The Pronunciation of Austrian Students of English at University-Level: a Descriptive Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The pronunciation of Austrian students of English at university-level: a descriptive analysis Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einer Magistra der Philosophie an der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz vorgelegt von Angelika Mende am Institut für Anglistik Begutachter: Ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Bernhard Kettemann Graz, September 2009 Table of Contents I Introduction 1 II Theoretical Background 3 1 Second Language Acquisition 3 2 Contrastive Linguistics 4 3 Interference 6 3.1 Positive Transfer 6 3.2 Negative Transfer 6 3.3 Further Definitions and Explanations 6 3.4 The Ontogeny Model of SLA 8 3.5 Influencing Factors 9 3.6 Other Varieties and Languages 11 3.7 Approximating Native Proficiency 11 3.8 Categorisation of Errors 13 3.9 Pedagogical Considerations 14 4 Two Sound Systems Compared 15 4.1 Varieties Chosen 16 4.2 RP and GA 17 4.2.1 Received Pronunciation 17 4.2.1.1 The Vowels 17 4.2.1.2 The Consonants 18 4.2.1.3 Connected Speech 21 4.2.2 General American 23 4.2.2.1 The Vowels 23 4.2.2.2 The Consonants 24 4.3 Standard German and Standard Austrian Pronunciation 26 4.3.1 Standard German Pronunciation 26 4.3.1.1 The Vowels 26 4.3.1.2 The Consonants 27 4.3.2 Standard Austrian Pronunciation 29 4.3.2.1 The Vowels 29 4.3.2.2 The Consonants 30 4.4 Expected Errors 31 III Corpus-linguistic Analysis 35 5 Empirical Framework 35 5.1 Research Question 35 5.2 General Considerations 35 5.3 Subjects 36 5.4 Choice of Material and Method 37 5.4.1 First Step: Recording the Informants 37 5.4.2 Second Step: Transcriptions and Annotations 38 5.4.3 Pronunciation Categories 39 5.5 Corpus Linguistics 41 5.5.1 WordSmith 42 6 The Results 43 6.1 Categories Unrelated to Target Variety 43 6.1.1 The Results – the Consonants 44 6.1.1.1 Devoicing of /d Y/ 44 6.1.1.2 Devoicing of /g/ 44 6.1.1.3 Devoicing of /d/ 45 6.1.1.4 Devoicing of / y/ 46 6.1.1.5 Devoicing of / Y/ 47 6.1.1.6 Devoicing of /v/ 48 6.1.1.7 Plosivisation of / C/ 48 6.1.1.8 Further Consonant Categories 50 6.1.2 The Results – the Vowels 53 6.1.2.1 Substitution of [ D] or [e] for /æ/ 54 6.1.2.2 Monophthongisation and Diphthongisation 55 6.1.2.3 Further Vowel Categories 56 6.2 Categories Related to Target Variety 57 6.2.1 The Results – the Consonants 58 6.2.1.1 Post-vocalic /r/ 58 6.2.1.2 Linking /r/ 59 6.2.1.3 Flap 60 6.2.1.4 Yod-dropping 62 6.2.2 The Results – the Vowels 63 6.2.2.1 /@9 / vs. /æ/ 63 6.2.2.2 // vs. / @9 / or / N9 / 64 6.2.2.3 Nasalisation of /æ/ 65 6.3 Testing Native-Like Speech 65 6.3.1 The Results – the Consonants 65 6.3.1.1 Glottal Stop 66 6.3.1.2 Consonant Cluster Reduction 67 6.3.1.3 Elision of Consonants 67 6.3.1.4 Assimilation 68 6.3.1.5 Further Features of Connected Speech 69 6.3.2 The Results – the Vowels 70 6.3.2.1 Elision of Vowels 70 6.3.2.2 Vowel Reduction (Weakening) 70 7 Hypotheses Revised 71 IV Conclusions 75 8 English Summary 75 9 German Summary 79 Bibliography 83 List of Tables 88 List of Illustrations 89 Appendix 90 List of Abbreviations AE American English AG Austrian German BE British English CA Contrastive Analysis CL Contrastive Linguistics EA Error Analysis GA General American GG German German IL Interlanguage IPA International Phonetic Alphabet KF Karl-Franzens L1 First Language/Mother Tongue L2 Second Language NT no target variety RP Received Pronunciation SLA Second Language Acquisition U University The abbreviations of the pronunciation categories are listed in the appendix. I Introduction Teaching in Brazil nearly 30 years ago, I was struck by how much Portuguese phonology I could learn by carefully listening to my students speaking English. (Major 2001: ix) Under ideal circumstances the learner of a foreign language improves his or her foreign language skills over time. He or she is increasingly able to master the different areas of the language such as syntax, lexis and phonology. The learning progress can be inhibited by various factors such as the transfer of structures from the first into the foreign language but also by individual factors as, for instance, motivation. Regardless of which and how many influencing factors are at work, the foreign language performance of those who study the respective language at university is expected to be better than that of other learners. The aim of this paper is to find out which pronunciation errors Austrian students of English at Karl-Franzens University, Graz, still make and which errors they have managed to eradicate. In other words, it will show how native-like their English already is. Only the segmental level will be examined, leaving out all prosodic features such as stress, rhythm and intonation. In addition, an attempt will be made to explore why certain errors are present in a particular phonetic environment but absent in another. Finally, the English of those students who have chosen a target variety such as, for example, British English, will be examined regarding their consistency. For this purpose the casual speech of ten Austrian students was recorded. These recordings were then transcribed orthographically, annotated and analysed with the corpus-linguistic programme WordSmith. The paper is divided into two major parts – the theoretical background and the corpus- linguistic analysis. The first part provides background information on second language acquisition, contrastive linguistics and interference. Important terms will be defined as well as some central notions explained. Then the sound systems of English and German will be contrasted, taking into account Standard British, Standard American, Standard German and Standard Austrian pronunciation. Finally, a list of the expected errors to be found in the English of the informants will be provided. The second part of the paper is concerned with the corpus-linguistic analysis of the students´ recordings. First an insight into the empirical framework of the study is offered, covering detailed information on the research question, the subjects and the various steps of the linguistic analysis. The major part of this chapter presents the results of this analysis. A 1 division is made between categories that are unrelated to the target variety, those that are related to the target variety and categories which account for native-like speech such as features of connected speech. The results of all three parts are further divided into consonants and vowels. Finally, it will be shown to what extent the hypotheses or expected deviations formulated in the theoretical part correlate with the actual results of the corpus-linguistic analysis. 2 II Theoretical Background The aim of the following chapters is to provide basic background information and define key terms. 1 Second Language Acquisition First a distinction between first language acquisition and second language acquisition must be made. Under normal conditions every child acquires its first language in the course of a few years – his or her mother tongue. Already in elementary school, the child is able to communicate with others without any problems. After puberty there is only little progress in its command of language – although in some areas the adult never ceases to learn such as, for instance, in vocabulary. This acquisition of the mother tongue is called ‘first language acquisition’ (cf. Klein 1984: 15). Dulay et al. define ‘second language acquisition’ “as the process of learning another language after the basics of the first have been acquired, starting at about five years of age and thereafter” (1982: 10). Yule (2003: 191) adds that ‘acquisition’ always happens naturally in communicative situations. In contrast, ‘learning’ implies gaining knowledge about the target language 1 consciously. In this paper the two terms will not be used in that strict a sense but interchangeably. A number of researchers differentiate between the two terms ‘second language acquisition’ and ‘foreign language acquisition’. A ‘second language’ is acquired in countries where the language fulfils a social or institutional role, for example, as a lingua franca. A ‘foreign language’, in contrast, is learnt in countries where the language is simply taught at school but is of no great importance in social life (Ellis 1994: 11-2). As is done by many linguists writing on the topic, I will also use the term ‘second language acquisition’ to refer to both kinds of acquisition. 1 ‘Target Language’ is the language the learner has attempted to learn, whereas ‘source language’ is the native language of the learner, the one which may cause interference (cf. Nemser 1978: 55). 3 In the middle of the last century second language acquisition research focused on the pedagogic aspect. The main aim was to find out how second language teaching can be improved. Beginning with the 1970s, it was the learner, not the teacher, who became central (cf. Archibald 1998: 1). This paper is concerned with the acquisition of a second language phonology – the acquisition of the sound system of a second language. The L1 is German and the L2 English. 2 Contrastive Linguistics Fisiak defines ‘Contrastive Linguistics’ as a subdiscipline of linguistics with the comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the differences and similarities between them (1981: 1).