1. 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

2. (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

3. Introduction
Error analysis
L2 acquisition (SLA)

4. 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

5. 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)

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

7. 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/ ＜ ?

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 3 Assumptions on SLM
An L2 phone ≒ L1 easier to master than no counterpart
An L2 phone ≠ L better to develop a ‘new’ category
The degree of similarity the level of learnability.
1 phones
(norm)
identical, similar, or new?
L2 phones

17. ? ? ? 3 criteria on the degree of phonetic similarity
(1) Cross-linguistic phonemic contrast
e.g. /r/-/l/ transfer on native-Japanese English learners
L L 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

18. (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/

19. ? 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

20. Thank you for
Your listening