| Summary: | 碩士 === 南臺科技大學 === 應用英語系 === 105 === This research aims to explore vowel qualities of (L1) Mandarin and (L2) English for interference between English major and non- English major students. Moreover, we examine the result theoretically by CAH (Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis), MDH (Markedness Differential Hypothesis), and SLM (Speech Learning Model) for a better account for the acquisition of L2 vowels. To reach the goal of the study, 100 students(20 males and 80 females) in English department and 100(60 males and 40 females) in non-English department were recruited. They were asked to read word lists of 8 Mandarin vowels (/i,ǐ, e, a, o, u, ü ǝ /), and 11 English vowels(/i, u, e, ǝ, o, a, ɪ, ʊ, æ, ɛ, ɔ /) in a quiet environment. Their articulations were recorded and analyzed by Praat software. The output data characterizes the features of sounds by demonstrating in F1 (tongue height), and F2 (tongue advancement).
Primary findings for (A) similarities and differences are (1) non-English major students had lower and less advanced tongue position than the English major ones in general while uttering L1, L2 vowels. (2) The female formed bigger oral space than the male. Females’ tongue placed more advanced and higher. (3) English major students resembled the norm more than non-English major students. (4) Comparatively, female from English major had the highest similarity with the norm in produced the vowels, the female from non-English major next, the male from English major after, and the male from non-English major the lowest. (B) From the aspect of language transfer, (1) both group students’ vowel acquisition of L2 were strong influenced by L1. (2) English major students had been affected more than non-English major ones. (3) There’s negative transfer in vowel (/o/, /u/) acquisition while the vowel (/a/, /i/, /e/) showed positive from both groups. (C) Theories reflected showed that (1) Male’s utterance of /i/, /e/ in both groups was farther than /ɪ/, /æ/ and /ɛ/ comparing with Norm. (2)The English correspondences like /ɔ, o/, /u, ʊ/ were too closed that caused confusing in the pronunciation of both groups. (3) Comparatively, the performance of /a/ is not resembled to that of native speakers. (4) Among three hypothesis, CAH and MDH provided better prediction and explanation than the SLM.
|
|---|
