跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.50.201) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/02 00:37
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:楊惠玲
研究生(外文):Hui-LingYang
論文名稱:台灣學生英語摩擦音及塞擦音之習得行為
論文名稱(外文):Taiwanese SLA Learners’ Acquisition of English Fricatives and Affricates
指導教授:鍾榮富鍾榮富引用關係
指導教授(外文):Raung-Fu Chung
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系碩博士班
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:120
中文關鍵詞:SLM第二語言習得摩擦音塞擦音英語學習經驗
外文關鍵詞:SLMSLAfricativeaffricatesEnglish learning experience
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:277
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:43
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究的目的是要找出可以解釋台灣英語學習情形的第二語言習得理論,並且了解額外的四年英語學習經驗和額外的八年英語學習經驗,是否對於台灣英語學習者的發音有正面影響。三十六名參與者被分為四組: 六名英語母語人士,十名國中生,十名高中生,和十名大學生。這些參與者讀出分別含有以下六個摩擦音的英語單字/θ/,/ð/,/tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʒ/,and /ʃ/。這些麼擦音又依照在單字中的位置被分為四類: 1) 音節尾 2) 母音/ɚ/之前 3)母音/a/之後 4)母音/i/之後。本研究採用聲學語言學去計量噪音峰點和子母音交接處的第二共振峰,再結合SPSS統計系統去分析台灣英語學者和英語母語人士對於摩擦音,/θ/,/ð/,/tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʒ/,and /ʃ/的發音是否有顯著差異。 研究結果支持Speech Learning Model,並且主張在非第二語言國家學習該語,無論額外學習四年或額外學習八年,對於第二語言相似音的發音學習並無正面影響。 除此之外,此研究還有五項發現。1)相較於美國人,當台灣學生在發/ʒ/,/θ/,/ð//tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/時,他們傾向於將他們的舌頭放在相較於美國人舌頭更前些的位置。2)假使第二語言學習者學習第二語言的環境為非以第二語言為主要溝通工具的國家,無論第二語言學習者學習該語言多久,他們仍然無法達到和第二語言母語人士完全相同的發音程度。3)部分的美國人視/dʒ/和/ʒ/為音位變體。4)國中之前的英語學習經驗,對於在台灣的英語學習者而言,是足夠讓他們發出接近第二語言單音標準的英語學習經驗。5)第二語言的學習環境對於發音,是有決定性的影響。
The purpose of this study is to discover which SLA theory can best explain the English learning situation in Taiwan, and to know whether an additional four or extra eight years of English learning experience at school can improve English learners’ pronunciation capacity or not. Thirty-six subjects participate in this study and are divided into four groups: six English native speakers, ten junior high school students, ten senior high school students, and ten university students. These participants produce words with the following six fricatives and affricates, /θ/,/ð/,/tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʒ/,and /ʃ/, separately under the following four phonological environments: at the coda, as an onset before /ɚ/, as an onset before /a/, and as an onset before /i/. This study is based on acoustic phonology, and these fricatives are measured by 1) the peak of fricative frequency and 2) the F2 of CV transient. The resulting data are analyzed with SPSS: Independent samples t-tests to see whether the non-English native-speaker groups perform significantly differently from the English native-speaker group. The results of this study support the basis of the Speech Learning Model (SLM), and suggest that the additional four or eight years of English learning experience in a non L2 spoken country is not one of the factors that can improve the production of L2 similar sounds. Moreover, this study has five other findings. 1) Taiwanese students are used to placing the tips of their tongues in a more front location than the English native speakers in the production of /ʒ/,/θ/,/ð/,/tʃ/,/dʒ/, and /ʃ/. 2) The experienced English learners cannot pronounce L2 similar phonemes identically with English native speakers no matter how long they have learned the target language if they have learned it in a non-English speaking country. 3) Some English native speakers view /dʒ/ and /ʒ/ as allophones. 4) The English learning experience before junior high schools is enough for English learners to pronounce English similar sounds close to English native speakers. 5) The L2 learning environment has a significant influence on pronunciation.
Table of Contents
Abstract (English)………………………………………………………………………………I
Abstract (Chinese)……………………………………………………………………………..III
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………...IV
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………..V
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………….....X
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………...XII
Chapter One Introduction
1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………….1
1.1 Motivation…………………………………………………………………………...1
1.2 SLA theory…………………………………………………………………………..2
1.3 The design of this research…………………………………………………………..2
1.4 The organization of this thesis……………………………………………………….3
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………….4
2.1 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)…………………………………………….4
2.2 Speech Learning Model (SLM)……………………………………………………...5
2.2.1 The idea of SLM……………………………………………………………...........5
2.2.2 An example of SLM……………………………………………………………….8
2.3 Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH)………………………………………..9
2.3.1 The idea of MDH …………………………………………………………………9
2.3.2 An example of MDH……………………………………………………………..10
2.4 The effect of L2 learning experience………………………………………………12
2.4.1 The effect of four additional years of English learning experience……………..12
2.4.2 The effect of six additional years of English learning experience………………...13
2.4.3 The effect of more English learning experience…………………………………..13
2.5 The predictions of each SLA theory……………………………………………....14
Chapter Three Methodology
3.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………...15
3.1 Participants…………………………………………………………………………15
3.2 Material……………………………………………………………………………..17
3.3 Measurement……………………………………………………………………….19
3.3.1 LPC……………………………………………………………………………….19
3.3.2 CV transient………………………………………………………………………21
3.4 Research design…………………………………………………………………….24
3.5 Research question and hypotheses…………………………………………………25
Chapter Four Results and Analysis
4.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………...27
4.1 /ʒ/,/θ/,/ð/,/tʃ/, /dʒ/, and /ʃ/ as the coda………………………………………………29
4.1.1 Group Two vs. Group One………………………………………………………..30
4.1.2 Group Three vs. Group One……………………………………………………...31
4.1.3 Group Four vs. Group One……………………………………………………….33
4.1.4 The four groups’ average performances of /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/…………………………..34
4.1.5 The effects of an additional four years of English learning experience…………35
4.1.5.1 Group Two vs. Group Three…………………………………………………....35
4.1.5.2 Group Three vs. Group Four…………………………………………………...37
4.1.6 The effects of additional eight years of English learning experience…..………..38
4.2 /ʒ/, /ð/,/tʃ/, /dʒ/, and /ʃ/ as onsets before /ɚ/ ………………………………………………………...40
4.2.1 Group Two vs. Group One……………………………………………………….40
4.2.2 Group Three vs. Group One………………………………………………...........41
4.2.3 Group Four vs. Group One……………………………………………………….43
4.2.4 The four groups’ average performances of /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/ before /ɚ/……………………..44
4.2.4.1 The comparison of the four groups’ LPC average performance on /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/ before /ɚ/……………………………………………….......................................44
4.2.4.2 The four groups’ second formants in the CV transient………………………...45
4.2.5 The effects of additional four years of English learning experience……………..47
4.2.5.1 Group Two vs. Group Three…………………………………………………....47
4.2.5.2 Group Three vs. Group Four…………………………………………………...49
4.2.6 The effects of additional eight years of English learning experience………….…50
4.2.6.1 The overall comparison of Group Two and Group Four…………....................50
4.2.6.2 The only case supporting the positive effect of eight additional years of English learning experience……………………………………………….51
4.3 /θ/,/ð/,/tʃ/, /dʒ/, and /ʃ/ as onsets before /a/………………………………………..52
4.3.1 Group Two vs. Group One……………………………………………………...52
4.3.2 Group Three vs. Group One………………………………………………...........54
4.3.3 Group Four vs. Group One……………………………………………………….55
4.3.4 The four groups’ average performances of /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/ before /a/………………..56
4.3.4.1 The comparison of the four groups’ LPC average performances of /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/ before /a/…………………………………………………………...56
4.3.4.2 The four groups’ second formants in the CV transient………………………57
4.3.5 The effects of additional four years of English learning experience…………….59
4.3.5.1 Group Two vs. Group Three……………………………………………………59
4.3.5.2 Group Three vs. Group Four…………………………………………………...61
4.3.6 The effects of additional eight years of English learning experience…………..62
4.4 /θ/,/ð/,/tʃ/, /dʒ/, and /ʃ/ as onsets before /i/……………………………………….64
4.4.1 Group Two vs. Group One………………………………………………….……64
4.4.2 Group Three vs. Group One………………………………………………..........66
4.4.3 Group Four vs. Group One……………………………………………………….67
4.4.4 The four groups’ average performances of /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/ before /a/………………..68
4.4.4.1 The comparison of the four groups’ LPC average performances of /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/ before /i/……………………………………………………………68
4.4.4.2 The four groups’ second formants in the CV transient………………………69
4.4.5 The effects of additional four years of English learning experience…………….71
4.4.5.1 Group Two vs. Group Three…………………………………………………..72
4.4.5.2 Group Three vs. Group Four………………………………………………….73
4.4.6 The effects of additional eight years of English learning experience………….75
4.5 Groups Two, Three, and Four’s performances of /t /, /t h /, // V.S. /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/…………………………………………………………………………………….76
4.5.1 Groups Two, Three, and Four’s general performances of /t /, /t h /, // V.S. /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/…………………………………………………………….76
4.5.2 One special case………………………………………………………………...78
Chapter Five: Discussion
5.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………...80
5.1 The answer to the research question……………………………………………….80
5.1.1 SLA theories……………………………………………………………………...80
5.1.1.1 MDH (Markedness Differential Hypothesis)………………………………….80
5.1.1.2 SLM (Second Language Model)……………………………………………….81
5.1.2 Participants’ performances of /ʒ/…………………………………………………82
5.1.3 Participants’ performances of /θ/,/ð/……………………………………………...85
5.1.4 Participants’ performances of /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/………………………………………..85
5.1.5 The result for the research question………………………………………………87
5.2 The answer to the first hypothesis………………………………………………….88
5.3 The answer to the second hypothesis………………………………………………88
Chapter Six: Conclusion
6.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………...89
6.1 The findings of this paper…………………………………………………………..89
6.2 The implication of this paper………………………………………………………93
6.2.1 The pedagogical implication…………………………………………………….93
6.2.2 The theoretical implication………………………………………………………94
6.3 Suggestions for further studies…………………………………………………….95
References…………………………………………………………………………………….97
Appendix A Participants’ English Learning Background…………………………………100
Appendix B The Recorded Words………………………………………………………110
Appendix C Taiwanese Participants’ LPC…………………………………………………113




Bohn, O.-S. & Flege, J.E. (1992). The production of new and similar vowels by adult German learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14,131-158.
Catford, John C.(2001). A Practical Introduction to Phonetics (2nd edition). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Chung, Raung-fu. (2009). Contrastive Analysis and Chinese Language Teaching. Taipei: Cheng Chung Book.
Chung, Raung-fu. (2010). Retroflexed fricatives in Dongshi Hakka of Taiwan. Language and Linguistics,11, 219-248.
Chung, Raung-fu. (2011). Introduction to Modern Linguistics. Taipei: Wu Nan Press. 393-421.
Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315-330.
Eckman, F. R. (1981). On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 18-30.
Eckman, F. R., Elareyes, A., & Iverson, G. K. (2001). Allophonic splits in L2 phonology: The acquisition of learnability. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa, Vol. 9.2, 21-51.
Eckman, F. R. (2004). From phonemic differences to constraint rankings: Research on second language phonology. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Flege, J.E. (1981). The phonological basis of foreign accent: a hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 443-455.
Flege, J.E. (1987). The production of “new and “similar phones in a foreign language: evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47-65.
Flege, J.E., & Hillenbrand, J.(1987). Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language speech production, In Ioup, G. & S. Weinberger (Eds.) Cambridge: Newbury House, 176-203.
Flege, J. E. (1992). Production and perception of a novel, second-language phonetic contrast. Journal Acoustical Society of America, 93(9), 1589-1608.
Flege, J.E.(1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange(Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp.233-273). Timonlum, MD: York Press.
Flege, J.E., Bohn, O.S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speaker’s production and perception of English vowels, Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437-470.
Flege, J.E., & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adult acquisition of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 527-532.
Hamann, Silke. (2003). The Phonetics and Phonology of Retroflexes. Utrecht: LOT Press.
Hammerly, H. (1982). Contrastive phonology and error analysis. IRAL,20, 17-32.
Heinz, John M., and Kenneth N. Stevens.(1961). On the properties of voiceless fricative consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33(5), 589-596.
Hsiao. Yuchau. E. (2011). Universal marking in accent formation: evidence from Mandarin Taiwanese and Taiwanese Mandarin. Lingua, Volume 121:9, 1485-1517.
Johannson, F.(1973). Immigrant Swedish phonology: A case study in multiple contact analysis. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.
Jun, S.-A. & Cowie, I.(1994). Interference for “new and “similar vowels in Korean speakers of English, Ohio State University Working Papers, 43, 117-130.
Ladeforged, Peter. (2003). Phonetic Data Analysis: An Introduction to Fieldwork and Instrumental Techniques. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ladeforged, Peter. (2004). Vowels and Consonants: An Introduction to the Sounds of Languages (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ladeforged, Peter, and Ian Maddieson. (1996). The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ladeforged, Peter, and Zhongji Wu (1984). Places of articulation: an investigation of Pekingese fricatives and affricates. Journal of Phonetics, 12(3), 267-278.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Laver, John.(1994). Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Munro, M. (1993). Production of English vowels by native speakers of Arabic: acoustic measurements and accentedness ratings, Language and Speech, 36, 39-66.
Narayan, Chandan Raghava. (2008). The acoustic-perceptual salience of nasal place contrasts. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 191-217.
Olive, J. P., Greenwood, A., and Coleman, J. S.(1993). Acoustics of American English Speech. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pickett, James M. (1999). The Acoustics of Speech Communication: Fundamentals, Speech Perception Theory, and Technology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rochet, B. L. (1995). Perception and production on second-language speech sounds by adults. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp.379-410). Timonlum, MD: York Press.
Sanders, G. 1977. A functional explanation of elliptical coordinations. In F. Eckman (ed.), Current Themes in Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Sotckman, R., & Bowen, J. (1965). The Sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stevens, K. (1998). Acoustic phonetic. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Torgesen, J.K. (1998). Catch them before they fall. American Educator, 22, 32-39.
Wang, Yunjia & Deng, Dan. (2009). The acquisition of the “unfamiliar vowels and “familiar vowels in Chinese by Japanese learners. International Society for Chinese Language Teaching, 23. 262-279.
Wode, H. (1983). Contrastive analysis and language learning. In H. Wode (Ed.), Papers on language acquisition, language learning, and language teaching (pp. 202-212). Heidelberg, Germany: Groos.
Young-Scholten, M. (1985). Interference reconsidered: The role of similarity in second language acquisition. Selecta, 14, 6-12.






連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top