EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 09001 References
Open Access
This article has a note: [https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419109008]

Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 09001
Number of page(s) 17
Section Phonétique, phonologie et interfaces
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419109001
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Best, C. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (p. 171‑204). [Google Scholar]
  2. Best, C., McRoberts, G., & Sithole, N. (1988). Examination of Perceptual Reorganization for Nonnative Speech Contrasts: Zulu Click Discrimination by English-Speaking Adults and Infants. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 14, 345‑360. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096–1523.14.3.345 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boersma, P., & Weenick, D. (1992). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program] [Version 6.2.06, Retrieved 23 January, 2022 from https://www.praat.org]. [Google Scholar]
  4. Borel, S., Vaissiere, J., Lavrut, M., Noiret, A., Ambert-Dahan, E., & Sterkers, O. (2016). Quels sosies labiaux pour les voyelles nasales du français? 120. [Google Scholar]
  5. Burfin, S. (2015). L’apport des informations visuelles des gestes oro-faciaux dans le traitement phonologique des phonèmes natifs et non-natifs: Approches comportementale, neurophysiologique [Thèse de doctorat, Université Grenoble Alpes (ComUE)]. https://www.theses.fr/2015GREAS002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Calliope. (1989). La Parole et son traitement automatique. Masson. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chunsuvimol, B., & Ronnakiat, N. (2001). (v) is Really a Problem Sound for Thai Speakers. Thammasat Review, 6(1), 177‑195. [Google Scholar]
  8. Detey, S., Durand, J., & Nespoulous, J.-L. (2005). Interphonologie et représentations orthographiques. Le cas des catégories /b/ et /v/ chez des apprenants japonais de Français Langue Etrangère. Revue PAROLE, 34–35‑36, 140. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dumont, A., & Calbour, C. (2002). Voir la parole: Lecture labiale, perception audiovisuelle de la parole. Elsevier Masson. [Google Scholar]
  10. Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning, 27(2), 315‑330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–1770.1977.tb00124.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Endarto, I. (2015). Comparison between English Loanwords in Thai and Indonesian: A Comparative Study in Phonology and Morphology. [Google Scholar]
  12. Field, T. M., Woodson, R., Greenberg, R., & Cohen, D. (1982). Discrimination and imitation of facial expressions by neonates. Science, 218(4568), 179‑181. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7123230 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Files, B. T., Tjan, B. S., Jiang, J., & Bernstein, L. E. (2015). Visual speech discrimination and identification of natural and synthetic consonant stimuli. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00878 [Google Scholar]
  14. Flege, J. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (York Press, p. 229‑273). [Google Scholar]
  15. Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. A. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(6), 3728‑3740. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418332 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hazan, V., Sennema, A., Faulkner, A., Ortega-Llebaria, M., Iba, M., & Chung, H. (2006). The use of visual cues in the perception of non-native consonant contrastsa). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(3), 1740‑1751. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2166611 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346‑363. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Istria, M., Nicolas-Jeantoux, C., & Tamboise, J. (1982). Manuel de lecture labiale: Exercices d’entraînement (Masson). [Google Scholar]
  19. Keating, P., Wright, R., & Zhang, J. (1999). Word-level asymmetries in consonant articulation. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 97, 157‑173. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kuhl, P. K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1982). The Bimodal Perception of Speech In Infancy. Science, 218(4577), 1138‑1141. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7146899 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Le Corre, C. (2013). Etude de la prononciation des étudiants thaïlandais en apprentissage du français et majeure de français à l’université de KHON KAEN, Thaïlande. [Google Scholar]
  23. Legerstee, M. (1990). Infants use multimodal information to imitate speech sounds. Infant Behavior and Development, 13(3), 343‑354. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163–6383(90)90039-B [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates. Science, New Series, 198(4312), 75‑78. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nacaskul, K. (1979). A note on English loanwords in Thai. 151‑162. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ngammana, P. (2011). Les problèmes de la prononciation du français chez les lycéens thaïlandais [Mémoire de Master]. Université Chulalongkorn, Thaïlande. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pons, F., Lewkowicz, D. J., Soto-Faraco, S., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2009). Narrowing of intersensory speech perception in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10598‑10602. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904134106 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Promkesa, S. (2014). Étude des problèmes de prononciation des consonnes fricatives du français par des apprenants thaïlandais et propositions de correction phonétique [Mémoire de Master 2 Recherche en Sciences du langage]. Université Stendhal, Grenoble. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rose, Y., MacWhinney, B., Byrne, R., Hedlund, G., Maddocks, K., O’Brien, P., & Wareham, T. (2006). Introducing Phon: A Software Solution for the Study of Phonological Acquisition. 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 489‑500. https://doi.org/NIHMS761003 [Google Scholar]
  30. Silverman, D. (1992). Multiple Scansions in Loanword Phonology: Evidence from Cantonese. Phonology, 9(2), 289‑328. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sridhanyarat, K. (2017). The Acquisition of L2 Fricatives in Thai Learners’ Interlanguage. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 23, 15‑34. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017–2301-02 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Stein, B. E., & Meredith, M. A. (1993). The merging of the senses. The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Troubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). Principes de phonologie (traduction française par J. Cantineau en 1949). C. Klincksieck. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tusnyingyong, S., & Tran, T. T. H. (2022). Pourquoi les apprenants thaïlandais confondent-ils souvent /v/et /w/ du français? Une étude pilote sur l’effet de l’orthographe. SHS Web of Conferences, 138, 08007. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202213808007 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vaissière, J. (2006). La phonétique. Presses universitaires de France. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, Y., Behne, D. M., & Jiang, H. (2008). Linguistic experience and audio-visual perception of nonnative fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124(3), 1716‑1726. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2956483 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, Y., Behne, D. M., & Jiang, H. (2009). Influence of native language phonetic system on audio-visual speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 37(3), 344‑356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.04.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.