospeech ’97, volume 2, 733-736.Patras: University of Patras Press.

Moraes, João, Dinah Callou, & Yonne Leite. 2002. O sistema vocálico do português do Brasil: caracterização acústica. In Mary Kato (ed.), Gramática do português falado, vol. 5: Covergencias, 33-51. Campinas, SP: Editora de Unicamp.

Morais-Barbosa, Jorge. 1965. Etudes de phonologie portugais. Lisboa: Junta de Investigações do Ultramar.

Mattoso-Câmara Jr, Joaqium 1970. Estrutura da língua portuguesa. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.

Penny, Ralph J. 1991. A history of the Spanish language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pharies, David. 2007. Breve historia de la lengua española. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Prince Alan & Paul Smolensky (1993): Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in a generative Grammar. Rutgers Online Optimality Archive.

Quilis, Antonio & Manuel Esgueva. 1983. Realización de los fonemas vocálicos españoles en posición fonética normal. In Manuel Esgueva & M. Cantarero (eds.), Estudios de fonética I, 137-252. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Rauber, Andreia. 2008. Anacoustic description of Brazilian Portuguese oral vowels. Ciencias da Linguagem, 22(1). 229-238.

Resnick, Melvyn C. 1975. Phonological variants and dialect identification in Latin American Spanish. The Hague: Mouton.

Sampson, Rodney. 1999. Nasal vowel evolution in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schwartz, Martin. 1968b. The acoustics of normal and nasal vowel production. Cleft Palate J, 5. 125-140.

Silverman, David. A critical introduction to phonology: Of sound, mind, and body. London: Continuum.

Simpson, Adrian. 2000. Gender-specific differences in the articulatory and acoustic realization of interword vowel sequences in American English. In Phil Hoole, Masaaki Honda, and Christine Mooshammer, (eds), 5th Seminar on Speech Production: Models and Data, 209–212, Munich: Kloster Seeon.

Simpson, Adrian & Chistine Ericsdotter. 2003. Sex specific durational differences in English and Swedish. In Procedings from XVthICPhS, 1113-1116. Barcelona.

Stavrou, Christopher. 1947. Brazilian-Portuguese pronunciation. Philadelphia: David McKay.

Terrell, Tracy. 1975. La nasal implosiva y final en el español de cuba. Anuario De Letras 13 : 257-71.

Trude, Alison M., and Natasha Tokowicz. 2011. Negative transfer from Spanish and English to Portuguese pronunciation: The roles of inhibition and working memory. Language Learning 61, (1): 259-280.

Zampini, Mary. 2008. L2 speech production research: Findings, issues, and advances. In J. Hansen Edwards and M. L. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ann Aly Bailey is originally from Bayonne, New Jersey and has lived in Florida for many years. She attended both the University of Miami and Florida State University for her undergraduate studies in classical bass, and also received her M.A. from Florida State University in Spanish linguistics. Ann‟s research interests include phonology and phonetics historical development of Romance languages, second and third language acquisition, and the link between musical aptitude and language aptitude. Ann will be attending the University of California at Los Angeles for her doctoral studies and hopes to be involved in more research and language-related opportunities.