The sonority cycle and the acquisition of complex onsets

Carlisle, Robert S.

doi:10.1075/sibil.31.09car

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the point of acquisition was designated on the basis of at least 80% accuracy for a given structure. This figure helps in clarifying whether a particular form is fully acquired and hence indicates that the interlanguage variability may be fading (Andersen, 1978;Carlisle, 2006;Eckman, 1991;Sridhanyarat, 2017).…”

Section: Interlanguage and Interlanguage Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to answer the first research question, it was necessary to formulate two hypotheses based on a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test as follows: H0: the median for a particular variable is equal to 0.80, whereas H1: the median for a particular variable is not equal to 0.80. Thus, Number 0.80 refers to 80%, used in several studies (e.g., Andersen, 1978;Carlisle, 2006;Eckman, 1991;Sridhanyarat, 2017) as the criterion level of acquisition. If the P-value of each particular variable is less than α 0.05, it can be confirmed that that variable is statistically difficult for the informants in the interlanguage.…”

Section: Difficulty Of L2 Collocation Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thai Learners’ Acquisition of L2 Collocations: An Interlanguage Perspective

Sridhanyarat

2018

GEMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of second language (L2) collocation studies has grabbed the attention of a number of scholars. However, few empirical studies from an interlanguage perspective have addressed the issue of how learners acquire L2 collocations. The current study investigated what grammatical and lexical collocations posed difficulty to Thai EFL learners and whether learners of different proficiency levels exhibited the same order of acquisition. The study also attempted to explore whether task differences significantly affected the learners' acquisition process. The participants were organized into a high proficiency group (N = 45) and a low proficiency group (N = 45). Receptive and productive tasks were devised to gauge the learners' collocation knowledge. In the receptive task, the learners were encouraged to identify errors. In the productive task, they were asked to write a correct collocate required for a certain context. The results illustrated that almost all target collocations were difficult for both advanced and basic groups. Only verb-preposition collocations did not pose any considerable difficulty to the advanced participants. In terms of acquisition order, there were palpable differences between the two groups. It was also discovered that the different tasks administered exerted a profound effect on the learners' order of collocation acquisition. The key findings are discussed in light of first language (L1) transfer, transfer of prior knowledge of a particular congruent collocation, familiarity with receptive tasks, and effects of both receptive and productive tasks. The findings suggest that teachers can teach students a group of words rather than individual words by utilizing meaningful materials oriented toward specific difficult collocations or receptive-productive integration tasks. Teachers can also encourage their students to practice using frequency-based collocations and dictionaries in English classes.

show abstract

Section: Interlanguage and Interlanguage Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Difficulty Of L2 Collocation Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thai Learners’ Acquisition of L2 Collocations: An Interlanguage Perspective

Sridhanyarat

2018

GEMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In several L2 phonology studies (e.g. Andersen 1978, Carlisle 2006, Eckman 1991, 80% accuracy has been set as a threshold to determine whether a learner has fully acquired a particular sound.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Acquisition of L2 Fricatives in Thai Learners’ Interlanguage

Sridhanyarat

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the studies on the L2 acquisition of the initial clusters in the literature have only looked at #sC clusters (e.g., Carlisle, 1991Carlisle, , 1994Carlisle, , 2006Someillan & Yavaş, 2005;Yavaş & Barlow, 2006;Cardoso, 2008; Cardoso, John & French, 2008;Cardoso & Liakin, 2009), with only few studies that included non #sC clusters (e.g., Broselow, 1983Broselow, , 1992Eckman & Iverson, 1994). Further, these studies usually reported that some participants employed epenthesis or prothesis as a process for cluster simplification.…”

Section: VIImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study by Broselow and Finer (1991) Carlisle ( , 1991Carlisle ( , 1992Carlisle ( , 1994Carlisle ( , 1997Carlisle ( , 2006 examined the acquisition of some English onsets, /sl, s+nasal, s+stop/, by speakers of Spanish, a language that disallow initial /s/ clusters. Generally, it was expected that these clusters would be problematic for Spanish speakers learning English.…”

Section: Sonority Sequencing Principle (Ssp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic Investigation of Production of Clusters by Saudi Second Language Learners of English

Almalki¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production errors made by second language (L2) learners of English have been attributed to markedness, L1 transfer or input frequency (cf. Major, 2001;Edwards & Zampini, 2008; Baptista, Rauber, & Watkins, 2009). This thesis examines the production of 17 English initial consonant clusters (e.g., /pr/ in pray) in a markedness relationship, whereby clusters with greater sonority distance between the first and second consonants are unmarked and clusters with smaller sonority distance between the first and second consonants are marked, by two groups of Saudi Arabian L2 English learners. It also explores the effect of input frequency and L1 transfer. Participants were asked to read 60 sentences and their reading was recorded for acoustic analysis. Analysis showed that prothesis was always used to simplify the clusters, and that, the duration of the prothetic vowel tended to get longer when clusters become more marked. Intermediate participants had greater degree of difficulty in producing the clusters and tended to insert a longer prothetic vowel in general. Markedness explained the performance on #sC clusters; however, performance on non #sC clusters was best explained by L1 transfer.Results further indicated that input frequency was irrelevant to this study. Within the realm of second language (L2) phonology, the acquisition of consonant clusters seems to pose great difficulty for speakers with first languages (L1) that do not allow consonant clusters. It is typically thought that the non-native productions by adult L2 speakers are due to differences between the L1 and the L2 linguistic systems. L1 transfer, whereby phonological rules or items from the L1 are transferred to the L2, has been highly used in the literature to account for many of the non-native productions (Lado, 1957;Selinker, 1972;Odlin, 1989). This explanation, for instance, was widely used to account for errors made by Arabic L2 learners of English. viiAccording to Broselow (1992), production errors in the L2 can be attributed either to transfer of L1 phonological rules or to the violation of some universal tendencies.Languages of the world, for instance, are different in their syllable phonotactics: On one hand, some languages are very restricted in their syllable structure by only allowing Consonant (henceforth C) + Vowel (henceforth V) sequencing; on the other hand, other languages are more flexible in allowing more complex structures. In the instances where L1 is restricted and L2 is more flexible, L1 phonotactic constraints would likely to be transferred to the L2. However, markedness has also been discussed in the literature as a plausible explanation for L2 acquisition patterns.In the discussion of the topic, markedness relationships among clusters are often determined by "implicational patterns" (Greenberg, 1965 common, as will be further discussed. The same goes for the degree of complexity by number; if a language allows three consonants to occupy the onset position or the coda position then it will necessarily allow clusters with two m...

show abstract

The sonority cycle and the acquisition of complex onsets

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Thai Learners’ Acquisition of L2 Collocations: An Interlanguage Perspective

Thai Learners’ Acquisition of L2 Collocations: An Interlanguage Perspective

The Acquisition of L2 Fricatives in Thai Learners’ Interlanguage

Acoustic Investigation of Production of Clusters by Saudi Second Language Learners of English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About