Search

This study examines how L1 English-L2 French learners use L1 articulatory and acoustic categories to produce L2 vowels that are both similar to and different from their L1 vowels. Previous studies examining the relationship between L1 and L2 sound inventories have found that learners reuse L1 phone categories to produce L2 phones that are perceived as similar, but importantly, there is a lack of articulatory data included in these types of studies, which has reinforced the assumption that vowel categories can be solely represented by their acoustic properties. The present study uses ultrasound tongue imaging data and videos of lip rounding in addition to acoustic data to examine how L1 English-L2 French learners produce the French vowels /i y u e ø o/ compared with their English vowels /i u e o/. The results focus on individual paths to category formation to show how learners articulate L2 vowels, and reveal that they tend to reuse L1 tongue body gestures to produce the French vowels /i u e o/, and lip rounding gestures to produce the round vowels /y u o/. This study demonstrates that transfer of articulatory gestures depends on vowel quality and emphasizes the importance of using articulatory data to inform theories of L2 category formation.

This study uses non-native perception data to examine the relationship between perceived phonetic similarity of segments and their phonological patterning. Segments that are phonetically similar to one another are anticipated to pattern together phonologically, and segments that share articulatory or acoustic properties are also expected to be perceived as similar. What is not yet clear is whether segments that pattern together phonologically are perceived as similar. This study addresses this question by examining how L1 English listeners and L1 Guébie listeners perceive non-native implosive consonants compared with plosives and sonorants. English does not have contrastive implosives, whereas Guébie has a bilabial implosive. The bilabial implosive phonologically patterns with sonorants in Guébie, to the exclusion of obstruents. Two perception experiments show English listeners make more perceptual categorization errors between implosives and voiced plosives than Guébie listeners do, but both listener groups are more likely to classify implosives as similar to voiced plosives than sonorants. The results also show that Guébie listeners are better at categorizing non-native implosive consonants (i.e., alveolar implosives) than English listeners, showing that listeners are able to extend features or gestures from their L1 to non-native implosive consonants. The results of these experiments suggest a cross-linguistic perceptual similarity hierarchy of implosives compared with other segments that are not affected by L1 phonological patterning.

Gene drive is an emerging biotechnology with applications in global health, conservation and agriculture. Scientists are preparing for field trials, triggering debate about when and how to release gene-drive organisms. These decisions depend on public understandings of gene drive, which are shaped by language. While some studies on gene drive communication assume the need to persuade publics of expert definitions of gene drive, we highlight the importance of meaning-making in communication and engagement. We conducted focus groups with humanities and science teachers in the United Kingdom and United States to explore how different media framings stimulated discussions of gene drive. We found diversity in the value of these framings for public debate. Interestingly, the definition favoured by gene drive scientists was the least popular among participants. Rather than carefully curating language, we need opportunities for publics to make sense and negotiate the meanings of a technology on their own terms.

Competing Interests: The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

This study presents a systematic comparison of two alternative measures of citizens' perceptions of risks and benefits of emerging technologies. By focusing on two specific issues (nanotechnology and biofuels), we derive several insights for the measurement of public views of science. Most importantly, our analyses reveal that relying on global, single-item measures may lead to invalid inferences regarding external influences on public perceptions, particularly those related to cognitive schema and media use. Beyond these methodological implications, this analysis suggests several reasons why researchers in the area of public attitudes toward science must revisit notions of measurement in order to accurately inform the general public, policymakers, scientists, and journalists about trends in public opinion toward emerging technologies.