Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:32:56.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Acquisition of Community Speech Norms by Asian Immigrants Learning English as a Second Language

A Preliminary Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

H. D. Adamson  and
Vera M. Regan
H. D. Adamson
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Vera M. Regan
Affiliation:
University College, Dublin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate Vietnamese and Cambodian immigrants' acquisition of the variable (ing), which occurs in progressive tenses, participles, noun phrases, etc., and which can be pronounced [iŋ] or [In]. A VARBRUL 2 program analysis of native speaker speech shows that the production of (ing) is constrained by phonological, grammatical, stylistic, and social factors. An analysis of the nonnative speakers' acquisition of these norms shows that [In] is more frequent before anterior segments (reflecting ease of articulation), and that males use [In] more frequently than females, especially in monitored speech (perhaps reflecting their desire to accommodate to a male native speaker norm rather than to an overall native speaker norm). The analysis also shows evidence of grammatical constraints which are different from those in the native speakers' speech. This difference may reflect the fact that it is easier to acquire the [In] variant in “frozen forms,” such as prepositions, than in productive rules.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Adamson, H. D. (1988). Variation theory and second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (1981). Two perspectives on pidginization as second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), New dimensions in second language acquisition (pp. 165–195). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Anshen, F. (1969). Speech variation among negroes in a small southern community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. (1985). Choosing the right stuff. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 104–144). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Beebe, L., & Zuengler, J. (1983). Accommodation theory: An explanation for style shifting in second language dialects. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 195–213). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Moder, C. L. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–269.Google Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H., & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50, 333–355.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (Eds.), Readings in transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Cofer, T. (1972). Linguistic variability in a Philadelphia speech community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1981). Formal simplicity and functional simplification. In Anderson, R. (Ed.), New dimensions in second language acquisition research (pp. 146–152). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. (1974). Internal and external patterning of phonological variability in the speech of Japanese learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. (1975). The learner's interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. (1958). Social influence on the choice of linguistic variant. Word, 14, 47–56.Google Scholar
Giles, H., & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Houston, A. C. (1985). Continuity and change in English morphology: The variable (ing). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X syntax: A study of phrase structure (syntax). Linguistics inquiry monograph, 2.Google Scholar
Jacob, J. M. (1968). Introduction to Cambodian. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1978). The monitor model of second language acquisition. In Gingras, R. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 1–26). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices of second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1982). Toward a theory of social dialect variation. In Allen, H. B. & Linn, M. D. (Eds.), Readings in applied English linguistics (pp. 227–245). New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1984). Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Baugh, J. & Sherzer, J. (Eds.), Language in use: Readings in socio-linguistics (pp. 28–53). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Naro, A. J. (1978). A study of the origins of pidginization. Language, 54, 314–347.Google Scholar
Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. (1983). What happens in decreolization. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as second language acquisition (pp. 298–319). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972). Endstation hauptwort: The category squish. In Paranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N., & Phares, G. C. (Eds.), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 252–286). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Shuy, R., Wolfram, W., & Riley, W. (1968). Social stratification in Detroit speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1982). Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning, 32, 69–84.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373–403.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1985). Variability in tense marking: A case for the obvious. Language Learning, 35, 229–254.Google Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In Fillmore, C. J., Kempler, D., & Wang, William S.-Y. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 203–228). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1988). Approaches to variation in interlanguage: Plural marking in the speech of Chinese learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar