The Acquisition of English Word-Final Consonants

by Cantonese ESL Learners in Hong Kong

ALICE Y.W. CHAN

City University of Hong Kong

1. INTRODUCTION

The role that one’s native language plays in the acquisition of a second or foreign

language has always been of interest to linguists. Earlier discussions of language transfer

often attributed a learner’s difficulty in learning a second language to differences

between his/her native language and the target language. The Contrastive Analysis

Hypothesis (Lado 1957), argued that target language forms that were different from the

equivalent forms in the native language (L1) would be difficult to learn. This hypothesis

was, however, shown to be inadequate in predicting (the strong version of the

hypothesis) or explaining (the weak version) the learning difficulties that a second

language (L2) learner has, as there was evidence showing that differences between

languages did not always lead to learning difficulties (Odlin 1989). In view of the

inadequacy of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and in order to revise it to

incorporate certain principles of Universal Grammar, Eckman (1977) suggests the

Markedness Differential Hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts not only the areas of

difficulty for second language learners, but also the relative degree of difficulty on the

basis of a systematic comparison between native and target languages and markedness

relations stated in Universal Grammar. Important in this hypothesis is the notion of

typological markedness, which says that a phenomenon A in some language is more

marked than B if, cross-linguistically, the presence of A (the implicans; Eckman 1984)

necessarily implies the presence of B (the implicatum; Eckman 1984), but the presence

of B does not necessarily imply the presence of A (Eckman 1981a, 1981b). Markedness,

in this sense, refers to “the relative frequency or generality of a given structure across the

world’s languages” (Eckman 1996:198) and is an “independently motivated, empirical

construct” rather than a matter of judgment or conjecture (Eckman 1996:201).

Accordingly, the Markedness Differential Hypothesis attempts to explain difficulties in

L2 acquisition on the basis of cross-linguistic data. It predicts that:

(i) those areas of the target language that differ from the native language

and are more marked than the native language will be difficult;

(ii) the relative degree of difficulty of the areas of the target language that

are more marked than the native language will correspond to the relative

degree of markedness; and

(iii) those areas of the target language that are different from the native

language but are not more marked than the native language will not be

difficult. (Eckman 1977:321)

Although the goals of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis and those of the

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis are essentially the same, the former is able to

account for the relative degrees of difficulty of acquisition, for the areas of

difference between the native language and the target language that will not

cause difficulty, as well as for the fact that a learner can make progress in

acquiring the target language (Eckman 1985:293). However, in resonance with

the underlying assumptions of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, differences

between the native language and the target language are paramount in the

Markedness Differential Hypothesis, in that learner difficulties are predicted on

the basis of differences between the native language and the target language.

Difficulties in an area where there is no difference between the native and target

languages, thus, fall outside the scope of the hypothesis.

Several areas of second/third language acquisition have been examined to

investigate the effectiveness of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis in predicting

areas of difficulty and relative degree of difficulty. Studies that have examined

second/third language phonology acquisition have focused on, among others things, the

acquisition of voicing contrasts (Bhatia 1995; Eckman 1981a; Edge 1991; Major and

Faudree 1996), consonants and/or consonant clusters (Benson 1986; Eckman 1987,

1991), and syllable structures (Anderson 1987; Stockman and Pluut 1992; Tarone 1987).

The results of these studies generally support the Markedness Differential Hypothesis, in

the sense that the presence of the more marked implicans in the second learner’s

interlanguage (Selinker 1972) implies the presence of the less marked implicatum.

Moreover, learners who experience difficulty in the implicatum also experience

difficulties in the implicans, but those who experience difficulty in the implicans do not

necessarily experience difficulties in the implicatum. For example, Anderson (1987)

found that the marked longer English consonant clusters are more difficult than the

unmarked shorter ones, and that the marked final clusters are more difficult than the

unmarked initial ones for learners whose native language differs from English in terms

of permissible consonant sequences in word-initial and word-final positions. Eckman’s

(1981b) data confirm the relative degree of difficulty between word-final voiced

obstruents and word-final voiceless obstruents, finding that the former are more difficult

than the latter.

Supporting evidence for the Markedness Differential Hypothesis

notwithstanding, there has been some criticism of the hypothesis ever since it was

launched (Kellerman 1979; Zobl 1983). Research studies showing the inadequacy of

the hypothesis are not lacking. In their study of the acquisition of French consonants

by Cantonese speakers, Cichocki et al. (1999) have observed several patterns that the

Markedness Differential Hypothesis incorrectly predicts. Major and Kim (1999) also

condemn the hypothesis’ disregard of the nature of the similarities or differences that

exist between the target language and the native language in its prediction of relative

degree of difficulty. The fact that relative ease or difficulty of acquisition is not

specified longitudinally in terms of stages or rate of learning is also another area of

criticism (Major and Kim 1999).

A number of researchers whose work has been inspired in one way or another by

the notion of universal markedness have either modified the theoretical constructs of

the Markedness Differential Hypothesis or have suggested different extensions.

Carlisle (1988) suggests the Intralingual Markedness Hypothesis, in order to

incorporate markedness relationships within L2 (in addition to markedness

relationships between L1 and L2) into Eckman’s theory. Eckman (1991) himself, in

explaining word-final devoicing in the English of native Farsi speakers, proposes the

Structural Conformity Hypothesis to discard the requirement for areas of difference

(between L1 and L2) and simply claims that interlanguages obey primary language

universals. Major and Kim (1999), on the other hand, put forward the Similarity

Differential Rate Hypothesis to suggest “a compound influence of typological

markedness and phonetic similarity/dissimilarity that works to the benefit or detriment

of the L2 learner” (Leather 1999:31). Their proposal focuses on rate of acquisition

rather than relative degree of difficulty as measured by ultimate achievement,

claiming that dissimilar phenomena are acquired at faster rates than similar

phenomena. They argue that markedness and similarity interact in interesting ways

and that the former is a mediating factor affecting second language acquisition.

In consonance with Major and Kim’s (1999) proposal, a number of second

language phonology acquisition models have demonstrated the significance of

similarity/dissimilarity. Examples include the Perceptual Assimilation Model

proposed by Best (1994), which argues that non-native contrasts are perceived in

terms of their phonetic similarity to the phonological categories present in a

listener’s native language (Harnsberger 2001); and the Speech Learning Model

proposed by Flege, which claims that “the greater the perceived phonetic

dissimilarity between an L2 sound and the closest L1 sound, the more likely it is

that phonetic differences between the sounds will be discerned” (Flege 1995:239).

Although the contribution of markedness universals has not been investigated in

these models, it is nonetheless apparent that markedness relationships between the

native language and the target language may not necessarily be the main determining

factor for second language phonology acquisition.

The concept of markedness itself has also come under severe attack. Because the

Markedness Differential Hypothesis is based on a functional-typological approach to

second language acquisition theory, markedness is defined on the basis of cross-

linguistic data. Observed patterns that contradict markedness at the level of individual

languages, however, have led researchers to view markedness from other perspectives.

Hume (2004) argues that the notion of universal markedness is insufficient to explain

language-specific properties. She suggests that markedness should be a probabilistic

notion, with predictability positively correlated with unmarkedness. Within a

language system, unmarked elements have a high degree of predictability, but if

languages differ in terms of the elements that make up their systems and how the

elements are used, predictability of the elements will also differ.

The relationship between frequency and language acquisition has also provided

evidence undermining the significance of universal markedness. Levelt et al. (2000)

and Roark and Demuth (2000) have found that the earlier acquired structures in each

language are often much higher in frequency. However, where markedness and

frequency make opposite predictions, both markedness and frequency play a role in

determining language development (Stites et al. 2004). Thus, when two options for a

given entity are present, both can be selected as unmarked (Rose 2003). The loss of

perceptual discrimination abilities in infancy has also been found to be frequency-

related, and models based on input frequencies are seen as a better account than

markedness for such loss of discrimination (Anderson et al. 2003). Focusing on

relative markedness as defined in terms of frequencies rather than implicational

universals, Major and Kim (1999) also argue that the markedness relationship

between voiced obstruents and voiceless obstruents does not necessarily apply to

individual sounds, because some voiced obstruents (e.g., /b/) are found in certain

languages (e.g., Arabic) while their voiceless counterparts (e.g., /p/) are not. All these

discussions show that the notion of markedness needs to be revisited. The validity of

the Markedness Differential Hypothesis and thus the appropriateness of its theoretical

constructs are also yet to be determined.

2. THIS STUDY

The explanatory power of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis on the learning of

English pronunciation by Cantonese learners has not been the focus of much second

language acquisition research. Though there has been supporting evidence showing

the compliance of the interlanguage phonology of Cantonese speakers with certain

universal principles (Eckman 1984, 1987), such as the Resolvability Principle

(Eckman 1991) and the typological universal concerning voicing contrasts in word-

final obstruents (Eckman 1981b), many universal generalizations have not been

investigated. It is not clear, for instance, to what extent the Markedness Differential

Hypothesis is valid for predicting and explaining the relative degree of difficulty for

Cantonese speakers in pronouncing word-final obstruents and sonorant consonants.

Eckman (1984) documents two implicational relations that are relevant to the present

study:

(1) Universal implicational relations

a. Word-final voiced obstruents imply word-final voiceless obstruents.

b. Word-final voiceless obstruents imply word-final sonorant consonants.

These two implicational universals entail the following markedness hierarchy (where

“>” means “is more marked than”):

(2) Markedness ranking in word-final position

voiced obstruents > voiceless obstruents > sonorant consonants

According to the Markedness Differential Hypothesis, then, for second language

learners whose native language differs from the target language in the system of

word-final consonants, sonorant consonants should be the easiest to learn and voiced

obstruents the most difficult. While it is true that many Cantonese learners

of English encounter difficulties with English word-final obstruents, it

has also been observed that––despite their being universally less

marked––word-final nasals preceding diphthongs and word-final /l/

also pose tremendous problems for Cantonese learners of English

(Chan and Li 2000). In this context, a study was carried out to analyze the

interlanguage data of Cantonese English as a second language (ESL) learners in Hong

Kong, in an attempt to investigate the validity of the Markedness Differential

Hypothesis for second language phonology acquisition by these learners. The relative

degree of difficulty between the three categories of consonants, namely voiced

obstruents, voiceless obstruents, and sonorant consonants, is the centre of the study. If

the results of the study show that learner difficulties conform to the markedness

relationships documented, this will support the Markedness Differential Hypothesis.

However, if it is shown that some Cantonese learners of English encounter difficulties

in word-final consonants that do not parallel the markedness relationships, the

Markedness Differential Hypothesis will be undermined.

3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENGLISH AND CANTONESE

English differs from Cantonese in both the inventory of permissible word-final

consonants and the articulation of the segments. In terms of inventory, while all English

consonants except /h j w/ can occur in syllable-final (coda) position,1 only the nasals /m

n N/ and the voiceless plosives /p t k/ can occur in syllable-final position in Cantonese.

Other obstruents, such as voiced plosives, fricatives (voiced or voiceless), affricates

(voiced or voiceless), and other sonorant consonants, such as the lateral /l/, are not

allowed in syllable-final position (Chan and Li 2000).

In terms of articulation, whereas English final plosives in isolated words are often

released and those in connected speech are also sometimes released, final plosives in

Cantonese are obligatorily unreleased regardless of speech rate. For the voiceless

bilabial /p/, the lips remain closed; for the voiceless alveolar /t/, the tongue tip clings to

the alveolar ridge; and for the voiceless velar /k/, the back of the tongue touches the

velum and remains there without air being released (Chan and Li 2000).

The articulation of the sonorant consonant /l/ also differs significantly in the two

languages because of distributional differences (and corresponding allophonic

variations). In Cantonese, /l/ always surfaces as a clear [l] with the raising of the front of

the tongue (secondary articulation) in addition to the primary articulation that is

characteristic of an alveolar lateral. In English, /l/ in syllable-final position often surfaces

1 In Received Pronunciation (RP) English, the liquid /r/ does not occur in syllable-

final position, although it is found syllable finally in many other varieties (e.g., North

American English).

as a velarized, dark [lÚ] with the back of the tongue raised (Ladefoged 2006; see also

Sproat and Fujimura 1993).

4. OBJECTIVES

Given that the Markedness Differential Hypothesis predicts difficulty on the basis of

differences between the target language and the native language, and that there exist

significant differences between the consonantal systems of English and Cantonese, the

basic requirements for testing the hypothesis are met. The objectives of the study are (i)

to investigate the extent to which the Markedness Differential Hypothesis, as suggested

by Eckman (1977), is valid for describing the acquisition of English word-final singleton

consonants by Cantonese learners of English as a second language, and (ii) to look into

the relevance of universal markedness (voiced obstruents > voiceless obstruents >

sonorant consonants)2 to the interlanguages of Cantonese ESL learners.

5. METHODOLOGY

The research methodology of the present study is modelled on that of similar studies,

such as Eckman (1991).

5.1. Participants

Twelve Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners at intermediate and advanced levels of

English proficiency participated in the study. The participants included six students

from a local secondary school, all in Forms 4 or 5 (five females and one male), and six

first- or second-year local university students, all English majors (three females and

2 Because non-rhotic accents are widespread in Hong Kong, word-final /r/ is not

investigated in the present study. Thus, only the sonorant consonants /m n N l/ in

word-final position are investigated.

three males).3 The ages of the students ranged from 15 to 25 years at the time of the

study, and they all started learning English as a second language at four or five years of

age. The secondary students had not received any formal phonetics training before, but

all the university students had taken at least one course (lasting 13 weeks) in English

phonetics and phonology during their first year of university studies. They learned the

accent of Received Pronunciation English. Three native speakers of English (one female

and two males) residing in Hong Kong served as a comparison group to provide baseline

data. They were between 23 and 35 years of age at the time of the study. They had been

in Hong Kong for different lengths of time, ranging from one year to 23 years. All the

native speakers of English had received formal phonetics training comparable to that

received by the university participants. They all had experience teaching English to ESL

students in Hong Kong or elsewhere, and two of them had extensive experience teaching

English pronunciation. They were chosen because they all speak English as their first

language and their accents could be considered representative of Standard Englishes.

One of the native speakers of English (female, 23 years old), was born in Hong

Kong. She received her primary and secondary education largely at international

schools and uses English as her first language for daily communication, study, and

3 Form 4 and 5 students in Hong Kong are comparable to grade 10 and 11 students,

respectively, in the U.S. and Canada. The participants’ proficiency levels were

identified based on their class levels: Form 4 and 5 students were categorized as

intermediate, and university English majors were classified as advanced. This

classification is not without problems, because the English proficiency of different

students at similar class levels may differ due to individual differences. However, as

no comparison was made between the two groups, it is not know if or how such

differences affected the results reported here.

work. At the age of 16, she started teaching English to local students. Her accent is

accepted as native by locals and expatriates in Hong Kong.

5.2. Data Collection Procedures

Each participant performed four speech tasks during a single 20-minute session in a

quiet room. The instructions for each task were given in English, written on a piece of

paper, and a research assistant explained the instructions in either Cantonese or

English depending on the participants’ preference. The participants’ performance in the

four tasks was recorded using a high-quality portable mini-disk recorder (SONY MZ-

R910).

5.2.1. Task 1: Reading of word lists

The participants read a randomized list of 167 monosyllabic and disyllabic words one by

one. So that they would not be distracted or impeded by long and difficult words, only

high-frequency monosyllabic and disyllabic words such as cup, meal, sing, and lemon

were included. Care was taken to ensure that different preceding vowel environments

were included. For example, the list included words with final nasals following

diphthongs (such as nine and lime), as well as words with final nasals following pure

vowels, long or short (such as ten and deem), or high or low (such as teen and palm).4

5.2.2. Task 2: Picture description

4 Words with complex codas of the form rC, such as fork or shark, were also

included in the study because none of the participants is a rhotic speaker and the

orthography of forms with post-vocalic /r/ does not seem to have influenced the

participants’ performance on the target consonants.

The participants looked at a series of 101 pictures depicting different objects, actions, or

scenes and were asked to produce a word appropriate to the content of each of the

pictures. Cues eliciting the appropriate response were given where necessary.5 The aim

of this task was to elicit words with the target final consonants without the use of

spelling cues such as those used in the word-list reading task, thus eliminating the

possibility of visually prompting the use of the target consonants. Although a context

such as a cueing sentence or phrase was provided for some of the pictures, the

participants were asked to say just the target word in isolation, not the whole sentences

or phrases.

5.2.3. Task 3: Reading of passages

For the third task, the participants read three passages, each 250–350 words in length: a

narrative passage, a descriptive passage, and a fable. Only simple passages were

included, because academic articles or technical writings often consist of unfamiliar

vocabulary items that would hinder students’ reading fluency. The passages were

selected specifically for the study to elicit words containing the final consonants under

investigation. The use of three different short passages instead of one long passage

ensured that a variety of topics and words were included. Their length was so decided in

order to sustain participants’ interest and attention.

5 Examples of the cues given to the participants included:

i. a picture showing a girl eating an ice-cream to elicit the word eat;

ii. a picture showing a person jumping into the swimming pool, together

with a cueing clause He is jumping into the swimming ____ to elicit the

word pool.

These cues were given on the picture cards in order to facilitate the participants’

understanding, and thus description, of the pictures.

5.2.4. Task 4: Conversational interview

Since spontaneous speech would produce speech samples more akin to performance in a

real communicative situation, each participant was interviewed individually for the

elicitation of spontaneous speech. The participants were given a choice of topics relating

to personal experience and were asked to select one for a 15-minute discussion.

Examples of the conversation topics included, My favourite hobby, The movie star I

like best, and My friends and family, among others. Topics related to personal

experience were offered because such topics are more likely to elicit spontaneous speech

than topics relating to politics or world affairs. The interviews were conducted in a

conversational manner, with the interviewer asking cueing questions to help elicit

responses from the participants in case they had difficulty continuing.

In the design of the test materials, care was taken to ensure a similar number of test

items across the three categories and within each category. However, this was difficult to

achieve, because there are more English nasals than the English lateral /l/. As a result,

more words with English nasals were elicited or cued than words with the English

lateral.

5.3. Data analysis methods

A total of 3658 tokens of voiced obstruents, 4645 tokens of voiceless obstruents, and

6056 tokens of sonorant consonants were analyzed and transcribed by two transcribers

who had attended a series of coaching sessions conducted by the researcher to ensure

accuracy and consistency. Both the transcribers were very proficient in English (having

each obtained a First Class Honours degree in English), had received formal training in

linguistics and phonetics, were well versed in phonetic transcription, and had taught

English to local students.

5.3.1. Accuracy judgment

For a study like the present one, human transcription of the recordings is sufficient,

because the features of the final consonants under investigation, such as the release (or

non-release) of a word-final plosive, the voicing (or non-voicing) of a voiced consonant,

and the presence (or absence) of a nasal, can be easily identified without the help of

instrumental analysis. To ensure reliability, the study tracked both inter-rater and intra-

rater judgments. For productions that were regarded as difficult to judge, the two

transcribers listened to the recordings at least twice, on two different occasions. In

examining the participants’ pronunciation of a certain segment, they took into account

all the features associated with it, including the manner of articulation, the place of

articulation, and the state of the glottis (Roach 2000). The precise ways the target words

were produced by each speaker were also noted. These included, among others, the

substitution sounds used to replace a particular target sound, the presence or absence of

final voicing (for voiced sounds), and the presence or absence of final release (for

plosives).

Although Hong Kong is cosmopolitan and different varieties of English are used by

both native and non-native English speakers, the accent most widely taught at schools

and taken as the norm is Received Pronunciation (RP) English. For this reason, RP was

taken as the norm in the data transcription process.

The two transcribers’ transcriptions were compared. Original inter-rater reliability

was 90%, 90%, 91%, and 88% for the word list reading, picture list reading, passage

reading, and conversation tasks respectively (89% overall),6 which were considered

acceptable rates. Where discrepancies in transcription occurred, the researcher listened to

the items and made a third judgment, and chose the majority option.

5.3.2. Data treatment

A frequency count was used to arrive at the participants’ performance on each target

consonant and their overall performance on the three categories of consonants: sonorant

consonants (subclassified into nasals and lateral), voiceless obstruents (subclassified into

plosives, fricatives, and affricate), and voiced obstruents (subclassified into plosives,

fricatives, and affricate). Separate frequency counts were carried out to analyze the

participants’ performance in each task, and a summative frequency count was done to

compute their overall performance in the four tasks. Productions that deviated from the

target language norms, such as phone substitutions, insertions, or deletions, were

counted as non-target productions, and those that were in line with target-language

norms or were produced in comparable ways by native speakers were counted as target

productions. The average percentage of target productions of each individual consonant

(by each participant) was obtained by dividing the total number of target productions by

the total number of tokens cued or attempted. The average percentage of target

productions of each category of consonants was calculated in a similar fashion.

6 Inter-rater reliability was computed by dividing the number of identical

transcriptions made by the two transcribers by the total number of transcriptions

made.

6. RESULTS

Because the main objective of the study is to examine the explanatory power of the

Markedness Differential Hypothesis, the relative degree of difficulty between the three

categories of consonants should be the focus of comparison. However, a preview of the

results of the study (see below) reveals that certain subcategories of consonants (e.g.,

lateral) within a particular category (e.g., sonorant consonants) are significantly more

problematic than other subcategories (e.g., nasals) within the same category. The

following discussion of results will therefore focus on the subcategories within each

category.

6.1. Participants’ performance on voiceless obstruents

The participants’ performance on word-final voiceless plosives is characterized by a

strong tendency of non-release. Over 54% of the total number of plosives cued are

unreleased: 17% , 28%, 53%, and 70% in the word-list reading, picture-list reading,

passage reading, and conversation tasks respectively; see Table 1. Thus, words such as

trap and shout are pronounced [trQp|] and [SUt|] respectively. Such performance is

in consonance with earlier findings on the pronunciation of voiceless plosives by

Cantonese speakers (Bolton and Kwok 1990; Chan and Li 2000).

Table 1: Percentages of non-release of voiceless plosives produced by the participants

and the comparison group

Participants

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

S1 21% 37% 45% 66% 53%

S2 31% 44% 92% 93% 81%

S3 4% 33% 60% 53% 48%

S4 21% 59% 67% 84% 67%

S5 21% 30% 59% 89% 64%

S6 17% 26% 27% 54% 36%

S7 24% 48% 71% 85% 68%

S8 0% 4% 42% 70% 46%

S9 10% 0% 14% 50% 28%

S10 0% 0% 42% 63% 43%

S11 21% 7% 61% 70% 57%

S12 24% 48% 55% 58% 52%

Average 17% 28% 53% 70% 54%

Comparison group

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

C1 0% 7% 84% 84% 67%

C2 21% 4% 78% 73% 62%

C3 21% 0% 80% 82% 65%

Average 14% 4% 80% 80% 65%

As for fricatives and the affricate /tS/, substitution of a non-target sound for a target

sound is noted, though infrequently for fricatives and very rarely for /tS/. Examples of

substitution include the replacement of /T/ (e.g., tooth) by [f]. The percentage of non-

target productions made for fricatives is about 6% in the four tasks (6%, 5%, 3%, and

9% in the word-list reading, picture-list reading, passage reading, and conversation tasks

respectively), whereas the percentage of non-target productions made for /tS/ is about

1% in the four tasks (0%, 1%, 2%, and 1% in the word-list reading, picture-list reading,

passage-reading, and conversation tasks respectively). See Table 2.

Table 2: Percentages of non-target productions made to voiceless fricatives and

affricates by the participants

Voiceless fricatives

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

S16% 0% 0% 1% 1%

S2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

S3 0% 9% 7% 0% 4%

S4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

S5 6% 0% 0% 0% 1%

S6 11% 0% 5% 57% 28%

S7 0% 0% 2% 9% 4%

S8 6% 9% 2% 2% 3%

S9 6% 18% 7% 12% 10%

S10 6% 0% 11% 0% 6%

S11 22% 0% 5% 9% 9%

S12 6% 18% 2% 3% 4%

Average 6% 5% 3% 9% 6%

Voiceless affricates

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

0% for all

participants

0% for all

participants

except S9

(17%)

0% for all

participants

except S1

(29%)

0% for all

participants

except S2

(9%)

0% for

all

particip

ants

except

S1(8%),

S2 (3%), and

S9 (4%)

Average 0% 1% 2% 1% 1%

Non-release of word-final voiceless plosives is also common among the

comparison group, but is typically limited to the passage reading and interview tasks.

80% of the final voiceless plosives are unreleased in these two tasks. Not only is non-

release found when a final plosive is followed by an initial consonant across word

boundaries, but it is also found when the plosive is phrase final or when it precedes a

pause. Unlike for the Cantonese participants, for the native speakers of English the non-

release of final plosives in isolated words is more rare in the word-list and picture-list

reading tasks. Only about 9% were unreleased: 14% and 4% in the word-list and picture-

list reading tasks respectively; see Table 1. Non-release of final voiceless plosives, being

a phenomenon widely accepted by the native speaker community, is therefore not

regarded as non-target-like for the participants.

6.2. Participants’ performance on voiced obstruents

The Cantonese participants have a very strong tendency to devoice word-final voiced

obstruents: nearly all the instances of voiced fricatives and affricate cued or attempted

are devoiced by the participants without compensation strategies such as lengthening of

preceding vowels; see Table 3. Non-release of final (voiced) plosives is predominant:

61% of the voiced plosives cued or attempted in the four tasks are unreleased by the

participants; 33%, 37% , 64%, and 81% in the word-list reading, picture-list reading,

passage reading, and conversation tasks, respectively; see Table 4. Because of this, the

systematic contrast between voiced and voiceless final plosives is neutralized in many

cases. For those voiced plosives that are indeed released, nearly all the instances are

devoiced. Such results are in line with previous studies that investigated production of

word-final consonants by learners of different native languages (e.g., Flege et al.

1992).

Table 3: Percentages of devoicing of final obstruents by the participants and the

comparison group

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Fricatives (Participants)

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

100% for all

participants

100% for all

participants

except S11

(67%)

100% for all

participants

100% for all

participants

except S7

(99%)

100% for all

participants

except S7

and S11

(99%)

Average 100% 97% 100% 100% 100%

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Affricates (Participants)

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

100% for all

participants

except S10

(11%)

100% for all

participants

No data 100% for all

participants

except S1, S3,

S4 and S6 (no

data)

100% for all

participants

except S10

(92%)

Average 99% 100% No data 100% 99%

Percentages of Devoicing of Released Plosives (Comparison group)

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

C1 93% 100% 17% 37% 45%

C2 47% 33% 41% 42% 41%

C3 60% 0% 19% 23% 24%

Average 67% 43% 25% 34% 36%

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Fricatives (Comparison group)

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

C1 52% 33% 3% 4% 9%

C2 0% 0% 7% 6% 6%

C3 10% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Average 21% 11% 3% 4% 5%

Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Affricates (Comparison group)

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

C1 88% 100% No data 100% 92%

C2 88% 50% 20% 50%

C3 100% 0% No data 80%

Average 92% 50% No data 33% 69%

Table 4: Percentages of non-release of voiced plosives produced by the participants

Percentages of Non-Release of Voiced Plosives (Participants)

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

S1 50% 58% 74% 85% 69%

S2 60% 46% 100% 100% 86%

S3 23% 33% 63% 42% 48%

S4 13% 46% 67% 79% 57%

S5 33% 25% 76% 81% 64%

S6 62% 55% 67% 90% 72%

S7 36% 27% 77% 92% 69%

S8 0% 0% 15% 73% 27%

S9 27% 33% 43% 62% 44%

S10 0% 8% 61% 92% 46%

S11 27% 25% 55% 76% 56%

S12 73% 92% 90% 89% 87%

Average 33% 37% 64% 81.0% 60%

As for native speakers of English, devoicing is also found, but it is often

accompanied by lengthening of preceding vowels. For example, sad is pronounced

[sQ˘d|] with a lengthened [Q˘]. A total of 36% of final (released) plosives are

devoiced by the comparison group: 67%, 43%, 25%, and 34% in the word-list reading,

picture-list reading, passage reading, and conversation tasks, respectively; see Table 3.

Voiced fricatives, especially /z v D/, are seldom devoiced (5% overall; Table 3), but

devoicing of the affricate /dZ/ is quite common (69%; Table 3). Though devoicing is

also occasionally found among the comparison group, a comparison between the

participants’ performance and the native speakers’ performance suggests that devoicing

of final obstruents without lengthening of preceding vowels is much more common

among the participants and is thus regarded non-target-like.

6.3. Participants’ performance on sonorant consonants

In the present study, the lateral /l/ is found to be one of the most difficult segments for

Cantonese participants despite the fact that other sonorant consonants, namely nasals, do

not pose many problems. Relatively fewer non-target productions are made to the final

nasals cued or attempted in the study. Only about 2%, 6%, and 9% of /m n N/

respectively are modified (an average of 5%; see Table 5). Most of the non-target

productions are substitution of a non-target sound for a target sound (e.g., [n] for /m/ in

dim). Omission is also occasionally found (e.g., sign pronounced [sI]). Vocalization

and omission are the most common strategies employed to cope with /l/. About 90%

of /l/ are modified, either by omission or by vocalization by a [u]-like vowel (Table 5).

Omission is typically found when a preceding vowel is [+back], such as /ç˘/ (e.g., call),

but vocalization is found in various contexts regardless of the frontness or backness of

the preceding vowel. Thus, the word hill, which has a preceding front vowel, is often

pronounced [hIu], and the word ball, which has a preceding back vowel, is often

pronounced [bç˘u]. It should be noted that when the [u]-like vowel is used to replace /l/,

it is likely to surface as the sonorant [w] and be syllabified in the nucleus of the syllable

as the second member of a [-w] diphthong (sound combinations such as /i:w/ and /a:w/

are sometimes regarded as diphthongs in Cantonese; Bauer and Benedict 1997). This is

in accordance with recent spectrographic studies that show that Cantonese ESL learners

often use a velar glide [w], rather than a [u]-like vowel, to substitute for /l/ (Hung 2000).

Table 5: Percentages of non-target productions made to the different sonorant

consonants by the participants

l m n N Nasals as a group

S1 98% 0% 10% 29% 10%

S2 97% 0% 14% 1% 6%

S3 100% 1% 12% 13% 9%

S4 98% 10% 10% 13% 10%

S5 94% 1% 1% 3% 1%

S6 90% 0% 1% 22% 4%

S7 100% 0% 9% 1% 5%

S8 91% 0% 4% 2% 1%

S9 93% 1% 6% 9% 6%

S10 59% 0% 2% 0% 1%

S11 97% 1% 3% 7% 5%

S12 75% 14% 5% 1% 6%

Average 90% 2% 6% 9% 5%

Vocalization of final /l/ is also found among the comparison group, but it is

typically limited to words with a labial articulation such as careful or people, in line with

Cruttenden (2001). Unlike Cantonese participants, native speakers of English do not

exhibit vocalization of /l/ in other contexts such as ill or ball, and it is not found in the

word-list reading task at all (Table 6).7 In view of the significant differences between the

participants’ performance and the native speakers’ performance, as well as the contexts

in which the phenomenon is found, vocalization of /l/ by the participants is regarded as

non-target-like alongside other non-target productions of sonorant consonants such as

omission and substitution.

Table 6: Percentages of vocalization of laterals produced by the comparison group

Word list Picture list Passages Conversation Total

C1 0% 17% 24% 0% 14%

C2 0% 17% 0% 24% 9%

C3 0% 0% 29% 0% 10%

Average 0% 11% 18% 7% 11%

6.4. The three categories in comparison

The participants’ different performances on specific subsets of the same superset, that is,

lateral versus nasals for the set of sonorant consonants, has significant effects on their

overall performance on the superset. Since the participants demonstrate poorer

performance on final /l/ than on final nasals, the actual number of tokens in which the

final lateral is cued or attempted may have substantial effects on the overall results of the

category of sonorant consonants. Had the number of words containing a final lateral

been increased, the overall results of the category of sonorant consonants would have

7 Vocalization of /l/ is common in many dialects of English (e.g., Cockney English,

Glasgow English, Scottish English).

worsened. Conversely, had the number of words containing a final lateral been

decreased, the overall results would have improved. The participants’ performance on a

superset, thus, seems to be highly dependent on the relative frequency of occurrence of

the subsets. Because of such inconsistent performance, comparisons between the three

categories of voiceless obstruents, voiced obstruents, and sonorant consonants may be

misleading. Nonetheless, it is obvious from the above discussion that the participants’

performance on the lateral /l/, a sonorant consonant, is much worse than their

performance on voiceless obstruents, although their performance on voiced obstruents

remains the poorest (Table 7).

Table 7: Percentages of non-target productions made to the

three categories of consonants by the participants

Percentages of non-target productions made

Voiceless

Obstruents

(non-release of

plosives not

included)

Voiced

Obstruents

Sonorant

Consonants /

Laterals only

S1 6% 100% for all

participants

except S11 (99%)

29% / 98%

S2 6% 25% / 97%

S3 5% 27% / 100%

S4 5% 27% / 98%

S5 5% 18% / 94%

S6 6% 24% / 90%

S7 7% 25% / 100%

S8 7% 17% / 91%

S9 6% 22% / 93%

S10 4% 12% / 59%

S11 4% 19% / 97%

S12 5% 18% / 75%

Average 6% 100% 22% / 90%

7. DISCUSSION

The previous section outlined the participants’ performance on the three categories (and

subcategories) of consonants for four different tasks. In light of the results, this section

considers the interlanguages of Cantonese ESL learners, the adequacy of the

Markedness Differential Hypothesis and its theoretical constructs, and the validity of

implicational universals.

7.1. Cantonese ESL learners’ acquisition of English word-final singleton

consonants

The results of the study show that the Cantonese ESL participants encounter some

difficulties in acquiring English word-final voiced obstruents and the lateral /l/

regardless of their language-training backgrounds. Despite their having learned Received

Pronunciation English for at least one semester, the university participants, like their

secondary school counterparts with no phonetics training, show a high percentage of

devoicing of voiced obstruents and vocalization or omission of /l/. Although the

phenomena noted are also found in the comparison group, the percentages of such

productions made by the Cantonese participants is much higher, and there is no evidence

of alternative pronunciation strategies to compensate for the non-target productions. In

view of the fact that Received Pronunciation, or a standard model for pronunciation, is

what most Hong Kong speakers (both teachers and students) aspire to, we have reason to

believe that devoicing of voiced obstruents and vocalization of /l/ are indications of

participants’ acquisitional difficulties.

Nasals and voiceless obstruents, on the other hand, do not pose many problems for

Cantonese ESL learners. The participants’ performance on nasals, voiceless fricatives,

and the voiceless affricate /tS/ is largely unproblematic. Their performance on voiceless

plosives may be the result of mother-tongue interference and their lack of awareness of

the typical feature of English plosives, but given the equally widespread non-release of

final plosives by the comparison group in similar contexts, there is no hard and fast

evidence to suggest acquisitional difficulties in this respect.

7.2. The predictions of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis

The participants’ performance patterns suggest that the relative degree of difficulty

between the different categories of consonants does not invariably parallel the

predictions of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis. While the relative degree of

difficulty between word-final voiceless and voiced obstruents does receive significant

support, the degree of difficulty between word-final sonorant consonants and word-final

voiceless obstruents does not. Participants encounter more difficulties with final /l/ (a

less marked item) than with voiceless obstruents (a more marked item), and they make

many more non-target productions to the former than to the latter, to a degree which is

not found with the comparison group.

7.3. Markedness relationships between categories and within categories

The use of implicational universals as the sole basis of markedness is problematic,

especially when the internal make-up of a sound category is taken into consideration.

Because different members of a sound category (e.g., sonorant consonants) can form

subsets (e.g., lateral and nasals), implicational universals relating one subset to

another are important for the determination of the relative markedness between

different subsets. If the different subsets of a superset are not equally marked, the

markedness relationships between different supersets may not follow (see section

6.4). Cross-linguistic studies of the phonological systems of the world’s languages,

however, are not explicit about these subsets. The Markedness Differential

Hypothesis, thus, makes no prediction regarding the relative degree of difficulty of the

individual segments (or subsets) within a superset. For this reason, predictions made

with regard to the relative degree of difficulty of different supersets may not be borne

out.

The English lateral is a good example of this problem. The results of this study

suggest that /l/ should not be treated as equally marked as English nasals, yet both

subsets belong to the same superset of sonorant consonants. The possible effect of /l/

on the relative degree of difficulty between different supersets (i.e., voiced obstruents,

voiceless obstruents, sonorant consonants), thus, cannot be explained by a theory that

bases its arguments on existing implicational universals, such as the Markedness

Differential Hypothesis.

7.4. Allophonic variations and frequency effects

It appears from the data of this study that certain factors other than implicational

universals should be given due attention when explanations for participants’

performance are invoked. One factor that requires attention is the difference between a

phoneme and its allophones. As is well known, phonemes are abstract entities whose

allophonic realizations may vary in different contexts. In generalizing universal

statements regarding the presence or absence of sounds or sound sequences, linguists

often use phonemes, rather than allophones, as the basis. Frequency counts are also

made in terms of phonemes (Greenberg 1966). However, the importance of isolating

allophones from phonemes has already been observed in the speech learning literature.

Strange (1992), for example, has found that Japanese learners of English perceive and

produce English liquids more accurately in word-final position than in word-initial

position. In his Speech Learning Model, Flege (1995) hypothesizes that positional

allophones in the second language are related to the closest positionally defined

allophone in the first language. Flege and Wang also conclude that speech production

skills must be “learned on an allophone-by-allophone basis” (1989:303). Allophonic

variation is thus an essential part of the description and analysis of a learner’s

acquisition of a second language.

Different allophones of a phoneme have different allophonic distributions, so an

allophone may be more frequent (and more basic) than other less frequent (non-basic)

ones that differ from the basic one by possession of a marked feature (Greenberg 1966).

The velarized (dark) [lÚ] occurs less frequently than the clear [l] across languages

(Maddieson 1984). Although sonorant consonants are less marked than obstruents cross-

linguistically, there seems to be a conflict between markedness and frequency in this

respect. The infrequent distribution of dark [lÚ], coupled with the secondary articulation

which is required in the production of the allophone, may render the English word-final

lateral a much more marked element across languages. Thus, this may obscure the

relative markedness (and thus the relative degree of difficulty for second language

learners) between English sonorant consonants and obstruents (voiced or voiceless) and

result in an otherwise unexpected pattern of second language acquisition, such as the

one reported in the present study.

While there is no doubt that, all things being equal, a marked item should be

more difficult to learn than an unmarked item, it is debatable whether implicational

universals should be used to form the basis of markedness (Major 1996; Rutherford

1982), and more importantly, whether markedness alone should be used as a predictor

of difficulty (Major 2001). As Hume (2004) argues, predictions based on markedness

are only made on patterns that are supposed to be universal. The markedness

relationship between English sonorant consonants (especially /l/) and obstruents is

allophonic and language-specific. Predicting the relative degree of difficulty of

second language sounds simply on the basis of universal generalizations about

phonemes––as the Markedness Differential Hypothesis does––is far from adequate.

Other factors such as allophonic variation, frequency effects, predictability, and the

like, must also be taken into account.

8. CONCLUSION

In this article, I have investigated the acquisition of English word-final singleton

consonants by 12 Cantonese learners of English as a second language in Hong Kong.

Learners encounter the most difficulties with voiced obstruents and the lateral /l/, while

their performance on other sonorant consonants and on voiceless obstruents is good

overall. The results of the study suggest that the Markedness Differential Hypothesis

does not make the correct prediction regarding second language phonology acquisition

by Cantonese ESL learners, and that implicational universals should not be used as the

sole determining factor for markedness.

This study has both theoretical and pedagogical implications. On the theoretical

side, the data have provided a significant test case for the Markedness Differential

Hypothesis and invite further thoughts on its theoretical underpinnings. On the

pedagogical side, the findings may serve as input to the focus of pronunciation teaching.

Given that the relative degree of difficulty of different subsets of the same superset is

different, teaching professionals should devote more attention to the more difficult

subset(s) and sequence their teaching materials appropriately.

Since only one type of markedness relationship regarding word-final singleton

consonants has been investigated, the relationships that exist between other categories of

sounds or sound sequences have not yet been dealt with. Learners’ perceptual abilities

have not been examined either. As is well known, second language learners often need

to precisely perceive new phonemic contrasts before they can produce these same

contrasts accurately. The Speech Learning Model discussed earlier has also been devised

on the premise that a learner’s production of a second-language sound is closely related

to the way the sound is perceived. Given the focus of the present study, it is unclear how

learners’ perceptual abilities might affect their production abilities and whether the

Markedness Differential Hypothesis could account for this. Further research is needed

to examine Cantonese learners’ acquisition of other phonological segments, such as

vowels, as well as their perceptual abilities in differentiating different categories of

sounds.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Janet I. 1987. The markedness differential hypothesis and syllable structure

difficulty. In Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language

sound system, ed. Georgette Ioup and Steven Weinberger, 279–291. Cambridge:

Newbury House.

Anderson, Jennifer L., James L. Morgan, and Katherine S. White. 2003. A statistical

basis for speech sound discrimination. Language and Speech 46:155–182.

Bauer, Robert S., and Paul K. Benedict. 1997. Modern Cantonese phonology. New

York: Mouton De Gruyter.

Benson, Bronwen. 1986. The markedness differential hypothesis: Implications for

Vietnamese speakers of English. In Markedness, ed. Fred R. Eckman, Edith A.

Moravcsik, and Jessica R. Wirth, 271–289. New York: Plenum Press.

Best, Catherine T. 1994. The emergence of native-language phonological influences

in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In The development of speech

perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words, ed. Judith C.

Goodman and Howard C. Nusbaum, 167–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bhatia, Tej K. 1995. Acquisition of voicing and aspiration in second language

development. In The teaching and acquisition of South Asian languages, ed. Vijay

Gambhir, 183–196. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Bolton, Kingsley, and Helen Kwok. 1990. The dynamics of the Hong Kong accent:

Social identity and sociolinguistic description. Journal of Asian Pacific

Communication 1:147–172.

Carlisle, Robert S. 1988. The effect of markedness on epenthesis in Spanish/English

interlanguage phonology. Issues and Developments in English and Applied

Linguistics 3:15–23.

Chan, Alice Y.W., and David C.S. Li. 2000. English and Cantonese phonology in

contrast: Explaining Cantonese ESL learners’ English pronunciation problems.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 13:67–85.

Cichocki, Wladyslaw, A.B. House, A.M. Kinloch, and A.C. Lister. 1999. Cantonese

speakers and the acquisition of French consonants. Language Learning 49,

supplement 1:95–121.

Cruttenden, Alan. 2001. Gimson’s pronunciation of English. 6th ed. London: Arnold.

Eckman, Fred R. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language

Learning 27:315–330.

Eckman, Fred R. 1981a. On predicting phonological difficulty in second language

acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4:18–30.

Eckman, Fred R. 1981b. On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules.

Language Learning 31:195–216.

Eckman, Fred R. 1984. Universals, typologies and interlanguage. In Language

universals and second language acquisition, ed. William E. Rutherford, 79–105.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Eckman, Fred R. 1985. Some theoretical and pedagogical implications of the

markedness differential hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7:289–

307.

Eckman, Fred R. 1987. The reduction of word-final consonant clusters in interlanguage.

In Sound patterns in second language acquisition, ed. Allan James and Jonathan

Leather, 143–162. Dordrecht: Foris.

Eckman, Fred R. 1991. The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of

consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 13:23–41.

Eckman, Fred R. 1996. A functional-typological approach to second language

acquisition theory. In Handbook of second language acquisition, ed. William C.

Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, 195–211. San Diego: Academic Press.

Edge, Beverly A. 1991. The production of word-final voiced obstruents in English by L1

speakers of Japanese and Cantonese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition

13:377–393.

Flege, James E. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems.

In Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research,

ed. Winifred Strange, 233–277. Baltimore: York Press.

Flege, James E., Murray J. Munro, and Laurie Skelton. 1992. Production of the word-

final English /t/ - /d/ contrast by native speakers of English, Mandarin and Spanish.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92:128–143.

Flege, James E., and Chipin Wang. 1989. Native-language phonotactic constraints affect

how well Chinese subjects perceive the word-final English /t/ - /d/ contrast. Journal

of Phonetics 17:299–315.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals: With special reference to feature

hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.

Harnsberger, James D. 2001. On the relationship between identification and

discrimination of non-native nasal consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America 110:489–503.

Hume, Elizabeth. 2004. Deconstructing markedness: A predictability-based approach. In

Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting 2004, 182–198.

Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley. (Also available at

http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~ehume/papers/Hume_markedness_BLS30.pdf).

Hung, Tony T.N. 2000. Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English. World

Englishes 19:337–356.

Kellerman, Eric. 1979. The problem with difficulty. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin

4:27–48.

Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics. 5th ed. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.

Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press.

Leather, Jonathan. 1999. Second-language speech research: An introduction. Language

Learning 49, supplement 1:1–56.

Levelt, Clara C., Niels O. Schiller, and Willem J. Levelt. 2000. The acquisition of

syllable types. Language Acquisition 8:237–264.

Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Major, Roy C. 1996. Markedness in second language acquisition of consonant clusters.

In Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, ed. Robert Bayley and

Dennis R. Preston, 75–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Major, Roy C. 2001. Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language

phonology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Major, Roy C., and Michael C. Faudree 1996. Markedness universals and the acquisition

of voicing contrasts by Korean speakers of English. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 18:69–90.

Major, Roy C., and Eunyi Kim. 1999. The similarity differential rate hypothesis.

Language Learning 49, supplement 1:151–183.

Odlin, Terence. 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language

learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roach, Peter. 2000. English phonetics and phonology: A practical course. 3rd ed.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roark, Brian, and Katherine Demuth. 2000. Prosodic constraints and the learner’s

environment: A corpus study. In Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston

University conference on language development, ed. S. Catherine Howell, Sarah

A. Fish, and Thea Keith-Lucas, 597–608. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Rose, Yvan. 2003. Place specification and segmental distribution in the acquisition of

word-final consonant syllabification. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48: 409–

435.

Rutherford, William E. 1982. Markedness in second language acquisition. Language

Learning 32:85–108.

Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in

Language Teaching 10:209–231.

Sproat, Richard, and Osamu Fujimura. 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and

its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21:291–311.

Stites, Jessica, Katherine Demuth, and Cecilia Kirk. 2004. Markedness vs. frequency

effects in coda acquisition. In Proceedings of the 28th annual Boston University

conference on language development, ed. Alejna Brugos, Linnea Micciulla, and

Christine E. Smith, 565–576. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Stockman, Ida J., and Erna Pluut. 1992. Segment composition as a factor in the

syllabification errors of second-language speakers. Language Learning 42:21–45.

Strange, Winifred. 1992. Language non-native phoneme contrasts: Interactions among

subject, stimulus, and task variables. In Speech perception, production and

linguistic structure, ed. Yoh'ichi Tohkura, Eric Vatikiotis-Bateson and Yoshinori

Sagisaka, 197–219. Tokyo: Ohmsha.

Tarone, Elaine E. 1987. Some influences on the syllable structure of interlanguage

phonology. In Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language

sound system, ed. Georgette Ioup and Steven Weinberger, 232–247. Cambridge:

Newbury House.

Zobl, Helmut. 1983. Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning

33:293–313