Transcript 下載/瀏覽

The Production of “new” and
“similar” phones in a foreign
language
- evidence for the effect of equivalence
classification
Author: Flege, J. (1986)
Presenter: Shu-ping Chuang (Erin)
Advisor: Rung-fu, Chung
Date: March 1st, 2012
Outline
 Terms
 Introduction
 Goal
 Hypothesis
 Methods
 Summary
 Q&A
Terms (1)
 Formant 1 (f1) / Formant 2 (f2)
open/close
front/ back
Terms (2)
 Voice onset time (VOT)
Introduction (1)
 New , Similar or Identical? (Flege, 1986)
 New: L2 have no counterpart in the L1

e.g. / /, / /
 Similar: seems to be the same but might use

different articulatory patterns
e.g. ㄅ, book
Introduction (2)
 Why do L2 learners do not produce L2
phones authentically?
1. They may not perceive L2 phones
accurately.
L2
2.
filter
??
Filter
out
nonL1
Introduction (3)
 Equivalence Classification:
 a basic cognitive mechanism which permits
children to identify phones produced by
different talkers or in different contexts
put them into the same category
L2
L2
L2
E.C.
L1 alike
Introduction (4)
 Flege (1981): Equivalence Classification may
(1) learn the authentic production of L1
phones
 (2) it may lead to foreign accent of L2 in older
children and adults
Introduction (5)
 Scovel (1981):
- age
foreign accent
- phonetic categories become better defined,
bc of L1 environment
Goal
 To test the result of the development of the
L1 phonetic system; the effect of equivalence
classification that prevents adults from
producing L2 phones authentically
Hypothesis 1-1
 1. E.C. prevents L2 learners from establishing a
phonetic category for similar L2 phones
-- if L2 is different from L1, E.C. will not occur
 2. L2 learners will be unable to produce
authentically L2 phones (≠ L1) unless they
establish a (new) phonetic category for the L2
phones
Hypothesis 1-2
Native Eng
speakers
New
French vowel /y/
Similar
French vowel /u/
authenticity
F. mono’s /y/
F. mono’s /u/
Phonetic Norm
French /y/ & /u/ → French monolinguals
English /u/
→ English monolinguals
Hypothesis 2-1
 L2 learners will approximate but not achieve
the phonetic norms of L2 for similar L2 when
they gain experience in L2
Similar
L2
norm
 L2 learners are able to produce similarly, but
NOT authentically.
Hypothesis 2-2
 To test the production of similar L2 phones by
native English and French speakers who are
highly experienced in their L2.
L2 speech of experienced learners
should closer to the L2 norm than those of
inexperienced L2 learners.
Inexperienced:
Experienced:
Similar L2
Similar L2
norm
norm
Hypothesis 3-1
 Flege: there is an upper limit for L2 learners
approximate L2 phonetic norms for similar
phones bc. L2 learners “merge” the phonetic
properties of similar L1 & L2 phones within a
single category (merger hypothesis).
Hypothesis 3-2
 To test whether L2 learning affects the
production of stops in L1
L1 interference L2
Questions
Thank You!!