Transcript Chinese Learners’ Acquisition of English (th): A study of

Chinese Learners’ Acquisition of
English (th): A study of
interlanguage variation
D. Victoria Rau
Providence University, Taiwan
Acknowledgements
• NSC Visiting Scholar Grant (41169F)
• NSC Project: “Style, Proficiency, and
Attitude in Acquisition of Phonology by
Chinese Learners of English” (92-2411-H126-002)
• CTLS, University of Minnesota
• CARLA, Prof. Elaine Tarone, co-author
To (th)ink or not to (s)ink, that is a question!
-f/θ is the most difficult contrast to
discriminate; mastered fairly late by
English-speaking children (Velleman 1988,
Vihman 1996)
- Let’s tink about dat: interdental fricative
in Cajun English (Dubois & Horvath 1999)
Have you noticed…?
• Voiceless interdental fricative in English has a
demonstrated language variation pattern in both L1
and L2 speakers
• Thai, Russian, and Hungarian speakers are reported to
replace [θ] with [t], while Japanese, Korean, German,
and Egyptian Arabic L1 speakers tend to substitute [s]
for the target sound (ranking of markedness and
faithfulness, Lombardi 2003)
• L1 substitution of (th) in European French is [s] while
that in Quebec French is [t] (Brannen 2002)
How would Chinese English learners
solve the pronunciation problem?
To think or to sink?
• The transfer variant for production of English [θ] is [f]
by Hong Kong Chinese, [t] by Malaysia/Singapore
Chinese, but [s] by Chinese in Taiwan (Peust 1996)
• Among the Cantonese speaking Chinese children
growing up in Canada, the substitution errors in spelling
(th) are predominantly /s/ or /z/, rather than /f/ (Wang &
Geva 2003)
• L1 group does not use a fixed variant categorically to
substitute for the target variant
How do you investigate
interlanguage variation?
• R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.) (1996), Second
Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
• VARBRUL program (Robinson, Lawrence &
Tagliamonte 2001, Paolillo 2002)
• Measure the effects of many independent variables
on a dichotomous linguistic variable
Question One
• Do learners of English from Mainland
China and from Hong Kong/Macau have
different attitudes about the most acceptable
substitutes for the voiceless interdental
fricative [θ] Do their attitudes match their
linguistic behavior when they use
substitutes for [θ]?
Question Two
• What linguistic and social factors favor
accurate production of the English [θ] by
Chinese learners? Do these factors differ for
speakers from Mainland China or Hong
Kong/Macau?
Question Three
• Can the phonological environments of [θ]
be ordered in terms of their difficulty for
Chinese learners of English? Is this order
the same for learners from Mainland China
and from Hong Kong/Macau?
Question Four
• Do the probability weights for linguistic and
social factors promoting accurate
production of English [θ] differ between
different proficiency groups?
Participants
• 15 Chinese foreign students (Male = 10, Female = 5)
from Mainland China and Hong Kong/Macau
• Mostly graduate students in engineering (N= 8),
science (N=4) and social sciences (N= 3)
• Ages range from 20 to 35 with an average of 27
• LOR in an English speaking country ranges from 3
months to 7 years with an average of less than 3
years
• Most began learning English at the age of 12-13
(N= 10), while two began at 10-11, one at 7, and
two at 5
Tasks
• (1) read aloud a passage: The Three Little
Pigs
• (2) retell the story from the passage
• (3) read aloud a word list containing words
with (th)
• (4) oral interview
Dependent Variable
FG1: Production of English (th)
• 1= accurate production
• 0= inaccurate production
Independent Variables:
Internal factors
FG2: Word position
• 1= English (th) occurs in word-initial (e.g.,
think)
• 2= English (th) occurs in word-final (e.g.,
teeth)
• 3= English (th) occurs in media position
(e.g., something)
FG3: Syllable stress
• 1= English (th) is at onset
of a stressed syllable (e.g.,
third, think, theory,
enthuse)
• 2= English (th) is in onset
cluster of a stressed
syllable (e.g., three) and
an unstressed syllable (e.g.,
throughout)
• 3= English (th) is in
complex coda of a stressed
syllable (e.g., health)
4= English (th) is at simple
coda of a stressed syllable
(e.g., breath, teeth, earth,
with)
5= English (th) is at coda of a
stressed syllable (e.g.,
birthday)
6= English (th) is at onset of
an unstressed syllable (e.g.,
nothing, theoretical,
mathematics, enthusiastic)
7=English (th) is at coda of
an unstressed syllable (e.g.,
Wordsworth)
FG4: Vowel following an onset (th)
• i= high front vowel (e.g.,
think, theory)
• a= low front vowel (e.g.,
thank)
• o= back mid round vowel
(e.g., thought, diphthong)
• r= mid central rotacized
vowel (e.g., third),
reduced vowel schwa (e.g.,
strengthen, Catholic,
mathematics)
• b= low back vowel (e.g.,
thunder)
• d=diphthong (e.g.,
thousand)
• 1= high front vowel after
consonant cluster thr (e.g.,
three)
• 2= high mid vowel after
consonant cluster thr (e.g.,
threaten)
• 3= back vowel after
consonant cluster thr (e.g.,
through, throw)
• / not applicable
FG5: Vowel preceding a coda (th)
• i= high front vowel
(e.g., teeth)
• e=mid front vowel
(e.g., breath)
• a= low front vowel
(e.g., math)
• u=high round vowel
(e.g., youth, truth)
• o= back mid round
vowel (e.g., moth)
• r= mid central
rhotacized vowel (e.g.,
birthday)
• d=diphthong (e.g.,
mouth)
• / = not applicable
FG6: Consonant preceding a coda (th)
•
•
•
•
•
l= lC coda (e.g., wealth)
r= rC coda (e.g., north)
n= nC coda (e.g., strength, month)
f= fC coda (e.g., fifth)
/ = not applicable
External factors
FG7: Production
accuracy rate for (th)
• h= high (above 90%)
• m= mid (70-90%)
• l= low (below 70%)
FG8: Oral proficiency
levels
• h= high (advancedplus)
• m= mid (advanced)
• l= low (intermediatehigh)
More External Factors
FG9: Native language
• m= Mandarin
• c= Cantonese
FG10: Speech style
• i= interview
• w= word list
• p= passage reading
• r= story retelling
FG11: Age of acquisition of
English
• k= kindergarten
• e=elementary school
• m=middle school
FG12: Length of residence in
an English speaking
country
• l= less than two years
• 2= 2-5 years
• 3= over 5 years
Results
 H1: Learners of English from Mainland China and from Hong
Kong/Macau will state they prefer different substitutes for [θ], and
their speech performance will mirror their preferences.
 H2: Accurate production of English [θ] by Chinese learners can be
predicted by a combination of linguistic and social factors; there
will be no difference in factors influencing the accuracy of
production of learners from Mainland China or Hong Kong/Macau.
 H3: The order of difficulty of phonological environments of [θ]
for Chinese learners of English can be predicted based on
VARBRUL probabilities, and this order will be the same for
learners from Mainland China and from Hong Kong/Macau.
• H4: The probability weights for the linguistic and social factors
promoting accurate production of English [θ] will differ in
different proficiency groups.
Acceptability Judgment Test
How acceptable do you feel it is to replace [θ] with [s] sound in a
word, such as sree, heals, and somesing for three, health, and
something, respectively?
1 – Perfectly Acceptable
2 – Moderately Acceptable
3 – Slightly Acceptable
4 – Neutral
5 – Slightly Unacceptable
6 – Moderately Unacceptable
7 – Completely Unacceptable
Please first rank the following five sounds, [s], [f], [t], [∫], and [θ],
from 1 (most acceptable) to 5 (least acceptable).
[s]
[f]
[t]
[∫]
[θ] = 1
Then place the five sounds on the following chart in relation to one
another, indicating how acceptable you feel each pronunciation is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Most Acceptable
[θ]
5 Least Acceptable
Most Acceptable Substitutes
• Mandarin group
• [s] > [∫] > [t] > [f]
• Cantonese group
• [f] > [s]> [t] > [∫]
Verbal reports of a Cantonese Speaker
“…I think probably also most challenging for normal Hong Kong
people. I don’t know whether or not for all Cantonese speakers,
because we are still different from Shenzhen or from Hong Kong.
There is a very good term in basketball, that is, in basketball, if
you have like a foul, something like that, you have free throw, ok.
If you throw in the… that is, three point line, if you were fouled by
beside the three point line, you have the three free throws. But at
the beginning, many Hong Kong people before they come here, or
actually if I’m tired or I’m not that concentrate, I just would say,
“Fee fee fou. Fee fee fou.” Everything like that. And many Hong
Kong people pronounce this (th) like this one [f]. But, I don’t
know, for some Chinese, they use [s], I don’t know, it’s very
strange to me. Yes, this is very challenging.”
Significant Factors
Following vowel
VARBRUL weight
r: mid central vowel
0.646
o: mid back vowel
0.540
a: low front vowel
0.536
i: high front vowel
0.512
3: Consonant cluster with r followed by back vowel
0.478
2: Consonant cluster with r followed by front mid vowel
0.462
b: low central vowel
0.433
d: low central vowel, diphthong /aw/
0.355
1: Consonant cluster with r followed by high front vowel
0.338
Preceding vowel
VARBRUL weight
i: high front vowel
0.608
e: mid front vowel
0.579
r: mid central vowel
0.493
a: low front vowel
0.455
o: mid back vowel
0.415
u: high back vowel
0.356
d: back vowel, diphthong /aw/
0.335
Speech styles
VARBRUL weight
w: word list reading
0.615
p: passage reading
0.535
i: interview
0.423
r: story retelling
0.416
Factors contributing to accurate
production of (th)
• (th) in syllable onset position is a much easier
environment than (th) in syllable coda position
• Front and mid vowels in the immediate
environment of (th), either preceding or following,
tend to facilitate accurate production of (th)
• Speech styles follow a pattern similar to that
reported in the literature
• Linguistic factors are more important than social
factors in influencing phonological variation
(Preston 2000, 2002)
Hierarchical order of
phonological acquisition of (th)
• (th) in the environment of a mid or front vowel is
acquired earlier than that in the environment of a
low or back vowel
• Consonant cluster with (th) in the onset position is
more difficult to acquire than simple onset with (th)
• The following vowels after the consonant cluster
thr- also demonstrate a hierarchy of acquisition:
high mid vowel (threaten) < high or mid back
vowel (through, throw) < high front vowel (three)
Teaching syllabus
• The top three
environments
(exemplified by the
words third, teeth, and
breath)
• With a probability of
accurate production
above 0.80
• The bottom four
environments
(exemplified by truth,
thousand, three, and
mouth)
• With a probability of
accurate production
below 0.65
Comparison between high (>75%)
vs. low (<75%) accuracy groups
• The mid central vowel
(e.g., third) is the most
favorable environment
following [θ] for both
groups.
• We observed a mirror
image between the two
groups for the low front
vowel (e.g., thank) and
the high front vowel (e.g.,
wealthy, think). Whereas
both environments were
favorable for the low
group, they were the
lowest for the high group.
Interviewer: What did you pronounce for the English [] sounds?
Participant 11: I have no trouble now. I used to. For example, thank
you, I said sank you. I don’t know it’s wrong. It was wrong. But
after they I met teacher there and corrected it, I oh thank you. Not
sank. Yeah English teacher in Center for learning and teaching.
Yeah. They didn’t tell me (in China).
Following vowel
Factor
High group
Low group
Mid central vowel
0.99
0.67
Back vowel & diphthong
0.93
0.51
Thr- + back vowel
0.92
0.56
Thr- + front mid vowel
0.89
0.58
Thr- + high front vowel
0.88
0.27
High front vowel
0.87
0.68
Low front vowel
0.83
0.73
Preceding vowel
Factor
High group
Low group
Mid front vowel
0.98 (NS)
0.59
Low round vowel
0.92 (NS)
0.47
Mid central vowel
0.91 (NS)
0.61
High front vowel
0.91 (NS)
0.78
Low front vowel
0.90 (NS)
0.56
Diphthong /aw/
High back vowel
0.83 (NS)
0.78 (NS)
0.36
0.46
Speech style
Factor
High group
Low group
Word list reading
0.97
0.70
Passage reading
0.94
0.62
Story reading
0.86
0.53
Interview
0.76
0.58
Interviewer: Are there other sounds in English that are
challenging?
Participant 13: Like thank you, like th like (th) and (s). This kind
of…Sometimes I make some mistake on that. And…
Interviewer: When did you realize you made a mistake?
Participant 13: Every time. Actually [actuanny] I noticed [loticed]
it in my high school. But you know in Chinese there is no such
this this sound, so sometimes I just forgot to pronounce
[prolounce] it correctly. Because you can look up the in the
dictionary. They are different pronunciations. They are noted
[loted] in a different way. So you know that it different. But
sometimes you just forgot to say it.
Is there a reliable test to
determine oral proficiency?
• TOEFL
• ACTFL proficiency guidelines for speaking
• Speaking Performance Scale for the UCLA
Oral Proficiency Test for Non-native TAs
(Celce-Murcia et al. 1996)
• Percentages of accurate production of the
target variant of (th)
TOEFL score
Oral proficiency
Pronunciation
rating
Production
accuracy rate
1. 630
L
L
L: 54.25%
2. 540
M
M
M: 76.92%
3. 620
L
L
L: 34.48%
4. 600
H
M
L: 20.90%
5. 528
L
M
M: 73.01%
6. 550
M
L
M: 72.73%
7. 560
H
H
H: 91.85%
8. 610
M
L
M: 72.94%
9. 580
H
H
H: 97.49%
10. 597
M
L
M: 80.08%
11. 550
L
M
H: 97.14%
12. 633
H
M
M: 82.38%
13. 647
M
M
L: 67.30%
14. 600
H
H
H: 99.48%
15. 600
L
M
M: 75.97%
Conclusion
• Potential and validity of the variation
paradigm
• Methodological strengths and constraints
• Oral proficiency: unanswered problem
• Acceptability Judgment Test: a useful tool
to determine L2 speech community
References:
Bayley, R. and Preston, D. R. (Eds.) 1996. Second Language
Acquisition and Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Brannen, K. (2002). The role of perception in differential
substitution. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 47(1/2): 1-46.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., and Goodwin J. M. (1996).
Teaching Pronunciation: A Reference for Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dubois, S. & Horvath, B. (1999). Let’s tink about dat:
interdental fricative in Cajun English. Language Variation and
Change 10: 245-261.
Lombardi, L. (2003). Second language data and constraints on
manner: Explaining substitutions for the English interdentals.
Second Language Research 19.3: 225-250.
Paolillo, J. (2002). Analyzing Linguistic Variation: Statistical
Models and Methods. Stanford, CA: CSLI publications.
Peust, C. (1996). Sum: th-substitution. The Linguist List 7.1108.
http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-1108.html
Preston, D. R. (2000). Three kinds of sociolingusitics and SLA: A
psycholinguistic perspective. In B. Swierzbin & F. Morris & M.
Anderson & C. Klee & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and Cognitive
Factors in Second Language Acquisition: Selected Proceedings of
the 1999 Second Language Research Form (pp. 3-30). Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Press.
Preston, D. R. (2002). A variationist perspective on SLA:
Psycholinguistic concerns. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford
Handbook of Applied Linguistics. 141-159. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Robinson, J. Lawrence H. & Tagliamonte, S. (2001).
GOLDVARB 2001 [computer program]: A Multivariate
analysis application for windows. York University.
Vihman, M. (1996). Phonological Development: The Origins
of Language in the Child. Oxford: Blackwell Press.
Velleman, S. (1988). The role of linguistic perception in later
phonological development. Applied Psycholinguistics 9: 221236.
Wang, M. & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling acquisition of novel
English phonemes in Chinese children. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal 16: 325-348.