be capable of distinguishing length contrast when presented in conditions of relatively uniform speech rate. However, under conditions where speech normalization is required, they had difficulty with different types of syllable depending on their proficiency level. Advanced learners mistook CV for CVC in slow speech and Beginners, CVC and CVV for CV in fast speech. The results suggest a useful approach for L2 teaching of moraic timing.
The main findings are summarized in Chapter 9 and pedagogical suggestions are offered to L2 instructors. To conclude, English L2 learners are able to acquire the unit of morae and moraic timing. However, L1 prosodic features that are unmarked have a strong influence on L2 speech production and can hinder moraic timing at times.

Chiharu may be contacted at
C.Tsurutani@mailbox.gu.edu.au

(Continued from page 4)

method of evaluating the relative influence of language universal and language specific determinants on the production of L2 word prosody.  Bearing in mind the prosodic differences of the two languages discussed in the previous chapters, L2 production of moraic timing on consonants, vowels and contracted sounds is examined in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 respectively.  The study finds that L2 production is affected by L1

"The results from this experiment show a clear difference between learners' and native speakers' segmentation strategies."

prosody as well as by L1 phonetics, depending on the position of the target sound in a word.
Chapter 7 attempts to find the segmentation unit most readily employed by L2 learners using a word blending experiment. The results from this experiment show a clear difference between learners' and native speakers' segmentation strategies. They further demonstrate that morpho-phonological constraints, bimoraic stem and length constraints do not operate in word formation by L2 learners even when they are bilingual speakers.
Chapter 8 describes an experiment to test learners' perception of phonetic length contrast. Learners were shown to