State of the art: interlanguage phonology - factors and processes in the development of a second language phonology

Keys, Kevin John

doi:10.1590/s1984-63982001000100008

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Interlanguage Theory considers these errors correct (Firth, 1973; as cited by Al-Kresheh, 2015). In reality, second language speakers can be considered proficient as long as the individuals involved operate and maintain an effective level of mutual intelligibility (Keys, 2001).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Phonological Errors in English Academic Discourse of Cebuano-Visayan Learners

Momongan

Sanchez²,

Viray³

et al. 2023

JWEEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral communication always demands clarity in producing a language such as English in order to minimize or avoid communication failure. However, in the context of using English as a medium of communication among speakers who consider it as their second language, regardless of their acquired proficiency, they still commit phonological errors, either intended or otherwise. Ironically, the commission of errors in the expected phonology in English consequently facilitated the communication process instead of constraining it as contended. Thus, it is interesting to know what are these phonological errors in English committed by the learners and how the commission of these phonological errors influenced the academic discourse of native Cebuano-Visayans learners. Through a qualitative single-case study, data were gathered and analyzed following the thematic analytical framework of Miles and Huberman. Findings reveal that these phonological errors fall generally within segmental and suprasegmental areas along with specific identified phonemes and elements. Moreover, the commission of these phonological errors is associated with the alignment of proficiency disparity and its factors and assessment for improvement. Therefore, it is concluded that as English as second language speakers orally communicate, either intentionally or not, the phonological errors committed facilitated the exchange of concepts in the academic discourse as speakers begin to share an abstract concept of meanings that are associated with the produced phonological error.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Phonological Errors in English Academic Discourse of Cebuano-Visayan Learners

Momongan

Sanchez²,

Viray³

et al. 2023

JWEEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies that discuss second and foreign language learners' pronunciation errors have been conducted in various perspectives. The two popular studies among them are Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and Error Analysis; the former emphasizes the differences of L1 from the target language, and the latter focusses on the learners' error and compares it with the target language (Keys, 2001). However, these approaches were criticized due to its inability to explain the non-interference errors, lack of predictive power and theoretical explanation on the reason of why the error occurs (Al-khresheh, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Difference between Standard American English Pronunciation and the Interlanguage of English Department Students of the Class of 2015 at Andalas University

Putri

Datuk

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study discusses (1) the differences between the students’ interlanguage and standard American English pronunciation, and (2) the patterns of phonetic shift from the Standard American English into the students’ Interlanguage Pronunciation. The participants of this research were English Department students, the year of 2015, at Andalas University and were selected by using stratified random sampling with academic achievement as the criteria in choosing the sample. The data were collected by using picture description task and analyzed by using Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) by Eckman (1977) where the markedness relation among the sounds were found by using Markedness Hierarchy by Lombardi (1995, 1998). The result of the analysis showed that the most frequent errors that the participants made were the pronunciation of [ð], [θ], and [v] where the participants replaced [ð] with [d],[θ] with [t], and [v] with [f]. The difficulties of the participants were mostly in line with Eckman’s MDH.

show abstract

“…Para conduzirmos as análises, lançamos mão de diferentes aportes teóricos, como as teorias sobre Aquisição de Segunda Língua, os princípios da Consciência Fonológica, da Variação Linguística em L2 e os pressupostos de interlíngua (ECKMAN, 1981;ELLIS, 1986ELLIS, , 1994FRASER, 2000;MORI, 2000;KEYS, 2001;TREHEARNE, 2003;BAYLEY, 2005;ZIMMER;ALVES, 2006;ALVES, 2012a;ARCHIBALD, 2018). Estes aportes serão apresentados brevemente, nas próximas seções, por conta da extensão deste artigo.…”

unclassified

“…11 Cf. Dressler(1984, 1985, 1996, 1999);Donegan (1985Donegan ( , 1993Donegan ( , 2001;Dziubalska-Koaczyk (1990, 1995, 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Riitt (2001), todos citados porBalas (2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Realizações Orais dos Ditongos Ortográficos em Língua Inglesa

Stein

Kailer

2019

Signum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A presente pesquisa tem como objetivo analisar como aprendizes brasileiros de Língua Inglesa realizam oralmente os ditongos ortográficos desta língua. Como fundamentação teórica, buscamos embasamento nos princípios da Aquisição de Segunda Língua, Variação Linguística em L2 e nos pressupostos da Interlíngua, da Transferência, da Consciência Fonológica e nos estudos sobre a influência grafo-fônico-fonológica em L2 (ECKMAN, 1981, 2018; ELLIS, 1986, 1994; MORI, 2000; FRASER, 2000; KEYS, 2001; TREHEARNE, 2003; BAYLEY, 2005, ZIMMER; ALVES, 2006; ALVES, 2012; ARCHIBALD, 2018). O corpus analisado é constituído de 61 palavras grafadas com ditongos que deveriam ser realizadas oralmente como monotongos fonológicos, segundo a norma culta de pronúncia da Língua Inglesa (ROACH, [1983] 2009; CELCE-MURCIA et al, 2010; ASHTON; SHEPHERD, 2012; CRISTÓFARO-SILVA, 2012). Para a coleta de dados foram utilizados um questionário fonético-fonológico com 28 perguntas e uma lista com 35 sentenças para leitura em voz alta, resultando em 1223 realizações provenientes de 21 informantes de níveis intermediário da Língua Inglesa. Os principais resultados apontam que a maior parte dos informantes deste estudo realizam os ditongos ortográficos da L2 conforme a norma culta de pronúncia daquela língua. No entanto, detectamos formas desviantes e analisamos os aspectos linguísticos a fim de revelar quais podem influenciar mais significativamente nas produções orais dos segmentos em questão.

show abstract

State of the art: interlanguage phonology - factors and processes in the development of a second language phonology

Cited by 4 publications

References 16 publications

Influence of Phonological Errors in English Academic Discourse of Cebuano-Visayan Learners

Influence of Phonological Errors in English Academic Discourse of Cebuano-Visayan Learners

The Difference between Standard American English Pronunciation and the Interlanguage of English Department Students of the Class of 2015 at Andalas University

Realizações Orais dos Ditongos Ortográficos em Língua Inglesa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About