Why non-native speakers of English talk the way they do? Several linguists like Gass & Selinker, Major and Lado have investigated on this issue and agreed at least upon one principle - the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH). It states that two languages have to be compared in order to determine possible errors since the mother tongue plays one important role when it comes to second language acquisition. That is, L1 interference. The following essay should give an approximate explanation on this issue by examining Russian and Spanish speakers acquiring English. The focus will lie on phonology, especially on obstruents and their distribution. According to CAH, it is necessary to analyze Russian, English, and Spanish at first, before looking at the different errors in pronunciation at the basis of Data Set 1.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Analysis
3. Conclusion
4. Bilbiography
4. Appendix
Objectives and Topics
This essay aims to explore the role of L1 interference in second language acquisition by comparing the phonological systems of Russian and Spanish speakers learning English, with a specific focus on the distribution of obstruents and pronunciation errors.
- Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) in L2 acquisition
- Phonological comparison of Russian, Spanish, and English
- Analysis of word-final consonant devoicing patterns
- Influence of native language transfer on target language production
- The role of markedness in explaining interlanguage errors
Excerpt from the Book
2. ANALYSIS
According to Data Set 1, Russian exhibits a voicing contrast between the following obstruents in word-initial position: [p] and [b], e. g. 2. пар [par] ‘steam’ and 1. бар [bar] ‘bar’; [t] and [d], e. g. 12. том [tom] ‘tome’ and 11. дом [dom] ‘house’; [k] and [g], e. g. 21. кора [kara] ‘bark’ and 22. гора [gara] ‘mountain’; [s] and [z], e. g. 27. сова [sava] ‘owl’ and 42. зов [zof] ‘call’; [f] and [v], e. g. 36. фара [fara] ‘headlight’ and 37. варить [varjitj] ‘to boil’; [ʃ] and [ʒ], e. g. 43. шорох [ʃorɘx] ‘rustle’ and 42. жор [ʒor] ‘big appetite’. The same voicing contrast of the mentioned obstruents occurs also intervocalically: for instance in 10. драпа [drapa] ‘thick woolen cloth (GEN)’ and 8. рабы [rabɯ] ‘slaves’; 18. ротик [rotjik] ‘little mouth’ and 20. годик [godjik] ‘year (DIM)’; 26. рука [ruka] ‘hand’ and 24. круги [krugji] ‘circles’; 31. кваса [kvasɘ] ‘bread drink (GEN)’ and 29. грузить [gruzjitj] ‘load up’; 35. графа [grafa] ‘Earl (GEN)’ and 33. зова [zova] ‘call (GEN)’; 39. крыыша [krɯʃa] ‘roof’ and дрожать [draʒatj] ‘to shiver’. However, this voicing contrast does not occur in word-final position which becomes evident when looking at the different environments of a letter in a word as the following examples show: like in 6. раб [rap] ‘slave’, 15. род [rot] ‘gender’, 23. круг [kruk] ‘circle’, 28. груз [grus] ‘load’, 32. зов [zof] ‘call’ and 40. дрожь [droʃ] ‘shiver’.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the theoretical framework of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and defines the focus on L1 interference in Russian and Spanish speakers acquiring English.
2. Analysis: Examines phonological data sets to identify specific patterns of obstruent distribution and voicing errors in word-final positions for both language groups.
3. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings by emphasizing that while L1 interference is a primary driver, factors like markedness are essential for understanding error patterns.
4. Bilbiography: Lists the academic sources used to support the analysis of second language acquisition and foreign accent.
4. Appendix: Provides the raw phonological data sets including Russian and Spanish phonology and the specific interlanguage errors recorded from the study participants.
Keywords
Second Language Acquisition, L1 Interference, Phonology, Obstruents, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Voicing Contrast, Markedness, Interlanguage, Russian-English, Spanish-English, Pronunciation Errors, Phonemes, Allophones, Word-final Devoicing, ESL
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how native Russian and Spanish speakers' first languages interfere with their pronunciation of English, specifically regarding the voicing contrast of obstruents.
Which theoretical framework is central to the discussion?
The essay is primarily based on the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) and also incorporates the theory of markedness to explain specific errors.
What is the main research question or objective?
The goal is to determine why non-native speakers produce certain pronunciation errors by comparing the phonological systems of their mother tongues with the English language.
How is the analysis conducted?
The author analyzes phonological data sets (Data Set 1) containing examples of word-initial, intervocalic, and word-final sounds to identify systematic errors in target language production.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The main body provides a detailed comparative analysis of Russian and English, followed by an analysis of Spanish and English, focusing on how different linguistic environments influence the realization of phonemes.
What characterizes the findings of this study?
The findings show that consonants in both Russian and Spanish tend to be realized as voiceless in word-final position when speakers are using English, which is a result of L1 transfer.
Why do Russian speakers struggle with the voiced affricate [dʒ] in English?
The analysis notes that the voiced affricate [dʒ] does not exist in the Russian phonological system, leading to a phenomenon of underdifferentiation where speakers use the closest available voiceless phoneme instead.
How does the concept of 'markedness' apply to the Spanish-English analysis?
Because English differentiates between voiced and voiceless consonants in word-final positions, it is considered more 'marked' than Spanish; therefore, Spanish speakers are more likely to make errors in these environments due to their native language constraints.
- Quote paper
- Narnia Fernandez (Author), 2012, Russian-English and Spanish-English: Phonology, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/213040
