Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton November 10, 2015

The effect of L1 regional variation on the perception and production of standard L1 and L2 vowels

Ellen Simon, Mathijs Debaene and Mieke Van Herreweghe
From the journal Folia Linguistica


This study reports on the perception and production of Standard Dutch and Standard British English vowels by speakers of two regional varieties of Belgian Dutch (East Flemish and Brabantine) which differ in their vowel realizations. Twenty-four native speakers of Dutch performed two picture-naming tasks and two vowel categorization tasks, in which they heard Standard Dutch or English vowels and were asked to map these onto orthographic representations of Dutch vowels. The results of the Dutch production and categorization tasks revealed that the participants’ L1 regional variety importantly influenced their production and especially perception of vowels in the standard variety of their L1. The two groups also differed in how they assimilated non-native English vowels to native vowel categories, but no major differences could be observed in their productions of non-native vowels. The study therefore only partly confirms earlier studies showing that L1 regional variation may have an influence on the acquisition of non-native language varieties.


Adank, Patti, Roeland van Hout & Roel Smits. 2004a. An acoustic description of the vowels of Northern and Southern Standard Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(3). 1729–1738.10.1121/1.1779271Search in Google Scholar

Adank, Patti, Roel Smits & Roeland van Hout. 2004b. A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(5). 3099–3107.10.1121/1.1795335Search in Google Scholar

Belemans, Rob, Jan Goossens, Antonius Angelus Weijnen, Roeland Van Hout & Willy Van Langendonck. 2000. Woordenboek van de Brabantse dialecten. 3: Inleiding; klankgeografie van de Brabantse dialecten [Dictionary of the Brabantine Dialects. 3: Introduction; sound geography of the Brabantine dialects]. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.Search in Google Scholar

Best, Catherine T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, 171–204. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Best, Catherine T. & Michael D. Tyler. 2007. Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Murray Munro & Ocke-Schwen Bohn (eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.17.07besSearch in Google Scholar

Best, Catherine T., Gerald W. McRoberts & Elizabeth Goodell. 2001. Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109(2). 775–794.10.1121/1.1332378Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2013. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 5.3.45. (accessed 15 April 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, Jennifer, Suzanne Flynn & Jason Rothman. 2012. Third language acquisition in adulthood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.46Search in Google Scholar

Chládková, Kateřina & Václav Jonáš Podlipský. 2011. Native dialect matters: Perceptual assimilation of Dutch vowels by Czech listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(4). 186–192.10.1121/1.3629135Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Beverley & Inger M. Mees. 2003. The phonetics of English and Dutch, 5th edn. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789047402503Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola. 2005. Linguistic perception and second language acquisition: Explaining the attainment of optimal phonological categorization. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola, Ellen Simon & Holger Mitterer. 2012. The perception of English front vowels by North Holland and Flemish listeners: Acoustic similarity predicts and explains cross-linguistic and L2 perception. Journal of Phonetics 40(2). 280–288.10.1016/j.wocn.2011.11.004Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, Paola & Daniel Williams. 2012. Native dialect influences second-language vowel perception: Peruvian versus Iberian Spanish learners of Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131(5). 406–412.10.1121/1.3701708Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil. 1995. Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Winifred Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, 229–273. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James Emil. 1997. English vowel productions by Dutch talkers: More evidence for the “similar” vs. “new” distinction. In Allan James & Jonathan Leather (eds.), Second language speech: Structure and process, 11–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110882933.11Search in Google Scholar

Gut, Ulrike. 2009. Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of the phonetic and phonological properties of L2 English and L2 German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-01155-5Search in Google Scholar

Harrington, Jonathan, Felicitas Kleber & Ulrich Reubold. 2011. The contributions of the lips and the tongue to the diachronic fronting of high back vowels in Standard Southern British English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41(2). 137–156.10.1017/S0025100310000265Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, Sarah & Jonathan Midgley. 2005. Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four age groups of speakers. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35(2). 183–199.10.1017/S0025100305002124Search in Google Scholar

Koopmans-van Beinum, F. 1980. Vowel contrast reduction: An acoustic and perceptual study of Dutch vowels in various speech conditions. Amsterdam: Academische Pers.Search in Google Scholar

Lew, Robert. 2002. Differences in the scope of obstruent voicing assimilation in learners’ English as a consequence of regional variation in Polish. In Ewa Waniek-Klimczak & Patrick James Melia (eds.), Accents and speech in teaching English phonetics and phonology, 243–264. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Lobanov, Boris M. 1971. Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49. 606–608.10.1121/1.1912396Search in Google Scholar

Marinescu, Irina. 2012. Native dialect effects in non-native production and perception of vowels. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Nooteboom, S.G. 1971. Over de lengte van korte klinkers, lange klinkers en tweeklanken in het Nederlands [On the length of short vowels, long vowels and diphthongs in Dutch]. De Nieuwe Taalgids 64. 396–402.Search in Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 1989. Het Antwerpse vokaalsysteem: Een synchronische en diachronische schets [The Antwerp vowel system: A synchronic and diachronic outline]. Taal en Tongval, Tijdschrift voor Taalvariatie 41(1–2). 22–48.Search in Google Scholar

O’Brien, Mary Grantham & Laura Catharine Smith. 2010. Role of first language dialect in the production of second language German vowels. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48(4). 297–330.10.1515/iral.2010.013Search in Google Scholar

Rietveld, Toni, Joop Kerkhoff & Carlos Gussenhoven. 2004. Word prosodic structure and vowel duration in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 32(3). 349–371.10.1016/j.wocn.2003.08.002Search in Google Scholar

Taeldeman, Johan. 1999. Het Gents: Een eiland in het Oost-Vlaamse dialectgebied [The Ghent dialect: An island in the East Flemish dialect area]. In Joep Kruijsen & Nicoline van der Sijs (eds.), Honderd jaar stadstaal [One hundred years of urban language], 35–61. Gent: Academia Press.Search in Google Scholar

Thomas, Erik R. & Tyler Kendall. 2007. NORM: The vowel normalization and plotting suite [computer program]. Version 1.1. (last modified 19 December 2012, accessed 1 August 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Van Herreweghe, Mieke. 1987. A generative phonotaxis of standard (British) English as compared with (+native) Dutch. Ghent, Belgium: Rijksuniversiteit Gent MA-thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Van Leussen, Jan-Willem, Daniel Williams & Paola Escudero. 2011. Acoustic properties of Dutch steady-state vowels: Contextual effects and a comparison with previous studies. Proceedings from the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, China, August 17–21, 2011, 1194–1197. Hong Kong: Department of Chinese, Translation & Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong.Search in Google Scholar

Verhoeven, Jo. 2005. Illustrations of the IPA: Belgian Standard Dutch. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35(2). 243–247.10.1017/S0025100305002173Search in Google Scholar

Verhoeven, Jo & Christophe Van Bael. 2002a. Acoustic characteristics of monophthong realisation in Southern Standard Dutch. In Jo Verhoeven (ed.), Phonetic work in progress (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 100), 149–164. Antwerp: University of Antwerp. (accessed 12 September 2014).Search in Google Scholar

Verhoeven, Jo & Christophe Van Bael. 2002b. Akoestische kenmerken van de Nederlandse klinkers in drie Vlaamse regio’s [Acoustic properties of the Dutch vowels in three Flemish regions]. Taal en Tongval, Tijdschrift voor Taalvariatie 54(1). 1–23.Search in Google Scholar

Wells, J. C. (2000). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. Harlow: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Wrembel, Magdalena, Ulrike Gut & Grit Mehlhorn. 2010. Phonetics/phonology in third language acquisition: Introduction (Special issue on L3 Phonology). International Journal of Multilingualism 7(1). 1–3.10.1080/14790710902972230Search in Google Scholar

Revised: 2014-9-23
Revised: 2015-6-30
Accepted: 2015-4-16
Accepted: 2015-8-1
Published Online: 2015-11-10
Published in Print: 2015-11-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton

Scroll Up Arrow