Abstract
Comparing articulatory and acoustic characteristics is relevant because they exhibit congruence and carry crucial information for maintaining perceptual contrasts. In this paper, articulatory and acoustic data of English front vowel minimal pair productions are analyzed in a case study comparing the speech productions of a North American English speaker and a Brazilian Portuguese speaker. The analysis comprises acoustic metrics (F0, F1, F2 in Hz and duration in ms) and ultrasound data. The results of the ultrasound and acoustic analyses of English vowel minimal pairs produced by the Brazilian speaker show that front vowel contrasts existing in the L2 (English) but not in the L1 (Portuguese) were not implemented by the L2 speaker, despite her having formal instruction in English. Specifically, the mid-low and low vowel minimal pair was undifferentiated in the Brazilian speaker’s productions. These results reinforce the need for research into and implementation of speech production and perception training practices in L2 instruction.
References
1. Barberena LS, Rosado IM, Moraes DA, DE O, Berti LC, Keske-Soares M. Ultrassonografia dos movimentos de língua do som /l/ e caracterização por gênero em crianças com desenvolvimento típico e atípico de fala. Revista Cefac (online). 2020; (22):e11218.
2. Oliveira AM, Lima Junior RM, Berti LC. Articulatory gestures in children with speech sound disorders: ultrasound data. Fórum Linguístico [Internet]. 2022; 198094-8110.
3. Esperandino C, Berti LC. Caracterização ultrassonográfica das líquidas alveolares de crianças falantes do Português Brasileiro: produções alvo e substituídas. DELTA Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada. 2023; (39):2023394.
4. Melo RM, Mota HB, Berti LC. O contraste entre oclusivas alveolares e velares em dados típicos de fala: análises acústica e ultrassonográfica. CoDAS [Internet]. 2017; 29(4):e20160117.
5. Silva LM, Vassoler AMO, Marino VCC, Berti LC. Análise ultrassonográfica quantitativa do movimento da língua em 14 fonemas do Português Brasileiro. CoDAS. 2017; 29(4):e20160211.
6. Pereira LCK, Madureira S, Camargo ZA, Lima JPH. Proposta de investigação multi-instrumental da fala de sujeitos com deficiência auditiva: análises acústica, perceptiva e ultrassonográfica. In: Camargo ZA, editor. Fonética clínica: vinte anos de LIAAC. 1 ed. São José dos Campos: Pulso; 2016. p. 183-96.
7. Cleland J, Scobbie JM, Nakai S, Wrench A. Helping children learn non-native articulations: The implications for ultrasound-based clinical intervention. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2015); 2015 Aug 10-14; Glasgow, Scotland.
8. Cleland J, Scobbie JM, Roxburgh Z, Heyde C, Wrench A. Enabling new articulatory gestures in children with persistent speech sound disorders using ultrasound visual biofeedback. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018; 62(2):229-46.
9. Brum-de-Paula, MR, Ferreira-Gonçalves G. A dinâmica do movimento: gestos como objeto de investigação. In: Gonçalves GF, Brum-de-Paula MR, editors. A ultrassonografia e os gestos da fala. 1 ed. São Carlos: Pedro & João; 2021. p. 7-18.
10. Ferreira-Gonçalves G, Pereira OTA, Lemes MK. Aquisição do rótico retroflexo do inglês: instrução explícita por meio de ultrassonografia. Caderno de letras (UFPEL). 2019; (1):127-45.
10. Lemes MK, Duarte NM, Ferreira-Gonçalves G. A ultrassonografia aplicada à aquisição do segmento retroflexo. Caderno de Letras. 2019; (33). Trabalho apresentado no Workshop em estudos ultrassonográficos de dados de fala, 21º InPLA, PUC-SP, 2018.
12. Sacchi AC. A percepção das vogais do inglês norte-americano por falantes de inglês como LE [dissertation]. São Paulo: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo; 2018.
13. Yamauchi RH. A percepção de vogais do inglês americano por falantes nativos do português brasileiro e falantes nativos da língua japonesa [dissertation]. São Paulo: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo; 2024.
14. Lima C, Silva Jr, L. Vogais Anteriores do Inglês como Língua Estrangeira Produzidas por Falantes Brasileiros Proficientes. Signum: Estudos da Linguagem. 2023; 26(2):69-87. https://doi.org/10.5433/2237-4876.2023v26n2p69.
15. Noiray A, Iskarous K, Whalen DH. Variability in English vowels is comparable in articulation and acoustics. Lab Phonol. 1 May 2014; 5(2):271-88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2014-0010.
16. Whalen DH. Three lines of evidence for direct links between production and perception in speech. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences; 1995, Aug 13-19; Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: KTH / Stockholm University; 1995. p. 1257-60.
17. Llisterri J. Relationships between speech production and speech perception in a second language. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences; 1995, Aug 13-19; Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: KTH / Stockholm University; 1995. p. 92-9.
18. Flege JE.; Bohn OS. The revised speech learning model (SLM-r). In: Wayland, R. (ed.). Second language speech learning: theoretical and empirical progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. p. 3-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108886901.002.
19. Melnik-Leroy GA, Turnbull R, Peperkamp S. On the relationship between perception and production of L2 sounds: Evidence from Anglophones’ processing of the French /u /–/y/ contrast. Second Lang Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0267658320988061.
20. Flege JE. Second language learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In: Strange W, editor. Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research. Timonium: York Press; 1995. p. 233-77.
21. Best C, Tyler MD. Nonnative and second-language speech perception: commonalities and complementarities. In: Munro MJ, Bohn OS, editors. Second language speech learning: the role of language experience in speech perception and production. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2007. p. 13-34.
22. Antoník T. Ultrasound tongue imaging in second language learning [dissertation]. Prague: Univerzita Karlova, Filozofická faculta; 2020.
23. Kartushina N, Hervais-Adelman A, Frauenfelder U, Golestani N. The effect of phonetic production training with visual feedback on the perception and production of foreign speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015; 138(2):817-32.
24. Wong JWS. The effects of perceptual and/or productive training on the perception and production of English vowels /ɪ/ and /iː/ by Cantonese ESL learners. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH); 2013 Aug 25-29; Lyon, France. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2013-501.
25. Stratton J. The effects of production training on speech perception in L2 learners of German. J Phon. 2025;108:101370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2024.101370.
26. Pereira LCK, Svicero MAF, Camargo ZA, Madureira S. An ultrasound study of oral and nasal vowels in Brazilian Portuguese. In: Ultrafest VI Conference; 2013 Nov 6-8; Edinburgh, Scotland.
27. Meneses F, Johnson S, Albano E, Shosted R. Is the vowel really disappearing in Brazilian Portuguese sandhi? An ultrasound study of vowel reduction. In: Proceedings of Phonetics and Phonology in Europe (PaPE); 2017. p. 130-1.
28. Bisol L. Sândi vocálico externo: degeminação e elisão. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos. 1992; (23):83-101.
29. Jesus T, Almeida A, Camargo Z. Ultrasonography applied to the description of voice quality settings in adult speakers of Brazilian Portuguese. Revista CEFAC. 2021; (23):e64921. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20212364921.
30. Sonies BC, Shawker TH, Hall TE, Gerber LH, Leighton SB. Ultrasonic visualization of tongue motion during speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1981; 70(3):683-6.
31. Adler-Bock M, Bernhardt BM, Gick B, Bacsfalvi P. The use of ultrasound in remediation of North American English /r/ in two adolescents. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2007; 16(2):128-39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2007/017).
32. Ouni S. Tongue gestures awareness and pronunciation training. In: 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association – Interspeech; 2011.
33. Silva AF. Contrastes na produção de vogais da língua inglesa: Um estudo com técnicas de fonética acústica e ultrassonografia. Revista CBTecle. 2018; 1(1).
34. Li JJ, Ayala S, Harel D, Shiller DM, McAllister T. Individual predictors of response to biofeedback training for second-language production. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019 Dec; 146(6):4625. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5139423.
35. Yamada RA, Strange W, Magnuson JS, Pruitt JS, Clarke WD. The intelligibility of Japanese speakers’ production of American English /r/, /i/, and /w/, as evaluated by native speakers of American English. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 1994); 1994 Sep 18-22; Yokohama, Japan. p. 2023-26. https://doi.org/10.21437/ICSLP.1994-508.
36. Inceoglu S. Effects of perceptual training on second language vowel perception and production. Appl Psycholinguist. 2015; 37(1):1-25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000533.
37. Lai CH, Chiu C. Effects of individual aptitude on ultrasound biofeedback in non-native vowel production. J Phon. 2025; 108:101390. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2025.101390.
38. Aalto E, Yoshida M, Ménard L, Cardoso W, Laporte C. Effects of an ultrasound biofeedback session on maximal tongue movements. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP 2024); 2024 May 13-17; Autrans, France. p. 63-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21437/issp.2024-17.
39. Chang YS. Effects of production training with ultrasound biofeedback on production and perception of second-language English tense-lax vowel contrasts. J. Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2023; 66(5):1479-95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-22-00587.
40. Chen Y. Production of tense-lax contrast by Mandarin speakers of English. Folia. Phoniatr Logop. 2006; 58(4):240-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1159/000093181.
41. de Jong L, Rebernik T, Vaziri S, Wieling M. Using ultrasound tongue imaging to improve L2 English pronunciation in Dutch students. In: Tiede M, Whalen DH, Gracco V, editors. Proceedings of the 12th International Seminar on Speech Production New Haven: Haskins Press; 2021. p. 60-3.
42. Stone M. A guide to analysing tongue motion from ultrasound images. Clin Linguist Phon. 2005 Sep-Nov; 19(6-7):455-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200500113558.
43. Bressmann T, Gu, T. Ultra-CATS: Ultrassonographic Contour Analyzer for Tongue Surfaces [Internet]. 2004 [cited in 2017 fev 10]. Available from: https://www.flintbox.com/public/project/926.
44. Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Internet]. Versão 5.4.12. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 2015 [cited in 2015 Jan 2]. Available from: http://www.praat.org.
45. Husson F, Josse J, Lê S, Mazet J. FactoMineR: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Mining with R [Internet]. 2013 [cited in 2016 Jan 10]. Available from: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/FactoMineR/index.html.
46. de Castro Lima C, José da Silva Jr L. Front vowels of English as a foreign language produced by proficient Brazilian speakers. Signum Estudos da Linguagem. 2023; 26 (2):69-87. https://doi.org/10.5433/2237-4876.2023v26n2p69.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Amaury Flávio Silva, Mário Augusto de Souza Fontes, Sandra Maria dos Santos Madureira