This research examined how Thai undergraduates acquired English marked and unmarked fricatives in their interlanguage. It also determined what sounds the learners used to replace some fricatives and how variable they were. Based on the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH), unmarked fricatives are /s/ and /f/, and marked ones are /ʃ/, /v/, /z/, /θ/, /ð/, and /ʒ/. The former are considered unmarked because they are available in Thai, whereas the latter are not. The participants included three groups: high, intermediate, and low proficiency students who were studied through three types of tasks: word list, sentence list, and oral interview. The word and sentence lists required the learners to produce the target fricatives in a formal situation, while the oral interview in a natural context. The results demonstrated that marked fricatives /v/, /z/, /θ/, /ð/, and /ʒ/ were difficult for the participants. Only the advanced informants could acquire unmarked /s/ and /f/ as well as marked /ʃ/ both initially and finally. According to the MDH, the learners produced /s/, /f/, and /ʃ/ before marked /v/, /z/, /θ/, /ð/, and /ʒ/. They also appeared to produce various substitutions for the problematic sounds. Plausible explanations to account for the Thai learners’ difficulty of English fricatives involve the first language (L1) transfer, distribution of a particular sound, voicing, systematic variability, and design of a task. In pronunciation classes, teachers or educators may design tasks appropriate for their learners and employ strategies that suit their learning style preferences.   

 

Keywords: English fricatives; interlanguage; L2 phonology; markedness; variability

 

DOI: http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2301-02

Abd Ghani, A. (1995). Variability in interlanguage phonology of Malaysian learners of English. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leeds, UK.

Al-Abdely, A. & Yap, N. T. (2016). Learning English vowels by Iraqi EFL learners: perceived difficulty versus actual performance. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. Vol. 22(1), 1-18.

Andersen, R. (1978). An implication model for second language research. Language Learning. Vol. 28, 221-281.

Anderson, J. (1987). The markedness differential hypothesis and syllable structure difficulty. In G. Ioup & W. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage Phonology: The Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System (pp. 279-291). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Bada, E. (2001). Native language influence on the production of English sounds by Japanese learners. The Reading Matrix. Vol. 1(2), 1-15.

Beebe, L. (1980). Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning. Vol. 30(2), 433-447.

Bidabadi, F. S. & Yamat, H. (2012). The relationship between English listening proficiency levels and learning styles. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. Vol. 12(4), 1041-1055.

Carlisle, R. S. (2006). The sonority cycle and the acquisition of complex onsets. In B.O. Baptista & M.A. Watkins (Eds.), English with a Latin Beat: Studies in Portuguese/Spanish-English Interphonology (pp. 105-137). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Chan, A. Y. W. (2010). An investigation into Cantonese ESL learners’ acquisition of English initial consonant clusters. Linguistics. Vol. 48(1), 99-141.

Chen, H. C. & Wang, Q. (2016). The effects of Chinese learners’ English acoustic-prosodic patterns on listeners’ attitudinal judgments. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. Vol. 22(2), 91-108.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Chunsuvimol, B. & Ronnakiat, N. (2001). (v) is really a problem sound for Thai speakers. Thammasat Review. Vol. 2(1), 177-195.

Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. IRAL. Vol. 9, 147-159.

Davidson, L. (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: Influences on the production of non-native sequences: Journal of Phonetics. Vol. 34(1), 104-137.

Denes, P. B. (1963). On the statistics of spoken English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Vol. 35, 892-904.

Dickerson, L. (1975). The learner’s interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 9(4), 401-407.

Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning. Vol. 27, 315-330.

Eckman, F. R. (1981a). On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 4, 18-30.

Eckman, F. R. (1981b). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning. Vol. 31(1), 195-216.

Eckman, F. R. (1991). The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 13, 23-41.

Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 6(2), 118-131.

Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 233-277). Baltimore: York Press.

Gimson, A. C. (1962). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London: Edward Arnold.

Hansen, J. G. (2004). Developmental sequences in the acquisition of English L2 syllable codas: A preliminary study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 26, 85-124.

Hecht, B. F. & Mulford, R. (1982). The acquisition of a second language phonology: Interaction of transfer and developmental factors. Applied Psycholinguistics. Vol. 3, 313-328.

Isarankura, S. (2015). Using the audio-articulation method to improve EFL learners’ pronunciation of the English /v/ sound. Thammasat Review. Vol. 18(2), 116-137.

Jehma, H. & Phoocharoensil, S. (2014). L1 Transfer in the production of fricatives and stops by Pattani-Malay learners of English in Thailand. Asian Social Science. Vol. 10(7), 67-78.

Kanokpermpoon, M. (2007). Thai and English consonantal sounds: A problem or a potential for EFL learning? ABAC Journal. Vol. 27(1), 57-66.

Kawahara, S. (2005). Voicing and geminacy in Japanese: An acoustic and perceptual study. In K. Flack & S. Kawahara (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 31: Papers in Experimental Phonetics and Phonology (pp. 87-120). Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association Publications.

Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Major, R. (1987). A model of interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & W. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage Phonology: The Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System (pp. 101-124). Cambridge, Mass: Newbury House.

Mousa, A. (2015). Acquisition of the alveo-palatal fricative /ʒ/ in L2 English and Jamaican Creole: A comparative study. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. Vol. 5, 238-249.

Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. IRAL. Vol. 9, 115-124.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language Learning Styles and Strategies. Mouton de Gruyter.

Roach, P. (2009). English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scarcella, R. C. & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 10(3), 209-231.

Shahidi, A. H., Aman, R., & Kechot, A. S. (2012). Production and perception of English word final stops by Malay speakers. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. Vol. 12(4),

-1125.

Song, L. (2012). On the variability of interlanguage. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Vol. 2(4), 778-783.

Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning. Vol. 29(1), 181-191.

Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 4(2), 142-164.

Thep-Ackrapong, T. (2005). Teaching English in Thailand: An uphill battle. MANUTSAT PARITAT: Journal of Humanities. Vol. 27(1), 51-62.