Pron 8

A COMPARISON BETWEEN TAIWANESE ESL LEARNERS’
PERCEPTION AND PRODUCTION OF ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION
By
Jo Shan Fu
B.S., National Taipei College of Nursing, 2003
M.A. in TESOL, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 2006
A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
in the Graduate School
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
August 2010

UMI Number: 3426660
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3426660
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

DISSERTATION APPROVAL
A COMPARISON BETWEEN TAIWANESE ESL LEARNERS’
By
Jo Shan Fu
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Education
with a concentration in Curriculum and Instruction
Approved by:
Dr. Lynn C. Smith, Chair
Dr. Marla H. Mallette
Dr. Kelly f Glassett
Dr. Judith Green
Dr. Krassimira D. Charkova
Dr. Karen Baertsch
Graduate School
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
May 10, 2010

i
AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF
Jo Shan Fu, for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Education with a concentration in
Curriculum and Instruction, presented on May 10, 2010, at Southern Illinois University
Carbondale.
TITLE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN TAIWANESE ESL LEARNERS’
MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. Lynn C. Smith
This study examined Taiwanese ESL learners’ perception and production of
English interdental fricatives (IFs) with respect to three variables: perception errors,
production errors, and three ranges of length of residence (LOR) in the US (LOR < 1
year; LOR= 3-4 years; LOR ≥ 7 years). Through the investigation, several relationships
among perception, production errors, and LOR were revealed. In addition, the types and
patterns of the pronunciation errors as well as the phonological processes involved in the
mispronunciations were investigated.
The instrument included both perception and production tasks, as well as a
demographic questionnaire. More specifically, the production task contains two syllable
positions: word initial and word final; two sources: word list and text. The data were
analyzed through auditory and spectrographic devices with an involvement of an inter-
rater agreement.
The results showed that there was a positive relationship between perception and
production errors for each of the three groups. Namely, the more perception errors made
by the Taiwanese ESL learners, the more production errors occurred. The correlation

ii
increases with each group, i.e., with LOR. The relationship between LOR and perception
and production errors were significantly negative as the longer the learners had stayed
in the US, the fewer errors in perception and production were made and vice versa.
A descriptive analysis revealed that the initial /‫/ׯ‬ and the final /ᾩ/ are the most
difficult sounds for the Taiwanese learners to perceive. In addition, both voiceless and
voiced IFs were found to be difficult to pronounce in the final position. Regarding the
source where the target sounds were located, the results indicated that reading text (rather
than a word list) caused more pronunciation errors for most of the learners except the
group with LOR ≥ 7 years, which had a better performance in the production task
compared with the other two groups, regardless of which source the target sounds were
located. From the overall findings, ESL teachers are encouraged to apply multiple
teaching tools and to provide feedback with effective correction techniques to learners in
order to adjust and overcome their pronunciation errors.

iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate my dissertation work to my family with a special gratitude
to my wonderful parents, Yin-He Fu and Pi-E Xie, whose love and kindnesses
always encouraged me during my writing days.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
奉至仁至慈的真主之名
This dissertation would not have been possible without the help of many people.
First of all, I would like to thank God for gifting me with a loving family, especially my
wonderful parents Yin-He Fu (傅銀河) and Pi-E Xie (謝碧娥) who constantly supported
and encouraged me to pursue my doctoral studies. I heartily appreciate how much they
have helped me with my life, studies, and career as well as given me all the things that
have gotten me here.
I would also like to thank my husband Selim Ben Said (‫عيد‬ ‫س‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ليم‬ ‫;س‬ 白士禮),
my biggest support. He graciously took care of me while I was bearing our son
Shamseddine (‫عيد‬ ‫س‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ب‬ ‫دي‬ ‫ال‬ ‫مس‬ ‫;ش‬ 白韶亭) through this tough journey of academic
endeavour. I deeply appreciate that Selim continues to lay down his life for our family
and provides us with all the comfort, stability, and security that we are so fortunate to
enjoy. And I am truly grateful for my precious son who gave me enormous happiness
while I was finishing up this dissertation.
Thanks to Dr. Lynn C. Smith and Dr. Marla H. Mallette, my advisor and co-chair,
for giving me the opportunity to work on the research I am interested in and for their
countless hours of reflecting and reading throughout the entire process. Thanks to, Dr.
Kelly f Glassett, Dr. Judith Green, Dr. Krassimira Charkova, and Dr. Karen Baertsch for
agreeing to serve on my committee.
A special thanks to Dr. Krassimira Charkova who has been an important mentor
for me. Her wisdom, sense of humanity, and encouraging remarks continuously inspire

v
confidence in me. Her profound knowledge in second language acquisition and valuable
research and statistic skills in linguistics greatly assisted me in conducting this study. She
has made her support available in a number of ways for me, and I owe my deepest
gratitude to her moral support throughout difficult periods.
I would also like to thank Dr. Karen Baertsch for her help in my data analysis.
Her thorough and keen insights played a significant role in my research, especially in the
areas of phonology and phonetics. I would like to express my respect and gratitude for
her valuable suggestions and feedback on this dissertation.
I am also indebted to all the participants who were willing to spend their time
completing the tasks in this research. And special thanks are due to Dr. Sharon Shrock,
Lu Coyne, Yu-an Lu, Teacher Vicky Shu, Sister Zareen Niazi Atiyat, Brother
Muhammad Atiyat, Sister Buthainah Al Thowaini, Duff Johnston, Alexandra D’Urso,
Hyang Min Lee, Sharon Chuang, Yu-ning Lai, and Fujia Hou, from whose insightful
comments I learned a lot and enjoyed much. Thanks also go to my dearest friends and
colleagues at Southern Illinois University and Penn State University who have been
supportive throughout my studies.
Last but not least, I would like to thank God who granted me the knowledge and
courage to complete this study with patience and joy.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................i
DEDICATION ................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................x
CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 1 – Introduction................................................................................1
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................3
Taiwanese Chinese..............................................................................................4
Definitions and Extent of Speech Perception and Production............................5
The Broader Framework.....................................................................................6
Phonological Focus of the Study ........................................................................7
Theories of L2 Pronunciation .............................................................................9
The Purpose of the Study..................................................................................14
Research Questions...........................................................................................14
Delimitations.....................................................................................................15
Limitations........................................................................................................16
Assumptions......................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2 – Review of the Literature..........................................................17
Factors in L2 Pronunciation .............................................................................17
The Relationship between ESL Perception and Production .............................34

vii
Chinese Speakers’ Difficulties with English Pronunciation.............................36
Synopsis of Previous Research and Pertinence of the Current Study...............37
CHAPTER 3 – Research Methodology............................................................42
Research Problems............................................................................................42
Research Questions...........................................................................................42
Variables ...........................................................................................................43
Participants........................................................................................................46
Research Instruments and Methods for the Study ............................................48
Procedures.........................................................................................................57
Coding...............................................................................................................58
Data Analyses ...................................................................................................61
CHAPTER 4 – Results......................................................................................64
Results for Research Question 1.......................................................................64
CHAPTER 5 – Summary and Discussion ........................................................90
Descriptive Analysis of Perception Errors........................................................93
Descriptive Analysis of Production Errors .......................................................95
Overall Conclusion .........................................................................................102
Educational Implications ................................................................................106
Recommendations for Future Research..........................................................109
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................112

viii
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Informed Consent Form ..........................................................124
Appendix B – Demographic Questionnaire....................................................125
Appendix C – 10 Voiceless Interdental Fricatives .........................................126
Appendix D – 10 Voiced Interdental Fricatives .............................................127
Appendix E – 12 Distracters...........................................................................128
Appendix F – Production Task (Word List) ...................................................129
Appendix G – Production Task (Text)............................................................131
Appendix H – Perception Task.......................................................................132
VITA...............................................................................................................138

ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 1: Chinese and American English Consonants.....................................................9
Table 2: Common Substitutions for English Interdental Fricatives (IFs).....................28
Table 3: TOEFL Scores and Levels of Proficiency......................................................48
Table 4: Consistent Results of the Pilot Study..............................................................51
Table 5: Paired Samples Statistics................................................................................65
Table 6: Observed Errors of /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ in the Perception Task ..................................69
Table 7.1: Observed Errors of /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ in the Production Task (Word List)............70
Table 7.2: Observed Errors of /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ in the Production Task (Text).....................71

x
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 1: Spectrogram of Sap to Indicate Stop: /p/.......................................................59
Figure 2: Spectrograms of Fricatives...........................................................................60
Figure 3: Correlation between Perception and Production for LOR< 1year ................66
Figure 4: Correlation between Perception and Production for LOR = 3-4 years .........66
Figure 5: Correlation between Perception and Production for LOR ≥ 7 years.............67
Figure 6.1: Patterns of Errors in the Perception Task among the Three Groups..........73
Figure 6.2: Percentage of the Substitutions for Initial Theta in Group 1 (Perception).73
Figure 6.3: Percentage of the Substitutions for Final Theta in Group 1 (Perception) ..73
Figure 6.4: Perception of the Substitutions for Initial Eth in Group 1 (Perception).....74
Figure 6.5: Percentage of the Substitutions for Final Eth in Group 1 (Perception)......74
Figure 6.6: Percentage of the Substitutions for Initial Theta in Group 2 (Perception).74
Figure 6.7: Percentage of the Substitutions for Final Theta in Group 2 (Perception) ..75
Figure 6.8: Percentage of the Substitutions for Initial Eth in Group 2 (Perception) ....75
Figure 6.9: Percentage of the Substitutions for Final Eth in Group 2 (Perception)......75
Figure 6.10: Percentage of the Substitutions for Initial Theta in Group 3 (Perception)76
Figure 6.11: Perception of the Substitutions for Final Theta in Group 3 (Perception).76
Figure 6.12: Perception of the Substitutions for Initial Eth in Group 3 (Perception)...76
Figure 6.13: Perception of the Substitutions for Final Eth in Group 3 (Perception) ....77
Figure 7: Patterns of Errors in the Production Task among the Three Groups.............78
Figure 8.1: Mispronunciations for /‫/ׯ‬ in Initial Position in the Word List...................79

xi
Figure 8.2: Mispronunciations for /‫/ׯ‬ in Final Position in the Word List....................79
Figure 9.1: Mispronunciations for /‫/ׯ‬ in Initial Position in the Text............................80
Figure 9.2: Mispronunciations for /‫/ׯ‬ in Final Position in the Text.............................81
Figure 10.1: Spectrogram Showing [f] in thin by a Taiwanese ESL Learner...............81
Figure 10.2: Spectrogram Showing [s] in thin by a Taiwan ESL Learner ...................82
Figure 10.3: Spectrogram Showing [t] in thumb by a Taiwanese ESL Learner...........83
Figure 11.1: Mispronunciations for /ᾩ/ in Initial Position in the Word List.................83
Figure 11.2: Mispronunciations for /ᾩ/ in Final Position in the Word List ..................84
Figure 12.1: Mispronunciations for /ᾩ/ in Initial Position in the Text..........................84
Figure 12.2: Mispronunciations for /ᾩ/ in Final Position in the Text ...........................85
Figure 13.1: Spectrogram Showing [l] in the by a Taiwanese ESL Learner ................86
Figure 13.2: Spectrogram Showing [d] in the by a Taiwanese ESL Learner ...............87
Figure 14.1: Spectrogram for clothe by a Taiwanese ESL Learner..............................87
Figure 14.2: Spectrogram for clothe by a native English Speaker ...............................87
Figure 15.1: Spectrogram for the Deletion of /ᾩ/ in breathe ........................................88
Figure 15.2: Spectrogram for the Deletion of /ᾩ/ in breathe.........................................88

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Because pronunciation influences what and how well people communicate in
a language, it should be a major focus of the field of second language acquisition
(SLA) (Beebe, 1984). It is important for learners of a second language (L2) to master
its phonological system, including sounds, intonation, and stress (Van Weeren &
Theunissen, 1987) in order to become fluent. The pronunciation errors of L2 learners
can illuminate the extent to which factors such as age, gender, and length of residence
(LOR) affect their SLA (Thompson, 1991). Research on L2 phonologies provides
data that can be used to improve L2 learning (Yavas, 1994).
Mispronunciation is the most common problem for L2 learners (Flege, 1987;
Fraser, 2000; Lenneberg, 1967; Patkowski, 1990; Scovel, 1969, 1988). To a large
extent, it correlates with the phonetic differences between the learners’ first language
(L1) and their second language (L2). When particular L2 sounds do not occur in the
learners’ L1, they tend to substitute similarly articulated L1 sounds (Flege, 1993). To
help L2 learners master their L2 pronunciation, educators must understand the types
and patterns of these sound substitutions (Fraser, 2000).
Previous research indicates that a target sound’s phonological environment
(the vowels and consonants that precede and follow the sound) significantly impacts
L2 pronunciation (Chen, Robb, Gilbert, & Lerman, 2001; Dickerson & Dickerson,
1977; Ingram & Park, 1997; Major, 1987; Preston, 1989). Therefore, this study has
taken into consideration that vowels and consonants surrounding English interdental

2
fricatives (IFs) may make it easier or more difficult for learners of English as a
second language (ESL) to pronounce these IFs.
To some extent, L2 speech perception and production correlate (Baker &
Trofimovich, 2006; Chang, Hong, & Halle, 2007; Chen et al., 2001; Flege, Frieda, &
Nozawa, 1997; Ingram & Park, 1997; Jia, Strange, Wu, Collado, & Guan, 2006). This
correlation suggests that if educators want to change how an L2 learner pronounces
certain sounds, they must change the way the learner thinks about these sounds
(Fraser, 2000). Therefore, the present study addressed the importance of L2 learners’
perception and production of sounds, and the correlation between both perception and
production based on IFs. As Fraser notes, scant research has examined which
methods are best for teaching L2 pronunciation. Therefore, the present study
examined ESL learners’ mispronunciations in terms of their LOR in the United States
while manipulating other relevant variables, such as age at onset of learning (AOL).
The study revealed correlations between speech perception and production based on
LOR.
Sound perception and production in L2 learners can be facilitated by better
SLA teaching methods. Tench (2003) has emphasized that phonological competence
requires adequately designed teaching materials. By examining ESL learners’
common mispronunciations, it was felt that the results of the present study and its
results could assist teachers in designing materials and developing courses for L2
learners. Educators must identify ESL learners with problematic pronunciation, place
them in appropriate ESL classrooms, and provide effective assistance. Once ESL
learners are aware of the types and patterns of their mispronunciations, they will have

3
a new perception of target sounds and can therefore more easily correct their
pronunciation. The differences between words in isolation and words in context may
cause a different degree of difficulty for ESL learners in acquiring target sounds.
However, the present study still suggests that the use of words in isolation and words
in context applied to the ESL learner’s pronunciation acquisition is still effective.
Significance of the Study
Fraser (2000) has noted a need for more research on the extent and effects of
pronunciation problems among ESL learners. She recommends focusing on the
learners’ specific pronunciation problems. Fraser argues that ESL teachers need
improved instructional materials, course guidelines, diagnostic tools, and assessment
tools for teaching pronunciation.
The current study examined the pronunciation problems of Taiwanese ESL
learners in relation to articulation, frequent errors within two contexts (word list and
short text), and the relation of LOR on learners’ perception and production of English
sounds. The findings revealed which phonological environments of IFs (the sounds
surrounding the IFs and the positions of the IFs within words) make it more difficult
for Taiwanese learners of ESL to perceive and produce IFs. This information could
benefit teachers and learners, if they become more aware of IFs, especially with
regard to specific phonological environments. Based on the results of research
question three, the present study could encourage the design and implementation of
ESL materials and exercises that focus on target sounds’ phonological environments
rather than on minimal-pairs practice, which includes pairs of words or phrases
differing in only one phonological element; for example, pin and bin are different in

4
the initial consonant. The data examined in this study also showed how LOR
correlates with Taiwanese learners’ accuracy of pronunciation.
Taiwanese Chinese
This study’s target sample was native speakers of Taiwanese Chinese, the
official language of Taiwan and the primary language of instruction in Taiwanese
schools at all levels. About 70 percent of Taiwan’s 15 million people speak
Taiwanese Chinese (Zeitoun & Yu, 2005). The vocabulary, grammar, and
pronunciation of Taiwanese Chinese differ from those of standard Mandarin Chinese
(the official language of mainland China) in eight primary ways.
First, Mandarin’s retroflex1
sounds (ch, r, sh, and zh) tend to be considerably
softer in Taiwanese Chinese, in which retroflex ending sounds are rarely heard. For
example, a speaker of Mandarin would say lao-shi (teacher) whereas a speaker of
Taiwanese Chinese would say lao-si. Second, instead of Mandarin ng, a Taiwanese
might say n (e.g., zhen rather than zheng meaning indisputable). Third, unlike
speakers of Mandarin, many speakers of Taiwanese pronounce the vowel e as o after
the consonants b, f, m, and p. Fourth, a Taiwanese might change the i of chi, ci, ri,
shi, si, and zi to u (e.g., say zu-ji rather than zi-ji meaning self). Fifth, a Taiwanese
might replace the Mandarin sound wo (I) with o. Sixth, the vowel u may be
pronounced as i (e.g., guo-yi rather than guo-yu meaning national language).
Seventh, a Taiwanese might say l to replace Mandarin n (e.g., Tailan rather than
Tainan, a city in Taiwan). Finally, a Taiwanese might say hu rather than Mandarin f
(e.g., hua-sheng rather than fa-sheng meaning happen). However, these speech
1
Retroflex sounds are pronounced with the tongue in retroflex position, as the sound r in some
varieties of English.

5
patterns do not apply to every Taiwanese due to the influence of different dialects
(Zeitoun & Yu, 2005).
Definitions and Extent of Speech Perception and Production
This study was a comparison of Taiwanese second language learners’ (ESL)
perception and production of the English IFs. The terms perception and production
refer to two areas of phonetics. The study of the perception of sound is called auditory
phonetics, whereas the production of sound is called articulatory phonetics (Dalton,
Seidlhofer, Candlin, & Widdowson, 1994). According to Dalton et al., auditory
perception means the perception of sounds as a meaningful phenomenon, and
articulatory phonetics indicates the production of the sound. In short, perception and
production mean the processes by which sound is heard and pronounced.
An understanding of perception and production is crucial to interpreting how
ESL learners acquire English pronunciation (O’Grady, Archibald, Aronoff, & Rees-
Miller, 2001). One goal of L2 learners is to produce speech that phonetically
approximates that of a native speaker (Weinberger, 1994). Articulation is a complex
process requiring many rapid adjustments (O’Grady et al.). Setting the proper
articulatory parameters for speech elements is crucial for L2 learners to achieve near-
native speech. L2 learners must determine the place and manner of articulation that
produce a particular L2 sound.
Perception precedes production (Cheng, 1998; Grasseger, 1991; Jia et al.,
2006). Learners cannot produce accurate sounds until they accurately discern the
relevant phonemes (Cheng; Dalton et al., 1994). Well-established perceptual
categories assist accurate production (Grasseger, 1991). According to Flege (1991),

6
inaccurate perceptual representations are responsible for production that sounds non-
native.
The Broader Framework
Researchers studying the effects of LOR and AOL, which have been
categorized as external factors (Chang, 2004), on L2 pronunciation acquisition have
found a positive correlation between speech perception and production (Baker &
Trofimovich, 2006; Flege, Bohn, & Jang, 1997; Jia et al., 2006). In general, longer
LOR correlates with more accurate L2 pronunciation (Flege, Bohn, & Jang; Jia et al.),
as does earlier AOL (Baker & Trofimovich).
However, according to Chang (2004), studies focused on internal factors,
which refer to phonological influences, such as class of target sounds, degree of
difference between L1 and L2 sounds, position of sounds (e.g., interdental or
alveolar), and phonological environment (the sounds that precede and follow the
target sounds) have not consistently shown strict correlation between L2 learners’
perception and production (Altenberg, 2005; Bettoni-Techio, Rauber, & Koerich,
2007; Chang et al., 2007; Tench, 2003). With regard to English consonants, the
perceptual accuracy of ESL learners does not always correspond to their accuracy of
production, due to differences between the phonetic inventories of English and the
learners’ native language (Major, 1998; Tench).
Altenberg (2005) found no significant correlation between Spanish ESL
learners’ perception and production of English initial consonant clusters (groups of
consonants with no vowels, such as thr in three). However, Bettoni-Techio et al.
(2007) found a positive correlation between perception and production of final

7
alveolar stops in EFL learners whose native language was Portuguese. Similarly,
Chang et al. (2007) reported a positive correlation between Chinese ESL learners’
perception and production of English consonant clusters. Therefore, the strength of
the correlation between perception and production varies depending on the target
sounds, their placement within words, and other phonological factors.
However, few studies have examined the influence of both LOR and
phonological factors on the relationship between perception and production (Keys,
2002). The present study did so. It examined the relationship between perception and
production in terms of (a) three ranges of LOR and (b) phonological factors
influencing types and patterns of pronunciation errors. Therefore, the findings of this
study offer the field of SLA new insight about perception and production accuracy.
Phonological Focus of the Study
The target sounds to be examined are the English IFs /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/, such as the
initial consonants in thank and in this, respectively. The English IFs consist of
voiceless and voiced sounds. The voiceless IF /‫/ׯ‬ is usually produced with the tip of
the tongue between the teeth or right behind the upper teeth. The sound is pronounced
as the air escapes through the passage between the upper and lower teeth (Rogers,
2000). The sound /‫/ׯ‬ can occur in English variously in word initial, medial, and final
positions as in thin, method, and month. The voiced IF /ᾩ/ is produced in the same
manner as /‫,/ׯ‬ but with vibration of the vocal cords (Rogers). It also can occur in
word initial, medial, and final positions as in they, mother, and breathe.

8
The rationale for choosing these sounds stems from the fact that they
constitute pronunciation problems for Chinese learners of English due to L1 and L2
differences in the phonetic inventories. A comparison between the consonants of
Chinese (Ch) and American English (AE) indicates the difference between the two
languages based on the place and manner of articulation (See Table 1). Besides, Table
1 also shows the IFs and the likely substitutions for the IFs (Akande, 2005; Bada,
2001; Chan & Li, 2000; Chang, 2004; Gonet & Pietron, 2005; Wester, Gilberts, &
Lowie, 2007).
More specifically, the English IFs /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ have no Chinese equivalents in
terms of both manner and place of articulation. The fact that these two sounds are not
present in the Chinese sound system (Zeitoun & Yu, 2005) creates pronunciation
difficulties for Chinese speakers in Taiwan based on Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
(CA) (Lado, 1957) and the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) (Eckman,
1977), which will be elaborated in the next section. In addition, an investigation of
Taiwanese English in regard to second language (ESL) learners’ perception and
production in the IFs represents an under-investigated area.

9
Table 1
Chinese (Ch) and American English (AE) Consonants2
Labiodental Interdental Alveolar
Ch t
t‫ܒ‬
Stop
AE t d
Ch fFricatives
AE f v ‫ׯ‬ ᾩ s z
Ch lLateral
approximant AE
Theories of L2 Pronunciation
This study was built on several theories of L2 pronunciation: the Critical
Period Hypothesis (CPH) (Lenneberg, 1967), the theory of language transfer
(interference by L1) (Gass & Selinker, 1972), the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
(CA) (Lado, 1957), and the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) (Eckman,
1977). These theories provide possible interpretations of phonological interlanguage,
the stage during which L2 learners are not fully proficient in L2 and their speech still
preserves some features of L1 (Lado, 1957).
The Critical Period Hypothesis
First proposed by Lenneberg (1967), the CPH posits that it is difficult to
acquire native-like accuracy in an L2 after puberty, especially with regard to
pronunciation. In other words, age is a critical factor in the acquisition of L2
pronunciation. The critical period, namely before puberty, is the optimal time to
2
Table 1 is based on information gathered from Cheng (1991) and Xu and Han (1992).

10
acquire an L2. According to the CPH, individuals who start learning an L2 before age
7 will achieve native-like speech, whereas those who start after age 14 or 15 probably
will not. Research, however, shows that individuals with an AOL of 7 to14 years
show varied results as some retain L1 accents even though they fall in the optimal
time period (Archibald, 2001). Therefore, Archibald concluded that AOL alone does
not determine the accuracy of L2 pronunciation. Other factors such as language
transfer, LOR, amount of L1 and L2 use, and phonological environments also impact
L2 pronunciation (Baker & Trofimovich, 2006; Flege & Liu, 2001; Flege, Yeni-
Komshian, & Liu, 1999; Ingram & Park, 1997; Jia et al., 2006; Moyer, 1999).
The Theory of Language Transfer
Language transfer, i.e., L2 learners’ use of their L1 within an L2 context, can
be positive or negative (Gass & Selinker, 1972). Positive transfer promotes correct
pronunciation. With regard to ESL, positive transfer occurs when the same sounds
exist in L1 as in English and therefore do not cause difficulties for the learners. For
example, /‫/ׯ‬ exists in both Standard Arabic and English, so native speakers of
Standard Arabic easily learn to produce the sound correctly when speaking English
(Brustad, Al-Batal, & Al-Tonsi, 2004). Similarities between L1 and L2 invite positive
transfer (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991).
Negative transfer occurs when L2 sounds do not exist in L1. For example, /‫/ׯ‬
and /ᾩ/ do not exist in Chinese and are therefore difficult for Chinese speakers to
acquire. Chinese speakers often substitute other sounds—such as [s] in sin for /‫/ׯ‬ and
[l] in look for /ᾩ/—that are similarly articulated (Major & Faudree, 1996). Such

11
substitution is phoneme adaptation, a form of negative transfer (Odlin, 1989). The
greater the phonological differences between L1 and L2, the greater the likelihood of
negative transfer (Gass & Selinker, 1972).
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
Similar to language transfer, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CA)
proposed by Lado (1957) explains how L1 influences L2 acquisition based on the
similarity of the phonetic systems between L1 and L2. If the L2 sounds are similar to
the learners’ L1, these sounds will be easy to acquire. However, if the L2 sounds are
different from L1, these sounds will be difficult to acquire. Lado proposed that it is
possible to compare the phonological system of a native language with the system of
a second language in order to predict L2 learners’ learning difficulties. Therefore, CA
claims that all the errors in L2 can be attributed to the interference of L1 (language
transfer). In other words, language transfer is the centre of CA. It is clear then that
CA can predict the differences between L1 and L2 that would cause L2 learners
difficulty. For instance, the difference in all the consonants in Chinese and English is
that the IFs, /‫/-/ׯ‬ᾩ/ do not exist in the Chinese phonological system. Therefore, these
sounds can be predicted as causing Chinese speakers’ learning difficulties. In short,
CA can assist ESL teachers in understanding how their learners’ mispronunciations
are derived and why those mispronunciations take place.
The Markedness Differential Hypothesis
However, CA cannot explain all mispronunciations made by L2 learners as
some of them do not result from L1 transfer (Eckman, 1977). This is especially true
of sound substitutions (Eckman). In a study by Nemser (1971), Hungarian ESL

12
learners produced sounds that do not exist in either English or Hungarian. For
example, they substituted [s‫]ׯ‬ (a combination of /s/ as in see and /‫/ׯ‬ as in thin) for /‫./ׯ‬
Similarly, Johansson (1973) found out that L2 learners of Swedish substituted sounds
that occur neither in Swedish nor in their L1. For instance, some German and English
speakers substituted [᭳] for Swedish /‫,/׭‬ even though /᭳/ does not exist in Swedish,
English, or German.
In addition, CA predicts neither the difficulty nor the sequence of SLA (Keys,
2002). Eckman (1977) therefore added the dimension of markedness (rarity), that is, a
phoneme is highly marked if it does not occur in most languages. According to
Eckman’s MDH, L2 learners acquire marked phonemes less easily than unmarked
ones (Carlisle, 1994). For example, IFs are marked, whereas the alveolar stops /t/ and
/d/ (the consonant sounds in tea and do, respectively) are not. IFs exist in English but
not in Chinese, whereas alveolar stops exist in both languages. As a result, English
speakers master Chinese alveolar stops more easily than Chinese speakers master
English IFs (Ing, 1988), which ESL learners generally master last and most often
replace with similar sounds (Carlisle, 1994; Eckman, 1977; Keys, 2002).
Applying the Theories of L2 Pronunciation
The present study’s quantitative results were examined in light of the CPH,
and its descriptive results were examined in light of language transfer, CA, and the
MDH. Data analysis revealed whether the findings support or contradict these
theories.
According to a number of researchers, AOL appears to be an important factor
in SLA (Asher & Garcia, 1982; Flege, Munro, & MacKay, 1995a, 1995b; Oyama,

13
1978). Some of them claim that the earlier the AOL, the more accurate the L2
pronunciation (Asher & Garcia; Flege, Munro, & MacKay). However, there is no
consensus as to the optimal age for SLA (Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Long, 1990;
Oyama, 1978; Patkowski, 1990; Scovel, 1988). As Archibald (2001) has pointed out,
AOL alone does not determine the accuracy of L2 pronunciation. Other factors such
as language transfer, LOR, and the extent of L1 and L2 use also influence L2
pronunciation (Baker & Trofimovich, 2006; Flege & Liu, 2001; Flege et al., 1999; Jia
et al., 2006). Also, AOL is closely related to LOR (Asher & Garcia; Flege, Bohn, &
Jang, 1997; Wang, 2007).
As previously mentioned, Archibald (2001) found that an AOL of 7 to 14
years does not guarantee native-like L2 pronunciation. Other researchers have found
no effect of LOR on English pronunciation when AOL occurs after puberty (Flege,
1988; Flege, 1993; Flege, Munro, & Skelton, 1992; Oyama, 1976, 1978). However,
LOR does significantly affect pronunciation when AOL is under 12 years (Flege,
1988). For this reason, this study investigated the effect of LOR for learners with
AOL between ages 7 and 12.
As also mentioned, this study’s open-ended data were examined in light of
language transfer, CA, and the MDH. This analysis elucidated the phonological
processes in the L2 mispronunciation, including substitution and deletion. For
example, negative language transfer and CA may explain why particular phonological
features correlate with mispronunciation, and sound substitutions may correlate with
target sounds’ markedness.

14
The Purpose of the Study
The current study examined Taiwanese ESL learners’ perception and
production of English IFs related to their LOR in the United States. Specifically, it
investigated how correlations between perception and production may vary within
three levels of LOR: less than one year, between three and four years, and at least
seven years.
The study investigated differences in accuracy between perception and
production of English IFs, revealing types and patterns of misperception and
mispronunciation. Errors were analyzed in terms of target sounds’ location (front and
end) within words and whether the words occur on a word list or within a short text.
The study also determined whether all types and patterns of mispronunciation are
associated with LOR.
Finally, the examination of the locations and phonological environments of
target sounds indicated what phonological processes are involved in the observed
mispronunciations. These data were interpreted in light of language transfer, CA, and
the MDH.
Research Questions
Through correlational and descriptive analyses, the current study attempted to
answer three questions:
Correlational Analyses:
Question 1: How does the relationship between Taiwanese L2 learners’
perception and production of English IFs differ in relation to
LOR in the United States?

15
Question 2: a) Is there a significant relationship between LOR and errors in
perception?
b) Is there a significant relationship between LOR and errors in
production?
Descriptive Analyses:
Question 3: a) What are the types and patterns of errors?
b) When these ESL learners mispronounce a sound, what
phonological processes are involved in the mispronunciation?
Delimitations
The study’s participants were delimited to intermediate and advanced ESL
learners in academic settings who represented particular LORs and whose AOL
ranged between 7 and 12 years of age, so results may not be generalizable to learners
at a beginner’s level. The study was also delimited to the perception and production
of IFs in the formal contexts of a word list and a short text; it did not examine casual
communicative speech. The words used in testing were from a list issued by Taiwan’s
Ministry of Education in 2008, of 4,000 common English lexical words (proper,
concrete, or abstract nouns) and function words. I developed the test instruments
through consultation with two linguistics experts at the Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale. In addition, this study was delimited to the perception and production of
the English IFs /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ at the beginnings and endings of words.
Regarding LOR, the interest in this study is the relation between Taiwanese
ESL learners’ pronunciation and LOR, without focusing on a specific critical LOR.

16
Therefore, the study was unable to examine when exactly the effect of LOR begins to
be observed since there were gaps between the groups.
Limitations
The participants read a word list and short text aloud, and I analyzed their
production of the target IFs. Regarding perception, the participants listened to a
recording spoken by a native English speaker and tried to distinguish the target
sounds and distracters. Based on what I have written, the results may not be
generalizable to other speech sounds except IFs. Also, the participants were limited to
Taiwanese ESL learners of intermediate or advanced proficiency, so results may not
be generalizable to learners at a beginner’s level. Finally, pronunciation problems
observed to be typical of Taiwanese ESL learners may differ from those of ESL
learners from other countries or regions, including learners from mainland China (due
to the possible influence of diverse dialects).
Assumptions
In light of previous research findings, the current study was based on the
assumption that the critical AOL is 7 to 12 years.

17
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter summarizes the relevant research on ESL learners’ perception
and production of English speech sounds. Specifically, it reviews studies that have
investigated (a) external and internal variables that influence L2 pronunciation, (b)
the relationship between perception and production of ESL learners, and (c) Chinese
ESL learners’ difficulties with English pronunciation. The chapter discusses gaps in
the literature and the ways in which the current study addresses these gaps.
Factors in L2 Pronunciation
A variety of external factors influence perception and production of L2
pronunciation (Chang, 2004). These factors include age at onset of learning (AOL)
(Baker & Trofimovich, 2006; Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al., 1995a, 1995b;
Flege et al., 1999; Jia et al., 2006; Tahta et al., 1981), length of residence (LOR) in
the L2 country (Wang, 2007), the first language’s (L1’s) characteristics (Bada, 2001),
and the extent of L1 and second language (L2) use (Flege et al., 1997a; Flege et al.,
1999; Flege & Liu, 2001; Tahta et al., 1981; Thompson, 1991).
Age at Onset of Learning
AOL strongly influences ESL learners’ English pronunciation (Baker &
Trofimovich, 2006; Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al., 1995a, 1995b; Flege et al.,
1999; Jia et al., 2006; Tahta et al., 1981). As previously discussed, the critical period
hypothesis (CPH) posits that it is difficult to acquire native-like L2 pronunciation if
learning begins after the critical period (Flege, 1987; Lenneberg, 1967; Patkowski,
1990). Lenneberg proposed that “blocks” to language learning rapidly increase after

18
puberty (p. 176). Similarly, Gass and Selinker (1972) hypothesized that “foreign
accents cannot be overcome easily after puberty” (p. 176).
The apparent difficulty of mastering an L2 with native-like accuracy after a
certain age raises the question “What age is optimal for acquiring native-like
pronunciation?” Asher and Garcia (1982) examined the English pronunciation of 71
Cuban ESL learners ages 7 to 19. Near-native pronunciation was shown by 41 percent
of the learners ages 7 to 12 but only 7 percent of those ages 13 to 19. Among those
ages 13 to 19, 27 percent, had a slight foreign accent, and 66 percent had a heavy
foreign accent. The results indicated that children older than 13 have the lowest
chance of acquiring near-native speech.
Flege et al. (1995b) conducted quantitative research to assess the relationship
between Italian ESL learners’ AOL and the degree of foreign accent in their
production of English sentences. The 240 participants had begun learning English in
Canada between the ages of 2 and 23. The findings showed a negative correlation
between AOL and accurate English pronunciation: as AOL increased, the accuracy of
the pronunciation tended to decrease. The criterion for accurate pronunciation was
achieved by 78 percent of participants with AOL of less than 4 years, 61 percent with
AOL of 4 to 8 years, 29 percent with AOL of 8 to 12 years, and only 6 percent with
AOL of 12 to 23 years.
A number of studies of AOL support the CPH (Flege et al., 1995b; Flege et
al., 1999; Oyama, 1978; Tahta et al., 1981). Flege et al. (1995b) examined the
production of /Ѣ, ᾩ, ‫/ׯ‬ at the beginnings of words and /b, d, g, k, p, t / at the ends of
words by 240 Italian ESL learners highly experienced with English (AOL was 2 to 23

19
years). The percentage who demonstrated accurate pronunciation of the target
consonants decreased as AOL increased.
Oyama (1978) investigated the degree of foreign accent of 60 Italian male
ESL learners by analyzing their reading of short sentences. The learners with more
accurate pronunciation had started learning English before the end of adolescence; the
others showed significant inaccuracy in pronunciation. Similarly, Flege (1988) found
that the younger the AOL, the better the ESL learners acquire English sounds. Flege
et al. (1999) examined the SLA of 240 Korean ESL learners with an AOL of 1 to 23
years. All participants with a childhood AOL performed better than those with an
AOL after puberty. Therefore, the consensus is that the CPH is valid: the younger the
age at which an individual starts to learn English, the greater their likelihood of
achieving accurate pronunciation.
The critical period for second language acquisition (SLA) appears to end
between ages 6 and 10 (Long, 1990; Oyama, 1978). Long concluded that learners
may speak accent-free L2 if they acquire it by age 6. Oyama found that individuals
who began learning English by age 10 tended to speak with native accuracy.
However, in other studies an AOL of less than 6 years did not guaranteed an accent-
free L2 (Flege, Frieda, & Nozawa, 1997; Thompson, 1991), supporting Asher and
Garcia’s (1982) contention that no ESL learners achieve perfect English
pronunciation.
There is, then, consensus that AOL affects L2 pronunciation but no agreement
as to the optimal AOL (Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Long, 1990; Oyama, 1978). Flege
(1987, 1998) has noted that AOL’s effects on L2 pronunciation are difficult to

20
interpret because AOL is often confounded with other variables, such as LOR (Flege
& Fletcher; Wang, 2007) and the amount of use of L1 and L2 (Flege, 1987, 1998;
Flege & Liu, 2001).
Flege and Fletcher (1992) examined Spanish ESL learners’ foreign accents in
terms of LOR and AOL and found a statistically significant positive correlation
between LOR and degree of native-like pronunciation. Participants with longer LOR
(14.3 years) had better pronunciation than those with substantially shorter LOR (0.7
years).
Length of Residence
On the other hand, some studies have shown a positive relationship between
LOR and accurate ESL pronunciation (Flege, Bohn, & Jang, 1997; Flege & Fletcher,
1992). In a quantitative study, Flege and Fletcher examined English sentences spoken
by two groups of Spanish ESL learners. Group 1 had LOR of 0.7 years on average;
Group 2 had LOR of 14.3 years on average. Group 2 showed more accurate
pronunciation.
Flege, Bohn, and Jang (1997) assessed ESL vowel perception and production
among 80 native speakers of German, Korean, Mandarin, and Spanish. Each native
language was represented by four groups: 5 men with LOR of 0.7 years, 5 women
with LOR of 0.7 years, 5 men with LOR of 7.0 years, and 5 women with LOR of 7.0
years. For all native languages, the participants with longer LORs tended to perceive
and produce English vowels correctly more often than participants with shorter
LORs. That is, the error rate decreased as the LOR increased, indicating that
perception and production become more accurate as learners gained L2 experience.

21
Other studies have shown no significant effect of LOR on L2 pronunciation
(Flege, 1988; Oyama, 1978; Tahta et al., 1981). Flege found that the English
pronunciation of Taiwanese who began learning ESL as adults did not significantly
differ based on LOR (1.1 versus 5.1 years in average). Similarly, Wang’s (2007)
results indicate that LOR may not significantly affect the English pronunciation of
ESL learners with a late AOL, especially advanced ESL learners. Therefore, the
effect of LOR varies depending on AOL.
Flege (1988) also examined Taiwanese ESL learners’ perception and
production in terms of their exposure to English. Learners with longer stays in the
United States perceived, but did not produce, English pronunciation more accurately
than learners with shorter stays. Therefore, the effect of LOR may vary depending on
the amount of daily exposure to the L2.
Flege and Liu (2001) investigated the English pronunciation of Chinese ESL
learners according to LOR in the United States. Each of four groups included students
and nonstudents with LOR of 3.9 to 15.5 years. In the case of students, longer LOR
correlated with the accuracy of English speech production. However, in the case of
nonstudents, the effect of LOR on speech production was not significant. Because the
students received considerable L2 input from teachers and students who were native
speakers of English, they benefited from greater exposure to L2 than nonstudents did.
The results, therefore, suggest that longer LOR coupled with an L2-rich environment
enhances L2 speech production.
There was also a negative correlation between AOL and the degree of
accuracy. The data indicated that the earlier the participants began learning English,

22
the more native-like their pronunciation. Therefore, it is difficult to separate the
effects of AOL from those of LOR.
Wang (2007) investigated the degree of foreign accent among 20 Chinese
ESL learners, half of whom were professors in the United States and half of whom
were professors in Mainland China. The U.S. professors were between 40 and 43
years of age and had AOLs of 11.4 to 13.1, but they differed in their LOR and amount
of English use. The US professors with LOR of 12.4 years used English for about
97.5 percent of their speech; the professors in China, who had never resided in the
United States, used English for about 50 percent of their speech. When speaking
English, the former had as much of a foreign accent as the latter, perhaps due to late
AOL.
In general, the longer learners stay in an L2-speaking country, the more
accurate their L2 pronunciation (Flege, Bohn, & Jang, 1997; Flege & Fletcher, 1992).
However, LOR does not always significantly affect L2 pronunciation independently
of other variables, such as AOL and the amount of L2 use (Flege & Liu, 2001;
Oyama, 1976; Tahta et al., 1981; Wang, 2007).
Age at Onset of Learning/Length of Residence
Researchers have studied the effects of AOL and LOR on vowel perception
and production among learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) and learners of
ESL. Baker and Trofimovich (2006) examined the effects of AOL and LOR in the
United States on Korean ESL learners’ vowel perception and production. 40 ESL
learners were divided into four groups based on LOR of 1, 3, 10, or 11 years, with the
last group having been in the United States since childhood. A group of 10 native

23
English speakers served as a control group. The results indicated that the relationship
between perception and production depends on AOL, not LOR. Korean ESL learners
exposed to English from early childhood perceived and produced English sounds
more accurately than other learners. In fact, their perception and production did not
significantly differ from that of native English speakers. The younger the age at
which the ESL learners began acquiring English, the better their English
pronunciation. The effect of LOR seems to be influenced by an amount of L2 use
(Asher & Garcia, 1982; Flege, 1988; Flege & Liu, 2001; Wang, 2007).
Jia et al. (2006) investigated Chinese EFL and ESL learners’ perception and
production of front and back vowels (articulated in the front and back of the mouth,
respectively).3
Native speakers of Mandarin, the learners comprised 91 EFL learners
(ages 7 to 20) in China and 131 ESL learners (ages 8 to 46) in the United States. The
EFL learners had begun learning English at ages 8 to 11 and had only learned English
in school in China. The ESL learners had begun learning English at around age 11
and had been in the United States for 1.3 to 3.7 years. For all learners, better
perception significantly correlated with better production. Also, AOL significantly
correlated with accuracy of both perception and production but more strongly with
the latter. LOR, too, significantly correlated with production, but it did not
significantly correlate with perception.
L1 and Pronunciation
Gonet and Pietron (2005) investigated Polish ESL learners’ pronunciation of
English IFs and found that specific phonological factors affect the accuracy of the
3
Front vowels include /i/ as in tea, /‫/گ‬ as in itchy, /ϯ/ as in desk, and /æ/ as in hat. Back vowels include
/u/ as in pool, /ʊ/ as in pull, and /o/ as in go.

24
target sounds. Voiced /ᾩ/ was mainly pronounced as [d] and voiced bilabiodental
fricative /v/; voiceless /‫/ׯ‬ was replaced by [f]. The researchers concluded that these
mispronunciations resulted from the absence of IFs in Polish.
Flege, Bohn, and Jang (1997) obtained similar results in their study of ESL
speech perception and production in native speakers of German, Korean, Mandarin,
and Spanish. The last three languages do not contain both the tense vowel /i/ (as in
tea) and the lax vowel /‫/گ‬ (as in did).4
Thus, speakers of those languages
bidirectionally confused these sounds. In contrast, as in English, German possesses
both /i/ and /‫,/گ‬ so German speakers did not show this confusion. The degree of
accuracy in perceiving and producing English vowels varied based on different L1s.
A quantitative study by Chang et al. (2007) examined how the phonemic
inventory of Taiwanese Mandarin affects the perception of English consonant clusters
by EFL listeners whose native language is Taiwanese Mandarin. As the researchers
had hypothesized, the listeners incorrectly perceived an epenthetic vowel in initial
consonant clusters because Chinese lacks such clusters. The participants perceived
CCV as CəCV.
Similarly, Flege (1989) examined Chinese ESL learners’ perception of the
contrast between English /d/ and /t/ at the ends of words. Because this contrast does
not exist in Chinese, most of the learners had difficulty correctly identifying the final
4
Tense vowels vary in length more than lax vowels and can be much longer; they include /i, e, u, o, ѐ,
Ϫ, ɝ/ as in tea, say, pool, go, alter, fog, and urge, respectively. Lax vowels are shorter than tense
vowels and include /‫,گ‬ ϯ, æ, Ѩ, ѩ, ɚ, ђ/ as in did, egg, attack, pull, umbrella, term, and as,
respectively. When stressed, lax vowels do not occur alone at the ends of words but always are
followed by a consonant (Lindau, 1978).

25
/d/ and /t/ and often deleted them. L1 background significantly predicted sensitivity to
the contrast between English /d/ and /t/.
Most EFL and ESL learners experience difficulties in acquiring particular
English sounds due to the influence of their L1 (Keys, 2002). Taiwanese tend to
substitute the voiceless alveolar fricative [s] for the voiceless interdental fricative /θ/
(as in thick) and substitute the alveolar lateral approximant [l] for /ð/ (as in that) (Ing,
1988). They replace unfamiliar L2 sounds with the L1 sounds that most closely
resemble them in place and manner of articulation. Likewise, Japanese ESL learners
often substitute [s], the voiceless alveolar stop [t], or the voiced alveolar fricative [z]
for /‫./ׯ‬ They also use [d] or [z] in placed of /ᾩ/ (Bada, 2001).
How an individual incorrectly modifies particular L2 sounds can depend on
the individual’s native dialect. A study by Broselow (1983) illustrates this. She
investigated syllabification errors by Arabic ESL learners whose native dialect was
either Egyptian or Iraqi. Both dialects lack consonant clusters at the beginnings of
words. Egyptian speakers pronounced flow as /filo/, and Iraqi speakers pronounced it
as /iflo/. Both mispronunciations resulted from epenthesis. However, Egyptian
epenthesis created a consonant-vowel syllable, whereas an Iraqi epenthesis created a
vowel-consonant syllable. These findings correspond with Osburne’s (1996)
conclusion that ESL learners tend to use epenthesis or deletion to reduce the number
of consonants in a consonant cluster.
Similarly, the sounds that Chinese speakers substitute for English IFs differ
depending on which Chinese dialect they speak. Speakers of Taiwanese Chinese often
substitute [s] for /‫/ׯ‬ and [l] for /ᾩ/ (Ing, 1988). In contrast, speakers of Cantonese

26
Chinese commonly replace /‫/ׯ‬ with [t] or [f] and, in initial and final positions, replace
/ᾩ/ with [d] or [f] (Chan & Li, 2000). Distinctive phonetic features of Taiwanese and
Cantonese Chinese interfere with ESL pronunciation in different ways.
Systematic EFL and ESL mispronunciations seem to take the form of
substitution, epenthesis, or deletion. L2 learners whose L1 lacks IFs find these sounds
especially challenging and tend to substitute L1 sounds similar in place and manner
of articulation (Cheng, 1998; Ing, 1988; Kirk, 2008; Lombardi, 2003; Major &
Faudree, 1996). This fact supports the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CA): the
more an L2 sound differs from the closest L1 sound, the harder it is for L2 learners to
acquire that L2 sound. L2 learners’ difficulties with IFs also support the Markedness
Deferential Hypothesis (MDH) (Dubois & Horvath, 1998). Phonologically marked,
/‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ are more difficult to acquire than unmarked sounds such as /t/ and /d/
(Carlisle, 1994). Interlingual interference occurs when the L2 learner’s native
language does not contain a particular L2 sound (Brown, 2000).
Substitutions for IFs are a major problem for ESL learners, especially if their
L1 lacks these two sounds. Akande (2005) investigated the pronunciation difficulties
of 50 native speakers of Yoruba who began learning ESL in primary school. The
learners tended to substitute [t] for /‫/ׯ‬ and substitute [d] for /ᾩ/. Similarly, Jenkins,
Modiano, and Seidlhofer (2001) found that European ESL speakers tended to replace
/‫/ׯ‬ with [t] or [s] and to replace /ᾩ/ with [d] or [z].
In a study of 14 Polish intermediate ESL learners, Gonet and Pietron (2005)
analyzed mispronunciations of IFs in 80 English words and phrases that commonly

27
appear in US secondary school textbooks. The IFs occurred at the beginnings,
middles, and ends of words. The learners replaced 13 percent of /‫/ׯ‬s with [t] and
(especially in final syllables) replaced 32 percent of /‫/ׯ‬s with [f]. They pronounced
about 40 percent of /ᾩ/s correctly and otherwise substituted [d], [‫,]ׯ‬ [t], or [v]. The
most common substitution for /ᾩ/ was [d], which was used in 37 percent of the
substitutions.
Bada (2001) tape-recorded 16 male and 2 female Japanese EFL learners as
they read 38 English sentences. The participants often replaced /‫/ׯ‬ with [s], [t], or [z]
when it occurred at the beginning or middle of a word and sometimes did so when it
occurred at the end of a word. When /ᾩ/ occurred at the beginning of a word, the
learners often replaced it with [d] and rarely with [z]. When /ᾩ/ occurred in the
middle of a word, the only substitution was [d]. When /ᾩ/ occurred at the end of a
word, the only substitutions were [t], [s], and [‫.]ׯ‬

28
Table 2 shows common substitutions for English IFs, based on different L1s
(Brown, 2000; Chang, 2004; Cheng, 1998; Ing, 1988; Lado, 1957; Major, 2001;
Nemser, 1971; Weinberger, 1990; Weinreich, 1953; Wester, Gilbers, & Lowie,
2007). The substitutions reveal different patterns. French speakers from Quebec and
Russian speakers substitute sounds ([t] and [d]) with less marked manner of
articulation (Weinreich). European French, German, and Japanese speakers substitute
sounds ([s] and [z]) with less marked places of articulation (Weinreich). Chinese
speakers substitute a less marked manner of articulation ([t]), substitute a less marked
place of articulation ([f] or [s]), or show neither pattern (when they substitute [l] for
/ᾩ/).
Table 2
Common Substitutions for English IFs
Language Substitutions for /‫/ׯ‬ Substitutions for /ᾩ/
Chinese [t] [f] [s] [l]
Dutch [t] [s] [f] [d] [s] [z] [v]
French (European) [s] [z]
French (Quebequian) [t] [d]
German [s] [z]
Hungarian [t] [s]
Japanese [s] [z]
Russian [t] [d]

29
In terms of perception, Tabain (1998) found that [‫]ׯ‬ and [f] are most likely to
be confused. In an identification experiment of fricatives, she found that [f] was
identified as /‫/ׯ‬ and that [‫]ׯ‬ was identified as /f/. Other misidentifications occurred
but no more often than 5 percent. Since [‫]ׯ‬ has a low intensity, the phonetic
characteristic makes it difficult to identify and to differentiate them acoustically from
other sounds, such as [f]. Therefore, it is common for [f] to be substituted for /‫./ׯ‬
Few studies have focused on Chinese speakers’ substitutions for English IFs
(Chang, 2004; Ing, 1988). Two studies reported that Taiwanese speakers of EFL
commonly substitute [s] for /‫/ׯ‬ and substitute [l] for /ᾩ/ when the IFs occur at the
beginnings of words (Chang; Ing). Systematic studies of how phonological factors
(e.g., a target sound’s location within a word and the sounds that surround the target
sound) influence Taiwanese ESL speakers’ perception and production of IFs are rare.
Therefore, it is important to analyze such misperceptions and mispronunciations of
IFs.
Weinberger (1990) and Wester et al. (2007) found that Dutch ESL learners
replaced IFs with /t/ or /d/ more often than they substituted other sounds, especially
when the IFs occurred in initial or middle syllables. As previously mentioned, [t] and
[d] are unmarked whereas /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ are marked. Therefore, the results fit the MDH
(Eckman, 1977): Dutch speakers tended to substitute the unmarked sounds [t] and [d]
for marked sounds, /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/.
As previously noted, substitutions can vary depending on the L2 learner’s
native dialect. Chinese EFL/ESL speakers from Mainland China tend to replace /‫/ׯ‬

30
with [t] or [f] (Weinberger, 1990), whereas those from Taiwan tend to substitute [s]
(Chang, 2004; Ing, 1988). In both cases, however, the substitutions resemble IFs in
manner or place of articulation.
Chang (2004) investigated Taiwanese EFL learners’ phonological variations
of /‫/ׯ‬ at the beginnings and ends of words. Both the position of /‫/ׯ‬ and the sounds
that preceded and followed it influenced the accuracy of pronunciation. When /‫/ׯ‬ is in
the initial position, pronunciation tends to be more accurate if /‫/ׯ‬ is followed by the
front vowel /‫/گ‬ (as in think) or /æ/ (as in thank), possibly because the articulatory
position of /‫/ׯ‬ is close to that of the front vowels (Ladefoged, 1982). When /‫/ׯ‬ is in
the final position (as in tenth or youth), there is a slight tendency for pronunciation to
be more accurate if /‫/ׯ‬ is preceded by a rounded vowel (produced with rounded lips,
as /u/ in pool), a front vowel (produced with the tongue far forward, as /i/ in key), or a
consonant (Chang). When /‫/ׯ‬ is in the initial position, pronunciation tends to be less
accurate if /‫/ׯ‬ is followed by the rhotacized vowel5
/ɝ/ (as in third) or the consonant
/Ѣ/ (as in three), perhaps because /‫/ׯ‬ followed by /Ѣ/ constitutes a consonant cluster
(O’Grady et al., 2001).
Amount of L1/L2 Use
Language use is an important factor in accurate L2 pronunciation (Flege &
Liu, 2001; Tahta et al., 1981). Flege and Liu examined whether LOR in the United
States is closely related to the speech proficiency of student and nonstudent Chinese
5
A rhotacized vowel is a vowel colored with the sound of an r.

31
ESL learners. The results showed that longer exposure to an English-rich
environment is the key to improving ESL performance. The students had received
considerable English input from teachers and students, and their exposure to English
was substantially more frequent than that of the nonstudents. Consequently, only the
student group showed a significant effect of LOR on English pronunciation, even
though the nonstudents had been in the US for 3.9 to 15.5 years. These results
correspond to Flege’s (1988) finding that LOR has less of an effect on Chinese ESL
learners’ perception and production when the learners receive less English input.
Tahta et al. (1981) studied the transfer of an accent from L1 to English in 54
male and 55 female ESL learners of diverse L1s, including Arabic, Chinese, Dutch,
and French. These researchers conducted multiple regression analysis with accent as
the dependent variable, using a stepwise inclusion of independent variables. They
found that AOL and the use of English at home predicted the accuracy of English
pronunciation in subjects with AOL of 7 to 12 years. AOL explained 28.9 percent of
variability in accurate pronunciation, and the use of English at home explained 25.7
percent. Other factors, such as gender and amount of formal English education, had
much less effect on pronunciation.
Other research has explored the effect of LI use on ESL pronunciation. Flege,
Bohn, and Jang (1997) conducted a quantitative study to examine whether L1 use
influences ESL production accuracy. In their investigation, 10 native speakers of
Canadian English rated the pronunciation accuracy of English sentences spoken by
native Italian speakers with (a) AOL of 5.6 years and a 3 percent use of Italian or (b)
AOL of 5.9 years and a 36 percent use of Italian. All Italian speakers were found to

32
speak English with foreign accents, even though their AOL was in childhood and
their LOR was about 34 years. However, those who spoke Italian frequently on a
daily basis had significantly less accurate English pronunciation than those who
spoke Italian infrequently. These findings challenge the CPH (Flege, 1987;
Lenneberg, 1967; Patkowski, 1990; Scovel, 1969, 1988), which posits that the
younger the AOL, the better the L2 performance.
Flege et al. (1999) also examined the effects of the use of Korean (L1) on the
accuracy of Korean ESL learners’ English pronunciation. The researchers asked the
participants the percentage of the time they used Korean at home, at work, at school,
in social settings, with close friends, and with a spouse. The amount of their use of
Korean significantly impacted the participants’ degree of foreign accent in English.
Those who used English often and Korean seldom had significantly more accurate
English pronunciation than those who used English seldom and Korean often. In sum,
the accuracy of L2 pronunciation seems to positively correlate with L2 use and
negatively correlate with L1 use (Flege, 1988; Flege, Bohn, & Jang, 1997; Flege &
Liu, 2001; Tahta et al., 1981).
Gender
Tahta et al. (1981) found that, in general, female L2 learners had fewer
mispronunciations than male L2 learners; however, gender differences accounted for
only 2.2 percent of the variation in pronunciation accuracy, perhaps because their
AOL was more than 13 years. These results agree with other findings that the effect
of gender on pronunciation varies, depending on AOL and LOR (Asher & Garcia,
1982; Flege et al., 1995b).

33
External Factors
The influence of external factors on ESL pronunciation can, therefore, be
summarized as follows: the earlier individuals (especially students) begin learning
English, the longer they stay in an English-speaking environment, and the more they
use English on a daily basis, the better their chances of achieving accurate English
pronunciation, provided that their AOL is no later than puberty. ESL learners who
study in the United States and have AOL before puberty differ in the accuracy of their
perception and production of English target sounds, depending on their LOR.
Phonological Factors
Along with external factors, internal factors (phonological environments)
influence L2 pronunciation (Bailey, 1973; Bayley, 1994; Carlisle, 1991; Chang, 2004;
Dickerson, 1975; Dickerson & Dickerson, 1977; Gatbonton, 1978; Ladefoged, 1982;
Parucci, 1983; Plevyak, 1982). How do phonological environments, including the
location of target sounds and their phonological surround, affect L2 pronunciation?
As previously discussed, Chang (2004) found that phonological environment
influences Taiwanese EFL learners’ production of /‫./ׯ‬ And Carlisle (1991)
investigated epenthesis by Spanish ESL speakers. Many Spanish words begin with
/esC/, such as escuela. Therefore, Spanish speakers tend to insert /e/ in front of
English words that begin with /s/. For example, they pronounce snow as /esno/. So
there is a transfer of this pronunciation from L1 to L2.
In a study of 8 native English speakers, Parucci (1983) examined devoicing in
terms of two variables: place of articulation of a stop (a consonant sound, such as /b/,
/d/, /k/, /p/, or /t/, produced by stopping air flow to the vocal tract) and the preceding

34
vowel. Analyzing 360 CVC (consonant-vowel-consonant) syllables in which vowels
of different heights preceded final stops, she measured the duration of consonantal
closure and voicing. Parucci found that the velar stop /g/ was less voiced than other
voiced stops. A stop’s place of articulation affected devoicing.
Moreover, EFL/ESL pronunciation strongly depends on a target sound’s
location within a syllable (Bailey, 1973; Bayley, 1994; Bebee, 1987; Carlisle, 1991;
Chang, 2004; Dickerson, 1975; Dickerson & Dickerson, 1977; Gatbonton, 1978;
Ladefoged, 1982; Parucci, 1983; Plevyak, 1982). Eckman and Iverson (1994) found
that ESL speakers whose native language is Cantonese, Japanese, or Korean generally
have more trouble with relatively marked coda obstruents than with coda sonorants.6
(In contrast to obstruents, sonorants are produced without turbulent air flow; they
include some consonant sounds, such as /l/ and /m/, and all vowel sounds.) Problems
are most likely to occur in codas because they tend to be more restricted than onsets.
Therefore, mastery of a target sound in an onset position does not guarantee mastery
of that sound in a coda (Flege, 1989). For this reason, research on ESL pronunciation
should focus more on final position, which poses special difficulties, than on initial or
medial position (Eckman & Iverson).
The Relationship between ESL Perception and Production
A number of studies have investigated the relationship between vowel
perception and production by L2 learners (Altenberg, 2005; Baker & Trofimovich,
2006; Bettoni-Techio et al., 2007; Chang et al., 2007; Flege, Bohn, & Jang, 1997; Jia
et al., 2006). Chang et al. examined whether native speakers of Taiwanese Mandarin
6
Sonorants include approximants (e.g,. /l/ in line, /Ѣ/ in room), nasal consonants (e.g., /n/ in no, /m/ in
mill), taps (e.g., /‫/ש‬ in city /s‫שگ‬i/), and trills (not found in English).

35
who are learning ESL perceive an illusory /ə/ in English consonant clusters. In tests
of identification, discrimination, and production, 28 participants were asked to
determine whether each of 144 English words was CəCV or CCV. Twenty
participants (88.5 percent) correctly distinguished CəCV from CCV in the three tests;
the other 8 averaged only 61.1 percent correctness. Poor perception of the distinction
correlated with poor vowel production.
As research shows, there is a positive correlation between ESL learners’
perception and their production of English vowels. Flege, Bohn, and Jang (1997)
tested perception and production of the English vowels /‫گ‬ i ϯ æ/ by ESL learners
whose native languages were German, Korean, Mandarin, or Spanish. Flege et al.
learned that accurate perception positively correlated with accurate production.
Comparable results regarding the perception and production of English vowels have
been reported for ESL learners whose native languages are Korean (Baker &
Trofimovich, 2006), Mainland Mandarin (Jia et al., 2006), or Taiwanese Mandarin
(Chang et al., 2007).
However, research on ESL learners’ perception and production of English
consonants is scarce and somewhat contradictory. As previously mentioned, Bettoni-
Techio et al. (2007) examined perception and production of /d/ and /t/ by EFL
learners whose native language was Brazilian Portuguese. The researchers found a
positive correlation between their accuracy of perception and their production. In
contrast, Altenberg (2005) found no significant correlation between perception and
production with regard to Spanish ESL learners’ mastery of initial consonant clusters.

36
Using two word lists, Tench (2003) tested Korean speakers’ ESL perception
and production of English vowels and consonants. The 20 participants (17 men and 3
women) were enrolled in higher-education courses in the United Kingdom. They had
difficulty perceiving and producing the tense vowel /i/ and the lax vowels /‫/گ‬ and /Ѩ/,
and they often failed to distinguish /Ѩ/ from /u/. Both perceptually and in terms of
production, the participants often confused /ᾩ/ with /d/ and confused /‫/ׯ‬ with /s/,
probably because Korean lacks IFs. Although the participants had trouble producing
/d, g, k/, they had no trouble perceiving these sounds. Clearly, receptive and
productive ESL phonological competence can differ; accurate perception does not
guarantee accurate production.
In short, the relationship between ESL speech perception and production is
not clear cut but depends on a variety of variables, such as the particular vowels or
consonants involved and the learner’s native language. Scant research has analyzed
the patterns of correlation between ESL perception and production based on factors
such as learners’ AOL, LOR, and degree of English proficiency. To my knowledge,
no study has examined the relationship between ESL perception and production of
English IFs in terms of different LORs. Therefore, this area needed investigation.
Chinese Speakers’ Difficulties with English Pronunciation
Chinese and English differ greatly in phonology (O’Grady et al., 2001). For
this reason, Chinese ESL speakers often employ phonological substitutions. As
previously noted, IFs exist in English but not in Chinese (Zeitoun & Yu, 2005).
Consequently, Chinese speakers commonly mispronounce /‫/ׯ‬ as [s] and /ᾩ/ as [l]
(Cheng, 1998; Ing, 1988). Similarly, because Chinese lacks a distinction between lax

37
and tense vowels, Chinese speakers often confuse the two types—for example,
confuse /‫/گ‬ and /i/ (Flege, Bohn, & Jang, 1997). Chinese speakers also tend to shorten
English diphthongs to a single vowel sound because Chinese diphthongs are produced
more quickly (Chang. 1987).
Epenthesis is another common ESL mispronunciation. Because of Chinese
syllabic structure, Chinese ESL learners often insert a spurious vowel into a
consonant cluster (Chang et al., 2007). For example, they pronounce “blow” (/blo/) as
“below” (/bəlo/). They might also add a vowel sound after a consonant at the end of a
word—for instance, pronounce “light” (/lajt/) as “lighta” (lajtђ) (Eckman, 1981; Ing,
1988).
The third common type of ESL mispronunciation is deletion. Chinese ESL
learners often delete a syllable’s final stop; for example, they say /s‫/گ‬ rather than /s‫گ‬t/
(Ing, 1988). Also, they are often unable to produce sufficient contrast between
English /d/ and /t/ at the ends of words, due to language transfer (Flege, 1989; Lado,
1957).
Synopsis of Previous Research on L2 Pronunciation and Pertinence of the
Current Study
Bettoni-Techio et al. (2007) investigated how EFL learners whose native
language is Brazilian Portuguese perceive and produce the stops /d/ and /t/ at the ends
of English words. The test materials comprised 240 topically unrelated, randomly
ordered short sentences containing words ending in /d/ or /t/. The sounds that
preceded and followed the stops included consonants as well as vowels and front,
back, rounded, unrounded, closed and open sounds. The consonants that followed

38
target sounds also varied in place and manner of articulation. The researchers found
that the phonological environments of target sounds significantly affected how those
sounds were pronounced.
To determine the relationship between ESL learners’ vowel perception and
production, Baker and Trofimovich (2006) manipulated the sounds surrounding the
target vowels /i ‫گ‬ u Ѩ æ ϯ/. The English sounds /b/ and /h/ have the least
coarticulation effect on the vowels that follow them (Olive, Greenwood, & Coleman,
1993). Therefore, to minimize the coarticulation effects, Baker and Trofimovich
placed the study’s target vowels within 18 monosyllabic words beginning with /b/ or
/h/. Other studies have examined how Chinese (Chen et al., 2001) and Japanese and
Korean (Ingram & Park, 1997) ESL learners perceive and produce tense and lax
vowels within words that begin with /h/. As such studies have demonstrated,
investigations of ESL pronunciation should examine target sounds in light of diverse
phonological surrounds and employ test instruments that control for coarticulation
effects (Baker & Trofimovich; Bettoni-Techio et al., 2007; Ingram & Park).
Easily confounded with other factors such as AOL (Flege, 1987, 1998), LOR
may or may not influence L2 pronunciation (Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al.,
1999; Moyer, 1999; Tahta et al., 1981; Thompson, 1991). To date, LOR’s influence is
unknown in situations in which AOL is younger than 12 years. Previous studies have
shown that the accuracy of English pronunciation significantly differs between ESL
learners with a LOR of less than one year and those with a LOR of greater than seven
years (Flege & Fletcher; Flege, 1997). However, no study has examined the accuracy
of English IFs in terms of LORs of three and four years.

39
A number of studies have examined substitutions for IFs (Akande, 2005;
Bada, 2001; Chan & Li, 2000; Chang, 2004; Cheng, 1998; Gonet & Pietron, 2005;
Ing, 1988; Jenkins et al., 2001; Lado, 1957; Nemser, 1971; Tench, 2003; Weinreich,
1953; Weinberger, 1990; Wester et al., 2007). Chang and Ing have reported that
Taiwanese EFL learners substitute [s] for /‫/ׯ‬ in initial and final positions and [l] for
/ᾩ/ in the initial position. However, no research has examined substitutions for /ᾩ/ in
the final position. Also, Chang’s and Ing’s subjects were EFL, not ESL, learners.
Chang found that the phonological environment affects Taiwanese speakers’
pronunciation of /‫./ׯ‬ However, it is unknown whether such speakers consistently
substitute one or more particular sounds for /ᾩ/ and how the phonological
environment affects the accuracy of /ᾩ/. Further, to my knowledge no study has
investigated Taiwanese ESL learners’ phonological variations of /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ in terms
of (a) perception and production and (b) phonological environments.
Carlisle (1991) has noted the possible effect of markedness on target variants.
However, scant research has investigated phonological variations in the perception
and production of /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ in terms of markedness.
In most studies of L2 perception and production, the participants have
completed the perception task before the production task. This order of testing may
sensitize subjects to the sounds of particular interest to the researchers and therefore
bias results (Altenberg, 2005; Baker & Trofimovich, 2006; Jia et al., 2006). To avoid
this, the participants in the present study completed the production task before the
perception task.

40
Also, the test instruments usually have lacked distracters (e.g., Baker &
Trofimovich, 2006). Including distracters in perception and production tasks helps to
ensure that the participants do not know which sounds are the focus of the study.
Distracters increase the test instruments’ validity and reliability (Mackey & Gass,
2005). Therefore, the instruments of the present study included distracters in both the
perception and the production tasks.
Most of the relevant studies have investigated English sounds in isolated
words rather than in words in context (Chang et al., 2007; Flege, 1989; Flege, 1993;
Ingram & Park, 1997). The present study determined whether results differ between
these two forms of word presentation. Patkowski (1990) recommends using both
forms because (a) the use of a word list clearly indicates a focus on phonological
issues and (b) examining sounds within the context of reading text provides a more
natural environment. Subjects who read a word list are more likely to be self-
conscious about their pronunciation and therefore pronounce words unnaturally. Also,
a word list does not allow for the effects of surrounding words.
The present study was unique in examining Taiwanese ESL learners’
perception and production of IFs in relation to LOR in the United States. According
to the existing literature, the effect of LOR largely depends on AOL and the amount
of L2 use. The present study’s target participants were US students who had begun
learning English before age 12. The study also examined their perception and
production of IFs in terms of their phonological environments. It investigated the
effects of the IF location within a word (beginning or end) and of surrounding sounds
(diverse vowels and consonants articulated in different ways and places). The results

41
revealed which locations and surrounding sounds most challenge learners of different
LORs.

42
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present chapter describes the methodology of the study, which employed
correlational and descriptive data analyses. More specifically, the present research fit
the category of retrospective cohort studies since the participants were selected on the
basis of the independent variable, LOR (Kirk, 1995). This chapter also introduces the
following components: research problems, research questions, variables, research
participants, research instruments, procedures, coding, and data analysis.
Research Problems
The focus of this study was to examine and compare the patterns of
relationship between the perception and production of English interdental fricatives
within three groups of Taiwanese ESL learners: those with a LOR of less than one
year, three to four years, and seven or more years. The study also examined the types
of errors and their environments within each group of LOR.
Research Questions
The research questions below guided this investigation. The questions are
specified in light of correlational and descriptive parts.
Correlational Analyses:
Question 1: How does the relationship between Taiwanese L2 learners’
perception and production of English IFs differ in relation to
LOR in the United States?
Question 2: a) Is there a significant relationship between LOR and errors in
perception?

43
b) Is there a significant relationship between LOR and errors in
production?
Descriptive Analyses:
Question 3: a) What are the types and patterns of errors?
b) When these ESL learners mispronounce a sound, what
phonological processes are involved in the mispronunciations?
Variables
This section discusses the variables used for the correlational analyses in this
study.
Independent Variables
Flege (1988a) found no effect of LOR on speech accuracy between 1.1 years
and 5.1 years in Taiwanese adult English learners; however, Flege and Fletcher
(1992) did find an effect of LOR on L2 learners’ vowel accuracy, including Chinese
speakers between less than one year and more than seven years. Therefore, the
relation of LOR to speech accuracy may be much stronger even if the range of LOR
among three groups differs greatly.
Based on this assumption, in this study, the LOR for the group with the least
exposure to English was defined as less than one year, and the other group with the
most exposure to English was targeted as at least seven years or more. Since there is a
gap between one and seven years that has not been compared with a LOR of less than
one year and a LOR of at least seven years or more, the LOR for another group was
operationalized in the middle time frame (three to four years) in order to see how
each possible relationship between perception and production differs based on

44
different ranges of LOR. Hence, generalization to learners with a LOR between one
and two years as well as between five and six years was not appropriate. This is how
LOR was operationalized in the proposed study.
The interest in this study is the relationship between perception and
production within LOR without focusing on a specific critical LOR. Therefore, the
study was unable to examine when exactly the effect began to be observed since there
were LOR gaps between the groups.
LOR was the one independent variable presented in this study and included
three levels: less than one year, between three and four years, at least seven years or
more. The scale of measurement for LOR is nominal. In the existing literature, the
ranges of LOR were operationalized with an arbitrary decision based on the
individual researcher’s focus (Baker & Trofimovich, 2006; Flege, 1988; Flege &
Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al., 1997a; Jia et al., 2006). Similar to the previously
mentioned studies, the operationalization of LOR in this study was also an arbitrary
selection of three time periods.
Operationalization of the Constructs of Perception and Production
The constructs of perception and production were measured through the
examination of the target sounds /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/. These sounds are predictably difficult for
Taiwanese learners based on the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Lado, 1957) and
the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman, 1977), which indicate that L2
sounds that do not exist in L1 are difficult to acquire. These sounds can be considered
more marked sounds than less marked sounds, which exist in both L1 and L2. In
short, perception and production were measured through mispronunciation errors of

45
the target sounds. Thus, two scores were calculated with sound as the variable in
correlational analysis.
Variables by Research Questions
Question 1 – There were two quantitative variables related to question 1 that
were calculated as the total Mean scores for perception errors (misperceptions) and
production errors (mispronunciations) for the English IFs /‫/ׯ‬ and /ᾩ/ in initial and
final positions both in word list and in context.
Question 2 – The variables in question 2 were calculated as the total mean
scores of mispronunciations and misperceptions of the IFs. The maximum score for
the production task was 20, and minimum score was 0. On the other hand, the
maximum score for the perception task was 12, and minimum score was 0. For both
tasks, gaining one point indicated one error, and gaining zero meant no error. Since
these variables were calculated on a different scale, the total Mean scores for each
task were divided by the number of items in the two tasks, respectively 20 and 12, in
order to make it possible to compare the two means in dependent t-test analyses.
Thus, the transformed scores for the perception and production tasks yielded a
maximum of 1 and a minimum of 0.
Question 3 –The study also incorporated an open-ended descriptive analysis
of the participants' perception and production errors. Specifically, types of errors were
categorized and tabulated according to phonetic substitutions or deletions of the target
sounds in initial and final positions for each of the two contexts, word list and
passage. Another point was whether the errors were specific to the level of the
independent variable, LOR, in both perception and production tasks. In the perception

46
task, the types of errors were displayed as bar graphs so that there were four
dependent variables, which included errors in the initial and final positions for both
target sounds. In the production task, there were eight dependent variables indicating
that two target sounds occurred in two sources (word list and text) in two syllable-
positions (initial and final). The bar graphs displayed the three independent variables:
LOR less than one year, LOR between three and four years, and LOR at least seven
years. Therefore, the numbers of types of errors in each group in terms of two sources
(word list and passage) and two locations (initial and end) were represented in
different bar graphs or tables. In addition, the phonological processes for the errors
were revealed by using auditory and spectrographic sound analyses (Akande, 2005;
Altenberg, 2005; Baker & Trofimovich, 2006; Chang, 2004; Chang et al., 2007;
Goner & Pietron, 2005; Jia et al., 2006; Wester et al., 2007). The errors made by the
participants were categorized into different types, including substitutions (target
sounds replaced by other similar sounds) and deletion (target sounds not pronounced
by the speakers or any process whereby sounds are left out of words). The
surrounding phonological environments of each type of error, including preceding or
following vowels and consonants and the degree of markedness as well as the sounds’
locations, were taken into account for further explanations of the target variants. The
results of the study are presented in Chapter 4.
Participants
According to Flege and Liu (2001), a longer LOR with an input-rich L2
environment tends to benefit L2 pronunciation. Therefore, the target participants were
Taiwanese ESL graduate or undergraduate students. Since they are constantly in an

47
English language environment on a daily basis, they get considerable L2 input. The
participants in this study did not include linguistic majors and TESOL students since
their relative background knowledge could have biased the results.
In the existing literature on second language pronunciation acquisition, the
number of subjects in most studies was 20 to 30 (Altenberg, 2005; Bettoni-Techio et
al., 2007; Chang, 2004; Chang et al., 2007; Flege, 1989; Flege & Fletcher, 1992;
Wang, 2007; Wester et al., 2007). More specifically, among these studies, Wang
(2007) examined the effect of LOR on the degree of foreign accent with a total of 10
subjects in two groups. In addition, in, Questionnaires in Second Language Research:
Construction, Administration, and Processing, the author Dörnyei (2003) discussed
sample size in SLA studies and cited Hatch and Lazaraton (1991) as indicating that in
second language research the sample should include at least 30 people. However,
smaller sample sizes can be compensated for by using certain special statistical
procedures.
Based on these recommendations, the total number of subjects in this study
was 36 participants falling into three groups: 12 (LOR < one year), 12 (LOR= three to
four years), and 12 (LOR ≥ seven years). They were selected with 6 males and 6
female learners in each group. The age range of the participants was from 20 to 35
with their level of English proficiency at either the intermediate or advanced level.
The amount of the participants’ L2 use on a daily basis was at least 50 percent based
on their responses to a demographic questionnaire. The criteria to determine whether
the participants were intermediate or advanced learners were based on their English
proficiency in their TOEFL scores. These levels are set by the Educational Testing

48
Service (ETS) (See Table 3). In addition, the participants had studied formal English
in Taiwan for at least six years according to the English education requirements for
their generation. Next, the prospective participants were among the generation of L2
learners whose onset of English learning had been between 7 and 12 years of age.
Last, the participants’ amount of L2 use was indicated in their questionnaires. On the
basis of the information they provided in the demographic questionnaires, the target
subjects were filtered, selected, and grouped.
Table 3
TOEFL Scores and Levels of Proficiency
TOEFL Tests
Levels
TOEFL Paper-
based Test (PBT)
TOEFL Computer-
based Test (CBT)
TOEFL Internet-
based Test (IBT)
Beginner 513-549 183-212 65-78
Intermediate 550-689 213-242 79-95
Advanced 690-697 243-300 96-120
Research Instruments and Methods for the Study
This section describes the methods used in other L2 pronunciation studies,
those used in this study, the pilot study for this research, and the procedures for
collecting the data in the main study.

49
Techniques Used in Previous L2 Research
The most commonly used technique to investigate L2 pronunciation is to have
subjects read passages that include words in context and words in isolation (Akande,
2005; Bada, 2001; Chang, 2004; Flege, 1988; Gonet & Pietron, 1982; Tech, 2003).
Several researchers, especially those who examined a foreign accent, asked their
research participants to talk about their personal experience or describe pictures in
order to elicit free L2 speech (Flege, 1988; Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al.,
1995b; Wang, 2007).
Patkowski (1990) outlined somes important points regarding the validity of
the instrument used in research on pronunciation and accent. For example,
phonological variations through reading passages can manipulate the phonological
environments including syllable-position and the surrounding sounds that assist with
discovering the types and patterns of the target variants. In other words, reading
passages benefits the investigation of phonological variants in L2 pronunciation. On
the contrary, a free L2 speech sample provides a natural context for observing an
accent, but may be problematic for research in L2 pronunciation because the
participants may avoid producing certain difficult L2 sounds in specific words
through free speech (natural phenomenon). In this case, certain target sounds, which
the researchers are interested in, may not be fully elicited in the data collection. Thus,
in light of the measurement recommended by research on L2 pronunciation, reading
passages appears to be one of the best ways to measure L2 mispronunciation.
For instance, studies regarding variation in Mandarin Chinese syllable
simplification have shown that Mandarin Chinese speakers employed epenthesis to

50
simplify English syllable structure (Eckman, 1981) or employed epenthesis and
deletion to simplify English syllables (Heyer, 1986; Weinberger, 1987). The
instruments used in those studies all involved word list reading and paragraph
reading. The results also imply that word list reading elicits fewer deletions, whereas
paragraph reading leads to more deletions.
More specifically, in the investigation of the English IFs, many researchers
have examined the pronunciation of these target sounds mainly through a list of
words or with some phrases or sentences (Barros, 2003; Gonet & Pietron, 1982; Tech,
2003). A few studies prepared a text or sentences, including the target sounds /‫/ׯ‬ and
/ᾩ/ that the participants read in order to examine their mispronunciations (Akande,
2005; Bada, 2001). However, it has been rare for previous studies to use both word
list and context together to examine the accuracy of the subjects’ IFs. Therefore,
using both a word list and context increases the validity of the instrument in
phonological research (Dickerson; 1975; Eckman, 1981; Heyer, 1986; Weinberger,
1987). It has been shown that the testing situation plays an important role in
determining the syllable simplification strategy that word list reading elicits and
fewer deletions, whereas a context-rich task leads to more deletions (Weinberger).
Therefore, in order to increase the validity of the instruments in the present study, the
research instruments would involve both words in isolation and words in context.
Research Instruments in the Present Study
The research instruments for this study included demographic questionnaires,
production task, and perception task. I developed these instruments in consultation
with an expert in phonetics and phonology and a specialist in research methods. The

51
instruments were pilot tested with a small sample of Taiwanese ESL students, that is
nine people; hence three in each group, to confirm the instruments’ validity and
reliability. The participants in the pilot study were not involved in the main study.
The Pilot Study
Nine Taiwanese ESL learners, three for each group, were asked to complete
the perception and production tasks on two different occasions. The time delay
between the first and the second occasions was four weeks, which is a good interval
for testing the reliability of the research instruments (Kirk, 1995). The pilot study
yielded consistent results in that all of the participants gained the same score for each
task on two different occasions (See Table 4). Therefore, the reliability was double-
confirmed based on the results of the pilot study.
Table 4
Consistent Results of the Pilot Study
Perception Task
Score Range (# of errors): 0-
12
Production Task
Score Range (# of errors): 0-20
Subjects
Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2
S1 (LOR< 1) 8 8 20 20
S2 (LOR< 1) 8 8 8 8
S3 (LOR< 1) 8 8 5 5
S4 (LOR= 3-4) 6 6 6 6
S5 (LOR= 3-4) 7 7 5 5
S6 (LOR= 3-4) 6 6 5 5
S7 (LOR ≥ 7) 6 6 3 3
S8 (LOR≥ 7) 5 5 2 2
S9 (LOR≥ 7) 5 5 4 4

Pron 8

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Pron 8

Similar to Pron 8 (20)

More from Walaa Abdelnaby

More from Walaa Abdelnaby (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Pron 8