1. 台灣高中學生在閩南語、國語、及英語的母音習得研究 Vowel Acquisition of Southern Min, Mandarin, and English for Senior High Students 研究生 : 楊玉玲 指導教授 : 鍾榮富 Reporter: 謝綠妮 Amy NA3C0015 Time: 104.05.10 Place: N309

2. Outline  Chapter 1: Introduction  1.1 Background and Motivation  1.2 Purposes of the Study  1.3 Research Questions of the Study  1.4 Significance of the Study  Chapter 2: Literature Review  2.1 Vowel Quality in Acoustics  2.2 Vowel Acquisition and Language Transfer  2.3 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)  Chapter 3: Methodology  3.1 Participants  3.2 Instruments  3.3 Procedures  Chapter 4: Findings and Discussions  4.1 Similarities and Differences  4.2 Language Transfer  4.3 Productions on Theory of CAH  Chapter 5: Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestion  5.1 Conclusions  5.2 Implications  5.3 Suggestions for Further study

3. Chapter One--Introduction  1.0 Introduction  Goal 1: Probe into the similarities and differences among languages  Goal 2: Investigate the influence of L1 and L2 upon English (L3) vowel acquisition  Goal 3: Examine how the empirical vowel productions reflected in the theory of CAH  1.1 Background and Motivation  Chung (2009) contrasts languages for similarities and differences in phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and pragmatics  Wang (2012) found a stronger influence of Mandarin(L2) upon L3 vowel acquisition  Hsiao (2014) found theL3 vowel productions of both Southern Min natives and Hakka natives were affected more by L1 than L2  According to CAH, the elements that are similar with the learners’ native language would be easy to be acquired, oppositely; those that are different hard.  1.2 Purposes of the Study  (A) Is the High school students’ L3 vowel performance more similar to that in Southern Min or in Mandarin?  (B) Is there a negative or positive language transfer of L1 or L2?  (C) Which vowels in L1 and L2 cause positive and negative transfer in L3 acquisition?  1.3 Research Questions of the study  1. What are the similarities and differences of vowels produced in L1 (Southern Min), L2 (Mandarin) and L3 (English)?  2. Which of L1 and L2 would have more interfered with L3 vowel acquisition?  3. How are the high school students’ vowel productions reflected in CAH (Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis)?  1.4 Significance of the Study  1. Provide English instructors better understanding of vowels in  Southern Min, Mandarin, and English to benefit English vowel acquiring  2. Inspire language teachers to make a good use of the positive  language transfer, and to avoid the negative language transfer in English learning

4. Chapter Two—Literature Review -- 1  2.0 Introduction  1: Vowel quality in Acoustics  2: Vowel acquisition and language transfer  3: Contrastive analysis  2.1 Vowel Quality in Acoustics  Vowels and consonants. They can be distinguished phonetically in the aspect of waveform showed in acoustic spectrograph (Chung, 2006)  The waveforms of vowels are periodic, but consonants aren’t periodic.  The features of sounds can be featured by formants like F0, F1, F2, and F3.  F1, the first formant, refers to the height of tongue position.  F2, the second format, refers to the backness of tongue position.  F3, the third formant, stands for the roundness of lips while articulating the sounds.

5. Chapter Two—Literature Review-- 2  2.2 Vowel Acquisition and Language Transfer  (A) Vowel Acquisition  1. Lin (1994) displayed that the front vowels of /i/ and /N/, and /e/ and /W/ confused Chinese English learners a lot.  2. Chen (1999) and Tseng (2010) found that the correspondences of /e/, /D/, and /W/ were challenging.  3. Wang (2012), Taiwanese elementary students could not pronounce /e/ and /u/ accurately.  4. Teng (2002) exhibited that most of the students had problems pronouncing English pairs /i, N/, /e, D/, /u,  /, and /o,C/.  5. Hsiao (2014) said that not only the English pairs of /i, N/, /e, D, W/, /u,  /, and /o, C/, but also the low central /a/ confused the young starters.  (B) Language Transfer- - > The leaners’ target language acquisition is influenced by the native language.  The influence could be negative or positive.  1. Tai (2000), her students’ English acquisition was affected by L1 (Southern Min).  2. Chang (2006) proposed that there was negative language transfer of L1 (Southern Min), but positive transfer of L2 (Mandarin).  3. Wang (2012) explored that L2 (Mandarin) influenced primary students’ English pronunciation more than L1 (Southern Min).  4. Hsiao (2014) found that both of the Southern Min natives’ and Hakka natives’ L3 were interfered with L1 more than L2.

6. Chapter Two—Literature Review-- 3  2.3 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)  1. Contrastive analysis (CA) is to compare languages systematically for similarities and differences for language learning.  2. (Fries, 1945: 9) He noted that “the most efficient materials for foreign language teaching are those that are based upon a  scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner”  3. Lado generated it contrastive analysis by exclaiming that it can “predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulties, by comparing systematically the language and culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student” (1957, p. vii).  4. According to Lado, the similarities and differences exhibited by comparing systematically a native and target language helped the instructor predict the learning difficulties the students may encounter.  5. CA can predict the problems target language learners might encounter on the basis of similarities and differences displayed through scientific and systematic comparing with the native language.

7. Chapter Three—Methodology -- 1  3.0 Introduction  1:The participants enrolled in the study  2: The instruments applied for collecting data and analyzing the data  3: A brief summary of the procedures  3.1 Participants  3.2 Instruments  (A)data collection– six instruments: 1. Reading lists 2. Questionnaire 3.Praat software  4. Recording shelter 5.Computer 6. Microphone.  (B)data analysis– six instruments: 1. Praat software 2. Micro Office Excel 2010 3.Window 7 4. A programmed keyboard 5. A norm.

8. Chapter Three—Methodology -- 2  A norm was adopted for the comparison of the vowel performances of the high school students.  It was a research conducted by Hillenbrand, Getty, Clark and Wheeler (1995) for acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.  There were 139 American natives recruited in their study, 45 men, 48 women, and 46 children.  3.3 Procedures

9. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 1  4.0 Introduction  1: The similarities and differences of the English vowel productions in four groups  2: How the participants’ L1 and L2 had interfered with their L3 vowel acquisition  3: How the empirical productions reflected in SLA theory of CAH  4.1 Similarities and Differences  4.1.1 Vowel scatter charts in 4 groups

10. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 2  4.1 Similarities and Differences  4.1.1 Vowel scatter charts in 4 groups

11. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 3  4.1 Similarities and Differences  4.1.1 Vowel scatter charts in 4 groups

12. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 4  4.1 Similarities and Differences  4.1.2 Comparisons of the tense and lax vowels

13. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 5  4.1 Similarities and Differences  4.1.3 Comparisons of the English vowels in 4 groups with the Norm

14. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 6  4.1 Similarities and Differences  4.1.3 Comparisons of the English vowels in 4 groups with the Norm

15. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 7  4.2 Language Transfer  4.2.1 Comparisons of English, Mandarin and Southern Min

16. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 8  4.2 Language Transfer  4.2.2 Comparisons of L1, L2 and L3 between the Male and Female

17. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 9  4.2 Language Transfer  4.2.3 Comparisons the tongue position changing charts in L1, L2 and L3

18. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 10  4.2 Language Transfer  4.2.4 Comparisons of L1, L2 and L3 in Norm

19. Chapter Four—Findings and Discussion -- 11  4.3 Production on Theory of CAH  (A1)On CAH, in the aspect of /e, D, W/, /e/ would be easier than the sounds of /D/ and /W/.  (A2) All of the high school students had more problem pronouncing the /e/ rather than /D/ and /W/.  (A3) CAH did not predict the phenomenon correctly.  (B1) CAH assumed that the similar sound of /i/ would be easy, but the unfamiliar sound of /N/ difficult.  (B2) The senior high school students of the TNFS and TNGS failed to pronounce the /i/ as well as /N/, but the vocational high ones the /N/ as well as /i/.  (B3) CAH prediction is partially right.  (C1) Upon the /o/ and /C/, owing to the existence of /o/ in Southern min and Mandarin, it was considered easier to be acquired than /C/ by CAH.  (C2) Among four groups, three of them encountered more difficulty caused by /C/ than /o/. The similar sound of /o/ confused the girls in senior high more than /C/.  (C3) CAH prediction works in three groups. It predicted 75 % of the participants’ learning difficulty of /o/ and /C/.  (D1) For /u/ and /  /, /u/ was predicted less problematic than /  / by CAH.  (D2) The /  / challenged the high school learners more than /u/ in three groups of TNFS, TNI, and TNCV.  (D3) Three out of four are for CAH prediction of /u/ and /  /.  (E1) Among their performances of /a/, the male in the vocational school were the only group that pronounced it with ease.  (E2) The others failed in uttering it in high resemblance with the norm. It indicates their learning difficulty of /a/.  (E3) It was not easy for the TNFS, TNGS, and TNCV.  (E4) The result does not support CAH prediction.  In sum, 9 out of 20 of the results are for CAH, but 11 against it.

20. Chapter Five—Conclusions, Implications and Suggestions-- 1  5.0 Introduction  1: Investigated high school students’ vowel productions in Southern Min, Mandarin, and English.  2: The similarities and differences among three languages were explored comparatively.  3: Display the role of L1 and L2 in their L3 acquisition and examine how their English performances reflected in SLA theory of CAH.  5.1 Conclusions  5.1.1 Similarities and Differences  (A) The high school students’ performances among 11 English vowels were compared.  (1) the TNFS’ articulations of /u/ and /o/, the TNI’ /W/, /u/, and /a/, the TNGS’s /N/ and /D/, and the TNCV’s /  /, /  /, /u/, and /i/ resembled those of the norm.  (2) Comparatively, the vocational students performed in higher similarity with the norm than the senior high ones.  (3) The high back vowel /u/ resembled the norm the most among all vowels within four groups.  (B) The students’ articulations of tense and lax vowels were further compared.  (1) Generally, the /e, W, D/ pairs were the most confusing to the English learners.  (2) Respectively, for /C/ and /  /, the male in senior high, vocational high, and the female in vocational high, /C/ was harder than /o/, but the female in senior high, /  / than /C/.  (3) For /u/ and /  /, the TNCV, TNI, and TNFS had more problems pronouncing the /  / than /u/, while the TNGS /u/ than /  /.  (4) For /i/ and /N/, the students in senior high could not produce the /i/ in as much resemblance as /N/ with the norm, on the contrary, the ones in vocational high the /N/ as much as /i/.  (5) For /e/, /W/, and /D/, the male had articulated the /e/ with most difficulty, the /D/ next, and the /W/least. On the other hand, the female performed the /D/ best with ease. To them, /e/ was harder than /W/.

21. Chapter Five—Conclusions, Implications and Suggestions-- 2  (C) Compared with the norm  (1) The male in the vocational high formed the most similar oral space as the norm in height, advancement, and shape, the  female in the vocational high next, the male in senior high after, and the female in senior least.  (2) Their performance of /u/ was the most similar to the norm and /a/ the least.  (3) Specifically, the /u/ and /  / were uttered /u/, /o/ and /C/ /u/, /i/ and /N/ /  / by the most of the high school English learners. In other words, the students were confused by the English correspondences. They tended to pronounce the short counterparts long.  (4) The /e/, /W/, and /D/ troubled them the most. They were produced so closely gathered that most of their articulations mixed into one sound.  (D) Findings among the comparison of L1, L2, and L3  (1) The male pronounced the vowels in three languages with higher and more backward tongue position than the female.  (2) There was not much overlap between the productions the male students in two schools. Their utterance of /u/ was the only one that closely related.  (3) In the aspect of oral space, there they showed the highest resemblance of L2 with the norm, L1 next and L3 least in general.  (4) Comparatively, the students in the vocational high formed more similar oral space among three languages than the senior ones.  (5) In all, their articulations of /i/ and /e/ in L1, L2, and L3 shared the best resemblance.  5.1.2 Language Transfer  (1) in TNFS and TNI, there was stronger influence of L1 than L2 in height and backness. In TNGS, L2 affected their tongue  movement more than L1 in height, but L1 than L2 in advancement. In TNCV, their moving tendency was influenced more by L1 than L2 in height, yet both of L1 and L2 in backness. In all, L1 affected their tongue moving more than L2.  (2) Respectively in tongue position, the /o/ and /u/ of the TNFS were influenced by L1 positively, but /e/ negatively. There were also negative transfer of /i/ and /a/ by L2 than L1.  (3) L1 /o/, /a/, /e/, and /u/ interfered with their L3 counterparts negatively more than L2, and L2 /i/ more than L1 in the TNGS.  (4) There was more positive transfer more than negative transfer in the TNI. Their L3 /i/ was influenced more by L2 than L1, and /u/ and /a/ L1 than L2 positively. On the opposite, L1 /e/ and /o/ interfered with L3 counterparts negatively more than L2.  (5) On the contrary, there was more negative transfer than positive transfer in the TNI. Their L3 /o/, /u/ were influenced by L1 more than L2, while /e/ L2 more than L1 negatively. However, there was also positive transfer of their L2 upon /i/ and /a/.  (6) Most of the male’s productions were affected more by L1 than L2 negatively, except the /u/ positively.  (7) Briefly, these high school students’ L3 productions were influenced more by L1 than L2 in a more negative way rather than positive.

22. Chapter Five—Conclusions, Implications and Suggestions-- 3  5.1.3 Learning Difficulties Reflected in CAH  1. In the aspect of /e, D, W/, none of the subjects’ learning difficulties explored is in agreement with CAH prediction.  2. For their /i, N / performances, CAH predicted half of them accurately.  3. As the correspondences of /o, C/ and /u,  /, 75 % of the phenomena reflected echo CAH prediction.  4. The articulations of /a/ in four groups showed that it was not as easy as CAH predicted.  5.2 Implications  1. The students’ pronunciation was affected by the placement of tongue position.  2. The students’ English performances were influenced by Southern Min and Mandarin.  3. It would be helpful if the teachers recognize the students’ learning difficulties in advance and guide  the learners by making a good use of the positive transfer and avoid negative transfer.  5.3 Suggestions for Further Study  1. The study focused on the vowels only. There should be investigation of consonants included to provide a holistic viewpoint of sounds.  2. The participants were enrolled in Tainan. There should be more subjects recruited from different areas in Taiwan.  3. Accent was one of the factors in English acquisition. How different accent of Southern Min and Mandarin  influence Taiwanese learners’ English pronunciation should be taken into more investigation.