INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter 6ce, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 GESTURES AND LINGUISTIC FUNCTION IN LEARNING RUSSIAN: PRODUCTION AND PERCEPTION STUDIES OF RUSSIAN PALATALIZED CONSONANTS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Erin Elizabeth Diehm, MA. The Ohio State University 1998 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Anelya Rugaleva, Co-Adviser Professor Keith Johnson, Co-Adviser Professor Ernest Scatton ^ Co-Advisers Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures UMI Number: 9833968 UMI Microform 9833968 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Copyright by Erin Elizabeth Diehm 1998 ABSTRACT Drawing on the inexorably intertwined nature of production and perception abilities, this dissertation provides a dynamic account of adult second-language learners’ perceptual and production accents. To this end, I demonstrate with acoustic-phonetic studies native-speakers’ and second- ianguage-ieamers’ differing patterns in production and perception of sound sequences that are particularly problematic for adult second-language learners: sequences containing the palatalized consonants of Russian. In particular, I investigate four C-V sequences of Russian: /CV/, /OV/, /OjV/, and /CJijV/ with one acoustic production study and one acoustic perception study. Resulting data are statistically analyzed and discussed in light of articulatory-phonological theory, as well as phonetic theories of acoustic salience, linguistic knowledge and acoustic strategies. In the production study native-Russians make more distinctions than learners, thereby indicating Russians’ “better” production performance. On the other hand, in the perception study learners make more distinctions than native-Russians, thereby indicating learners’ “better” perception performance. In other words, Russians do not distinguish in perception differences that they make in production, while learners do not distinguish in production differences that they make in perception. Theroetical explanations for native-Russians’ and learners’ differing performances are offered and developed. Chapter 1 presents several theories of first-language (LI) and second-language (L2) acquisition. In particular, the Critical Age Hypothesis is discussed in light of L2 learners’ virtually inevitable permanent accent. However, I focus on recent claims that while adult L2 learners maynever attain native-like proficiency of L2 phonetics and phonology, they, nonetheless, can continue to reduce their L2 accent with continued study of and exposure to L2. Most importantly, learners’ ii improvements in L2 phonetics are seen to occur not in a categorical, discrete manner, but in a gradual continuous manner. Chapter 2 presents an overview of the Russian sound system. The primary organizational role of Russian palatalization is emphasized in light of adult second language acquisition of Russian. Descriptions of articulatory and acoustic properties of Russian palatalized consonants, or “soft" consonants are given; secondary tongue body raising and its associated raised second formant (F2) frequency are presented. Finally, I discuss several proposed sources of learners’ accented productions of the soft consonants, including orthography, acoustic saliency, phonological interpretation and phoneme mapping, which results in learners’ incorrect mapping of Russian simple-palatalized, /civ /, and palatalized-yod sequences, /CijV/, onto “similar” English sequences of /C/+/j/. In an endeavor to establish a phonological model that is suitable for the purposes of this study, chapter 3 briefly reviews several major phonological frameworks. With their categorical discrete features that are externally timed, both linear and non-linear models are rejected. I argue, instead, that Browman and Goldstein’s (1989) Gestural Model, with its phonological unit of the gesture and intrinsic timing approach, provides an ideal framework for describing learners’ gradual stages of acquisition. In chapter 4,1 report the results of an acoustic production study. Statistical analyses of F2 duration and frequency data indicate differing patterns of productions for native-Russian speakers and learners of Russian. Russians distinguish /OV/ and /OjV/ in both F2 frequency and duration while learners produce the two sequences identically, thereby adding support for claims of learners’ proposed phonological interpretation. Both Russians and learners distinguish /OjV/ and /OijV/ in F2 duration but not F2 frequency. Comparative analyses of learners’ productions of native-English /C/+/j/-h/V/ and L2 Russian /CÎV/, /OjV/ and /OijV/ indicate that learners produce English palatal sequences with a Tongue Body gesture that is later than in their Russian productions, thereby indicating that learners have, to some degree, acquired the more sequential nature of relevant gestural iii timings. Insofar as second formant data reflect lingual movements, acoustic findings are then associated with their articulatory sources via Gestural Phonology. Gestural Scores of Russians’ “native" productions and learners’ “accented” productions are given. Incorrect inter-articulatory timings and incorrect gestural amplitudes and durations are proposed as a source of learners’ accents. Using as its source native-Russian productions from chapter 4, chapter 5 reports an acoustic perception study that investigates Russians’ and learners’ perception of the aforementioned four C-V sequences. As with the production study, Russians and learners exhibit differing general perceptual patterns. Most importantly, learners’ “better” performance indicates the presence of a modified near­ merger in Russian that, due to their incomplete linguistic knowledge, learners disregard. I also investigate effect of vowel type and offer initial supporting evidence that temporal cues are more acoustically salient than spectral cues. Finally, dividing learners into those with less linguistic experience and more linguistic experience, I provide evidence of advanced learners’ improved perceptual performance. Learner’s improved, more Russian-like performance, provides initial evidence of L2 acquisition of both phonetic and functional knowledge. Finally, in chapter 6 ,1 summarize the major findings of preceding chapters and propose several related future phonetic studies. IV Dedicated to my mother, who encouraged me to see the world, and to my father, who gave me the tools to succeed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I must first express deep gratitude to my dissertation committee members. Dr. Anelya Rugaleva from the Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures at The Ohio State University, Dr. Keith Johnson from the Department of Linguistics at The Ohio State University and Dr. Ernest Scatton from the Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures at SUNY Albany. This dissertation would have been impossible without their unflagging support and encouragement. Dr. Rugaleva believed in me from the beginning—especially during my initial years of graduate study—and, perhaps unknowingly, instilled in me a true appreciation of the Russian language in its broader humanistic context. Dr. Scatton, who was involved in the project from its inception, contributed greatly in the presentation of my research and provided much appreciated support. His encyclopedic knowledge of Russian linguistics, and in particular phonology, added much depth to the content of this dissertation, and his keen sense for language contributed greater stylistic facility. I cannot express in words the extent of my indebtedness to Dr. Johnson. At the professional level, he sparked my interest in the field of phonetics and guided me with infinite patience, careful thought and wisdom throughout the entire dissertation process. At a more personal level, Keith (as he preferred to be called) was a true mentor, who always found time for thoughtful discussion (even at a