1. Developmental Progression in Interlanguage Fu-hsing Su Department of Foreign Languages National Chiayi University, Taiwan

2. Influences on an Interlanguage Grammar (Archibald, 1997, p. 504) Interlanguage Grammar L1L2

3. Selinker (1972: 214) IL is “a separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from a learner’s attempted production of a TL norm.”

4. Archibald (1997: 504 ) “…second language learners have a systematic interlanguage (IL) grammar--so-called because it is influenced by both the first and the second language and has features of each.”

5. Gradual separation of two languages (Gawlitzek-Maiwald & Tracy, 1996) Time A One lexicon, one syntax, no translation equivalents syntax Time B Differentiation of lexicon, acquisition of equivalents, one syntax Time C Two systems

6. Three types of errors (Richards, 1974) 1.interference errors--caused by the structure of the native language Ex: (L1 Spanish speakers of L2 English: (I) no speak English 2. intra-lingual errors--originating in the structure of the TL Ex: dummy do for question formation in L2 English: Did he talked)

7. Three types of errors (Richards, 1974) 3. developmental errors--reflecting the strategies employed to acquire the TL Ex. is as a present tense marker in L2 English: She is speaks Japanese).

8. Error patterns predicted by the Ontogeny Model (Archibald, 1997, p. 506) Number of errors Time Transfer Time Development Number of errors

9. Intra-lingual or interference errors of Chinese learners of English (Schachter & Celce-Murcia, 1977) (a) There are so many Taiwan people * live around the lake. (b) …and there is a mountain * separate two lakes. The topic-comment analysis would constitute an interference error caused by the structure of Chinese, the native language

10. Corder (1967:167) “[Errors] provide evidence of the system of the language that he is using (i.e. has learned) at a particular point…”

11. Selinker (1972:221) on fossilization “Many IL linguistic structures are never really eradicated for most second language learners; manifestations of these structures regularly reappear in IL productive performance, especially under conditions of anxiety, shifting attention, and second language performance on subject matter which is new to the learner.”

12. Ellis (1982:20) “The systematicity of interlanguage can only be adequately described in terms of variable rules which capture the context-dependency of the learner’s use of his internalized grammar.”

14. Interlingual Identifications Mechanism (Selinker, 1972) Interlingual Identifications Mechanism native language target language interlanguage

15. Related Literature Variety and difficulty in processing syllables--the syllable as a very vague notion: Gussmann (2002) Examples of sound replacement: Bybee (2001) 1. nasalized vowels  *non-nasalized 2. front rounded vowels  *front unrounded 3. fricatives  *stops

16. Related Literature Factors influencing syllabic awareness and sensitivity 1. Distribution of stress pattern (heavy vs. light syllables) --heavy syllables: CV, CVV, CVC, CVVC, or CVCC etc.) --change of vowel value or duration (e.g., bit vs. bee and beat)

17. Related Literature Influencing factors 1. Pattern of phonotactic distribution --constituent parts of a broken word should form individual syllables (mo-ther but not *mot-her) [Gussmann, 2002] --syllables can be broken into smaller units of onsets, rhymes, and phonemes [Treiman & Chafetz, 1987]

18. Related Literature Influencing factors 1. Pattern of phonotactic distribution --constituent parts of a broken word should form individual syllables (mo-ther but not *mot-her) [Gussmann, 2002] --syllables can be broken into smaller units of onsets, rhymes, and phonemes [Treiman & Chafetz, 1987]

19. Components of syllable Syllable Onset Nucleus Rime Coda kip

20. Methods Subjects Two classes of 62 school children from a city area in southern Taiwan Instrument --The Syllable Doubling Task (SDT) --A modified adaptation of Fallows (1981)

21. Instrument --It contained bisyllabic stimuli (Part 1) and trisyllabic stimuli (Part 2), 20 items in each -It required first and final syllable doubling

22. Instrument Sequence of first syllable doubling S1+S2  S1S1+S2, e.g., a.long  a.a.long S1+S2+S3  S1S1+S2+S3, e.g., e.le.ven  e.e.le.ven Sequence of final syllable doubling S1+S2  S1+S2S2, e.g., so.fa  sofa.fa S1+S2+S3  S1+S2+S3S3, e.g., um.bre.lla  um.bre.lla.lla

23. Data Analysis Quantitative analyses --descriptive statistics and a pair- samples t-test Qualitative analyses --intended to pinpoint their strength and weakness in processing items with different featuristic displays

24. Results A. Findings of quantitative analyses Descriptive statistics of SDT performance _________________________________________________________________________ M SD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Part 1 (bisyllabic items) 13.81 3.24 Part 2 (trisyllabic items) 13.48 3.26 __________________________________________________________________________ t = 0.91, p>.05

25. Results B. Findings of qualitative analyses 1.Relative success in processing items with/without clear syllabic boundary --bisyllabic items (63.14% as compared to 53.76% ) --trisyllabic items (61.70% as compared to 34.31% )

26. Results B. Findings of qualitative analyses 2.Relative success in processing items with different degrees of structural complexity --In Part 1: high correct percentage for finish (67.74%), decide (75.81%), July (83.87%) [overall % of 72.26]

27. Results B. Findings of qualitative analyses --In Part 2: high correct percentage for potato (70.97%), believer (59.68%), furniture (61.29%), holiday and telephone (87.10%) [overall % of 71.78 ]

28. Results B. Findings of qualitative analyses 4.Tendency to make sound omission, reduction, or substitution --deletion of syllable-final obstruents or nasals: invite, repeat, unlike, decide, and include, diamond include, along, disgusting, etc.

29. Results B. Findings of qualitative analyses --widespread problem of replacement: [r] for [v] in invite, [  ] or [t] for [  ] in courage, [  ] for [  ] in money, unlike, customer, etc.

30. Conclusion and Discussion The subjects’ syllabification behaviors varied due to the influence of of syllable-internal factors (syllable weight, ambisyllabicity, structural complexity) The study speaks against the widely believed easiness in processing English syllables by native speakers

31. Conclusion and Discussion A need to work with a greater variety of Chinese-speaking children to test the generalizability of the present findings A dire necessity to design different English syllable measures

32. Questions? Comments