English Vowel Discrimination and Assimilation by Chinese-Speaking Learners of English

Author: Lai, Yi-hsiuPresenter: 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 learn to master 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) []

To what extent SLM & PAM account for Taiwanese EFL learners’ English vowel perception

Phonological predictions or assimilation predictions?

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/ new sounds: [, , , , , ] Marked, 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 45Gender 10 males & 35

females20 males & 25 females

Age College students(19-22 years old)

College students(19-22 years old)

Education 1. English major2. at least 6 years English learning exp.3. hadn’t lived in English speaking country

1. Non-English major2. 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)

1. 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 LEFL: UC> CU> CC

UU> UC/ CU> CC

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