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

Major, Roy C.; Faudree, Michael C.

doi:10.1017/s0272263100014686

Cited by 75 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…83,84]. Studies which have reported on sound substitutions in adult English language learners observed that Koreans produced [s, d] for English interdental fricatives [78] and devoiced word final voiced obstruents in English while producing word final voiceless obstruents accurately [85]. The current study also found that KEB children substituted [d] for /ð/ and devoiced word final voiced consonants in English.…”

Section: Methodological Challenges and Clinical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 68%

Phonological Skills in Korean-English Bilingual Children: Phonetic Inventory and Segmental Accuracy

Kim

Ballard

McCann

2017

Clin Arch Commun Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Type of surface-level speech errors can be diagnostically valuable information to identify children with speech sound disorder (SSD). There is a lack of such information for bilingual children, which makes identifying bilingual children with SSD a significant challenge. This article reports on error production in Korean-English bilingual (KEB) children.Methods: Single-word samples were collected from 52 KEB children aged between 3;0 and 7;11. The word productions were analysed for error and compared to the existing date from monolingual English-speaking (ME) and monolingual Korean-speaking (MK) children.Results: While some children's error production was similar to what would be expected in respective monolingual children, other children produced errors that would be considered delay, atypical or even advanced for their monolingual counterparts in both of their languages. No reliable factors could be identified to determine the characteristics associated with delay, atypical or advanced error production compared to monolingual children. Conclusions:There are qualitative differences in phonological development between monolingual and bilingual children. The clinical use of available monolingual normative data is likely to lead to an inaccurate diagnosis of SSD. Small cohort studies in bilingual phonological development should not be taken as normative data in clinical practice due to heterogeneity.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Challenges and Clinical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 68%

Phonological Skills in Korean-English Bilingual Children: Phonetic Inventory and Segmental Accuracy

Kim

Ballard

McCann

2017

Clin Arch Commun Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Major and Faudree (1996) confirmed the marked status of the final voicing contrast in a study of the acquisition of English voicing contrast in word-initial, -medial, and -final position by native speakers of Korean, a language with obstruents in all three positions but no phonemic voicing distinction. Korean subjects were more successful at maintaining the voicing contrast initially and medially, with approximately 100% correct responses, than finally, where the percentage of correct voiced responses was 53% (the rest were devoiced).…”

Section: Research In L2 Acquisition Of Final Voiced Obstruentssupporting

confidence: 71%

“…Major and Faudree (1996), on the other hand, used a reading passage and a word list-that is, tasks that allow for orthographic interference. Although Flege and Davidian (1984) elicited targets with a picture-naming task, their test items consisted of five minimal pairs and the goal of the test might have been more transparent to the subjects.…”

Section: Prevalence Of Fodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transferability and Productivity of L1 Rules in Catalan-English Interlanguage

Cebrian

2000

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the interference of L1 neutralization rules in the acquisition of a marked L2 phonological feature. More specifically, it presents results from a study of the acquisition of the voicing contrast in English word-final obstruents by native speakers of Catalan. The voicing contrast in final position in Catalan is neutralized by voicing or devoicing rules, depending on the environment. The results of an experiment testing the production of target final obstruents in different environments indicate a very high incidence of devoicing, which confirms the prevalence of final devoicing in second language acquisition and points to the joint effect of transfer and universal tendencies. In contrast with devoicing, the results reveal a more limited effect of the L1 voicing rules. It is argued that this difference is due to an effect of word integrity in the interlanguage that restricts the domain of application of the transferred rules.Early work on the acquisition of the phonology of a second language concentrated on the effect of interference from the first or native language (L1).

show abstract

“…Markedness is typically defined according to implicational hierarchies and/or statistical frequencies and can also be related to first language order of acquisition and to historical change (e.g., Major, 2001). A number of studies (e.g., Eckman and Iverson, 1993;Major, 1996) suggest that less marked sequences and segments may be easier for an L2 learner to produce than those that are more marked. However, in terms of perception, something that is more marked may in fact stand out because of its markedness, and hence be noticed more than an unmarked segment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perception of word boundaries in a second language

Altenberg

2005

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adult Spanish second language (L2) learners of English and native speakers of English participated in an English perception task designed to investigate their ability to use L2 acoustic-phonetic cues, e.g., aspiration, to segment the stream of speech into words. Subjects listened to a phrase and indicated whether they heard, e.g., keep sparking or keeps parking. The results indicate that learners are significantly worse than native speakers at using acousticphonetic cues, and that some types of stimuli are easier for learners to segment than others. The findings suggest that various factors, including transfer and markedness, may be relevant to success in L2 segmentation. I IntroductionIn order to comprehend language, part of what the listener needs to do is to segment the continuous stream of incoming speech into meaningful units. A number of researchers (e.g., Quené, 1992;Gow and Gordon, 1995) suggest that speakers of a language need to use acousticphonetic information to segment speech and retrieve words, probably in conjunction with other information, for example, syntactic information. The majority of research in second language (L2) speech has explored speech production (Leather, 1999); those studies dealing with L2 speech perception have focused largely on the perceptual categorization of L2 speech sounds. (For reviews, see, for example, Leather, 1999; Major, 2001.) Thus, our knowledge of second language speech perception in general is limited, our knowledge of how well second language Address for correspondence: Evelyn P. Altenberg, Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, Davison 106, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549, USA; email: sphepa@hofstra.edu learners are able to use acoustic-phonetic information in L2 speech perception even more so. The goal of the study reported here is to explore the abilities of adult learners of English to use acoustic-phonetic cues to segment the second language stream of speech into words. Learners listened to English stimuli such as keep sparking and indicated whether they heard, for example, keep sparking or keeps parking. Such an investigation adds to our knowledge of what learners do and do not know in terms of L2 speech perception and provides an avenue for the exploration of relevant issues in second language acquisition.The study addresses the following two questions:• How do second language learners compare to native speakers in their ability to use acoustic-phonetic cues to segment natural speech into words? In particular, is there evidence that learners are able to acquire and use second language acoustic-phonetic cues?• Are some stimuli easier than others for second language learners to segment and, if so, what factors can account for these differences? In particular, is there evidence of transfer at the allophonic and /or syllabic levels, and/or of universal factors, such as markedness, in L2 speech segmentation?Two issues that have been central to the study of L2 phonology, transfer and markedness, are relevant to the investigation here. Research...

show abstract

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

Cited by 75 publications

References 43 publications

Phonological Skills in Korean-English Bilingual Children: Phonetic Inventory and Segmental Accuracy

Phonological Skills in Korean-English Bilingual Children: Phonetic Inventory and Segmental Accuracy

Transferability and Productivity of L1 Rules in Catalan-English Interlanguage

The perception of word boundaries in a second language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About