Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:32:44.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Markedness Universals and the Acquisition of Voicing Contrasts by Korean Speakers of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Roy C. Major  and
Michael C. Faudree
Roy C. Major
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Michael C. Faudree
Affiliation:
Tokai University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study of five native speakers of Korean investigates the role of universals in their acquisition of English obstruent voicing contrasts. The data were gathered from a passage and a word list containing voiced and voiceless obstruents in initial, medial, and final word positions. Results reflected principles of markedness universals of L1 acquisition and adult natural languages, suggesting that interlanguage systems behave according to universals of natural languages.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 69 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

REFERENCES

Adamson, H. D., & Regan, V. M. (1991). The acquisition of community speech norms by Asian immigrants learning English as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, E., & Vago, R. (1983). Theoretical implications of an error analysis of second language phonology production. Language Learning, 33, 427–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. L. (1983). The markedness differential hypothesis and syllable structure difficulty. In Nathan, G. S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on the Uses of Phonology (pp. 85–89). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. I. (1987). The Markedness Differential Hypothesis and syllable structure difficulty. In loup, G. & Weinberger, S. H. (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 279–291). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. (1992). Transfer of L1 parameter settings: Some empirical evidence from Polish metrics. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37, 301–339.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. (1993). The learnability of English metrical parameters by Spanish speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 129–141.Google Scholar
Benson, B. (1988). Universal preference for the open syllable as an independent process in interlanguage phonology. Language Learning, 38, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., & Chaudron, C. (1990). Second language processing of subordinate clauses and anaphora—first language and universal influences: A review of Flynn's research. Language Learning, 40, 245–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E., & Finer, D. (1991). Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research, 7, 35–59.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. (1988). The effect of markedness on epenthesis in Spanish/ English interlanguage phonology. IDEAL, 3, 15–23.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. (1991). The influence of environment on vowel epenthesis in Spanish/English interphonology. Applied Linguistics, 12, 76–95.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. (1994). Markedness and environment as internal constraints on the variability of interlanguage phonology. In Yavas, M. (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 223–249). San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
Chu, H. S., & Park, Y. (1979). A contrastive analysis between Korean and English for ESL teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 191 300).Google Scholar
Cichocki, W., House, A. B., Kinloch, A. M., & Lister, A. C. (1993). Cantonese speakers and the acquisition of French consonants. Language Learning, 43, 43–68.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1981a). On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1981b). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31, 195–216.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1984). Universals, typologies, and interlanguage. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universal and second language acquisition (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1991). The Structural Conformity Hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 23–41.Google Scholar
Eckman, F., & Iverson, G. (1993). Sonority and markedness among onset clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Second Language Research, 9, 234–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F., & Iverson, G. (1994). Pronunciation difficulties in ESL: Coda consonants in English interlanguage. In Yavas, M. (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 251–265). San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
Edge, B. (1991). The production of word-final voiced obstruents in English by L1 speakers of Japanese and Cantonese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faudree, M. C. (1995). Voice contrast in Korean to English interlanguage applied to linguistic theories. unpublished applied project, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Munro, M. J. (1994). The word unit in second language speech production and perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 381–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995). Effects of age of second-language learning on the production of English consonants. Speech Communication, 16, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S., & Lust, B. (1990). In defense of parameter-setting in L2 acquisition: A reply to Bley-Vroman and Chaudron ′90. Language Learning, 40, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1983). Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Universals of discourse structure and second language acquisition. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language uniuersals and second language acquisition (pp. 109–136). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C., & Moravcsik, E. (Eds.). (1978). Universals of human language: Vol. 2. Phonology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hodne, B. (1985). Yet another look at interlanguage phonology: The modification of English syllable structure by native speakers of Polish. Language Learning, 35, 405–422.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. M. (1985). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., & Viberg, A. (Eds.). (1993). Progression and regression in language: Sociocultural, neuropsychological, and linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1968). Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals (Keiler, A. R., Trans.). The Hague: Mouton. (Original work published 1941)Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In Brown, H., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL ′77 (pp. 144–158). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leather, J., & James, A. (1991). The acquisition of second language speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 305–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1987a). A model for interlanguage phonology. In Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S. H. (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 101–124). New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (1987b). Phonological similarity, markedness, and rate of L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1987c). Variation in second language phonology. In Miller, A. & Powers, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 40–51). Columbus: The Ohio State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 622)Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (1994a). Chronological and stylistic aspects of second language acquisition of consonant clusters. Language Learning, 44, 655–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1994b). Current trends in interlanguage phonology. In Yavas, M. (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 181–204). San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (1995). Native and nonnative phonological representations. IRAL International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 32, 109–127.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28, 309–332.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. (1990). Transfer and the substrate hypothesis in creolistics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oller, J. W., & Ziahosseiny, S. M. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors. Language Learning, 20, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, T. (1984). Observations on the second language acquisition of the English sound system. Canadian Modern Language Review, 40, 542–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, D. R. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R., & Bayley, R. (Eds.), (in press). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pyun, K.-S. (1987). Korean-Swedish interlanguage phonology. Stockholm: Institute of Oriental Languages, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Riney, T. (1989). Syllable structure and interlanguage phonology. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 21–40. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Robson, B. (1979). Teaching English pronunciation to Koreans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 195 129)Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. (1982). Variable rules. In Ammon, U.Dittmar, N., & Mattheier, K. J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (pp. 984–997). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sasaki, Y. (1994). Paths of processing strategy transfers in learning Japanese and English as foreign languages: A competition model approach. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 19–42.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization hypothesis: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 379–392.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veatch, T. (1989, 12). Final devoicing of fricatives in English. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America,Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 424)Google Scholar
Wellman, B., Case, I., Mengert, I., & Bradley, P. (1931). Speech sounds of young children. Studies in Child Welfare, 5, 1–82.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1981). Learning a second language. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Yavas, M. (1994). Final stop devoicing in interlanguage. In Yavas, M. (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 267–282). San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (1985). Interference reconsidered: The role of similarity in second language acquisition. Selecta, 6, 6–12.Google Scholar