跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.238.252.196) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/13 23:48
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:羅春琳
研究生(外文):Chun-lin Luo
論文名稱:華語人士對英語”類”母音與”新”母音的發音與感知之研究:英語高母音的實驗探討
論文名稱(外文):Production and Perception of “Similar” and “New” Vowels by Mandarin Speakers: An Experimental Study of English High Vowels
指導教授:謝國平謝國平引用關係
指導教授(外文):John Kwock-ping Tse
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:英語研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:111
中文關鍵詞:聲學的長度第一共振峰第二共振峰
外文關鍵詞:acousticlengthfirst formant frequency (F1)second formant frequency (F2)
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:619
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:130
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
本研究旨在探討以國語為母語者(華語人士)相對於以英語為母語者,及不同性別人士對英語「類」母音,如/ i /,/ u /及「新」母音如/I / ,/ U /,在發音及感知方面是否有困難;是「類」母音較難發音或感知,或是「新」母音較難掌握◦ 本研究包含兩個實驗:在發音的實驗中,研究者將受試者所錄的音以聲譜儀測量母音的長度(L),第一共振峰(F1)及第二共振峰(F2);感知的實驗為一聽力測驗◦
實驗結果顯示1) 華語人士主要以長度來區分類/新母音而英語人士則從長度,F1及F2各方面來區分;2) 華語人士不僅不區分/ i /和/ I /的F1及/ u / 和/ U /的F1,尚且和英語人士相反,發出F1比/ U /還高的/u /;3) 英語人士所發的/ U / F2比/ u /高而華語人士則不區分/ u / 和/ U /的F2;4)女性受試者所發的/ i /和/ I /比男性長;5) 女性所發/ i /和/ I /的F1及F2皆比男性高;6) 華語人士的聽力測驗顯示其對英語高母音的感知能力非常好◦
上述結果對相關外語習得的理論或有支持或有反證,並對語音的顯著性之研究有所貢獻◦

The purposes of this study are to understand the effects of language (Mandarin vs. English) and sex (male vs. female) on the production of English similar and new vowels as analyzed by acoustic measurement of vowel length (L), first formant frequency (F1), and second formant frequency (F2), and to explore the relation between production and perception by comparing a production experiment and a listening task on Mandarin speakers.
The results indicated that a) Mandarin speakers mainly contrast the similar/new pairs of vowels by length while the English speakers contrast these pairs by all the parameters, L, F1 and F2; b) in addition to not contrasting F1 between / u / and / U /, Mandarin speakers, contrary to English speakers, produce higher F1 for / u / than / U /; c) English speakers produce significantly higher F2 for / U / than / u / while Mandarin speakers do not contrast significantly by F2 for the pair / u , U /; d) females produce longer / i / and / I / than males; e) females produce higher F1 and higher F2 for / i / and / I / than males; and f) the Mandarin subjects show excellent perception of the English high vowels.
Our subjects demonstrated difficulty in the production of new vowels and showed better perception than production. These results supported the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Markedness Differential Hypothesis and Desensitization Hypothesis, but failed to support Trubetzkoy’s phonological filtering and Speech Learning Model of Flege et al. The findings of this study also contributed to the research concerning the markedness of sounds by denoting the difficulties shown by our subjects in producing the tense and lax vowels.

Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………. i
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………….. iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………. v
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………… vii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………. ix
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION………..……………………………………………………... 1
1.1 Production and perception…………………………………………………... 5
1.2 “Similar” and “new” vowels………………………………………………… 7
1.3 Acoustic features of English vowels………………………………………… 9
1.4 Acoustic features of Mandarin vowels……………………………………… 12
2. LITERATURE REVILEW……………………………………………………… 16
2.1 Contrastive Analysis Theory………………………………………………... 16
2.2 Second language acquisition phonology……………….…………………… 20
2.3 Speech Learning Model……………………………………………………... 23
2.4 Desensitization Hypothesis…………………………………………………. 27
2.5 Vowel production in Mandarin speakers of English………………………… 29
2.6 Vowel perception in Mandarin speakers of English…………………………. 32
2.7 Issues in similar and new sounds……………………………………………. 34
3 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………….. 38
3.1 The production experiment………………………………………………….. 39
3.1.1 Subjects…………...…………………………………………………….. 39 3.1.2 Materials and data collection procedures……………………...………... 39
3.1.3 Data analysis procedures……………………………………………… 40
3.2 The perception experiment…………………………………………………... 41
3.2.1 Subjects…...…………………………………………………………….. 41
3.2.2 Materials and data collection procedures……………………………...... 41
3.2.3 Data analysis procedures……………………………………………..… 42
4. RESULTS…...…………………………………………………………………… 43
4.1 The production experiment…………………………………………………... 43
4.2 The perception experiment………………………………………………...… 71
5. DISCUSSION ……………...……………………………………………………. 72
5.1 Production and perception…………………………………………………… 72
5.2 Similar and new sound………………………………………………………. .79
5.3 Theoretical implications……………………………………………………... 84
5.4 Pedagogical implications……………………………………………….……. 88
6. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….……. 91
6.1 Summary ……………………………………………………………………. 91
6.2 Limitations and suggestions…………………………………………………. 93
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………. 94
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….…..102
List of Tables
Page
Table 1.1: Formant frequency (F1, F2)(in Hz) values of selected 6 vowels in Mandarin. Adapted from Wu (1964)………………………………… 15
Table 4.1a: Means of L (sec)……………………………………………………... 44
Table 4.1b: Means of F1 (Hz)……………………………………………………. 44
Table 4.1c: Means of F2 (Hz)……………………………………………………. 44
Table 4.2: Corrected Model I…………………………………………………….. 46
Table 4.3: The ANOVA test for the data………………………………………… 47
Table 4.4: Post hoc comparison for the effect of language on F1 (Hz)………….. 51
Table 4.5: Post hoc comparison for the effect of sex on F2 (Hz)………………... 53
Table 4.6: Post hoc comparison for the effect of language on F2 (Hz)………….. 54
Table 4.7: Post hoc comparison for the effect of sex and language on F2 (Hz)…. 56
Table 4.8: Corrected Model IIa & Iib…………………………………………….. 59
Table 4.9: ANOVA test for the effects of language, sex and similar/new vowel
on the responses L, F1, F2 respectively……………………...……….. 60
Table 4.10: Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of all the subjects as grouped
by SEX………………………………………………………………… 62
Table 4.11: Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of all the subjects as grouped
by LAN………………………………………………………………… 63
Table 4.12: Post hoc comparison for the effect of language on F1 of / i , I /……… 64
Table 4.13: Post hoc comparison for the factors sex and language on F1 of
/ u , U /………………………………………………………………...… 65
Table 4.14: Post hoc comparison for paired vowels by Mandarin speakers………. 69
Table 4.15: Post hoc comparison for paired vowels by English speakers……..…. 70
Table 5.1: The means of F1 in the case of / i , I / in comparison with the means obtained by Ladefoged (1975)……………………………………….. 74
Table 5.2: The means of F1 in the case of /u , U/ vs. the mean obtained by
Peterson and Barney (1952)………………….………………………. 75
Table 5.3: The means of F1 in the case of /u , U/ vs. the means obtained by
Ladefoged (1975)……...……………………………………………… 75
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1: / I / as produced by a native speaker (synchronized waveform
And spectrogram)……………………………………………………… 10
Figure 1.2: Plot of the first formant (F1) against the second formant (F2) for
Eight English vowels (cf. Ladefoged, 1993:197.)…………………..… 12
Figure 4.1: Frequency of the second formant versus frequency of the first, for
10 vowels spoken by 76 speakers. (Adapted from G. E. Perterson
and H. L. Barney, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24,
1952, 182)…………………………………………………………….. 45
Figure 4.2a: Means of L produced by Mandarin speakers……………………… 48
Figure 4.2b: Means of L produced by English speakers…………………...…… 49
Figure 4.2c: Means of L produced by male and female subjects……...…...…… 49
Figure 4.2d: Means of L produced by Mandarin and English subjects.…....…… 50
Figure 4.3a: Means of F1 by Mandarin and English subjects……………...…… 52
Figure 4.3b: Means of F1 by male and female subjects…………….……...…… 52
Figure 4.4a: Means of F2 by male and female subjects…………….……...…… 54
Figure 4.4b: Means of F2 by Mandarin and English subjects……………...…… 55
Figure 4.5a: Means of F2 produced by male Mandarin speakers and
male English speakers……………………………………………….. 57
Figure 4.5b: Means of F2 produced by female Mandarin speakers and
female English speakers………………………………………….….. 57
Figure 5.1a: Native speaker V’s production of / I /………………………….…... 80
Figure 5.1b: Mandarin speaker H’s production of / I /……..……………….….... 80
Figure 5.2a: Native speaker V’s production of / U /……………………………... 81
Figure 5.2b: Mandarin speaker H’s production of / U /……..………………….... 81

Alatis, J. (Ed.) 1968. Constructive Linguistic and its Pedagogical Implications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Arabski, J. 1979. Errors as Indications of the Development of Interlanguage. Katowice: Uniwersytet Slaski.
Banathy, B., Trager, E. C., &Waddle, C. D. 1966. The use of contrastive data in foreign language course development. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Blankenship, B. 1991. Vowel perception in second language. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 80, 38-64.
Bohn, O.-S., & Flege, J. E. 1992. The production of new and similar vowels by adult German learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14 (2), 131-158.
Bohn, O.-S., & Flege, J. E. 1990. Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 303-328.
Bohn, O.-S. 1995. Cross-language speech perception in adults: first language transfer doesn’t tell it all. In W. Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research (pp. 279-304). Baltimore: York Press.
Brière, E. 1966. An investigation of phonological interference. Language, 42, 769-796.
Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.
Carroll, Thomas D. 1978. Some Practical Notes on the Pronunciation of Taiwanese: A Pedagogical Treatment of the Sounds of the Amoy Dialects Spoken in Taiwan.
Chamot, A. U. 1978. Grammatical problems in learning English as a third language. In Hatch, E. (ed.) Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings, pp. 176-89. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Chang, G. B. Y. 1993. The Learning of Five Allophonic Rules in English by Chinese EFL Students: An Experimental Study. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Chen, Yang. 1999. Acoustic Characteristics of American English Produced by Native Speakers of Mandarin. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Connecticut.
Cheng, C.-C. 1973. A Synchronic Phonology of Mandarin Chinese. The Hague: Mouton.
Cheng, L.-R. L. 1987. Assessing Asian Language Performance, guidelines for evaluation limited-English-proficient students. Rockville, Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc..
Cheng, R. 1966. Mandarin phonological structure. Journal of Linguistics, 2, 135-262.
Chien, Richard Ching-gwo. 1971. A Contrastive Study of the Phonological Systems of Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese. MA Thesis. Taipei: Fu Jen University.
Chomsky, N, & Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Corder, S. P. 1978. Language-learner language. In Richards, J.C. (ed.) Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Davidsen-Nielsen, N., & Harder, P. 1987. Speakers of Scandinavian languages: Danish, Norwegian, Swedish. In M. Swan & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 16-29).
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 37-53.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Duskova, L. 1969. On sources of errors in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics 7: 11-36.
Eckman, F. R. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language learning. 27(2), 315-330.
Eliasson, S. (Ed). 1984. Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Phonology. Heidelberg: Groos Verlag.
Fant, G. 1970. Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The Hague: Mouton.
Fant, G. 1973. Speech Sounds and Features. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fellows, Jennifer M., Remez, Robert E., & Rubin, Philip E. 1997. Perceiving the sex and identity of a talker without natural vocal timbre. Perception & Psychophysics. 59(6), 839-849.
Flege, J. E. 1986. The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In Human Communication and its Disorders, Vol. 11 (H.Winitz ed.) Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Flege, J. E. 1987. The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics,15, 47-65.
Flege, J. E. 1991. Perception and production: The relevance of phonetic input to L2 phonological learning. In Heubner, T., & Ferguson, C. (Eds.), Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. (pp. 249-289). Philadephia: John Benjamins.
Flege, J. E. 1993. Production and perception of a novel, second-language phonetic contrast. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93 (3), 1589-1608.
Flege, J. E. 1995. Second language speech learning: theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research (pp. 233-277). Baltimore: York Press.
Flege, J. E. & Bohn, O.-S. 1989. The perception of English vowels by native speakers of Spanish. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 85, Suppl. 1, S85.
Flege, J. E. , Bohn, O.-S., & Jang, S. 1997. Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437-470.
Flege, J. E., & Hillenbrand, H. 1984. Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 708-721.
Fries, C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fromkin, Victoria, & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. 6th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Fry, D. B., Abramson, S. A., Eimas, P. D., & Liberman, A. M. 1962. The identification and discrimination of synthetic vowels. Language and speech, 5, 171-189.
Goto, H. 1971. Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “l” and “r”. Neuropsychologia, 9: 317-323.
Guo, J. F. 1992. Zhong He Yu Yin Xue. Fujian, China: People Publisher.
Hecht, B. F., & Mulford, R. 1982. The acquisiton of a second language phonology: Interaction of transfer and developmental factors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3 (4) 313-328.
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, L. 1995. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowel. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099-3111.
Howie, J. M. 1976. Acoustical Studies of Mandarin Vowels and Tones. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Shih-Jen. 2000. Acoustic differences among English vowels. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Hyltenstam, K. 1977. Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning 27 (2): 383-411.
Ing, R. O. 1972. Mandarin Sounds. Taipei: Mandarin Training Center, National Taiwan Normal University.
Ioup, G., & Weinberger, S. H. (Eds). 1987. Interlanguage Phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Johnson, Keith, Strand, Elizabeth A., & D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 1999. Auditory-visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception. Journal of Phonetics. 27, 359-384.
Kalikow, D., & Swets, J. 1972. Experiments with computer-controlled displays in second-language learning. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 20, 23-28.
Karimi, S. 1987. Farsi speakers and the initial consonant cluster in English. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage Phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 305-318). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Kean, M. 1986. Core issues in transfer. In Kellerman, E and Sharwood-Smith, M (eds.) Cross-linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 80-90. Pergamon Press.
Kellerman, E. 1977. Towards a characterization of the strategies of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2: 58-145.
Kent, R. D., & Read, C. 1992. The Acoustic Analysis Speech. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
Kohler, K. 1984. Contrastive phonology and the acquisition of phonetic skills. In S. Eliasson (Ed.), Theoretical issues in contrastive phonology (pp. 73-84). Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
Labov, W. 1981. Resolving the neogrammarian controversy, Language 57, 267-309.
Ladefoged, P. 1975, 1993. A course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Lane, Linda L. 1994. ESL Learners’ Perception of Similar and New Vowels: A Study of English /ij/ and /I/. Ed.D. Dissertation. Columbia University.
Larsen-Freeman, D, & Long, M.H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman Inc.
Li, C., & Thompson, S. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Light, T. 1976. The Chinese Syllabic Final. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Luo, C. L. 2000. English high tense and lax vowel contrasts by Mandarin speakers and English speakers: a spectrographic analysis. Journal of Humanities, 13, 141-158. Tai-Chung: Liberal Arts College of Providence University Press.
Ma, Lin. 1995. Production of Five American English Front Vowels by Adult Mandarin Chinese Speakers. Ed.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M University.
Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Major, R. 1987. Phonological similarity, markedness and rate of L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 63-82.
Major, R. 1994. Current trends in interlanguage phonology. In M. Yavas (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 181-204). San Diego, California: Singular Publishing Group Inc.
Molholt, G. 1988. Computer-assisted instruction in pronunciation for Chinese speakers of American English. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 91-111.
Munro, M. 1993. Productions English vowels by native speakers of Arabic: Acoustic measurements and accentedness rating. Language and Speech, 36, 39-66.
Munro, M., Flege, J. E., & MacKay, I. 1996. The effects of age of second language learning on the production of English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 313-334
Odlin, T. 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olive, J., Greenwood, A, & Coleman, J. 1993. Acoustics of American English Speech. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ovando, C. J., & Collier, V. P. 1985. Bilingual and ESL classrooms. New York: MgGraw-Hill Book Company.
Parker, F., & Riley, K. 2000. Linguistics for Non-linguists. 3rd. ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24(2), 175-184.
Prator, C. H. Jr., & Robinett, B. W. 1985. Manual of American English Pronunciation. New York: Holt, Rinehart Winston.
Pols, L. C. W., Tromp, H. R. C., & Plomp, R. 1973. Frequency analysis of Dutch vowels from 50 male speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 53. 1093-1101.
Rekart, Deborah M., Finch, Cynthia M., & Mino, Mary. 1998. Gender- and reticence-related vocal cues: an exploratory acoustical analysis. Communication Research Reports. 15(1), 1-16.
Sapir, E. 1933. The psychological reality of phonemes. Translated in Mandelbaum (ed,) 1949. Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10 (3), 209-231.
Selinker, L. 1992. Rediscovering interlanguage. New York: Longman Inc.
Sheldon, A. & Strange, W. 1982. The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 243-261.
Shrilberg, L. D., & Kent, R. D. 1982. Clinical Phonetics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Sino Social Science Academy Language Institute Dictionary Editing Department, 1978. Modern Chinese Dictionary. Beijing: Shangwu Publisher.
Smith, B. 1987. Arabic speakers. In M. Awan and B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 142-157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stevens, K., & House, A. 1963. Perturbation of vowel articulations by consonant context: An acoustical study, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 6, 111-128.
Stockwell, R. P., & Bowen, J. D. 1965. The Sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tiee, H. 1969. Contrastive analysis of the monosyllabic structure of American English and Mandarin Chinese. Language learning. 19(1ž), 1-15.
Tops, G. A. J., Dekeyser, X., Devrient, B., & Geukens, S. 1987. Dutch speakers. In M. Swan & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 1-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trubetzkoy, N. 1969. Grundzuge der phonology, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague,7 (English translation by C. Baltaxe). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tse, K. P. John. 2000. Introduction to Linguistics. 2nd ed. Taipei: San-min Publisher. (in Chinese)
Valdman, A. 1976. Introduction to French Phonology and Morphology. Rowley: Newbury House.
Van Nierop, D. J. P. J., Pols, L. C. L., & Plomp, R. 1973. Frequency analysis of Dutch vowels from 25 female speakers. Acustica, 29. 110-118.
Wang, Xinchun. 1997. The Acquisition of English Vowels by Mandarin ESL Learners: A Study of Production and Perception. MA Thesis. Simon Fraser University.
Wardhough, R. 1970. The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4: 123-30.
Wei, Hsiu-lan. 1997. A Study of the Production and Perception of the English Obstruents by Chinese EFL Students. MA Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Weinreich, U. 1968. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.
Wolfram, W., & Johnson, R. 1982. Phonological Analysis: focus on American English. Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Wu, Y. 1994. Mandarin Segmental Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Toronto.
Wu, Z. J. 1964. The spectrographic analysis of the vowels and consonants in standard colloquial Chinese. Journal of Acoustics (Shengxue Xuebao), 1(1), 34-40.
Yavas, M. (Ed.). 1994. First and Second Language Phonology. San Diego, Ca: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
Yang, Byunggon. 1996. A comparative study of American English and Korean vowels produced by male and female speakers. Journal of Phonetics. 24, 245-261.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top