Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hzqq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T19:01:01.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Fred R. Eckman
Fred R. Eckman
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The amount of influence that a learner's native language has on the acquisition of a second language is an issue which has received considerable attention in research on second language acquisition. The thesis of this paper is that, within the context of the Interlanguage Hypothesis (Selinker 1972) and the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman 1977), some important properties of a learner's interlanguage (IL) can be predicted.

More specifically, it is shown that speakers of Cantonese and Japanese internalize different IL rules in attempting to deal with English word-final voice contrasts. Whereas speakers of Cantonese devoice word-final obstruents in the target language, Japanese speakers insert a word-final schwa after the voiced obstruent. However, each of these rules can be correlated with facts about the phonology of the native language, supporting the conclusion that some important aspects of ILs can be predicted on the basis of a comparison of the native and target languages.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , fall 1981 , pp. 18 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adjemian, C. 1976. On the nature of interlanguage rules. Language Learning 26.297–320.Google Scholar
Bloch, B. 1950. Studies in Colloquial Japanese IV: phonemics. Language 26.86–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cancino, H.; Rosansky, E.; and Schumann, J.. 1974. Testing hypotheses about second language acquisition: the copula and negative in three subjects. Working Papers on Bilingualism 3.80–96.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D., and Eckman, F.. 1978. Some substantive universals in atomic phonology. Lingua 45.1–14.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27.315–330.Google Scholar
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Moulton, W. 1962. The sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL 10.209–231.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1973. The role of surface phonetic constraints in generative phonology. Language 49.87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E.; Frauenfelder, U.; and Selinker, L.. 1976. Systematicity/variabihty and stability/ instability in interlanguage systems. Papers in second language acquisition, ed. by Brown, H. D., 93–134. Ann Arbor: Research Club in Language Learning.Google Scholar