1. Author: Flege, J. (1986) Presenter: Shu-ping Chuang (Erin) Advisor: Rung-fu, Chung Date: March 1 st, 2012

2. Outline  Terms  Introduction  Goal  Hypothesis  Methods  Summary  Q & A

3. Terms (1)  Formant 1 (f1) / Formant 2 (f2) open/closefront/ back

4. Terms (2)  Voice onset time (VOT)

5. Introduction (1)  New, Similar or Identical? (Flege, 1986)  New: L2 have no counterpart in the L1  e.g. /  /, /  /  Similar: seems to be the same but might use different articulatory patterns  e.g. ㄅ, book

6. Introduction (2)  Why do L2 learners do not produce L2 phones authentically? 1. They may not perceive L2 phones accurately. 2. L2 filter Filter out non- L1 ??

7. Introduction (3)  Equivalence Classification:  a basic cognitive mechanism which permits children to identify phones produced by different talkers or in different contexts put them into the same category L2 E.C. L1 alike

8. Introduction (4)  Flege (1981): Equivalence Classification may (1) learn the authentic production of L1 phones  (2) it may lead to foreign accent of L2 in older children and adults

9. Introduction (5)  Scovel (1981): - age foreign accent - phonetic categories become better defined, bc of L1 environment

10. Goal  To test the result of the development of the L1 phonetic system; the effect of equivalence classification that prevents adults from producing L2 phones authentically

11. Hypothesis 1-1  1. E.C. prevents L2 learners from establishing a phonetic category for similar L2 phones -- if L2 is different from L1, E.C. will not occur  2. L2 learners will be unable to produce authentically L2 phones (≠ L1) unless they establish a (new) phonetic category for the L2 phones

12. Hypothesis 1-2 Native Eng speakers New French vowel /y/ Similar French vowel / u / authenticity Phonetic Norm French /y/ & / u / → French monolinguals English / u / → English monolinguals F. mono’s /y/ F. mono’s / u /

13. Hypothesis 2-1  L2 learners will approximate but not achieve the phonetic norms of L2 for similar L2 when they gain experience in L2  L2 learners are able to produce similarly, but NOT authentically. Similar L2 norm

14. Hypothesis 2-2  To test the production of similar L2 phones by native English and French speakers who are highly experienced in their L2. L2 speech of experienced learners should closer to the L2 norm than those of inexperienced L2 learners. Experienced: Similar L2 norm In experienced: Similar L2

15. Hypothesis 3-1  Flege: there is an upper limit for L2 learners approximate L2 phonetic norms for similar phones bc. L2 learners “merge” the phonetic properties of similar L1 & L2 phones within a single category (merger hypothesis).

16. Hypothesis 3-2  To test whether L2 learning affects the production of stops in L1 L1 L2 interference

17. Questions

18. Thank You!!