國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	羅春琳
論文名稱：	華語人士對英語「類」母音與「新」母音的發音與感知之研究:英語高母音的實驗探討 Production and Perception of “Similar” and “New” Vowels
指導教授：	謝國平
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2002
畢業學年度：	90
語文別：	英文
中文關鍵詞：	語言、英文發音、英文感覺
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：393 下載：54
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在探討以國語為母語者(華語人士)相對於以英語為母語者，及不同性別人士對英語「類」母音，如/ i /，/ u /及「新」母音，如/ I /，/ U /，在發音及感知方面是否有困難；是「類」母音較難發音或感知，或是「新」母音較難掌握◦ 本研究包含兩個實驗：在發音的實驗中，研究者將受試者所錄的音以聲譜儀測量母音的長度(L)，第一共振峰(F1)及第二共振峰(F2)；感知的實驗為一聽力測驗◦
實驗結果顯示1) 華語人士主要以長度來區分類/新母音而英語人士則從長度，F1及F2各方面來區分；2) 華語人士不僅不區分/ i /和/ I /的F1及/ u / 和/ U /的F1，尚且和英語人士相反，發出F1比/ U /還高的/ u /；3) 英語人士所發的/ U / F2比/ u /高而華語人士則不區分/ u / 和/ U /的F2；4)女性受試者所發的/ i /和/ I /比男性長；5) 女性所發/ i /和/ I /的F1及F2皆比男性高；6) 華語人士的聽力測驗顯示其對英語高母音的感知能力非常好◦
上述結果對相關外語習得的理論或有支持或有反證，並對語音的顯著性之研究有所貢獻◦

The purposes of this study are to understand the effects of language (Mandarin vs. English) and sex (male vs. female) on the production of English similar and new vowels as analyzed by acoustic measurement of vowel length (L), first formant frequency (F1), and second formant frequency (F2), and to explore the relation between production and perception by comparing a production experiment and a listening task on Mandarin speakers.
The results indicated that a) Mandarin speakers mainly contrast the similar/new pairs of vowels by length while the English speakers contrast these pairs by all the parameters, L, F1 and F2; b) in addition to not contrasting F1 between / u / and / U /, Mandarin speakers, contrary to English speakers, produce higher F1 for / u / than / U /; c) English speakers produce significantly higher F2 for / U / than / u / while Mandarin speakers do not contrast significantly by F2 for the pair / u , U /; d) females produce longer / i / and / I / than males; e) females produce higher F1 and higher F2 for / i / and / I / than males; and f) the Mandarin subjects show excellent perception of the English high vowels.
Our subjects demonstrated difficulty in the production of new vowels and showed better perception than production. These results supported the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Markedness Differential Hypothesis and Desensitization Hypothesis, but failed to support Trubetzkoy’s phonological filtering and Speech Learning Model of Flege et al. The findings of this study also contributed to the research concerning the markedness of sounds by denoting the difficulties shown by our subjects in producing the tense and lax vowels.

Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………. i
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………….. iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………. v
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………… vii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………. ix

CHAPTERS
1.    INTRODUCTION………..……………………………………………………... 1
  1.1 Production and perception…………………………………………………... 5
  1.2 “Similar” and “new” vowels………………………………………………… 7
  1.3 Acoustic features of English vowels………………………………………… 9
  1.4 Acoustic features of Mandarin vowels……………………………………… 12

2.    LITERATURE REVILEW……………………………………………………… 16
2.1 Contrastive Analysis Theory………………………………………………... 16
  2.2 Second language acquisition phonology……………….…………………… 20
2.3 Speech Learning Model……………………………………………………... 23
2.4 Desensitization Hypothesis…………………………………………………. 27
2.5 Vowel production in Mandarin speakers of English………………………… 29
2.6    Vowel perception in Mandarin speakers of English…………………………. 32
2.7    Issues in similar and new sounds……………………………………………. 34

3    METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………….. 38
3.1    The production experiment………………………………………………….. 39
3.1.1 Subjects…………...…………………………………………………….. 39            3.1.2 Materials and data collection procedures……………………...………... 39
3.1.3    Data analysis procedures……………………………………………… 40
  3.2 The perception experiment…………………………………………………... 41
    3.2.1 Subjects…...…………………………………………………………….. 41
    3.2.2 Materials and data collection procedures……………………………...... 41
    3.2.3 Data analysis procedures……………………………………………..… 42

4. RESULTS…...…………………………………………………………………… 43
  4.1 The production experiment…………………………………………………... 43
4.2    The perception experiment………………………………………………...… 71

5. DISCUSSION ……………...……………………………………………………. 72
  5.1 Production and perception…………………………………………………… 72
  5.2 Similar and new sound………………………………………………………. .79
  5.3 Theoretical implications……………………………………………………... 84
  5.4 Pedagogical implications……………………………………………….……. 88

6. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….……. 91
  6.1 Summary ……………………………………………………………………. 91
  6.2 Limitations and suggestions…………………………………………………. 93

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………. 94
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….…..102

List of Tables
                                                            Page

Table 1.1: Formant frequency (F1, F2)(in Hz) values of selected 6 vowels in Mandarin.  Adapted from Wu (1964)………………………………… 15
Table 4.1a: Means of L (sec)……………………………………………………... 44
Table 4.1b: Means of F1 (Hz)……………………………………………………. 44
Table 4.1c: Means of F2 (Hz)……………………………………………………. 44
Table 4.2: Corrected Model I…………………………………………………….. 46
Table 4.3: The ANOVA test for the data………………………………………… 47
Table 4.4: Post hoc comparison for the effect of language on F1 (Hz)………….. 51
Table 4.5: Post hoc comparison for the effect of sex on F2 (Hz)………………... 53
Table 4.6: Post hoc comparison for the effect of language on F2 (Hz)………….. 54
Table 4.7: Post hoc comparison for the effect of sex and language on F2 (Hz)…. 56
Table 4.8: Corrected Model IIa & Iib…………………………………………….. 59
Table 4.9: ANOVA test for the effects of language, sex and similar/new vowel
        on the responses L, F1, F2 respectively……………………...……….. 60
Table 4.10: Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of all the subjects as grouped
        by SEX………………………………………………………………… 62
Table 4.11: Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of all the subjects as grouped
        by LAN………………………………………………………………… 63
Table 4.12: Post hoc comparison for the effect of language on F1 of / i , I /……… 64
Table 4.13: Post hoc comparison for the factors sex and language on F1 of
        / u , U /………………………………………………………………...… 65
Table 4.14: Post hoc comparison for paired vowels by Mandarin speakers………. 69
Table 4.15: Post hoc comparison for paired vowels by English speakers……..…. 70
Table 5.1: The means of F1 in the case of / i , I / in comparison with the means obtained by Ladefoged (1975)……………………………………….. 74
Table 5.2: The means of F1 in the case of /u , U/ vs. the mean obtained by
         Peterson and Barney (1952)………………….………………………. 75
Table 5.3: The means of F1 in the case of /u , U/ vs. the means obtained by
         Ladefoged (1975)……...……………………………………………… 75



















List of Figures
                                                             Page

Figure 1.1: / I / as produced by a native speaker (synchronized waveform
        And spectrogram)……………………………………………………… 10
Figure 1.2: Plot of the first formant (F1) against the second formant (F2) for
        Eight English vowels (cf. Ladefoged, 1993:197.)…………………..… 12
Figure 4.1: Frequency of the second formant versus frequency of the first, for
        10 vowels spoken by 76 speakers.  (Adapted from G. E. Perterson
        and H. L. Barney, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24,
        1952, 182)…………………………………………………………….. 45
Figure 4.2a: Means of L produced by Mandarin speakers……………………… 48
Figure 4.2b: Means of L produced by English speakers…………………...…… 49
Figure 4.2c: Means of L produced by male and female subjects……...…...…… 49
Figure 4.2d: Means of L produced by Mandarin and English subjects.…....…… 50
Figure 4.3a: Means of F1 by Mandarin and English subjects……………...…… 52
Figure 4.3b: Means of F1 by male and female subjects…………….……...…… 52
Figure 4.4a: Means of F2 by male and female subjects…………….……...…… 54
Figure 4.4b: Means of F2 by Mandarin and English subjects……………...…… 55
Figure 4.5a: Means of F2 produced by male Mandarin speakers and
         male English speakers……………………………………………….. 57
Figure 4.5b: Means of F2 produced by female Mandarin speakers and
         female English speakers………………………………………….….. 57
Figure 5.1a: Native speaker V’s production of / I /………………………….…... 80
Figure 5.1b: Mandarin speaker H’s production of / I /……..……………….….... 80
Figure 5.2a: Native speaker V’s production of / U /……………………………... 81
Figure 5.2b: Mandarin speaker H’s production of / U /……..………………….... 81
                                

Alatis, J. (Ed.) 1968. Constructive Linguistic and its Pedagogical Implications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Arabski, J. 1979. Errors as Indications of the Development of Interlanguage. Katowice: Uniwersytet Slaski.

Banathy, B., Trager, E. C., &Waddle, C. D. 1966. The use of contrastive data in foreign language course development. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Blankenship, B. 1991. Vowel perception in second language. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 80, 38-64.

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.

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.

Bohn, O.-S. 1995. Cross-language speech perception in adults: first language transfer doesn’t tell it all. In W. Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research (pp. 279-304). Baltimore: York Press.

Brière, E. 1966. An investigation of phonological interference. Language, 42, 769-796.

Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.

Carroll, Thomas D. 1978. Some Practical Notes on the Pronunciation of Taiwanese: A Pedagogical Treatment of the Sounds of the Amoy Dialects Spoken in Taiwan.

Chamot, A. U. 1978. Grammatical problems in learning English as a third language. In Hatch, E. (ed.) Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings, pp. 176-89. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Chang, G. B. Y. 1993. The Learning of Five Allophonic Rules in English by Chinese EFL Students: An Experimental Study. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.

Chen, Yang. 1999. Acoustic Characteristics of American English Produced by Native Speakers of Mandarin. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Connecticut.

Cheng, C.-C. 1973. A Synchronic Phonology of Mandarin Chinese. The Hague: Mouton.

Cheng, L.-R. L. 1987. Assessing Asian Language Performance, guidelines for evaluation limited-English-proficient students. Rockville, Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc..

Cheng, R. 1966. Mandarin phonological structure. Journal of Linguistics, 2, 135-262.

Chien, Richard Ching-gwo. 1971. A Contrastive Study of the Phonological Systems of Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese. MA Thesis. Taipei: Fu Jen University.

Chomsky, N, & Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.

Corder, S. P. 1978. Language-learner language. In Richards, J.C. (ed.) Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Davidsen-Nielsen, N., & Harder, P. 1987. Speakers of Scandinavian languages: Danish, Norwegian, Swedish. In M. Swan & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 16-29).

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 37-53.

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Duskova, L. 1969. On sources of errors in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics 7: 11-36.

Eckman, F. R. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language learning. 27(2), 315-330.

Eliasson, S. (Ed). 1984. Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Phonology. Heidelberg: Groos Verlag.

Fant, G. 1970. Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The Hague: Mouton.

Fant, G. 1973. Speech Sounds and Features. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fellows, Jennifer M., Remez, Robert E., & Rubin, Philip E. 1997. Perceiving the sex and identity of a talker without natural vocal timbre. Perception & Psychophysics. 59(6), 839-849.

Flege, J. E. 1986. The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In Human Communication and its Disorders, Vol. 11 (H.Winitz ed.) Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Flege, J. E. 1987. The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics,15, 47-65.

Flege, J. E. 1991. Perception and production: The relevance of phonetic input to L2 phonological learning. In Heubner, T., & Ferguson, C. (Eds.), Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. (pp. 249-289). Philadephia: John Benjamins.

Flege, J. E. 1993. Production and perception of a novel, second-language phonetic contrast. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93 (3), 1589-1608.

Flege, J. E. 1995. Second language speech learning: theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research (pp. 233-277). Baltimore: York Press.

Flege, J. E. & Bohn, O.-S. 1989. The perception of English vowels by native speakers of Spanish. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 85, Suppl. 1, S85.

Flege, J. E. , Bohn, O.-S., & Jang, S. 1997. Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437-470.

Flege, J. E., & Hillenbrand, H. 1984. Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 708-721.

Fries, C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Fromkin, Victoria, & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. 6th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Fry, D. B., Abramson, S. A., Eimas, P. D., & Liberman, A. M. 1962. The identification and discrimination of synthetic vowels. Language and speech, 5, 171-189.

Goto, H. 1971. Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “l” and “r”. Neuropsychologia, 9: 317-323.

Guo, J. F. 1992. Zhong He Yu Yin Xue. Fujian, China: People Publisher.

Hecht, B. F., & Mulford, R. 1982. The acquisiton of a second language phonology: Interaction of transfer and developmental factors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3 (4) 313-328.

Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, L. 1995. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowel. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099-3111.

Howie, J. M. 1976. Acoustical Studies of Mandarin Vowels and Tones. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.

Huang, Shih-Jen. 2000. Acoustic differences among English vowels. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.

Hyltenstam, K. 1977. Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning 27 (2): 383-411.

Ing, R. O. 1972. Mandarin Sounds. Taipei: Mandarin Training Center, National Taiwan Normal University.

Ioup, G., & Weinberger, S. H. (Eds). 1987. Interlanguage Phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Johnson, Keith, Strand, Elizabeth A., & D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 1999. Auditory-visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception. Journal of Phonetics. 27, 359-384.

Kalikow, D., & Swets, J. 1972. Experiments with computer-controlled displays in second-language learning. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 20, 23-28.

Karimi, S. 1987. Farsi speakers and the initial consonant cluster in English. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage Phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 305-318). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文