Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparative Study of Second Language Acquisition Models: Focusing on Vowel Acquisition by Chinese Learners of Korean

중국인 학습자의 한국어 모음 습득에 대한 제2언어 습득 모델 비교 연구

  • Received : 2014.08.18
  • Accepted : 2014.12.11
  • Published : 2014.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study provided longitudinal examination of the Chinese learners' acquisition of Korean vowels. Specifically, I examined the Chinese learners' Korean monophthongs /i, e, ɨ, ${\Lambda}$, a, u, o/ that were created at the time of 1 month and 12 months, tried to verify empirically how they learn by dealing with their mother tongue, and Korean vowels through dealing with pattern of the Perceptual Assimilation Model (henceforth PAM) of Best (Best, 1993; 1994; Best & Tyler, 2007) and the Speech Learning Model (henceforth SLM) of Flege (Flege, 1987; Bohn & Flege, 1992, Flege, 1995). As a result, most of the present results are shown to be similarly explained by the PAM and SLM, and the only discrepancy between these two models is found in the 'similar' category of sounds between the learners' native language and the target language. Specifically, the acquisition pattern of /u/ and /o/ in Korean is well accounted for the PAM, but not in the SLM. The SLM did not explain why the Chinese learners had difficulty in acquiring the Korean vowel /u/, because according to the SLM, the vowel /u/ in Chinese (the native language) is matched either to the vowel /u/ or /o/ in Korean (the target language). Namely, there is only a one-to-one matching relationship between the native language and the target language. In contrast, the Chinese learners' difficulty for the Korean vowel /u/ is well accounted for in the PAM in that the Chinese vowel /u/ is matched to the vowel pair /o, u/ in Korean, not the single vowel, /o/ or /u/.

Keywords

References

  1. Best, C. T. (1993). Language-specific developmental changes in non-native speech perception: A window on early phonological development. In B. de Boysson-Bardies., S. de Schonen., & P. Jusczyk (Eds.), Developmental Neurocognition: Speech and Face Processing in the First Year of Life. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  2. Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In J. Goodman, & H. C. Nusbaum (Ed.), The Development of Speech Perception: The Transition from Speech Sounds to Spoken Words. Cambridge (pp. 167-224). MA: MIT Press.
  3. Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Eds.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171-204). Timonium, MD: York Press.
  4. Best, C. & Strange, W. (1992). Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 305-330.
  5. Best, C. T. & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementaries. In O.-S. Bohn & M. Munro (Eds.), Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In Honor of James Emil Flege (pp.13-34). Amsterdam: Benjamin.
  6. Bohn, O. S. & Flege, J. E. (1992). The production of new and similar vowels by adult German learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(2), 131-158. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010792
  7. Denes, P. & Pinson, E. (1993). The Speech Chain (2nd Edition). W. H. Freeman & Company.
  8. Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of "new" and "similar" phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence Classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47-65.
  9. Flege, J. E. (1992). Speech learning in a second language. In C. A. Ferguson, L. Menn, & C. Stoel-Germmon (Eds.), Phonological Development: Models, Research, and Application (pp. 565-604). Timonium, MD: York Press.
  10. Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Eds.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233-277). Timonium, MD: York Press.
  11. Labov, W. (1981). Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Language, 57, 267-309. https://doi.org/10.2307/413692
  12. Lee, H. (1996). Korean phonetics. Seoul: Taehaksa. (이호영 (1996),국어 음성학, 태학사.)
  13. Lin, Y. (2010). The Sounds of Chinese. Cambridge University Press.
  14. Munro, M. & T. Derwing. (2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production, Language Learning, 58(3), 479-502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00448.x
  15. Shin, J. & Cha, J. (2003). Uri Malsoriui Chegye. Hangukmunhwasa. (신지영 차재은 (2003). 우리 말소리의 체계. 한국문화사.)
  16. Yang, B. G. (1996). A comparative study of American English and Korean vowels produced by male and female speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1996.0013