English Vowel Discrimination and Assimilation by Chinese-Speaking Learners of English
description
Transcript of English Vowel Discrimination and Assimilation by Chinese-Speaking Learners of English
Author: Lai, Yi-hsiuPresenter: 碩英一甲 M99C0102
莊舒萍 (Erin)Date: 2010/12/21
Introduction Literature Review
Method Result and Discussion
Conclusion
Mandarin Chinese: (X) tense & lax vowels mispronounce misunderstanding
Speech Learning Model (SLM): (Flege 1995)
“similar/old sounds” & “new sounds”
Similarity Effect to learn to learn to master to
master
Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM): (Best 1995) non-native perception is often filtered by
linguistic experience i.e., new info. be categorized in L1 Excellent discrimination: categorized type (C) [i] [i] [] [] Poor discrimination: uncategorized type (U) [i] [i] or [] (influence by L1) []
To what extent SLM & PAM account for Taiwanese EFL learners’ English vowel perception
Phonological predictions or assimilation predictions?
1. How did Taiwanese EFL learners discriminate English vowels? To what extent did learners of high English proficiency differ from those of low English proficiency?
2. How did Taiwanese EFL learners assimilate English vowels to their L1 Mandarin phonetic categories? To what extent did learners of high English proficiency differ from those of low English proficiency?
Phonological Comparison among English and Mandarin Vowels- English
Tongue articulation: high-front[i], low-front[], high-back[u], low-back[a]
Tenseness: tense vowels [i, ej, u, ow] lax vowels [, , , ]
Phonological Comparison among English and Mandarin Vowels- Mandarin
Similar / familiar sounds for Mandarin speakers
Unfamiliar/ new sounds: [, , , , , ] Marked, uncommon lax feature very
difficult
Phonological Comparison among English and Mandarin Vowels- criticism
Phonological predictions: Abstract phonological cross-language
comparison Assimilation predictions: Learners’ assimilation results of L1
categories (Cebrian, 2007; Lengeris & Hazan, 2007)
1st Group (high proficiency)
2nd Group(low proficiency)
Numbers 45 45Gender 10 males & 35
females20 males & 25 females
Age College students(19-22 years old)
College students(19-22 years old)
Education 1. English major2. at least 6 years English learning exp.3. hadn’t lived in English speaking country
1. Non-English major2. at least 6 years English learning exp.3. hadn’t lived in English speaking country
Pre-test score
TOEIC: 530 TOEIC: 352
Experiment 1: English vowel discrimination
1. Perception stimuli from two male American: [i, , ej, , , , u, , ow, , a] in [h_t]
2. Minimal pairs: [i- ], [ej-], [-], [-ej], [u- ], [ow- ], [a- ]
3. 50 test questions: 1) if the same: circle SAME 2) if different: write down the order of the
sounds
Experiment 2: English vowel assimilation
1. perceptual stimuli (as same as experiment 1)
2. Minimal pairs: [i- ], [ej-], [-], [-ej], [u- ], [ow- ], [a- ]
3. 2 tasks: 1) to label each 11 Eng. Vowels as “similar”
or “new”
2) transcribing each Eng. Vowels with Mandarin vowel categories
English Vowel Discrimination 1. English proficiency acted as a
significant factor in distinguishing English
2.HEFL& LEFL: [æ]-[] > [æ]-[ej] > [a]-[] > [ej]-[] >
[ow]-[] > [u]-[] > [i]-[]
English Vowel Assimilation 1. HEFL: - similar: [i, ej, ow, u, , a] tense (categorized) - new: [, , , , ] lax (uncategorized) 2. LEFL: - similar: [i, ej, , ow, u, , a, ] (categorized) - new: [, , ] (uncategorized)
1. HEFL > LEFL in discriminating Eng. Pairs
2. Eng. tense-lax contrasts tend to perceived as tense 3. LEFL: [ej] [ ㄝ ] ([e]) []4. Perception saliency hierarchy HEFL: UU> UC> CU LEFL: UC> CU> CC
UU> UC/ CU> CC
PAM fail to address 2 Qs: (1) Why did the HEFL group perform the
best in the UU pair than the CU or UC pairs
(2) What were the possible driving forces in this perception saliency hierarchy?
Ans: (a) Markedness effects (sonority scale & sonority distance) (b) Tri-dimensional model
Markedness effects (sonority scale & sonority distance) low vowels (i.e. [a], [æ]) most sonority --3 > mid vowels (i.e. [ej], [ow]) --2 > high vowels (i.e. [i], [u]) least sonority --1 (Kiparsky 1982) Minimal Sonority Distance (MSD) (Broselow and Finer 1991) 1 : high vowels, 2 : mid vowels, and 3: low vowels EX: []- [] = 3-2= 1 ; [ow]- []= 2-2=0 Higher MSD settings were easier to discriminate
Tri-dimensional model
Tense/ lax distinctions in English should be made explicit to EFL learners
Abstract phonological structures + perceptual assimilation + tri-dimensional model
assist Ss in achieving competence at segmental levels
Using minimal pairs