(3.237.178.91) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/02 23:07
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:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:李嘉宜
研究生(外文):Chia-Yi Li
論文名稱:台灣英語學習者流音習得探究
論文名稱(外文):Liquid Acauisition by Taiwanese EFL Learners
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:博士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
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:225
中文關鍵詞:英語流音錯誤類型中介語音韻學聲學量測類化效應標記效應
外文關鍵詞:English liquidserror patternsinterlanguage phonologyacoustic phoneticsthe similarity effectthe markedness effect.
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:443
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:85
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究探討台灣英語學習者流音習得錯誤類型,進而藉由語言習得理論驗證與評估其假設以瞭解中介語言學習路徑及錯誤產生過程。英語的流音對比,和中文音位配列與音韻差異之間的關聯,可能造成影響台灣英語學習者流音正確發音要素。
本研究主旨: (一)提供實際語料診斷台灣英語學習者流音習得之語言行為;(二)辦識類化效應或標記效應較能適切分析台灣大學生英語學習者流音錯誤; (三)進而提出新看法,以期對中介語音韻發展有所貢獻。
六十位台灣籍大學生參與流音發音實驗。兩位英語母語人士參與錯誤分析和流音發音實驗。英語流音分布於四種語音環境比較與討論。[共振峰值]和[共振峰轉變] 兩種聲學量測方法:用以建立英語母語人士與台灣英語學習者流音聲學特徵及錯誤發音特質相互關係。
本研究主要有三點主要發現:
一、錯誤類型分析方面: 發音實驗結果數據分析得以了解流音學習困難路徑為/l/困難度高於/r/錯誤類型。錯誤類型根據四個語音環境分布又可分為: (1)字首位置: /l/在字首較易被/r/替換, 而字首/r/相對易被/l/替換。(2)字尾位置: /l/字尾較易被刪除或替換成/r/,而字尾/r/易被刪除。 (3)前子音串位置: /l/和/r/在前子音串常牽涉到母音插入(/l/)。(4)後子音串字首位置: 錯誤常發生在/l/和/r/在後子音串中刪除。
二、聲學證據方面: 首先,聲學量測分析從兩方面觀察: [共振峰值]分析呈現流音發音問題與嘴唇和舌頭發音器官相關。台灣英語學習者與英語母語人士流音共振峰值聲學分析在母音前後大體一致。比較結果發現: (1) 台灣英語學習者共振峰值較母語人士(F2, F3, and F3-F2) 高顯示英語和中文音發音仍有差異。(2) 台灣英語學習者/r/在字首和字尾位置F3數值接近母語人士之/l/的F3數值,此結果顯示中文缺乏像英語流音對比的特質。 [共振峰轉變]分析呈現在流音與母音前後,根據其曲線建構發音概廓。其結果發現台灣英語學習者中介語言與母語人士聲學表現接近但仍有差異,尤其以後母音效應影響會到舌頭位置因而可能產生發音上的修正。
再者,流音錯誤聲學證據方面: [共振峰值] 和[共振峰轉變]聲學量測可用於描述錯誤發音特質。F3-F2 數值表示舌尖的位置,依據可以區別/r/與/l/發音。/l/的F3數值越低外國口音越重, 相對/r/的F3越高外國口音越重。台灣英語學習者/r/ F3-F2數值越大顯示發音時嘴型是相對較大的。捲舌程度會對流音分類對比造成影響。
三、理論探討部分:分別以類化效應或標記效應分別分析流音語料。結果發現: (1)類化效應較能解釋目前語料現象; (2)陌生音素/r/學習可能性較相似音素/l/高; (3)流音錯誤產生機制得以獲得較合理解釋。此討論概述本研究台灣大學生學習者英語流音學習路徑(/r/改善優於/l/)結果。The SLM model確認了語音類化和發音之間存在互動關係。發音教學不能僅僅強調發音困難,也要重視學習經驗之影響。


Phonological differences related to the /l/-/r/ liquid contrast in English and the phonotactics of the native language are likely to influence the English pronunciation of Taiwanese learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). This research is an attempt to analyze (1) the error patterns that emerge from TEFL learners’ liquid production; and (2) the theoretical framework that can account for the error data.
The main purposes of this dissertation are: (1) to detect the linguistic behavior of TEFL learners’ liquid acquisition, (2) to identify the effects that can trigger production errors of English liquids for university-level TEFL learners, (3) to contribute to the research on interlanguage phonological development.
Two production tasks were conducted to test the performance of sixty university-level learners. The design of the target words mainly was based on the distribution of English liquids in the four positions for later comparison, analysis and discussion. Following the error analysis, the acoustic measures were to establish the articulatory contours for /l/ and /r/ of NS norm and TEFL production, as well as to elicit the articulatory characteristics of production errors, according to two acoustic cues: formant values and formant transitions.
The major findings of this dissertation are reported as follows. First, the data-driven approach used to resolve the first research question was to assess the error patterns. The error rate shows that the hierarchy of difficulty was ranked as /l/ > /r/. The error patterns in the four positions are summarized below: (1) The word-initial position: There was a tendency to substitute /l/ and /r/: /l/ was realized as /r/, while /r/ was realized as /l/. (2) The word-final position: The error rates indicate a preference for word-final /l/ deletion and the replacement of /l/ with /r/. The word-final /r/ data indicates a tendency for /r/ deletion. (3) The word-initial cluster: The word-initial /l/ cluster errors mainly involved insertions, substitutions, and deletions, whereas the word-initial /r/ cluster errors mainly involved deletion and substitution. Notably, both /l/ and /r/ in word-initial clusters were realized as /l/ most frequently. (4) The word-final cluster: Deletion was the most common error in the word-final and word-final clusters.
Second, an examination of the formant values shows that articulatory difficulty was related to the movements of two articulators: the lip and the tongue. Considerate correspondence between the NS norm and the TEFL production was shown in the contour of English liquids with acoustic measures. Three important findings for formant values: (1) The over-exaggeration in the formant values (F2, F3, and F3-F2,) of the TEFL subjects indicated the articulatory differences between L1 and L2. (2) The mean F3 value of the TEFL word-initial and word-final /r/ fell within the range of the F3 of the NS /l/, showing why the /l/ and /r/ segments were not contrastive in TEFL production. Moreover, the formant transitions gave the curves for articulation configuration. A comparison between the results of NS and TEFL transition modes show certain acoustic deviations in the TEFL interlanguage production. The degree of backness of the vowel affected the TEFL liquid production, since this required more articulatory modifications to change the tongue position.
Following acoustic measures, the examinations described the articulatory characteristics of production errors. The distance between the F3 and F2 reflected the emphasis on the position of the tip of the tongue. The lower the value of F3, the more foreign-accented the /l/ articulation was. The higher was the value of F3, the more foreign-accented the initial /r/ was articulated. The F3-F2 value in a relatively wider range indicates that TEFL /r/ was articulated in a more mouth opening position. The degree of retroflection influenced categorical contractiveness.
Fourth, resolving the second research question involved examining two theoretical frameworks: the similarity effect in the Speech Learning Model (SLM), and the markedness effect in the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH). To summarize, it was found that the SLM analysis could account for the data better: (1) native language similarity suppressed the markedness effect on liquid production; (2) the learnability of “unfamiliar” /r/ overrode “similar” /l/, if more meaningful input was provided; and (3) the systematic error distribution in the four different positions could be explained. Most importantly, our discussions could outline the hierarchy of learning path, that is, /r/ > /l/. The SLM model confirmed the interaction between phonetic similarity and the articulatory effect. Third, both learning experiences and production difficulty were emphasized.

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………....v
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………...viii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………...xi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION………………………………………. 1
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY……………………………………...1
1.2 MOTIVATION OF THE STUDY………………………………………5
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS……………………………….8
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY….…………………………………..8
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION……………………………….10
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………..11
2.1 ACQUISITION OF SECOND LANGUAGE PHONOLOGY………………………...11
2.1.1 Studies on Interlanguage Development…………………………………11
2.1.2 Studies on Language Transfer……………………………………...12
2.1.3 Studies on Interlanguage Errors……………………………………..16
2.2. SEGMENTAL DIFFERENCES AMONG MANDARIN, SOUTHERN MIN, AND ENGLISH……..18
2.3 SYLLABLE STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH AND MANDARIN………………………23
2.3.1 English Syllable Structure..............................................................23
2.3.2 Mandarin Syllable Structure............................................................24
2.3.3 Studies of English Liquid Acquisition in Consonant Clusters……………………..26
2.3.4 Mandarin Phonological Changes involving English Loanwords……………………28
2.4 VARIABILITY IN INTERLANGUAGE PHONOLOGY…………………………32
2.4.1 Perception Effects on Liquid Production………………………………..32
2.4.2 Learner Factors……………………………………………..36
2.4.3 Style Differences…………………………………………….36
2.5 STUDIES ON ERRORS INVOLVING ENGLISH LIQUIDS ……………………….38
2.6 SUMMARY…………………………………………………45
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY…………………………………….46
3.1 SUBJECTS………………………………………………….46
3.2 INSTRUMENTS AND MATERIALS …………………………………...48
3.2.1 Production Experiment: Two reading tasks……………………………….49
3.2.2 Test Structure……………………………………………....49
3.3 DATA COLLECTION……………………………………………52
3.3.1 Questionnaire………………………………………………52
3.3.2 Recordings the Production Tasks…………………………………….52
3.3.3 Procedure of Error Collection……………………………………...53
3.3.3.1 Computing Error Occurrences and Error Rate…………………………...53
3.3.3.2 Error Code and Classification…………………………………....56
3.3.3.3 Acoustic Data Collection……………………………………...57
3.3.3.3.1 Formant Frequency……………………………………...58
3.3.3.3.2 Formant Transition………………………………………60
3.3.3.3.3 The Acoustic Manifestation of the Production Errors…………………….63
3.4 SUMMARY…………………………………………………67
CHAPTER FOUR LIQUID PRODUCTION: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS…………...67
4.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………....67
4.1 OVERALL RESULT OF ENGLISH LIQUID PRODUCTION DATA…………………...67
4.2 ERROR ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LIQUID PRODUCTION…………………… 71
4.2.1 Criteria for Classification of Error Types……………………..………… 72
4.2.2 Errors Classifications…………………………………..………75
4.3 ERROR PATTERNS…………………………………………….84
4.3.1 Errors in the Word-Initial Position……………………………………84
4.3.1.1 Error Rate……………………………………………...84
4.3.2 Errors in the Word-Final Position……………………………………88
4.3.2.1 Error Rate…………………………………...…………89
4.3.3 Errors in the Cluster Positions……………………………………...94
4.3.3.1 Errors in the Word-Initial Cluster………………………………….94
4.3.3.1.1 Error Rate…………………………………………... 94
4.3.3.2 Errors in the Word-Final Cluster…………………………………. 99
4.3.3.2.1 Error rate……………………………………………99
4.4 DISCUSSION ON LIQUID PRODUCTION………………………………..102
CHAPTER FIVE ACOUSTIC MEASURES………………………………….104
5.1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….. 104
5.2 WORD-INITIAL POSITION……………………………………….. 104
5.2.1 Acoustic Properties…………………………………………....104
5.2.2 Liquid Production of NS Norm…………………………………….108
5.2.3 Liquid Production of TEFL Learner………………………………….120
5.2.4 Errors in TEFL Liquid Production…………………………………..133
5.3 WORD-FINAL POSITION………………………………………...138
5.3.1 Acoustic Properties…………………………………………..138
5.3.2 Liquid Production of NS Norm…………………………………….140
5.3.3 Liquid Production of TEFL Learner…………………………………. 151
5.3.4 Errors in TEFL Liquid Production………………………………….. 162
5.4 DISCUSSION ON ACOUSTIC MEASURES……………………..……….. 165
CHAPTER SIX THEORETICAL DISSCUSIONON THE PRODUCTION OF ENGLISH LIQUIDS BY TAIWANESE EFL LEARNERS………………………………………..167
6.1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………..168
6.2 BACKGROUND…………………………………………….. ..170
6.2.1 Markedness Effect on English Liquid…………………………………170
6.2.1.1 Basic Concepts of Markedness Differential Hypothesis…………………….. 170
6.2.1.2 Relative Markedness of Liquids………………………………….172
6.2.1.3 Predictions of Markedness Differential Hypothesis………………………..178
6.2.2 Similarity Effect on English Liquid…………………………………..180
6.2.2.1 Basic Concepts of Speech Learning Mode…………………………….180
6.2.2.2 The Establishment of “Similar” Liquid and “Unfamiliar” Liquid………………...182
6.2.2.3 Predictions of Speech Learning Model………………………………187
6.3 HYPOTHESIS TESTING………………………………………… 189
6.4 CONCLUSION……………………………………………….194
CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS………………………...198
7.1 SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR FINDINGS………………………………...198
7.2 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS…………………………………….200
7.3 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS…………………………………….204
7.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY……………………………………..205
7.5 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH………………………………..206
REFERENCES.............................................................................208
APPENDIX A PROFILE QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................219
APPENDIX B PRONUNCIATION WEBSITE………………………………...221
APPENDIX C WORD-LIST READING……………………………………223
APPENDIX D SENTENCE READING……………….................................224
APPENDIX E PERCEPTION TEST……………………………………...225
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Interlanguage Pronunciation Errors……………………….……………………………….......4
Table 2.1.1 Final Retroflection ………………………………………………………………………….19
Table 2.1.2 Retroflection ………………………………………………………………………….….....19
Table 2.2 Comparison between Southern Min and English……………………………………………..20
Table 2.3 Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Liquid Positions……………………………………………21
Table 2.4 English /l/ and /r/ in Consonant Clusters …….……………………………………………….22
Table 2.5 Allophonic Variants of /l/ and /r/ ……………………………………………………………..23
Table 2.6 Phonological Changes in English Loanwords Mandarin Chinese Phonology…………….….29
Table 2.7 Postulated Sound Substitution among Mandarin, Southern Min, and English…………..........31
Table 2.8 Error Types in English Liquid Production…………………………………….……………....40
Table 2.9 Formant Values of English liquids…………………………………………………………….43
Table 2.10 Formant Values of Mandarin Chinese Consonant Segments…...……………………………44
Table 3.1 Characteristics of the TEFL Subjects…………………………………………………………..46
Table 3.2 English Word Structure Types Used in the Tasks……………………..……………………….50
Table 3.3 Combination of Consonant in English Onsets…………………………………………………51
Table 3.4 English Liquids before/after a Vowel (Single Coda/Single Onset)……………………………51
Table 3.5 Combination of Consonants in Final Clusters ………………………………...........................52
Table 3.6 Evaluation Procedure of the Error Data………………………………………….....................53
Table 3.7 Coding of the Error Occurrences ……………………………………………………………..54
Table 3.8 Classification of Production Errors…………………………………………………………....56
Table 3.9 Acoustic Measurements……………………………………………………………………….58
Table 3.10 Acoustic Measurements of /l/ and /r/ in the onset and offset….………………………….….60
Table 4.1 Number of Target Occurrences………………………………………………………………..68
Table 4.2 Occurrence of /l/ and /r/ Production Errors in the Four Positions……………………………..69
Table 4.3 Percentage of Error Occurrences……………………………………………………………... 70
Table 4.4 Examples of Substitution Errors in the Four Positions………………………………………..76
Table 4.5 Examples of Insertion Errors in the Four Positions……………………………………………78
Table 4.6 Examples of Deletion Errors in the Four Positions……………………………………………79
Table 4.7Examples of Voicing Errors in Word-Initial Clusters…………………………………………..80
Table 4.8 Examples of Metathesis in the Four Positions…………………………………………………81
Table 4.9 Examples of Vowel Change in the Four Positions ………………………………………….....82
Table 4.10 Examples of Other Mispronunciations in the Four Positions…………………................…...83
Table 4.11 Distribution of Word-initial /l/ Errors………………………………………….......................84
Table 4.12 Error Ratio: Substitution in Word-Initial /l/ Position………………………………………...85
Table 4.13 Distribution of Word-Initial /r/ Errors……………………………………………………..... 86
Table 4.14 Error Ratio: Substitution in Word-Initial /r/ Position……………………………….………. 87
Table 4.15 Error Ratio: Substitution in Word-Initial /l/ and Word-Initial /r/ Positions…………………88
Table 4.16 Distribution of Word-Final /l/ Errors………………………………………..........................89
Table 4.17 Ratio of Substitution and Deletion Errors in Word-Final /l/ Position……………….............90
Table 4.18 Distribution of Word-Final /r/ Errors………………………………………………………..91
Table 4.19 Ratio of Substitution, Deletion, and Insertion Errors in Word-final /r/ Position……………92
Table 4.20 Ratio of Substitution Errors in Word-Final /l/ and /r/ Position……………….......................93
Table 4.21 Distribution of Word-Initial /l/ Cluster Errors……………………………………………….95
Table 4.22 Error Ratio: Substitution, Deletion, and Insertion in Word- Initial /l/ Clusters……………...96
Table 4.23 Distribution of Initial // Cluster Errors …………..…………………………………………97
Table 4.24 Error Ratio: Substitution and Deletion Errors in Word-Initial /r/ Clusters………………….98
Table 4.25 Distribution of Word-Final /l/ Cluster Errors…………..…………………………………….99
Table 4.26 Error Ratio: Deletion Errors in Word-Final /l/ Cluster…………..…………………………100
Table 4.27 Distribution of Word-Final /l/ Cluster Errors…………..……………………………………101
Table 4.28 Error Ratio: Deletion Errors in Word- Final /r/ Cluster……………………………………..101
Table 5.1 Formant Frequencies in Hz for the F2 and F3 of English Word-Initial /l/ and /r/ in NS Production…………………………………………………………………………………….......108
Table 5.2 Results of Liquidl-Front Vowel Transitions in NS Production……………………………….113
Table 5.3 Results of Liquidl-Back Vowel Transitions in NS Production……………………………….115
Table 5.4 Results of Liquidr-Front Transition in NS Production……………..........................................117
Table 5.5 Results of Liquidr-Back Transition in NS Production…………..............................................118
Table 5.6 Results of Liquid l/-Vowel Transitions in NS Production….................................................... 119
Table 5.7 Formant Frequencies (in Hz) for the F1, F2, and F3 Formants of Word-initial/l/ and Word-initial /r in the Context of the Vowels /i/ and /o/: NS vs. TEFL……………………………………….122
Table 5.8 Results of Liquidl-Front Vowel Transitions in TEFL Production……………………………126
Table 5.9 Results of Liquidl-Back Vowel Transitions in TEFL Production…………………………….128
Table 5.10 Results of Liquidr-Front Transition in TEFL Production……………...................................129
Table 5.11Results of Liquidr-Back Transition in TEFL Production…………........................................130
Table 5.12 Results of Liquidl/r-Vowel Transitions in TEFL Production…..............................................131
Table 5.13 Results of Liquid-Vowel Transition Analysis (//)………………………………….135
Table 5.14 Results of Liquid-Vowel Transitions Analysis (//)...................................................137
Table 5.15 Formant Frequencies (in Hz) for the F1, F2, and F3 Formants of Word-final/l/ and Word-final /r in the Context of the Vowels /i/ and /o/: NS vs. TEFL…………………………………….…141
Table 5.16 Results of Front Vowel-Liquidl Transitions in NS Production……………………………..144
Table 5.17 Results of Back Vowel-Liquidl Transitions in NS Production…………………………...…146
Table 5.18 Results of Front Vowel-Liquidl Transitions in NS Production………………......................147
Table 5.19 Results of Back Vowel-Liquidl Transitions in NS Production…………..............................149
Table 5.20 Results of Liquidl/r-Vowel Transitions in NS Production…..................................................150
Table 5.21 Formant Frequencies (in Hz) for the F1, F2, and F3 Formants of Word-final /l/ and Word-final /r/ in the Context of the Vowels /i/ and /o/ in TEFL Production.………………………………153
Table 5.22 Formant Frequencies (in Hz) for the F1, F2, and F3 Formants of Word-final /l/ and Word-final /r/ in the Context of the Vowels /i/ and /o/: NS vs. TEFL…………………………………….. 155
Table 5.23 Results of Front Vowel-Liquidl Transitions in TEFL Production………………………….157
Table 5.24 Results of Back Vowel-Liquidl Transitions in TEFL Production………………………….158
Table 5.25 Result of Front Vowel-Liquidr Transition in TEFL Production………………...................158
Table 5.26 Results of Back Vowel-Liquidr Transitions in TEFL Production………….........................160
Table 5.27 Results of Vowel-Liquidl/r Transitions in TEFL Production…..............................................161
Table 5.28 Results of the Analysis Vowel-Liquid Transition Analysis (-//).............................164
Table 6.1 Results of the Comparison of F2-F3 Values of Word-initial /l/ and /r/: NS vs. TEFL………..188
Table 6.2 Percentage of Error Occurrences……………………………………………………………..190
Table 6.3 Error Patterns in the Four Positions………………………………………………………......191


























LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 English Syllable Structures……………………………………………………………….…...24
Figure 2.2 Closed/Open Syllable Structure of Mandarin…………………………………………….…...25
Figure 3.1 Process of the Experiment………………………………………………………………….....48
Figure 3.2 Error Computation for Word-List Reading………………………………………………..….55
Figure 3.3 Error Computation for Sentence Reading…………………………………………………….55
Figure 3.4 Spectrograms of F2 of Word-initial /l/ Showing the Influence of the Following Vowel…..….59
Figure 3.5 The /l/-/i/ Transition in lead in the Production of a Mal Native Speaker………………..……62
Figure 3.6 Spectrograms and Waveforms of /l/ in lead and load…………………………………………64
Figure 3.7 Spectrogram of the formant analysis of /l/-deletion in flesh…………………………….……65
Figure 3.8 Spectrogram of the formant analysis of valid /l/ in flesh……………………………………..65
Figure 4.1 Error Rate of each Error Type………………………………………………………………...72
Figure 5.1 Spectrograms of NS Liquid Production in lead, read, load, and road………………………105
Figure 5.2 F2-F3 Values of NS Lateral /l/ and Retroflex /r/…………………...........................................110
Figure 5.3 Articulation of /l/ and /r/…………………............................................................................. 111
Figure 5.4 The /l/-// Transition in lead in NS Production……………….…...........................................112
Figure 5.5 Liquidl-Vowel Transitions in NS Production……………….…............................................ 114
Figure 5.6 The /r/-// Transition in read in NS Production……………….…..........................................116
Figure 5.7 Liquidr -Vowel Transitions in NS Production……………….…............................................ 117
Figure 5.8 Spectrograms of TEFL Liquid Production in lead, read, load, and road...............................120
Figure 5.9 Comparison of F2-F3 Values of NS and TEFL /l/ and /r/ Productions…………....................124
Figure 5.10 Liquidl-Vowel Transitions in TEFL Production…………………........................................125
Figure 5.11 Liquidr -Vowel Transitions in TEFL Production…………………........................................128
Figure 5.12 Comparison of the spectrograms of TEFL Word-initial Liquid Production and Word-initial /l/ to /r/ Substitution...........................................................................................................................134
Figure 5.13 Comparison of the Spectrograms of TEFL Word-initial Liquid Production and Word-initial // to /l/ Substitution......................................................................................................................136
Figure 5.14 The Spectrograms of NS Liquid Production in feel, fear, pool, and poor............................139
Figure 5.15 The //-/l/ Transition in feel in NS Production…………………...........................................143
Figure 5.16 Vowel-Liquidl Transitions in NS Production………………….............................................145
Figure 5.17 The //-/r/ Transition in fear in NS Production…………………..........................................147
Figure 5.18 Vowel-Liquidr Transitions in NS Production………………….............................................148
Figure 5.19 The Spectrograms of TEFL Liquid Production in feel, fear, pool, and poor....................... 152
Figure 5.20 Vowel-Liquidl Transitions in TEFL Production…………………….....................................156
Figure 5.21 Vowel-Liquidr Transitions in TEFL Production…………………….…................................159
Figure 5.22 Comparison of the Spectrograms and Formant Transitions of TEFL Word-final Liquid Production and Word-Final /l/ to /r/ Substitution….............................................................163

Akahane-Yamada, R. A. (1993). Effects of extended training on /r/ and /l/ identification by native speakers of Japanese [Abstract]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93 (4, Pt. 2), 2391.
Altenberg, E. & Vago, R. (1987). Theoretical application of an Error Analysis of Second Language Phonology Production. In G. Ioup & S. Weingberger (eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of second language sound system, pp. 148-164. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Anderson, J. I. (1983). Syllable simplification in the speech of second language patterns. The Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3, 4-36.
Anderson, J. (1987). The markedness differential hypothesis and syllable structure difficulty. In G. Ioup & S. Weingberger (eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of second language sound system, pp.279-291. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahana-Yamada, R., and Tsuneo, Y. (2004) Perceived PhoneticDissimilarity and L2 in Speech Learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/.” Journal of Phonetics, 32, 233-250
Avery, P. & Eerlich, S. (1995). Teaching American English Pronunciation. London: Oxford University Press.
Beebe, L. M. (1980). Sociolinguistic Variation and Style Shifting in Second Language Acquisition. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of second language sound system, pp.378-388. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bybee, Joan (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Best, C.T. and Strange, W. (1992). Effects of phonological and phonetic factor on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 305-330.
Bohn, O.-S. & Flege, J. E., (1990). Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 303-328.
Boyce, S. & Espy-Wilson, C. (1997). Coarticulatory stability in American English /r/, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(6), 3741-3753.
Bordern, Gerber, & Milsark (1983). Production and perception of the /r/-/l contrast in Korean adults learning English. Language Learning, 33 (3), 499-526.
Broselow, E. (1984). An investigation of transfer in second language phonology. IRAL, 22, 253-269.
Broselow, E. (1993). Transfer and universals in second language epenthesis. In S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. pp. 71–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Broselow, E., Chen, S-I., & Wang, Chilin. (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 261-280.
Broselow, E. & Finer, D. (1991). Parameter setting in second language acquisition. Second language Research, 7, 35-59.
Brown, Adam (1989). Giving your students /l/. English Language Teaching Journal, 43: 294-301.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach for Language Pedagogy. New York: Longman.
Burquest, D. A, & Payne, D. L. (1993). Phonological analysis: A functional approach. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M. & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching Pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Pres.
Chan, Alice Y.W. and Li, David C.S. (2000). English and Cantonese phonology in contrasts: explaining Cantonese ESL learners’ English pronunciation problems. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 13(1), 67-85.
Chan, Alice Y.W. (2004). ESL learners’ difficulties in learning English final consonants. In Proceedings of KATE 2004 International Conference, pp.59-62. The Korea Association of Teachers of English.
Chan, Alice Y.W. (2006). Strategies used by Cantonese speakers in pronouncing English initial clusters: Insights into the Interlanguage phonology of Cantonese EFL learners in Hong Kong. IRAL, 44, 331-355.
Chao, Y. R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chen, M. L. (1999). Interlanguage Phonology of EFL students. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Chen, S-C. (2001). Interlanguage Variation in the Production of English (r) by Taiwanese Learners. MA Thesis, Providence University, Taichung.
Chomsky, N. & M. Halle. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Chomsky, N (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.
Chung, R. F. ( (1991). Contemporary phonological theory and Chinese phonology. An NSC report.
Chung, R. F. ( (1996). The Segmental Phonology of Southern Min in Taiwan. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chung, R. F. (2002). The Foundations of the Phonology of Southern Min. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chung, R. F. ( (2004). Introduction to linguistics. Taipei: Crane.
Chung, R. F. (2006). Introduction to linguistics. Taipei: U-nan.
Clement, G.N. and Keyser, J. (1993). CV Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crawford, W. W. (1987). The pronunciation monitor: L2 acquisition considerations and pedagogical priorities. In J. Morley (Ed.), Current perspectives on pronunciation: Practices anchored in the theory, pp.101-120. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corder, S. Pit. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL, 5, 161-170.
Corder, S. Pit. (1971).Idiosyncratic dialects and errors analysis. IRAL, 9,149-159.
Dai, Z. Y. (2000). The interference of Southern Min in Lugang students’ English pronunciation. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Demuth, K. (1995). Markedness and the Development of Prosodic structure. In J. Beckman (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, 2, pp.33-25. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.
Dickson, L. and Dickson, W, B. (1977). Interlanguage phonology: Current research and future directions. In S. P. Corder & E. Roulet (Eds.), Actes du 5eme Colloque de Linguistigue Appliquee de Neuchatel: The Notions of simplification, interlanguage and pidgins and their relation to second language learning, pp.18-29. Geneva: Dorz.
Duanmu, S. (1990). A Foral Study of Syllable, Tone, Stress, and Domain in Chinese Languages, Ph.D dissertation, MIT.
Duanmu, S. (2000). The Phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315-330.
Eckman, F. R. (1981). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31, 195-216.
Eckman, F. R. (1985). Some theoretical and implicational of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis. Studies in second language Acquisition, 7: 289-307.
Eckman, F. R. (1987). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.) Interlanguage phonology: the acquisition of a second language sound system, pp.55-69. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Eckman, F. R. (1991). The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in second language Acquisition, 13: 23-41.
Eckman, F. R. (2004). From phonemic differences to constraint rankings. Studies in second language Acquisition, 26(4), 513-549.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Espy-Wilson, Carol Y.(1992). Acoustic measures for linguistic features distinguishing the semivowels /w j r l/ in American English. Journal of Acoustic Society of America 92, 736-757.
Fant, G. (1973). Speech Sounds and Features, MIT Press.
Flege, J. E. (1981). The phonological basis of foreign accent: A hypothesis, TESOL Quarterly, 15, 443-455.
Flege, J. E. (1984). The detection French accent by American listeners, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 692-707.
Flege, J. E. (1987a) Effects of equivalence classification on the production of foreign language speech sounds. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), Sound Patterns in second language acquisition, pp.10-39. Dordrecht: Foris.
Flege, J. E. (1987b). 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. InG. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: acquisition of a second language sound system, pp.176-203. Cambridge: Newbury House.
Flege, J. E. (1988). The production and perception of speech sounds in a foreign language: In H. Wintz (Ed.), Human communication and its disorders: A review-1988, pp. 224-401. Norwood, NJ: Albex.
Flege, J. E. (1991). Orthographic evidence for the perceptual identification of vowels in Spanish and English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 701-731.
Flege, J. E. (1995a). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experiences: Theoretical and methodological issues in cross-language speech research, pp.229-273. Timonium, MD: York Press.
Flege, J. E. (1995b). Japanese adults can learn to produce English /r/ and /l/ accurately. Language and Speech, 38 (1), 25-55.
Flege, J. E. Takagi, N & Mann, V. (1995). Japanese adults can learn to produce English /r/ and /l/ accurately. Language and Speech, 38, 25-56.
Fromkin, V. (ed.) (1973). Speech Error as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton. (ed.)
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.
Giegerich, Heinz, J. (1992). English Phonology. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, J. (1993). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in North American English (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gimson, A. (1975). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London: Edward Arnold.
Goh, B-C. (1996). Negotiating with the Chinese. Aldershot Hants, England; Brookfield,VT: Dartmouth Publishers.
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “l” and “r”. Neuropsychologia, 9, 317-323.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Language, pp.73-113. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Greenlee, M. (1974). Interacting processes in the child’s acquisition of stop-liquid clusters. Papers and reports on child language development, 7, 85-100.
Gundel, J., K. Houlihan & G. Sanders. 1986. Markedness distribution in phonology and syntax. In F. Eckman, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.). Markedness, pp.107-138. New York: Plenum Press.
Guion, S G, J. E. Flege, R. Akahane-Yamada & J.C. Pruitt. (2000). An investigation of current models of second speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 69-90.
Hammarberg, B. (1990). Conditions on transfer in phonology. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), New Sounds 90: Proceeding of the 1990 Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, pp.198-215. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1994). Segment transfer: the consequence of a dynamic system. Second Language Research, 10(3), 241-269.
Hagiwara, R. (1995). Acoustic realization of American /r/ as produced by women and men. UCLA Working Paper in Phonetics, 90, 2-187.
Hancin-Bhatt, B. & Bhatt, R.M. (1997). Optimal L2 syllable: Interactions of transfer and developmental effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 331-378.
Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1997) Extended full transfer/full access in L2 sound patterns: a prolegomena. In J. Leather & A. James (Eds.). New Sounds 97: Proceeding of the Third International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-Language Speech, pp.109-117. Klagenfurt, Austria: University of Klagenfurt.
Hecht, B. F.& Mulford, R. (1982). The acquisition of a second language phonology: Interaction of transfer and developmental factors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 313-328.
Helmke, B. & Wu, Y. S. (1980). Individual differences and foreign language pronunciation achievement. Revue de Phonetique Appliquee, 53, 25-34.
Henly, E. & Sheldon, A. (1986). Duration and context on the perception of English /r/and /l/: a comparison of Cantonese and Japanese speakers. Language and Learning, 36, 505-521.
Hock, Hans Heinrich. (1991). Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.
Hung, Tony T. N. (2000). Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English. World Englishes, 19(3), 33–356.
Ing, R. O. (1970). Common errors in English pronunciation found among Chinese students. English Teaching Quarterly, 2 (1), 1-3.
Ing, R. O. (1976). “English R and L sounds”, English Teaching and Learning 1(1): 61-70. Reprinted as “English R and L sounds to Chinese Students.” Papers from the 1979 Asian and Pacific Conference on Linguistics and Language Teaching.
Ing, R. O. (1989). Teaching English Pronunciation. English Teaching and Learning, 14, 34-44.
Iwasaki, Y. E. (1999). Japanese speakers and American English vowels: Spectrographic analysis of learners at three different stages of acquisition. The ORTESK Journal, 20, 21-50.
Jacobson, Roman. (1968). Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals. The
Hague: Mouton. (Translated from the German original version published in 1941).
Johansson, F. (1973). Immigrant Swedish phonology. Lund, Sweden: Gleerup.
Kager, René. (1999). Optimality Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kent, J. D. & Lass, N. J. (1996). The Acoustic Characteristics of American English. In, Lass, Norman J. (1996). Principles of Experimental Phonetics, pp. 185-225. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby-Year book, Inc.
Kinnaird, S. K. & Zapf, J. (2004). An Acoustical Analysis of a Japanese Speaker’s Production of English /r/ and /l/. Indian University Club Working Papers Online https://wwww.indiana.edu/~iulcwp/contents.cgi?which=4 access date: 2008/9/6
Ladefoged, P. (1993). A course in phonetics (3rd edition). NY.: Harcourt Brace Jovancich Inc.
Ladefoged, P. (2001a). Vowels and consonants. Mass: Blackwell.
Ladefoged, P. (2001b). A course in phonetics (4th edition). Orlando: Harcourt Brace College.
Ladefoged, P. & Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lass, R. (1984). Phonology: An introduction to Basic Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lass, Norman, J. (1996). Principles of Experimental Phonetics. Mosby-Year Book, Inc.
Laubstein, A. S. (1987). Syllable structure: The speech error evidence. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 32, 339-363.
Lee, J. H. (1995). The affect of Korean language transfer in the production of English /r/ and /l/: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. M.A. dissertation. The University of Texas at Arlington.
Lehiste, I & Peterson, Gerdon, E. (1960). Duration of Syllable Nuclei in English. Journal of the Associated Society of America, 32, 693-703.
Lehiste, I. (1964). Acoustic characteristics of selected English consonants. International Journal of American Linguistics, 30, 10-115.
Lenneberg, E.H. (1976). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. (1983). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. The Carne Publishing Co., Ltd.
Li, C. Y. Allison. (2005). The realization of EFL learners’ errors of English liquids in onset clusters. MS.
Li, C. Y. Allison. (2009). The realization of EFL learners’ acquisition of English liquids in onset clusters. . The proceedings of 2009 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, pp. 243-251. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Li, J. K. Paul. (1986). Rhyming and phonemic contrast in Southern Min. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 57, 439-463.
Li, Yin-che. (1962). The relevance of phonetic analysis in teaching English to Taiwanese speakers. Journal of Tunghai University, IV, 98-104.
Lin, Y-H. (1989). Autosegmental Treatment of Segmental Processes in Chinese Phonology. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.
Lin, Y-H. (2001). A constraint-based approach to Chinese speakers’ acquisition of English consonant clusters. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 1-33.
Lin, Y-H. (2003). Interphonology variability--sociolinguistic factors affecting L2 simplification strategies. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 439-464.
Locke, J. L. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press.
MacKain, K. S., Best, C.T. & Strange, W. (1981). Categorical perception and English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese bilinguals. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 89, 874-886.
MacKay, Ian. R. A. (1987). Phonetics: The Science of Speech Production. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Macintyre, P. D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willing to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.
Major, R. C. (1987). Phonological similarity, markedness, and rate of L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 63-82.
Major, R. (1996). Markedness in second language acquisition of consonant clusters. In Robert Bayley anDennis R. Preston (eds.), Variation and second language, p.p.5-96. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1994). The Emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. by M. Gonzalez, 24, 333-379.
Morley, J. (1994). A Multidemensional Curriculum Design for Speech-Pronunciation Instruction. In J. Morley (Ed.) Pronunciation Pedagogy and Theory: New Views, New Directions. Pantagraph: Bloomington.
Nemser, W. (1971a). An experimental study of phonological interference in the English of Hungarians. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Olive, J. P., Greenwood, A. & Coleman, J. S. (1993). Acoustics of American English Speech. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Oller, J. & Ziahosseiny, S. (1970), The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors, Language Learning, 20, 183-89
Paolillo, J. C. (1995). Markedness in the Acquisition of English /r/ and /l/. In Fred R. Eckman, J (Edd.) Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy, pp. 275-292. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
Pennington, M.C. (1994). Recent Research in L2 Phonology: Implications for Practice. In J. Morley (Ed.) Pronunciation Pedagogy and Theory: New Views, New Directions. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Pickett, J. M. (1999). The Acoustics of Speech Communication: Fundamentals, Speech Perception Theory, and Technology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Unpublished ms. Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Puckett, B. (1999). “Limited Phonology of English Loanwords in Mandarin Chinese: an Optimality Theory Approach.” Term Paper, Cornell University.
Rice, K. D. (2004). Markedness in phonology. In the Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, edited by Paul Delacy, 79-118. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching Journal, 25 (3), 204-219.
Roca, I. & Johnson, W. (1999). A course in phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rochet, B. L. (1995). Perception and production of second-language speech sound by adults. Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research, edited by W. Strange, pp.379-410. York, Timonium, MD.
Rvachew, S. J. (1994). Speech perception Training can facilitate sound production learning. Speech Hearing Research, 37, 347-357.
Sander, E. (1972). Do we know when speech sounds are learned?. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37, 55-63.
Schachter, Jacquelyn. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-214.
Scholes, R. (1968). Phonemic Interference as a perceptual phenomenon. Language and Speech. 11, 86-103.
Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accent: Language acquisition and cerebral dominance. Language learning, 19, 245-254.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 209-231.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. Burnt Mill/Harlow: Longman.
Selinker, L. (1995). Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman.
Sheldon, A. & Strange, W. (1982). The Acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 243-261.
Shereef, S, (2001). “A Cross-linguistic Study of Phonological Development.” Journal of Undergraduate Research, University of Florida.
Silverman, D. (1992). Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: evidence from
Cantonese. Phonology, 9, 289–328.
Smith, L.C. (1997). The role of L1 feature geometry in the acquisition of L2 segmental phonology. Acquiring /l/ and /r/ in English. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics, 19(2), 45-70.
Stemberger, J.P. & Treiman, I. J. (1986) The internal structure of word-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 163-180.
Stemberger, J.P. (1992). A connectionist view of child phonology. In C. Ferguson at. al. (eds.), Phonological Development, pp.165-189. Timonnium, MD: York Press.
Strange, W. & Dittmann, S. (1984). Effects of discriminating training on the perception of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese adults learning English. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 131-145.
Strange, W. (1992). Learning non-native phoneme contrasts: Interaction among subject,stimulus, and task variable. In Tohkura ,E., Vatikiotis-Bateson, E., & Sagisake, Y.(Eds.), Speech perception, Production, and linguistic structure. Tokyo: Ohmsha.
Strange, W. (2007). Cross-language phonetic similarity of vowels. Theoretical and methodological issues. In O. Bohn and M. J. Munro (eds.), Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning, pp. 35-55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sun, Chao-Fen.(2006). Chinese: A Linguistic Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sun, Shu-huei. (2001). American English Phonetics. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Takagi, N. (1993). Perception of American English /r/ and /l/ by adult Japanese learners of English: A unified view. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California at Irvine.
Tarone, E. (1978). The phonology of interlanguage. In Jack C. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning, pp.15-33. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.
Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language learning, 29: 181-91.
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. (1939). Grundzuge der phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht [Principles of Phonology, translated by C. Baltaxe. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969].
Tsao, Feng-Fu. (2000). Taiwanized Japanese and Taiwan Mandarin- Two Case Studies of Language Contact during the Past Hundred Years in Taiwan. Chinese Studies, 18, 273-297.
Tung, Jeffery, C. (1992). Three Ways of Treating Nasality in South Min. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Chinese Language and Linguistics, Academic Sinica, Taipei.
Valdman, A. (1976). Introduction to French phonology and morphology. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Wang, Samuel. (1995). Experimental Studies in Taiwanese Phonology. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Wan, Y-J & Deng D, (2009). The Acquisition of the “Unfamiliar Vowels” and “SimilairVowles” in Chinese by Japanese Learners. China Academic Journal, 23(2), 262-279.
Weinberger, S. (1987). The influence of linguistic context on syllable simplification. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of second language sound system, pp.401-417. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wu, T.C. & Lin, M. S. (1989). The Foundation of the Experimental Phonology. Peiking: Higher Education Publication.
Yip, V. 1995. Interlanguage and Learnability: from Chinese to English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yip, M. (2002). Perceptual influences in Cantonese loanword phonology. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan. Special issue on Aspects of loanword phonology, 6(1), 4–21.

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
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔