Theoretical Discussion on the CH. Six & Theoretical Discussion on the Production of English by Taiwan EFL Learners Author: 李嘉宜 Presenter: 楊欣恬 Class: 碩研英語二甲 Liquids

(Markedness Differential Hypothesis & Speech Learning Model) Introduction Error analysis L2 acquisition (SLA) Background Markedness effect (ME) on l & r Similarity effect (SE) on l & r Hypotheses Testing (Markedness Differential Hypothesis & Speech Learning Model) Results of “l & r” production errors Conclusions ME in MDH (Eckman) SE in SLM (Flege) Outline

Introduction Error analysis L2 acquisition (SLA)

Language Transfer with Similarity Effect Contrastive Analysis Different Errors by L2 learners Taiwanese EFL learners (TEFLLs) L1 L2 /r/ (easy) ㄌ /l/ (difficult) Similar Language Transfer with Similarity Effect

Language Transfer L2 learners have problems with those sounds that sound similar but are different in L1 and L2 (Flege, 1987, 1991, 1995a, 1995b). L2 & L1 sounds: Similar Difficult Similarity effect (SE)

Markedness on L2 Acquisition Universal grammar (UG) Unmarked (common, easy) Marked (different, difficult) Markedness Language transfer (native transfer)

Taiwanese EFL learners (TEFLLs) This study aims to test markedness vs. similarity on acquisition of English /l/ & /r/ Which one is better to explain the learning path followed by TEFLLs while learning “/l/ & /r/” Taiwanese EFL learners (TEFLLs) Markedness Similarity Unmarked Marked Familiar Unfamiliar /l/ ＞ /r/ ＜ ?

Background ME on “/l/ & /r/” SE on “/l/ & /r/”

Markedness proposed by Trubetzkoy (1939) Linguistic theory SLA Markedness: marked (specific), not constrained by UG unmarked (general), constrained by UG A relative property, not a absolute one Incorporated into MDH by Eckman 2 ways of explanation: typological markedness generative grammar

Typological markedness Markedness Explained for 2 Ways Typological markedness by Eckman Generative grammar by Chomsky every language unmarked marked X (marked) Y (unmarked) Core (basic) acquired before Peripheral (complex) include difficult ＜ include Complex syllables (CVC) Simple syllables (CV) CV syllables Complex e.g. CVC

2 Diagnostic Tests for Markedness on English /l/ & /r/ Featural markedness Frequency markedness M/SM Segment types /l/ & /r/ (marked compared to other consonants, acquired later) /b/, /p/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /g/ in L1 /r/ (marked) hard /l/ ㄌ (unmarked) sucessful TEFLLs encounter difficulty more marked than M/SM Note. M = Mandarin; S = Southern Min

Markedness Differentitial Hypothesis (MDH) by Eckman Difficult: areas of TL differ from NL; TL markedness > NL The degree of difficulty ＝ the degree of markedness Not difficult: areas of TL differ from NL; TL markedness < NL Note. TL = Target language; NL = Native language

e.g. MDH on English-German obstruents English German Voiced more marked English German Voiced /b/, /d/, /g/ Voiceless /p/, /t/, /k/ Word-initial Word-medial Word-final marked unmarked difficult

Predictions of MDH on /l/ & /r/ (1) The areas of differences between L1 and L2 /l/ less marked than /r/ TEFLLs (2) TEFLLs /l/ (unmarked) acquired before /r/ (marked) Difficult/ problems ME English M/SM Beijing Word-initial /l/ ㄌ Word-final /l/ (more marked) Word-initial /r/ (lip round, e.g. read) Word-final /r/ (tongue curl, e.g. car) ㄦ

Speech Learning Model (SLM) by Flege L2 sounds (＝ L1 sounds) (1) sounds that sound similar but different in L1 & L2 (2) classify the differences between “similar” L1 & L2 sounds. Equivalence classification (EC) L2 learners have difficulty

3 Assumptions on SLM An L2 phone ≒ L1 easier to master than no counterpart An L2 phone ≠ L1 better to develop a ‘new’ category The degree of similarity the level of learnability. 1 phones (norm) identical, similar, or new? L2 phones

? ? ? 3 criteria on the degree of phonetic similarity (1) Cross-linguistic phonemic contrast e.g. /r/-/l/ transfer on native-Japanese English learners L1 L2 L1 alike No contrast Japanese: /l/ (absent) /r/ light & right loom & room light loom similar light (right) ra, ri, ru, re, ro la, li, ru, le, lo ? ? ? problems in articulating /l/ & /r/ accurately

(2) Perceptual evaluation interlingual identification L2 phones L1 phones merge L1 phones (the same category) replace e.g. Valdman (1976): English alveolar /s/ & French dental /s/ French /s/ English /s/ merge English /s/

? Flege (1986, 1987) older children & adults e.g. Takagi (1993): L2 phones L1 phones merge L1 phones (the same category) EC English /s/ (L1) & French /s/ (L2) ? e.g. Takagi (1993): easy /l/ & /r/ on the final position (unfamiliar) more experienced Japanese /l/ & /r/ on the initial position (similar) difficult

Thank you for Your listening