Phonological Factors Affecting L1 Phonetic Realization of Proficient Polish Users of English

Acoustic phonetic studies examine the L1 of Polish speakers with professional level proficiency in English. The studies include two tasks, a production task carried out entirely in Polish and a phonetic code-switching task in which speakers insert target Polish words or phrases into an English carrier. Additionally, two phonetic parameters are studied: the oft-investigated VOT, as well as glottalization vs. sandhi linking of wordinitial vowels. In monolingual Polish mode, L2 interference was observed for the VOT parameter, but not for sandhi linking. It is suggested that this discrepancy may be related to the differing phonological status of the two phonetic parameters. In the code-switching tasks, VOTs were on the whole more English-like than in monolingual mode, but this appeared to be a matter of individual performance. An increase in the rate of sandhi linking in the code-switches, except for the case of one speaker, appeared to be a function of accelerated production of L1 target items.

Word form retrieval in language production

Current models of word form retrieval converge on central assumptions. They all distinguish between morphological, phonological, and phonetic representations and processes; they all assume morphological and phonological decomposition, and agree on the main processing units at these levels. In addition, all current models of word form postulate the same basic retrieval mechanisms: activation and selection of units. Models of word production often distinguish between processes concerning the selection of a single word unit from the mental lexicon and the retrieval of the associated word form. This article explores lexical selection and word form retrieval in language production. Following the distinctions in linguistic theory, it discusses morphological encoding, phonological encoding, and phonetic encoding. The article also considers the representation of phonological knowledge, building of phonological representations, segmental retrieval, retrieval of metrical information, generating the phonetic code of words, and a model of word form retrieval.

The Quality of Digitized and Synthesized Speech

This paper reviews factors contributing to the quality of digitized and synthesized speech. Digital recording and playback of speech generally produces highly intelligible and natural-sounding speech provided that the sampling rate and quantization levels are adequate. Among the design factors important for the quality of synthesized speech are (a) the accuracy and sophistication of text-to-phonetic-code conversion algorithms and (b) the type of digital data (LPC or formant data) and the attention paid to spectral transitions across phonemic boundaries, the latter being, in part, a function of the unit of speech employed for synthesis (phoneme or diphone). To maximize the intelligibility and comprehension of synthesized speech, (a) single word responses should be avoided in favor of phrases and sentences, (b) discourse should be kept relatively simple with fewer and clearly stated propositions, (c) the rate of presentation should be slower than normal, (d) listeners should be exposed to and trained to discriminate synthesized speech, and (e) noise and other distractions should be kept to a minimum.