Transcript 下載/瀏覽

Author: Lai, Yi-hsiu
Presenter: 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 master
to learn
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)
[ ]
what extent SLM & PAM account for
Taiwanese EFL learners’ English vowel
perception
 To
 Phonological
predictions?
predictions or assimilation
 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/
[ ,
,
 Marked,
,
new sounds:
,
,
]
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
45
Gender
10 males & 35 females
20 males & 25 females
Age
College students
(19-22 years old)
College students
(19-22 years old)
Education
1. English major
2. at least 6 years
English learning exp.
3. hadn’t lived in
English speaking
country
1. Non-English major
2. 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)
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
UU> UC/ CU> CC
LEFL: UC> CU> CC
 1.
 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