Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:10:13.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Germans are not aiming for a fossilized form of English: A response to Booth (2015)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2017

Carrie Ankerstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This is a response to John E. Booth's (2015) article, ‘The fossilization of non-current English pronunciation in German EFL teaching’, published in English Today. Booth makes a number of claims in his paper, but the focus here is on his main claim that German pronunciation of English is based on an archaic accent of British English.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 30 - 32
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ankerstein, C. A. & Morschett, R. 2013. ‘Do you hear what I hear?: A comparison of phoneme perception in native and Saarlandian German nonnative speakers of English.’ Saarland Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 1–8.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.–S. & Flege, J. E. 1990. ‘Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception.’ Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 303–28.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.–S. & Flege, J. E. 1992. ‘The production of new and similar vowels by adult German learners of English.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 131–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, J. E. 2015. ‘The fossilization of non-current English pronunciation in German EFL teaching.’ English Today, 31(4), 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, H. & Barry, W. 2005. The Phonetics and Phonology of English Pronunciation. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. 1991. ‘Perception and production: The relevance of phonetic input to L2 phonological learning.’ In Heubner, T. & Ferguson, C. (eds.), Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 249–89.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. 1995. ‘Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems.’ In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-language Speech Research. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 229–73.Google Scholar
Hamann, S. & Sennema, A. 2005. ‘Voiced labiodental fricatives or glides – all the same to Germans?’ In Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Plasticity in Speech Perception. London: University College London, pp. 164–7.Google Scholar
Hanulikova, A. & Weber, A. 2010. ‘Production of English interdental fricatives by Dutch, German, and English speakers.’ In Dziubalska–Kołaczyk, K., Wrembel, M. & Kul, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, New Sounds, Poznań, Poland, 1–3 May 2010. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University, pp. 173–8.Google Scholar
Iverson, P., Ekanayake, D., Hamann, S., Sennema, A. & Evans, B.G. 2008. ‘Category and perceptual interference in second-language phoneme learning: An examination of English /w/-/v/ learning by Sinhala, German, and Dutch speakers.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1305–16.Google Scholar
Russ, C. V. J. 2010. The Sounds of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar