The Acquisition Of English Word-final Consonants

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007

1

The Acquisition of English Word-Final Consonants by Cantonese ESL Learners in Hong Kong ALICE Y. W. CHAN City University of Hong Kong

1. INTRODUCTION The role that one’s native language (NL) plays in the acquisition of a second or foreign language has always been of interest to linguists. Earlier discussions of language transfer often attributed a learner’s difficulty in learning a second language to the differences between his/her native language and the target language (TL). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), proposed by (Lado (1957), argued that target language forms that were different from the equivalent forms in the native language (L1) would be difficult to learn. This hypothesis was, however, shown to be inadequate in predicting (the strong version of the of the hypothesisCAH) or explaining (the weak version of the CAH) the learning difficulties that a second language (L2) learner has, as there was evidence showing that differences between languages did not always lead to learning difficulties (Odlin 1989). In view of the inadequacy of the Contrastive Analysis HypothesisCAH and in order to revise it to incorporate certain principles of uUniversal gGrammar, Eckman (1977) suggests the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH)., whichThis hypothesis predicts not only the areas of difficulty for a second language learners, but also the relative degree of difficulty I would like to thank the participants and comparison group who participated in the study. Thanks are also due to my research assistants for their administrative assistance. I am indebted to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this article. This study was supported by City University of Hong Kong (Strategic Research Grant No. 7001320).

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 2 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    2

on the basis of a systematic comparison between the native and target languages as well asand the markedness relations stated in Uuniversal gGrammar. Important in this hypothesis is tThe notion of typological markedness is important in this hypothesis, which says that a phenomenon A in some language is more marked than B if, cross-linguistically, the presence of A (the implicans; Eckman 1984) necessarily implies the presence of B (the implicatum; Eckman 1984), but the presence of B does NOT not necessarily imply the presence of A (Eckman 1981a, 1981b). Markedness, in this sense, refers to “the relative frequency or generality of a given structure across the world’s languages” (Eckman 1996: 198) and is an “independently motivated, empirical construct” rather than a matter of judgment or conjecture (Eckman 1996: 201). Accordingly, the MDH Markedness Differential Hypothesis attempts to explain difficulties in L2 acquisition on the basis of cross-linguistic data. It proposes predicts that: (i) those areas of the target language which that differ from the native language and are more marked than the native language will be difficult; (ii) the relative degree of difficulty of the areas of the target language which that are more marked than the native language will correspond to the relative degree of markedness; and (iii) those areas of the target language which that are different from the native language but are not more marked than the native language will not be difficult. (Eckman 1977: 321). Although the goals of the MDH Markedness Differential Hypothesis and those of the CAH Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis are essentially the same, the former has abiis ablelity to account for the relative degrees of difficulty of acquisition, for those

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 3 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    3

the areas of difference between the native language and the target language that will not cause difficulty, as well as for the fact that a learner can make progress in acquiring the target language (Eckman 1985: 293). However, in resonance with the underlying assumptions of the CAHContrastive Analysis Hypothesis, differences between the native language and the target language are paramount in the MDHMarkedness Differential Hypothesis, in that learner difficulties are predicted on the basis of NL-TL differences between the native language and the target language. Difficulties in an area where there is no difference between the native and target languages, thus, fall outside the scope of the hypothesis. Several areas of second/third language acquisition have been examined to investigate the effectiveness of the MDH Markedness Differential Hypothesis in predicting areas of difficulty and relative degree of difficulty. Studies which that have examined second/third language phonology acquisition have includefocused on, among others things, the acquisition of voicing contrasts (Bhatia 1995; Eckman 1981a; Edge 1991; Major and Faudree 1996), consonants and/or consonant clusters (Benson 1986; Eckman 1987, 1991), and syllable structures (Anderson 1987; Stockman and Pluut 1992; Tarone 1987). The results of these studies generally support the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH, in the sense that the presence of the more marked implicans in the second learner’s interlanguage (Selinker 1972) implies the presence of the less marked implicatum. Moreover, and that, learners who experience difficulty in the implicatum also experience difficulties in the implicans, but those who experience difficulty in the implicans may do not necessarily experience difficulties in the implicatum. For example, Anderson (1987)), for example, found that the marked, longer English consonant clusters are more difficult than

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 4 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    4

the unmarked, shorter ones, and that the marked final clusters are more difficult than the unmarked initial ones for learners whose native language differs from English in terms of the permissible consonant sequences in word-initial and word-final positions. Eckman’s (1981b) data confirm the relative degree of difficulty between word-final voiced obstruents and word- final voiceless obstruents, finding that the former is are more difficult than the latter. Supporting evidence for the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH notwithstanding, there has been some criticism onf the hypothesis ever since it was launched (Kellerman 1979; Zobl 1983). Research studies showing the inadequacy of the hypothesis are not lacking. In their study of the acquisition of French consonants by Cantonese speakers, Cichocki et al. (1999) have observed several patterns that the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH incorrectly predictsed. Major and Kim (1999) also condemn the hypothesis’ disregard of the nature of the similarities or differences that exist between the target language and the native language in its prediction of relative degree of difficulty. The fact that relative ease or difficulty of acquisition is not specified longitudinally in terms of stages or rate of learning is also one another area of criticism (Major and Kim 1999, cited in Leather 1999). A number of researchers whose work has been inspired in one way or another by the notion of universal markedness have either modified the theoretical constructs of the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH or have suggested different extensions. Carlisle (1988), for example, suggests the Intralingual Markedness Hypothesis, in order (IMH) to incorporate markedness relationships within the L2 (in addition to markedness relationships between the L1 and the L2) into Eckman’s theory. Eckman (1991) himself,

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 5 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    5

in explaining word-final devoicing in the English of native Farsi speakers, proposes the Structural Conformity Hypothesis (SCH) to discard the requirement for areas of difference (between the L1 and the L2) and simply claims that interlanguages obey primary language universals. Major and Kim (1999), on the other hand, put forward the Similarity Differential Rate Hypothesis (SDRH) to suggest “a compound influence of typological markedness and phonetic similarity/dissimilarity that works to the benefit or detriment of the L2 learner” (Leather 1999: 31). While tTheir proposal focuses on rate of acquisition rather than relative degree of difficulty as measured by ultimate achievement, claiming that dissimilar phenomena are acquired at faster rates than similar phenomena., it is arguedThey argue that markedness and similarity interact in interesting ways and that the former is a mediating factor affecting second language acquisition. In consonance with Major and Kim’s (1999) proposal, a number of second language phonology acquisition models have demonstrated the significance of similarity/dissimilarity. Examples include the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM) proposed by Best (1994), which argues that non-native contrasts are perceived in terms of their phonetic similarity to the phonological categories present in a listener’s native language (Harnsberger 2001); and the Speech Learning Model (SLM) proposed by Flege (1995), which claims that “the greater the perceived phonetic dissimilarity between an L2 sound and the closest L1 sound, the more likely it is that phonetic differences between the sounds will be discerned” (Flege 1995: 239). Although the contribution of markedness universals has not been investigated in these models, it is nonetheless apparent that markedness relationships between the native language and the target language may not necessarily be the main determining factor for second language phonology acquisition.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 6 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    6

The concept of markedness itself has also come under severe attack. Because the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH is based on a functional-typological approach to second language acquisition theory, markedness is defined on the basis of crosslinguistic data. Observed patterns which that contradict markedness at the level of individual languages, however, have led researchers to view markedness from other perspectivesaway from a universal perspective. Hume (2004) criticizes argues that the

notion of universal markedness for being a non-scientific conceptis insufficient for to explainning language- specific propertiess. She argues suggests that markedness should be a probabilistic notion, with predictability positively correlated with unmarkedness. Within a language system, unmarked elements have a high degree of predictability, but if languages differ in terms of the elements that make up their systems and how the elements are used, predictability of the elements will also differ. The relationship between frequency and language acquisition has also provided evidence undermining the significance of universal markedness. Levelt et al. (2000) and Roark and Demuth (2000), have for example, found that the earlier acquired structures in each language are often much higher in frequency. However, where markedness and frequency make opposite predictions, both markedness and frequency play a role in determining language development (Stites et al. 2004)., so Thus, when two options for a given entity are present, both can be selected as unmarked (Rose 2003). The loss of perceptual discrimination abilities in infancy has also been found to be frequency-related, and models based on input frequencies are seen as a better account than markedness for such loss of discrimination than markedness (Anderson et al. 2003). Focusing on relative markedness as defined in terms of frequencies rather than implicational universals, Major

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 7 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    7

and Kim (1999) also argue that the markedness relationship between voiced obstruents and voiceless obstruents does not necessarily apply to individual sounds, because some voiced obstruents (e.g., /b/) are found in certain languages (e.g., Arabic) whereas while their voiceless counterparts (e.g., /p/) are not. All these discussions show that the notion of markedness needs to be revisited. The validity of the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH and thus the appropriateness of its theoretical constructs are also yet to be determined.

2. THIS SSTUDY The explanatory power of the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH on the learning of English pronunciation by Cantonese learners has not been the focus of much SLA second language acquisition research. Though there has been supporting evidence showing the compliance of the interlanguage phonology of Cantonese speakers with certain universal principles (Eckman 1984, 1987), such as the Resolvability Principle (Eckman 1991) and the typological universal concerning voicing contrasts in word-final obstruents (Eckman 1981b), many universal generalizations have not been investigated. It is not clear, for instance, to what extent the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH is valid for predicting and explaining the relative degree of difficulty of for Cantonese speakers in pronouncing word-final obstruents and sonorant consonants. Eckman (1984) documents two implicational relations that are relevant to the present study: (1) Universal implicational relations a.

As documented in Eckman (1984), ifWord-final there are voiced obstruents

imply word-finally, then there word-final are voiceless obstruents word-finally.;

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 8 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    8

b.

and Word-final if there are voiceless obstruents word-finallyimply word-final,

then there are sonorant consonants. word-finally. These twois implicational universals suggestsentail that the following markedness hierarchy (where “>” means “is more marked than”): (2) Markedness ranking in word-final position word-final voiced obstruents are more marked> than word-final voiceless obstruents > , which are in turn more marked than word-final sonorant consonants. According to the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH, then, for second language learners whose native language differs from the target language in the system of word-final consonants, sonorant consonants should be the easiest to learn and voiced obstruents the most difficult. While iit is true that many Cantonese learners of English encounter a lot of difficulties with English word-final obstruents, it has nevertheless also been discussed in the literatureobserved that–– despite their being universally less marked––word-final nasals preceding diphthongs and word-final /l/ also pose tremendous problems for the Cantonese learners of English (Chan and Li 2000) despite their being universally less marked. In this context, Aa study was thus carried out to analyze the interlanguage data of Cantonese English as a second language (ESL) learners in Hong Kong, in an attempt to investigate the validity of the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH for second language phonology acquisition by these learners. The relative degree of difficulty between the three categories of consonants, namely voiced obstruents, voiceless obstruents, and sonorant consonants, was is the centre of the study. If the results of the study show that learner difficulties conform to the markedness

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 9 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    9

relationships documented, then the this will support the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH is supported. However, if it is shown that some Cantonese learners of English encounter difficulties in word-final consonants that do not parallel the markedness relationships, the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH will be undermined.

3. DIFFERENCES BBETWEEN ENGLISH AND CANTONESE English differs from Cantonese in both the inventory of permissible word-final consonants and the articulation of the segments. In terms of inventory, whereas while all English consonants except /h, j, w/ can occur in syllable-final (coda) position,1 1 only the nasals /m, n , N / and the voiceless plosives /p, t, k/ can occur in syllable-final position in Cantonese. Other obstruents, such as voiced plosives, fricatives (voiced or voiceless), affricates (voiced or voiceless), and other sonorant consonants, such as the lateral /l/, are NOT not allowed in syllable-final position (Chan and Li 2000). In terms of articulation, whereas English final plosives in isolated words are often released and those in connected speech are also sometimes released, final plosives in Cantonese are obligatorily unreleased regardless of speech stylesrate. For the voiceless bilabial /p/, the lips remain closed; for the voiceless alveolar /t/, the tongue tip clings to the alveolar ridge; and for the voiceless velar /k/, the back of the tongue touches the velum and remains there without air being released (Chan and Li 2000).

1

   In Received Pronunciation (RP) English, the liquid /r/ does not occur in syllable-final  

position, although it is found syllable finally in many other varieties (e.g., North American English).

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 10 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    10

The articulation of the sonorant consonant /l/ is also differs significantly different in the two languages because of their distributional differences (and thus corresponding allophonic variations). In Cantonese, the consonant only /l/ always surfaces as a clear [l] with the raising of the front of the tongue (secondary articulation) in addition to the primary articulation that is characteristic of an alveolar lateral. In English, the consonant/l/ in syllable-final position often surfaces as a velarized, dark [lÚ ] with the back of the tongue raised when occurring syllable-finally (Ladefoged 2006,; see also Sproat and Fujimura 1993).

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 11 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    11

4. OBJECTIVES Given that the MDH Markedness Differential Hypothesis predicts difficulty on the basis of the differences between the target language and the native language, and that there exist significant differences between the consonantal systems of English and Cantonese, the basic requirements for testing the hypothesis are met. The objectives of the study were are (1i) to investigate the extent to which the Markedness Differential Hypothesis, MDH as suggested by Eckman (1977), is valid for describing the acquisition of English word-final singleton consonants by Cantonese learners of English as a second language, and (2ii) to look into the applicability relevance of the universal generalization markedness regarding (voiced obstruents >, voiceless obstruents > and sonorant consonants)22 to the interlanguages of these Cantonese ESL learners.

5. METHODOLOGY The research methodology of the present study was is modelled on that of similar studies, such as (see Eckman (1991).

5.1. Participants Twelve Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners at the intermediate and advanced levels of English proficiency participated in the study. , The participants includinged six Form 4 and Form 5 students from a local secondary school, all in Forms 4 or 5 (five females and one

2

   Because non-rhotic accents are widespread in Hong Kong, word-final /r/ is    not  

investigated in the present study. Thus, only the sonorant consonants /m n N l/ in wordfinal position are investigated.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 12 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    12

male), and six first- or second-year local university students, all year one and year two English majors from a local university (three females and three males),3 participated in the study.3 The ages of the students ranged from 15 to 25 years at the time of the study, and they all started learning English as a second language since at they were four or five years of age. The secondary students hadve not received any formal phonetics training before, but all the university students hadve taken at least one course (lasting for 13 weeks) of in English phonetics and phonology during their first year of university studies. They learned the accent that they learnt wasof Received Pronunciation (RP) English. Three native speakers of English (NE) (one female and two males) residing in Hong Kong served as a comparison group to provide baseline data. Their They ages were from between 23 to and 35 years of age at the time of the study. and tThey hadve been in Hong Kong for different lengths of time, ranging from one year to 23 years. They have allAll the native speakers of English had received formal phonetics training comparable to that received by the university participants. All of themThey all hadve experience teaching English to local ESL ESL students or ESL studentsin Hong Kong or elsewhere, and two of them hadve extensive experience teaching English pronunciation. They were chosen because they all speak

3

   Form 4 and 5 students in Hong Kong are comparable to grade 10 and 11 students,  

respectively, in the U.S. and Canada. The participants’ proficiency levels were identified based on their class levels: Form 4 and 5 students were categorized as intermediate, and university English majors were classified as advanced. This classification is not without problems, because the English proficiency of different students at similar class levels may differ due to individual differences. However, as no comparison was made between the two groups, it is not know if or how such differences affected the results reported here.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 13 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    13

English as their first language and their accents could be considered representative of Standard Englishes. One of the native speakers of English (female,, aged 23 years old), was born in Hong Kong. She received her primary and secondary education largely at international schools and uses English as her first language for daily communication, study, and work. At the age of 16, Sshe started teaching English to local students at the age of 16. Her accent is universally accepted as native by locals and expatriates in Hong Kong as native.

5.2. Data Ccollection pProcedures Each participant performed four speech tasks during a single 20- minute- session in a quiet room. The instructions for each task were given in English, written on a piece of paper, and a research assistant explained the instructions in either Chinese Cantonese or English depending on the participants’ preference. The participants’ performance in the four tasks was recorded using a high-quality portable mini-disk recorder (SONY MZ-R910).

5.2.1. Task 1: Reading of word lists The participants read a randomized list of 167 monosyllabic and disyllabic words one by one. In order that they wereSo that they would not be distracted or impeded by long and difficult words, only common high-frequency monosyllabic- and bdi-syllabic words, such as cup, meal, sing, and lemon, were included. Care was taken to ensure that different preceding vowel environments were included. For example, not only were there the list included words with final nasals following diphthongs, (such as nine and lime), but there were alsoas well as words with final nasals following pure vowels, long or short ( such as

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 14 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    14

ten and deem), or high or low (such as teen and palm).44

5.2.2. Task 2: Picture description The participants looked at a series of 101 pictures depicting different objects, actions, or scenes and were asked to produced a particular word appropriate to the content of each of the pictures. Cues eliciting the appropriate response were given where necessary.55 The aim of this task was to elicit words with the target final consonants without the use of spelling cues such as those used in the word-list reading task, thus eliminating the possibility of visually prompting the use of the target consonants. Although a context such as a cueing sentence or phrase was provided for some of the pictures, the participants were asked to say just the target words in isolation, not the whole sentences or phrases.

5.2.3. Task 3: Reading of passages

4

   Words with complex codas of the form    rC,   such as fork     or shark,     were also included in  

the study because none of the participants is a rhotic speaker and the orthography of forms with post-vocalic /r/ does not seem to have influenced the participants’ performance on the target consonants. 5

   Examples of the cues given to the participants included:   i.

a picture showing a girl eating an ice-cream to elicit the word eat;

ii.

a picture showing a person jumping into the swimming pool, together with a cueing clause He is jumping into the swimming ____ to elicit the word pool.

These cues were given on the picture cards in order to facilitate the participants’ understanding, and thus description, of the pictures.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 15 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    15

For the third task, the participants read three passages, each of 250–-350 words in length each:, including a narrative passage, a descriptive passage, and a fable. Only simple passages were included, because academic articles or technical writings often consist of unfamiliar vocabulary items that would hinder students’ reading fluency. The passages were selected specifically for the study to elicit words with containing the final consonants under investigation. The use of three different short passages instead of one long passage ensured that a variety of topics and words were included. Their length was so decided in order to sustain participants’ interest and attention.

5.2.4. Task 4: Conversational interview Since spontaneous speech would produce speech samples more akin to performance in a real communicative situation, each participant was interviewed individually for the elicitation of spontaneous speech. HeThe participants/She wereas given some a choice of topics of relating to personal experience and were asked to select one for a 15-minute discussion. Examples of the conversation topics included, among others, My favourite hobby, The movie star I like best, and My friends and family, among others. Topics of related to personal experience were offered because such topics were are more facilitative likely to elicit of spontaneous speech elicitation than others topics such asrelating to politics or world affairs. The interviews were conducted in a conversational manner, with the interviewer asking cueing questions to help elicit responses from the participants in case they had difficultyies continuing. In the design of the test materials, care was taken to ensure a similar number of test items across the three categories and within each category. However, this was difficult to

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 16 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    16

achieve, because there are more English nasals than the English lateral /l/. As a result, more words with English nasals were elicited or cued than words with the English lateral.

5.3. Data analysis methods A total of 3658 tokens of voiced obstruents, 4645 tokens of voiceless obstruents, and 6056 tokens of sonorant consonants were analyzed and transcribed by two transcribers who had attended a series of coaching sessions conducted by the researcher to ensure accuracy and consistency. Both the transcribers were very proficient in English (having each obtained a First Class Honours degree in English), hadve received formal training in linguistics and phonetics, were well -versed in phonetic transcriptions, and hadve taught English to local students.

5.3.1. Accuracy judgement For a study like the present one, only human transcription of the recordings sufficesis sufficient, because the features of the final consonants under investigation, such as the release (or non-release) of a word-final plosive, the voicing (or non-voicing) of a voiced consonant, or and the presence (or absence) of a nasal, can be easily identified without the help of any instrumental analysiss. To ensure reliability, the study adopted tracked both inter-rater and intra-rater judgments. For productions which that were regarded as difficult to judge, the two transcribers listened to the recordings at least twice, on two at two different timesoccasions. In examining the participants’ pronunciation of a certain segment, they took into account all the features associated with it, including the manner of articulation, the place of articulation, and the state of the glottis (Roach 2000). The precise

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 17 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    17

ways the target words were produced by each speaker were also noted. These included, among others, the substitution sounds used to replace a particular target sound, the presence or absence of final voicing (for voiced sounds), and the presence or absence of final release (for plosives). Although Hong Kong is cosmopolitan and different varieties of English are used by both native and non-native English speakers, the accent most widely taught at schools and taken as the norm is RP Received Pronunciation (RP) English. RP English, tFor this reasonhus, RP was taken as the norm in the data transcription process. In an era of international Englishes, this may be problematic, as most native English speakers, UK speakers inclusive, do not want to speak RP. However, given that RP-type standard pronunciation is what most Hong Kong learners of English aspire after, it was decided that this variety be taken as the norm. The two transcribers’ transcriptions recorded by the two transcribers were compared. Original inter-rater reliability was 90%, 90%, 91%, and 88% for the word list reading, picture list reading, passage reading, and conversation tasks respectively (89 % overall),6 6 which were considered acceptable rates. Where discrepancies in transcription occurred, tThe researcher then listened to the items on which the transcribers had disagandreed, made a third judgment, and chose the majority option., compared her judgments with those made by the transcribers, and finally resolved the discrepancies.

5.3.2. Data treatment A frequency count was used to arrive at the participants’ performance on each target 6

   Inter-rater reliability was computed by dividing the number of identical transcriptions  

made by the two transcribers by the total number of transcriptions made.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 18 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    18

consonant and their overall performance on the three categories of consonants: sonorant consonants (sub-classified into nasals and lateral), voiceless obstruents (sub-classified into plosives, fricatives, and affricate), and voiced obstruents (sub-classified into plosives, fricatives, and affricate). Separate frequency frequent counts were carried out to analyze the participants’ performance in each task, and a summative frequency count was done to compute their overall performance in the four tasks. Sound pProductions that deviated from the target language norms, such as phone substitutions, insertions, or deletions, were counted as non-target productions, and those which that were in line with target- language norms or were produced in comparable ways by native speakers were counted as target productions. The average percentage of target productions of each individual consonant (by each participant) was obtained by dividing the total number of target productions by the total number of tokens cued or attempted. The average percentage of target productions of each category of consonants was calculated in a similar fashion.

6. RESULTS Because the main objective of the study was is to examine the explanatory power of the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH, the relative degree of difficulty between the three categories of consonants should have beenbe the focus of comparison. However, a preview of the results of the study (see below) revealsed that certain sub-categories of consonants (e.g., lateral) within a particular category (e.g., sonorant consonants) were are significantly more problematic than other sub-categories (e.g., nasals) within the same category. The following discussion of results will therefore focus on the sub-categories within each category.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 19 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    19

6.1. Participants’ performance on voiceless obstruents The participants’ performance on word-final voiceless plosives was is characterized by a strong tendency of non-release. Over 54% of the total number of plosives cued were are unreleased: (17% , 28%, 53%, and 70% in the word- list reading, picture- list reading, passage reading, and conversation tasks respectively; see; see tTable 1). Thus, words such as trap and shout were are pronounced as [tr Qp| ] and [ S

Ut |] respectively, and

the like. Such performance was is in consonance with earlier findings on the pronunciation of voiceless plosives by Cantonese speakers (e.g., Bolton and Kwok 1990; Chan and Li 2000).

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 20 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    20

Table 1: Percentages of non-release of voiceless plosives produced by the participants and the comparison group

Word list 21% 31% 4% 21% 21% 17% 24% 0% 10% 0% 21% 24%

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Average

17%

Word list 0% 21% 21%

C1 C2 C3 Average

14%

Participants Picture list Passages 37% 45% 44% 92% 33% 60% 59% 67% 30% 59% 26% 27% 48% 71% 4% 42% 0% 14% 0% 42% 7% 61% 48% 55% 28%

Conversation 66% 93% 53% 84% 89% 54% 85% 70% 50% 63% 70% 58%

Total 53% 81% 48% 67% 64% 36% 68% 46% 28% 43% 57% 52%

70%

54%

53%

Comparison group Picture list Passages Conversation 7% 84% 84% 4% 78% 73% 0% 80% 82% 4% INSERT TABLE

80%

80%

Total 67% 62% 65% 65%

1 ABOUT HERE

As for fricatives and the affricate / tS /, substitution of a non-target sound for a target sound was is noted, though infrequently for fricatives and very rarely for /ttS /. Examples of substitution included the replacement of /T / (e.g., tooth) by [f]. The percentage of nontarget productions made to for fricatives was is about 6% in the four tasks (6%, 5%, 3%, and 9% in the word- list reading, picture- list reading, passage reading, and conversation tasks respectively), whereas the percentage of non-target productions made to for /ttS / was is

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 21 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    21

about 1% in the four tasks (0%, 1%, 2%, and 1% in the word- list reading, picture- list reading, passage- reading, and conversation tasks respectively). S (see Ttable 2).

  Table 2:   Percentages of non-target productions made to voiceless fricatives and   affricates by the participants

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Word list 6% 0% 0% 0% 6% 11% 0% 6% 6% 6% 22% 6%

Average

6%

Word list 0% for all participants

Average

Voiceless fricatives Picture list Passages 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 2% 9% 2% 18% 7% 0% 11% 0% 5% 18% 2%

0%

5%

3%

Voiceless affricates Picture list Passages 0% for all 0% for all participants participants except S9 except S1 (17%) (29%)

1%

Conversation 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 57% 9% 2% 12% 0% 9% 3%

2%

9%

Conversation 0% for all participants except S2 (9%)

1%

Total 1% 0% 4% 0% 1% 28% 4% 3% 10% 6% 9% 4% 6%

Total 0% for all participants except S1(8%),   S2 (3%)  ,  and S9 (4%) 1%

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 22 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    22 INSERT TABLE

2 ABOUT HERE

Non-release of word-final voiceless plosives was is also common among the comparison group, but is typically limited to the passage reading and interview tasks. About 80% of the final voiceless plosives (80% in both) wereare unreleased in these two tasks. Not only was is non-release found when a final plosive was is followed by an initial consonant across word boundaries, but it was is also found when the plosive was is phrase -final or when it precedesed a pause. Unlike for the Cantonese participants, for the native speakers of English the non-release of final plosives in isolated words is more rare in the word- list and picture- list reading tasks was rarer for the NEs. Only about 9% were unreleased: (14% and 4% in the word- list and picture- list reading tasks respectively; ) (see Table 1). Non-release of final voiceless plosives, being a phenomenon widely accepted by the native speaker community, wasis thus therefore not regarded as non-target-like for the participants.

6.2. Participants’ performance on voiced obstruents The Cantonese participants had have a very strong tendency to devoice word-final voiced obstruents: – practicallynearly all the instances of voiced fricatives and affricate cued or attempted were are devoiced by the participants without compensation strategies such as lengthening of preceding vowels; see (see Ttable 3). Because nNon-release of final (voiced) plosives was is predominant: (61% of the voiced plosives cued or attempted in the four tasks were are unreleased by the participants;s: 33%, 37% , 64%, and 81% in the wordlist reading, picture- list reading, passage reading, and conversation tasks, respectively; see) (see Ttable 4). Because of this, the systematic contrast between voiced and voiceless final plosives had beenis neutralized in many cases. For those voiced plosives which that were

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 23 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    23

are indeed released, practically nearly all the instances were are devoiced. Such results are in line with previous studies which that investigated production of word-final consonants by learners of different native languages (e.g., Flege et al. 1992). Table 3: Percentages of devoicing of final obstruents by the participants and the comparison group

Average

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Fricatives (Participants) Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total 100% for all 100% for all 100% for all 100% for all 100% for all participants participants participants participants participants except S11 except S7 except S7 (67%) (99%) and S11 (99%) 100% 97% 100% 100% 100%

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Affricates (Participants) Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total 100% for all 100% for all No data 100% for all 100% for all participants participants participants participants except S10 except S1, S3, except S10 (11%) S4 and S6 (no (92%) data) Average 99% 100% No data 100% 99% Percentages of Devoicing of Released Plosives (Comparison group) Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total C1 93% 100% 17% 37% 45% C2 47% 33% 41% 42% 41% C3 60% 0% 19% 23% 24% Average

C1

67%

43%

25%

34%

36%

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Fricatives (Comparison group) Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total 52% 33% 3% 4%

9%

C2 C3

0% 10%

0% 0%

7% 0%

6% 0%

6% 1%

Average

21%

11%

3%

4%

5%

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Affricates (Comparison group) Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 24 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    24

C1 C2 C3 Average

88% 88% 100%

100% 50% 0%

No data

100% 20% No data

92% 50% 80%

92%

50%

No data

33%

69%

Table 4: Percentages of non-release of voiced plosives produced by the participants INSERT TABLES

3 AND 4 ABOUT HERE

Percentages of Non-Release of Voiced Plosives (Participants) Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total 50% 58% 74% 85% 69% 60% 46% 100% 100% 86% 23% 33% 63% 42% 48% 13% 46% 67% 79% 57% 33% 25% 76% 81% 64% 62% 55% 67% 90% 72% 36% 27% 77% 92% 69% 0% 0% 15% 73% 27% 27% 33% 43% 62% 44% 0% 8% 61% 92% 46% 27% 25% 55% 76% 56% 73% 92% 90% 89% 87%

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Average

33%

37%

64%

81.0%

60%

As for the NEsnative speakers of English, devoicing was is also found, but it was is often accompanied by lengthening of preceding vowels. For example, sad was is pronounced as [sQ˘d| :d ] with a lengthened [Q˘ :]. A total of 36% of final (released) plosives were are devoiced by the comparison group: (67%, 43%, 25%, and 34% in the word- list reading, picture- list reading, passage reading, and conversation tasks, respectively;) see (see tTable 3). Voiced fricatives, especially /z/, / v/, and / D /, were are seldom devoiced (5% overall; see tTable 3), but devoicing of the affricate /d Z/ was is

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 25 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    25

quite common (69%; see tTable 3). Though devoicing was is also occasionally found among the comparison group, a comparison between the participants’ performance and the NE’s native speakers’ performance suggests that devoicing of final obstruents without lengthening of preceding vowels was is much more seriouscommon among the participants and was is thus regarded non-target-like.

6.3. Participants’ performance on sonorant consonants In the present study, Tthe lateral /l/ was is found to be one of the most difficult segments to for the Cantonese participants in the present study despite the fact that other sonorant consonants, namely nasals, did do not pose many problems. Relatively fewer non-target productions were are made to the final nasals cued or attempted in the study. Only about 2%, 6%, and 9% of /m/, / n/, and / N / respectively were are modified (an average of 5%;) see (see tTable 5). and mMost of the non-target productions were are substitution of a nontarget sound for a target sound (e.g., [n] for /m/ as in words like dim). Omission was is also occasionally found (e.g., sign was pronounced as [s I ]). With respect to /l/, Vvocalization and omission were are the most common strategies employed to cope with /l/the sound. About 90% of /l/ were are modified, either by omission or by vocalization by a [u]-like vowel (see tTable 5). Omission was is typically found when a preceding vowel was is [+back], such as /ç˘ :/ (e.g., call), but vocalization was is found in various contexts regardless of the frontness or backness of the preceding vowel. Thus, the word hill, which has a preceding front vowel, was is often pronounced as [hI u], and the word ball, which has a preceding back vowel, was is often pronounced as [bç˘ :u]. It should be noted that when the [u]-like vowel was is used to replace /l/, it is likely that itto surfaceed as the

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 26 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    26

sonorant [w] and be syllabified in the nucleus of the syllable as the second member of a [-w] diphthong (sound combinations such as /i:w/ and /a:w/ are sometimes regarded as diphthongs in Cantonese; see Bauer and Benedict 1997). This is in accordance with, as it has been found in recent spectrographic studies that show that Cantonese ESL learners often use a velar glide [w], rather than a [u]-like vowel, to substitute for /l/ (Hung 2000). Table 5: Percentages of non-target productions made to the different sonorant consonants by the participants

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Average INSERT TABLE

l 98% 97% 100% 98% 94% 90% 100% 91% 93% 59% 97% 75%

m 0% 0% 1% 10% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 14%

n 10% 14% 12% 10% 1% 1% 9% 4% 6% 2% 3% 5%

N 29% 1% 13% 13% 3% 22% 1% 2% 9% 0% 7% 1%

Nasals as a group 10% 6% 9% 10% 1% 4% 5% 1% 6% 1% 5% 6%

90%

2%

6%

9%

5%

5 ABOUT HERE

Vocalization of final /l/ was is also found among the comparison group, but in line with Cruttenden’s (2001) claim, it was is typically limited to words with a labial articulation such as careful or people, in line with Cruttenden (2001). Unlike the Cantonese participants, the NEs native speakers of English did do not exhibit vocalization of /l/ in other contexts such as ill or ball, and it was is not found in the word- list reading task at all (see tTable 6).7 7

   Vocalization of /l/ is common in many dialects of English (e.g., Cockney English,  

Glasgow English, Scottish English).

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 27 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    27 7

In view of the significant differences between the participants’ performance and the NE’s

native speakers’ performance, as well as the contexts in which the phenomenon was is found, vocalization of /l/ by the participants was is regarded as non-target-like alongside other non-target productions of sonorant consonants such as omission and substitution. Table 6: Percentages of vocalization of laterals produced by the comparison group

C1 C2 C3 Average

Word list 0% 0% 0%

Picture list 17% 17% 0%

Passages 24% 0% 29%

Conversation 0% 24% 0%

Total 14% 9% 10%

0%

11%

18%

7%

11%

INSERT TABLE

6 ABOUT HERE

6.4. The three categories in comparison The participants’ different performances on specific subsets of the same superset, that is, lateral versuss. nasals for the set of sonorant consonants, hasd significant effects on their overall performance on the superset. Since the participants demonstrated poorer performance on final /l/ than on final nasals, the actual number of tokens that in which the final lateral was is cued or attempted may have had substantial effects on the overall results of the category of sonorant consonants.: Had the number of words containing a final lateral been increased, the overall results of the category of sonorant consonants would have been worsened. Conversely, had the number of words containing a final lateral been decreased, the overall results would have been improved. The participants’ performance on a superset, thus, seemsed to be highly dependent on the relative frequency of occurrence of the subsets. Because of such inconsistent performance, comparisons between the three categories of voiceless obstruents, voiced obstruents, and sonorant consonants may be

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 28 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    28

deceptivemisleading. Nonetheless, it is obvious from the above discussion that the participants’ performance on the lateral /l/, a sonorant consonant, was is much worse than their performance on voiceless obstruents, although their performance on voiced obstruents remainsed the poorest (see tTable 7). Table 7: Percentages of non-target productions made to the three categories of consonants by the participants

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Average

Percentages of non-target productions made Voiceless Voiced Sonorant Obstruents Consonants / Obstruents (non-release of Laterals only plosives not included) 6% 100% for all 29% / 98% 6% participants 25% / 97% 5% except S11 (99%) 27% / 100% 5% 27% / 98% 5% 18% / 94% 6% 24% / 90% 7% 25% / 100% 7% 17% / 91% 6% 22% / 93% 4% 12% / 59% 4% 19% / 97% 5% 18% / 75%

6% INSERT TABLE

100%

22% / 90%

7 ABOUT HERE

7. DISCUSSION The foregoing previous section outlined the participants’ performance on the three categories (and subcategories) of consonants in thefor four different tasks. In light of the

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 29 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    29

results,In this section considers, some insights into the interlanguages of Cantonese ESL learners, the adequacy of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis MDH and its theoretical constructs, and the validity of implicational universals, will be discussed in the light of the results.

7.1. Cantonese ESL learners’ acquisition of English word-final singleton consonants The results of the study show that the Cantonese ESL participants encounterred some difficulties in acquiring English word-final voiced obstruents and the lateral /l/ regardless of their language- training backgrounds. Despite their having learnt learned RP Received Pronunciation English for at least one whole semester, the university participants, like their secondary school counterparts with no phonetics training, showed a high percentage of devoicing of voiced obstruents and vocalization or omission of /l/. Although the phenomena noted were are also found in the comparison group, the percentages of such productions made by the Cantonese participants were is much higher, and there was is no evidence of alternative pronunciation strategies to compensate for the non-target productions. In view of the fact that RPReceived Pronunciation, or a standard model for pronunciation, is what most Hong Kong speakers (both teachers and students) aspire afterto, we have reason to believe that devoicing of voiced obstruents and vocalization of /l/ are indications of the participants’ acquisitional difficulties. Nasals and voiceless obstruents, on the other hand, do not pose many problems for Cantonese ESL learners. The participants’ performance on nasals, voiceless fricatives, and the voiceless affricate /tSt / was is largely unproblematic. Their performance on voiceless plosives may have beenbe the result of mother-tongue interference and their lack of

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 30 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    30

unawareness of the typical feature of English plosives, but given the equally widespread non-release of final plosives by the comparison group in similar contexts, there is no hard and fast evidence to suggest acquisitional difficulties in this respect.

7.2. The predictions of the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH The participants’ performance patterns suggest that the relative degree of difficulty between the different categories of consonants does not invariably parallel the predictions of the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH. While the relative degree of difficulty between word-final voiceless and voiced obstruents does receive significant support, that the degree of difficulty between word-final sonorant consonants and word-final voiceless obstruents does not., because the pParticipants encountered more difficulties with final /l/ (a less marked item) than with voiceless obstruents (a more marked item), and they makinge many more non-target productions to the former than to the latter, to an extenta degree which was is not found with the comparison group.

7.3. Markedness relationships between categories and within categories The use of implicational universals as the sole basis of markedness is problematic, especially when the internal make-up of a sound category is taken into consideration. Because different members of a sound category (e.g., sonorant consonants) can form subsets (e.g., lateral and nasals), implicational universals relating one subset to another are important for the determination of the relative markedness between different subsets. If the different subsets of a superset are not equally marked, the markedness relationships between different supersets may not follow (sSee sSection The Three Categories in

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 31 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    31

Comparison6.4). Cross-linguistic studies of the phonological systems of the world’s languages, however, are not explicit about these subsets. The Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH, thus, makes no prediction regarding the relative degree of difficulty of the individual segments (or subsets) within a superset. Its For this reason, predictions made with regard to the relative degree of difficulty of different supersets may not be borne out then. The English lateral is a good example of this problem. The results of the this study suggest that /l/ should not be treated as equally marked as English nasals, yet both subsets belong to the same superset of sonorant consonants. The possible effect of /l/ on the relative degree of difficulty between different supersets (i.e., voiced obstruents, voiceless obstruents, sonorant consonants), thus, can hardly not be explained by a theory which that bases its arguments on existing implicational universals, such as the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH.

7.4. Allophonic variations and frequency effects It appears from the data of thise study that certain factors other than implicational universals should be given due attention when explanations for the participants’ performance are called forinvoked. One factor that requires attention is the difference between a phoneme and its allophones. As is well- known, phonemes are abstract entities whose allophonic realizations, that is, allophones, may vary in different phonological contexts. In generalizing universal statements regarding the presence or absence of sounds or sound sequences, linguists often use phonemes, rather than allophones, as the basis. Frequency counts are also made in terms of phonemes (Greenberg 1966). However, the importance of isolating allophones from

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 32 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    32

phonemes has already been observed in the speech learning literature. Strange (1992), for example, has found that Japanese learners of English perceive and produce English liquids more accurately in word-final position than in word-initial position. In his SLM Speech Learning Modelmodel, Flege (1995) hypothesizes that positional allophones in the L2 second language are related to the closest positionally defined allophone in the L1first language. Flege and Wang (1989) also acknowledge conclude that speech production skills must be “learned on an allophone-by-allophone basis” (Flege and Wang 1989: 303). Allophonic variations is, thus, an essential part of should not go unnoticed in the description and analysis of a learner’s acquisition of a second language. Different allophones of a phoneme have different allophonic distributions, so an allophone may be more frequent, (and thus more basic), than other less frequent ones, which are (non-basic) ones that and differ from the basic one by possession of a marked feature (Greenberg 1966). The velarized (dark) [lÚ ] (dark [ ]) occurs less frequently than the clear [l] across languages (Maddieson 1984). Although sonorant consonants are less marked than obstruents cross-linguistically, there seems to be a conflict between markedness and frequency in this respect. The infrequent distribution of dark [lÚ ], coupled with the secondary articulation which is required in the production of the allophone, may render the English word-final lateral a much more marked element across languages., Tthus, this may obscureing the relative markedness (and thus the relative degree of difficulty for L2 second language learners) between English sonorant consonants and obstruents (voiced or voiceless) and resulting in an otherwise unexpected pattern of L2 second language acquisition, found at the level of the languagesuch as the one found reported in the present study.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 33 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    33

While it is beyondthere is no doubt that, other all things being equal, a marked item should be more difficult to learn than an unmarked item, it is debatable whether implicational universals should be used to form the basis of markedness (Major 1996; Rutherford 1982), and more importantly, whether markedness alone should be used as a predictors of difficulty (Major 2001). As Hume (2004) argues, predictions based on markedness are only made on patterns that are supposed to be universal. The markedness relationship between English sonorant consonants (especially /l/) and obstruents is allophonic ic-based and is language-specific to the languagespecific. Predicting the relative degree of difficulty of L2 second language sounds simply on the basis of universal generalizations made onabout phonemes––, as the Markedness Differential Hypothesis MDH does––, is far from adequate. Other factors such as allophonic variations, frequency effects, predictability, and the like, should not be ignoredmust also be taken into account.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 34 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    34

8. CONCLUSION In this article, I have reported on the results of a study which investigatedd the acquisition of English word-final singleton consonants by twelve 12 Cantonese learners of English as a second language in Hong Kong. It was found that the lLearners encountered the most difficulties with voiced obstruents and the lateral /l/, while their performance on other sonorant consonants and on voiceless obstruents was is overall good overall. The results of the study suggest that the Markedness Differential Hypothesis MDH does not make the correct prediction regarding second language phonology acquisition by Cantonese ESL learners, and that implicational universals should not be used as the sole determining factor for markedness. Thise study reported in this article has both theoretical and pedagogical implications. On the theoretical side, the data have provided a significant test case for the Markedness Differential Hypothesis MDH and invite further thoughts on its theoretical underpinnings. On the pedagogical side, the findings may serve as input to the focus of pronunciation teaching. Given that the relative degrees of difficulty of different subsets of the same superset are is different, teaching professionals should devote more attention to the more difficult subset(s) and sequence their teaching materials appropriately. Since only one type of markedness relationship regarding word-final singleton consonants was has been investigated, the relationships that exist between other categories of sounds or sound sequences have not yet been dealt with. Learners’ perceptual abilities have not been examined either. As is well known, L2 second language learners often need to precisely perceive new phonemic contrasts before they can produce these same contrasts accurately. The SLM Speech Learning Model discussed earlier has also been devised on the

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 35 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    35

premise that a learner’s production of a second-languagen L2 sound is closely related to the way the sound is perceived. Given the focus of the present study, it is unclear how learners’ perceptual abilities may havemight affected ttheir production abilities and whether the Markedness Differential Hypothesis MDH could account for this aspect of interaction. Further research is needed to examine Cantonese learners’ acquisition of other phonological segments, such as vowels, as well as their perceptual abilities in differentiating different categories of sounds.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 36 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    36

REFERENCES Anderson, Janet I. 1987. The markedness differential hypothesis and syllable structure difficulty. In Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system, ed. Georgette Ioup and Steven Weinberger, 279–-291. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers. Anderson, Jennifer L., James L. Morgan, and Katherine S. White. 2003. A statistical basis for speech sound discrimination. Language and Speech 46(2-3):155–-182. Bauer, Robert S., and Paul K. Benedict. 1997. Modern Cantonese phonology. New York: Mouton De Gruyter: New York. Benson, Bronwen. 1986. The markedness differential hypothesis: Implications for Vietnamese speakers of English. In Markedness, ed. Fred R. Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik, and Jessica R. Wirth, 271–-2189. New York: Plenum Press. Best, Catherine T. 1994. The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In The development of speech perception: The transition forrom speech sounds to spoken words, ed. Judith C. Goodman and Howard C. Nusbaum, 167–-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT pPress. Bhatia, Tej K. 1995. Acquisition of voicing and aspiration in second language development. In The teaching and acquisition of South Asian languages, ed. Vijay Gambhir, 183–196. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Bolton, Kingsley, and Helen Kwok. 1990. The dynamics of the Hong Kong accent: Social identity and sociolinguistic description. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 1(1):147-–172. Carlisle, Robert S. 1988. The effect of markedness on epenthesis in Spanish/English

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 37 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    37

interlanguage phonology. Issues and Developments in English and Applied Linguistics 3:15-–23. Chan, Alice Y. W., and David C. S. Li. 2000. English and Cantonese phonology in contrast: Explaining Cantonese ESL learners’ English pronunciation problems. Language, Culture and Curriculum 13(1):67-–85. Cichocki, Wladyslaw, A. B. House, A. M. Kinloch, and A. C. Lister. 1999. Cantonese speakers and the acquisition of French consonants. Language Learning 49, supplement (1): 95-–121. Cruttenden, Alan. 2001. Gimson’s pronunciation of English. 6th ed. London: Arnold. Eckman, Fred R. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27:315-–330. Eckman, Fred R. 1981a. On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4(1):18-–30. Eckman, Fred R. 1981b. On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning 31(1):195-–216. Eckman, Fred R. 1984. Universals, typologies and interlanguage. In Language universals and second language acquisition, ed. William E. Rutherford, 79-–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Eckman, Fred R. 1985. Some theoretical and pedagogical implications of the markedness differential hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7:289–-307. Eckman, Fred R. 1987. The reduction of word-final consonant clusters in interlanguage. In Sound patterns in second language acquisition, ed. Allan James and Jonathan Leather, 143-–162. Dordrecht: Foris.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 38 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    38

Eckman, Fred 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, Fred R. 1996. A functional-typological approach to second language acquisition theory. In Handbook of second language acquisition, ed. William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, 195-–211. San Diego: Academic Press. Edge, Beverly A. 1991. The production of word-final voiced obstruents in English by L1 speakers of Japanese and Cantonese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13:377-– 393. Flege, James E. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research, ed. Winifred Strange, 233-–277. Baltimore: York Press. Flege, James E., Murray J. Munro, and Laurie Skelton. 1992. Production of the word-final English /t/ - /d/ contrast by native speakers of English, Mandarin and Spanish. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92(1):128-–143. Flege, James E., and Chipin Wang. 1989. Native-language phonotactic constraints affect how well Chinese subjects perceive the word-final English /t/ - /d/ contrast. Journal of Phonetics 17: 299-–315. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals: With special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton: The Hague. Harnsberger, James D. 2001. On the relationship between identification and discrimination of non-native nasal consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110:489-–503.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 39 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    39

Hume, Elizabeth. 2004. Deconstructing markedness: A predictability-based approach. In Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting 2004, 182–-198. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley. (Also available at http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~ehume/papers/Hume_markedness_BLS30.pdf). Hung, Tony T.N. 2000. Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19(3):337-–356. Kellerman, Eric. 1979. The problem with difficulty. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 4(1):27-–48. Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics. 5th ed. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth. Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: the University of Michigan Press. Leather, Jonathan. 1999. Second-language speech research: An introduction. Language Learning 49, Ssupplement (1):1-–56. Levelt, Clara C., Niels O. Schiller, and Willem J. Levelt. 2000. The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition 8:237-–264. Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of Ssounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Major, Roy C. 1996. Markedness in second language acquisition of consonant clusters. In Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, ed. Robert Bayley and Dennis R. Preston, 75-–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Major, Roy C. 2001. Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Major, Roy C., and Michael C. Faudree 1996. Markedness universals and the acquisition of voicing contrasts by Korean speakers of English. Studies in Second Language

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 40 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    40

Acquisition 18:69-–90. Major, Roy C., and Eunyi Kim. 1999. The similarity differential rate hypothesis. Language Learning 49, Ssupplement (1):151-–183. Odlin, Terence. 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roach, Peter. 2000. English phonetics and phonology: A practical course. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roark, Brian, and Katherine Demuth. 2000. Prosodic constraints and the learner’s environment: A corpus study. In Proceedings of the 24th Aannual Boston University Cconference on Llanguage Ddevelopment, ed. S. Catherine Howell, Sarah A. Fish, and Thea Keith-Lucas, 597-–608. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Rose, Yvan. 2003. Place specification and segmental distribution in the acquisition of word-final consonant syllabification. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 48 (3/4): 409-–435. Rutherford, William E. 1982. Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning 32:85-–108. Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10:209–-231. Sproat, Richard, and Osamu Fujimura. 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21:291-–311. Stites, Jessica, Katherine Demuth, and Cecilia Kirk. 2004. Markedness vs. frequency effects in coda acquisition. In Proceedings of the 28th Aannual Boston University Cconference on Llanguage Ddevelopment, ed. Alejna Brugos, Linnea Micciulla,

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 41 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    41

and Christine E. Smith, 28(2):565-–576. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Stockman, Ida J., and Erna Pluut. 1992. Segment composition as a factor in the syllabification errors of second-language speakers. Language Learning 42(1):21-–45. Strange, Winifred. 1992. Language non-native phoneme contrasts: Interactions among subject, stimulus, and task variables. In Speech perception, production and linguistic structure, ed. Yoh'ichi Tohkura, Eric Vatikiotis-Bateson and Yoshinori Sagisaka, 197-– 219. Tokyo: Ohmsha. Tarone, Elaine E. 1987. Some influences on the syllable structure of interlanguage phonology. In Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system, ed. Georgette Ioup and Steven Weinberger, 232-–247. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers. Zobl, Helmut. 1983. Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning 33:293-– 313.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 42 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    42

Alice Y.W. Chan is an Associate Professor at the Department  of English and Communication, City University of Hong Kong.  Her research interests include second language learning and  teaching, contrastive linguistics and lexicography.

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 43 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    43

Endnotes I would like to thank the participants and comparison group  who participated in the study. Thanks are also due to my  research assistants for their administrative assistance. I  am also indebted to the two anonymous reviewers of the  article for their constructive comments on an earlier draft.  This study was supported by City University of Hong Kong  (Strategic Research Grant No. 7001320). The support of the  university is acknowledged.  In Received Pronunciation (RP) English, the liquid /r/ does  not occur in syllable­final position although it is found  syllable finally in many other varieties (e.g., North  American English).  Because non­rhotic accents are widespread in Hong Kong,  word­final /r/ was not investigated in the present study.  Thus, only the sonorant consonants /m/, /n/, / / and /l/ in  word­final position were investigated. Form 4 and Form 5 students in Hong Kong are comparable to  grade 10 and grade 11 students respectively in the U.S. and  Canada. The participants’ proficiency levels were identified  based on the class levels they were in: Form 4 and Form 5  students were categorized as intermediate whereas university 

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 44 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    44

English majors were classified as advanced. This  classification is not without problems, because the English  proficiency of different students at similar class levels  may differ due to individual differences. However, such  differences were immaterial to the interpretation of the  results. Words with complex codas of the rC nature, such as fork or  shark, were also included in the study because none of the  participants is a rhotic speaker and the orthography of  forms with post­vocalic /r/ does not seem to have influenced  the participants’ performance on the target consonants. Examples of the cues given to the participants included: a picture showing a girl eating an ice­cream to elicit the  word eat; a picture showing a person jumping into the swimming pool,  together with a cueing clause He is jumping into the   swimming ____ to elicit the word pool. These cues were given on the picture cards in order to  facilitate the participants’ understanding,    and thus  description, of the pictures. Inter­rater reliability was computed by dividing the number  of identical transcriptions made by the two transcribers by 

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 45 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    45

the total number of transcriptions made. Vocalization of /l/ is common in many dialects of English  (e.g., Cockney English, Glasgow English, Scottish English).

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 46 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    46

Table 1:  Percentages of non­release of voiceless plosives  produced by the participants and the comparison group

Percentages of Non­Release of Voiceless Plosives  (Participants) Word 

Picture  Passages

Conversati

Total

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

list 21% 31% 4% 21% 21% 17% 24% 0% 10% 0% 21% 24%

list 37% 44% 33% 59% 30% 26% 48% 4% 0% 0% 7% 48%

45% 92% 60% 67% 59% 27% 71% 42% 14% 42% 61% 55%

on 66% 93% 53% 84% 89% 54% 85% 70% 50% 63% 70% 58%

53% 81% 48% 67% 64% 36% 68% 46% 28% 43% 57% 52%

Average

17%

28%

53%

70%

54%

Percentages of Non­Release of Voiceless Plosives  (Comparison group) Word 

Picture 

Passages

Conversa

Total

67% 62% 65% 65%

C1 C2 C3

list 0% 21% 21%

list 7% 4% 0%

84% 78% 80%

tion 84% 73% 82%

Average

14%

4%

80%

80%

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 47 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    47

Table 2:  Percentages of non­target productions made to  voiceless fricatives and affricates by the participants 

Percentages of Non­target productions Made to Voiceless  Fricatives (Participants) Word  Picture 

Passages

Conversati

Total

1% 0% 4% 0% 1% 28% 4%  3% 10% 6% 9% 4% 6%

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

list 6% 0% 0% 0% 6% 11% 0% 6% 6% 6% 22% 6%

list 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 18% 0% 0% 18%

0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 5% 2% 2% 7% 11% 5% 2%

on 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 57% 9% 2% 12% 0% 9% 3%

Average

6%

5%

3%

9%

Percentages of Non­target productions Made to Voiceless  Affricates (Participants) Word  Picture 

Passages

Conversati

Total

list 0% for 

list 0% for 

0% for 

on 0% for all  0% for 

all 

all 

all 

participan all 

partici

participa

particip

ts except 

particip

pants

nts 

ants 

S2 (9%)

ants 

except S9  except 

except 

(17%)

S1(8%), 

S1 (29%)

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 48 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    48

S2 (3%)  and S9  Average

0%

1%

2%

1%

(4%) 1%

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 49 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    49

Table 3:  Percentages of devoicing of final obstruents by  the participants and the comparison group

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Fricatives  (Participants) Word 

Picture 

Passages

Total

list list 100% for  100% for 

on 100% for  100% for 

100% for 

all 

all 

all 

all 

all 

particip

participa

particip

participan particip

ants

nts 

ants

ts except 

ants 

S7 (99%)

except S7 

except 

Averag

Conversati

100%

S11 (67%)

and S11 

97%

(99%)  100%

100%

100%

e 

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Affricates  (Participants) Word list

Picture 

Passages

Conversati

Total

100% for 

list 100% for  No data

on 100% for 

100% for 

all 

all 

all 

all 

participa

particip

participan particip

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 50 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    50

nts 

Averag

ants

ts except 

ants 

except 

S1, S3, S4  except 

S10 (11%)

and S6 (no  S10 (92%)

99%

data) 100%

100%

No data

99%

e  Percentages of Devoicing of Released Plosives (Comparison  group) Word 

Picture  Passages

Conversati

Total

C1 C2 C3

list 93% 47% 60%

list 100% 33% 0%

17% 41% 19%

on 37% 42% 23%

45% 41% 24%

Average 

67%

43%

25%

34%

36%

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Fricatives  (Comparison group) Word  Picture 

Passages

Conversati

Total

9%

C1

list 52%

list 33%

3%

on 4%

C2 C3

0% 10%

0% 0%

7% 0%

6% 0%

6% 1%

11%

3%

4%

5%

Average  21%

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Affricates  (Comparison group) Word  Picture 

C1 C2 C3

list 88% 88% 100%

list 100% 50% 0%

Passages

 No data

Conversati

Total

on 100% 20% No data

92% 50% 80%

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 51 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    51

Average 

92%

50%

No data

33%

69%

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 52 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    52

Table 4:  Percentages of non­release of voiced plosives  produced by the participants

Percentages of Non­Release of Voiced Plosives  (Participants) Word 

Picture  Passages

Conversati

Total

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

list 50% 60% 23% 13% 33% 62% 36% 0% 27% 0% 27% 73%

list 58% 46% 33% 46% 25% 55% 27% 0% 33% 8% 25% 92%

74% 100% 63% 67% 76% 67% 77% 15% 43% 61% 55% 90%

on 85% 100% 42% 79% 81% 90% 92% 73% 62% 92% 76% 89%

69% 86% 48% 57% 64% 72% 69% 27% 44% 46% 56% 87%

Average 

33%

37%

64%

81.0%

60%

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 53 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    53

Table 5: Percentages of non­target productions made to the  different sonorant consonants by the participants

Percentages of non­target productions Made to  Sonorant Consonants (Participants)  l m n

Nasals as a 

S1    S2    S3    S4    S5    S6    S7    S8    S9    S10   S11   S12  

98% 97% 100% 98% 94% 90% 100% 91% 93% 59% 97% 75%

Averag 90% e 

0% 0% 1% 10% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 14%

10% 14% 12% 10% 1% 1% 9% 4% 6% 2% 3% 5%

29% 1% 13% 13% 3% 22% 1% 2% 9% 0% 7% 1%

group 10% 6% 9% 10% 1% 4% 5% 1% 6% 1% 5% 6%

2%

6%

9%

5%

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 54 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    54

Table 6:  Percentages of vocalization of laterals produced  by the comparison group

Percentages of Vocalization of Laterals (Comparison group) Word  Picture  Passages Conversatio Total

C1 C2 C3

list 0% 0% 0%

Average

0%

list 17% 17% 0%   11%

24% 0% 29%   18%

n 0% 24% 0%   7%

14% 9% 10%   11%

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 55 Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005­108, 23 Nov 2006                    55

Table 7: Percentages of non­target productions made to the  three categories of consonants by the participants

Overall Performance Percentages of non­target productions made  Voiceless  Voiced  Sonorant Consonants /  Obstruents

Obstruents 

Laterals only

(non­release  of plosives 

S1    S2    S3    S4    S5    S6    S7    S8    S9    S10   S11   S12  

not included)  6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 7% 6% 4% 4% 5%

100% for all  29% / 98% 25% / 97% participants  27% / 100% 27% / 98% except S11  18% / 94% 24% / 90% (99%) 25% / 100% 17% / 91% 22% / 93% 12% / 59% 19% / 97% 18% / 75%

Average

6%

100%

 

22% / 90%