The Acquisition of English Word-Final Consonants

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 1
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 (NL) 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 the differences
between his/her native language and the target language (TL). The Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis (CAH), proposed by (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 of the hypothesisCAH) or explaining (the weak version of the CAH) 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 HypothesisCAH and in order to revise it
to incorporate certain principles of uUniversal gGrammar, Eckman (1977) suggests the
Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH)., whichThis hypothesis predicts not only the
areas of difficulty for a second language learners, but also the relative degree of difficulty
I would like to thank the participants and comparison group who participated in the study.
Thanks are also due to my research assistants for their administrative assistance. I am
indebted to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier
draft of this article. This study was supported by City University of Hong Kong (Strategic
Research Grant No. 7001320).

Copyedited by KP, CJL/RCL #2005108, 23 Nov 2006 2
on the basis of a systematic comparison between the native and target languages as well
asand the markedness relations stated in Uuniversal gGrammar. Important in this hypothesis
is tThe notion of typological markedness is important in this hypothesis, 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 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 MDH Markedness Differential
Hypothesis attempts to explain difficulties in L2 acquisition on the basis of cross-linguistic
data. It proposes predicts that:
(i) those areas of the target language which 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 which
that are more marked than the native language will correspond to the relative
degree of markedness; and
(iii) those areas of the target language which 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 MDH Markedness Differential Hypothesis and those of
the CAH Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis are essentially the same, the former has
abiis ablelity to account for the relative degrees of difficulty of acquisition, for those
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 CAHContrastive Analysis Hypothesis, differences
between the native language and the target language are paramount in the
MDHMarkedness Differential Hypothesis, in that learner difficulties are predicted
on the basis of NL-TL 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 MDH Markedness Differential Hypothesis in predicting areas of
difficulty and relative degree of difficulty. Studies which that have examined second/third
language phonology acquisition have includefocused 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 HypothesisMDH, 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, and that, learners who experience difficulty in the implicatum also experience
difficulties in the implicans, but those who experience difficulty in the implicans may do not
necessarily experience difficulties in the implicatum. For example, Anderson (1987)), for
example, 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
the 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 is are more difficult than the
latter.
Supporting evidence for the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH
notwithstanding, there has been some criticism onf 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 HypothesisMDH incorrectly predictsed. 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 one another area of criticism
(Major and Kim 1999, cited in Leather 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 HypothesisMDH or have suggested different extensions. Carlisle
(1988), for example, suggests the Intralingual Markedness Hypothesis, in order (IMH) to
incorporate markedness relationships within the L2 (in addition to markedness
relationships between the L1 and the 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 (SCH) to discard the requirement for areas of
difference (between the L1 and the 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 (SDRH) 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). While tTheir 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.,
it is arguedThey 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 (PAM)
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 (SLM) proposed by Flege
(1995), 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 HypothesisMDH is based on a functional-typological approach
to second language acquisition theory, markedness is defined on the basis of cross-
linguistic data. Observed patterns which that contradict markedness at the level of
individual languages, however, have led researchers to view markedness from other
perspectivesaway from a universal perspective. Hume (2004) criticizes argues that the
notion of universal markedness for being a non-scientific conceptis insufficient for to
explainning languagespecific propertiess. She argues 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 for example, 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)., so 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 than markedness (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) whereas 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
HypothesisMDH and thus the appropriateness of its theoretical constructs are also yet to
be determined.
2. THIS SSTUDY
The explanatory power of the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH on the learning
of English pronunciation by Cantonese learners has not been the focus of much SLA
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 HypothesisMDH is
valid for predicting and explaining the relative degree of difficulty of 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. As documented in Eckman (1984), ifWord-final there are voiced obstruents
imply word-finally, then there word-final are voiceless obstruents word-finally.;

b. and Word-final if there are voiceless obstruents word-finallyimply word-final,
then there are sonorant consonants. word-finally.
These twois implicational universals suggestsentail that the following markedness
hierarchy (where “>” means “is more marked than”):
(2) Markedness ranking in word-final position
word-final voiced obstruents are more marked> than word-final voiceless obstruents
> , which are in turn more marked than word-final sonorant consonants.
According to the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH, 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 iit is true that many Cantonese learners of
English encounter a lot of difficulties with English word-final obstruents,
it has nevertheless also been discussed in the literatureobserved that––
despite their being universally less marked––word-final nasals preceding
diphthongs and word-final /l/ also pose tremendous problems for the
Cantonese learners of English (Chan and Li 2000) despite their being
universally less marked. In this context, Aa study was thus 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
HypothesisMDH 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, was is the centre of the study.
If the results of the study show that learner difficulties conform to the markedness
relationships documented, then the this will support the Markedness Differential
HypothesisMDH is supported. 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 HypothesisMDH will be
undermined.
3. DIFFERENCES BBETWEEN 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, whereas while all English
consonants except /h, j, w/ can occur in syllable-final (coda) position,1 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 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 stylesrate. 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).
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).
The articulation of the sonorant consonant /l/ is also differs significantly different in the
two languages because of their distributional differences (and thus corresponding allophonic
variations). In Cantonese, the consonant only /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, the consonant/l/ in
syllable-final position often surfaces as a velarized, dark [lÚ ] with the back of the tongue
raised when occurring syllable-finally (Ladefoged 2006,; see also Sproat and Fujimura
1993).
4. OBJECTIVES
Given that the MDH Markedness Differential Hypothesis predicts difficulty on the basis of
the 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 were are (1i) to
investigate the extent to which the Markedness Differential Hypothesis, MDH 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 (2ii) to look into the
applicability relevance of the universal generalization markedness regarding (voiced
obstruents >, voiceless obstruents > and sonorant consonants)22 to the interlanguages of
these Cantonese ESL learners.
5. METHODOLOGY
The research methodology of the present study was is modelled on that of similar studies,
such as (see Eckman (1991).
5.1. Participants
Twelve Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners at the intermediate and advanced levels of
English proficiency participated in the study. , The participants includinged six Form 4 and
Form 5 students from a local secondary school, all in Forms 4 or 5 (five females and one
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.

male), and six first- or second-year local university students, all year one and year two
English majors from a local university (three females and three males),3 participated in the
study.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 since at they were four or five years of age.
The secondary students hadve not received any formal phonetics training before, but all the
university students hadve taken at least one course (lasting for 13 weeks) of in English
phonetics and phonology during their first year of university studies. They learned the
accent that they learnt wasof Received Pronunciation (RP) English. Three native speakers of
English (NE) (one female and two males) residing in Hong Kong served as a comparison
group to provide baseline data. Their They ages were from between 23 to and 35 years of
age at the time of the study. and tThey hadve been in Hong Kong for different lengths of
time, ranging from one year to 23 years. They have allAll the native speakers of English
had received formal phonetics training comparable to that received by the university
participants. All of themThey all hadve experience teaching English to local ESL ESL
students or ESL studentsin Hong Kong or elsewhere, and two of them hadve extensive
experience teaching English pronunciation. They were chosen because they all speak
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.
English as their first language and their accents could be considered representative of
Standard Englishes.
One of the native speakers of English (female,, aged 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 work.
At the age of 16, Sshe started teaching English to local students at the age of 16. Her
accent is universally accepted as native by locals and expatriates in Hong Kong as native.
5.2. Data Ccollection pProcedures
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 Chinese 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. In order that they wereSo that they would not be distracted or impeded by long and
difficult words, only common high-frequency monosyllabic- and bdi-syllabic words, such
as cup, meal, sing, and lemon, were included. Care was taken to ensure that different
preceding vowel environments were included. For example, not only were there the list
included words with final nasals following diphthongs, (such as nine and lime), but there
were alsoas 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).44
5.2.2. Task 2: Picture description
The participants looked at a series of 101 pictures depicting different objects, actions, or
scenes and were asked to produced a particular word appropriate to the content of each of
the pictures. Cues eliciting the appropriate response were given where necessary.55 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 words in isolation, not the whole sentences or phrases.
5.2.3. Task 3: Reading of passages
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.

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.

For the third task, the participants read three passages, each of 250–-350 words in length
each:, including 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 with 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.
5.2.4. 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. HeThe participants/She wereas given some a choice of
topics of relating to personal experience and were asked to select one for a 15-minute
discussion. Examples of the conversation topics included, among others, My favourite
hobby, The movie star I like best, and My friends and family, among others. Topics of
related to personal experience were offered because such topics were are more facilitative
likely to elicit of spontaneous speech elicitation than others topics such asrelating 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 difficultyies 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), hadve received formal training in linguistics and
phonetics, were well -versed in phonetic transcriptions, and hadve taught English to local
students.
5.3.1. Accuracy judgement
For a study like the present one, only human transcription of the recordings sufficesis
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, or and the presence (or absence) of a nasal, can be easily identified without the
help of any instrumental analysiss. To ensure reliability, the study adopted tracked both
inter-rater and intra-rater judgments. For productions which that were regarded as difficult
to judge, the two transcribers listened to the recordings at least twice, on two at two
different timesoccasions. 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 RP Received Pronunciation (RP) English. RP English, tFor this
reasonhus, RP was taken as the norm in the data transcription process. In an era of
international Englishes, this may be problematic, as most native English speakers, UK
speakers inclusive, do not want to speak RP. However, given that RP-type standard
pronunciation is what most Hong Kong learners of English aspire after, it was decided
that this variety be taken as the norm.
The two transcribers’ transcriptions recorded by the two transcribers 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 6
which were considered acceptable rates. Where discrepancies in transcription occurred,
tThe researcher then listened to the items on which the transcribers had disagandreed, made
a third judgment, and chose the majority option., compared her judgments with those
made by the transcribers, and finally resolved the discrepancies.
5.3.2. Data treatment
A frequency count was used to arrive at the participants’ performance on each target
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.

consonant and their overall performance on the three categories of consonants: sonorant
consonants (sub-classified into nasals and lateral), voiceless obstruents (sub-classified into
plosives, fricatives, and affricate), and voiced obstruents (sub-classified into plosives,
fricatives, and affricate). Separate frequency frequent 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. Sound pProductions that deviated from
the target language norms, such as phone substitutions, insertions, or deletions, were
counted as non-target productions, and those which 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. RESULTS
Because the main objective of the study was is to examine the explanatory power of the
Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH, the relative degree of difficulty between the
three categories of consonants should have beenbe the focus of comparison. However, a
preview of the results of the study (see below) revealsed that certain sub-categories of
consonants (e.g., lateral) within a particular category (e.g., sonorant consonants) were are
significantly more problematic than other sub-categories (e.g., nasals) within the same
category. The following discussion of results will therefore focus on the sub-categories
within each category.

6.1. Participants’ performance on voiceless obstruents
The participants’ performance on word-final voiceless plosives was is characterized by a
strong tendency of non-release. Over 54% of the total number of plosives cued were are
unreleased: (17% , 28%, 53%, and 70% in the word- list reading, picture- list reading,
passage reading, and conversation tasks respectively; see; see tTable 1). Thus, words such
as trap and shout were are pronounced as [tr Qp| ] and [ S Ut |] respectively, and
the like. Such performance was is in consonance with earlier findings on the pronunciation
of voiceless plosives by Cantonese speakers (e.g., 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
C1 0% 7% 84% 84% 67%
C2 21% 4% 78% 73% 62%
C3 21% 0% 80% 82% 65%
Average 14% 4% 80% 80% 65%

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
As for fricatives and the affricate / tS /, substitution of a non-target sound for a target
sound was is noted, though infrequently for fricatives and very rarely for /ttS /. Examples
of substitution included the replacement of /T / (e.g., tooth) by [f]. The percentage of non-
target productions made to for fricatives was 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 to for /ttS / was 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). S (see Ttable 2).
Percentages of non-target productions made to voiceless fricatives and

Table 2:
affricates by the participants
Voiceless fricatives
S1 6% 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
0% for all 0% for all 0% for all 0% for all 0% for all
participants participants participants participants participants
except S9 except S1 except S2 except
(17%) (29%) (9%) S1(8%),

S2 (3%) ,
and S9
(4%)
Average 0% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Non-release of word-final voiceless plosives was is also common among the
comparison group, but is typically limited to the passage reading and interview tasks. About
80% of the final voiceless plosives (80% in both) wereare unreleased in these two tasks. Not
only was is non-release found when a final plosive was is followed by an initial consonant
across word boundaries, but it was is also found when the plosive was is phrase -final or
when it precedesed 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 was rarer for the NEs. 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, wasis thus therefore not regarded as non-target-like for the participants.
6.2. Participants’ performance on voiced obstruents
The Cantonese participants had have a very strong tendency to devoice word-final voiced
obstruents: – practicallynearly all the instances of voiced fricatives and affricate cued or
attempted were are devoiced by the participants without compensation strategies such as
lengthening of preceding vowels; see (see Ttable 3). Because nNon-release of final
(voiced) plosives was is predominant: (61% of the voiced plosives cued or attempted in the
four tasks were are unreleased by the participants;s: 33%, 37% , 64%, and 81% in the word-
list reading, picture- list reading, passage reading, and conversation tasks, respectively; see)
(see Ttable 4). Because of this, the systematic contrast between voiced and voiceless final
plosives had beenis neutralized in many cases. For those voiced plosives which that were
are indeed released, practically nearly all the instances were are devoiced. Such results
are in line with previous studies which 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)

100% for all 100% for all 100% for all 100% for all 100% for all
participants participants participants participants participants
except S11 except S7 except S7
(67%) (99%) and S11
(99%)
Average 100% 97% 100% 100% 100%
Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Affricates (Participants)
100% for all 100% for all No data 100% for all 100% for all
participants participants participants participants
except S10 except S1, S3, except S10
(11%) S4 and S6 (no (92%)
data)
Average 99% 100% No data 100% 99%
Percentages of Devoicing of Released Plosives (Comparison group)
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)
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)
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 INSERT
TABLES 3 AND 4 ABOUT HERE
Percentages of Non-Release of Voiced Plosives (Participants)

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 the NEsnative speakers of English, devoicing was is also found, but it was is
often accompanied by lengthening of preceding vowels. For example, sad was is
pronounced as [sQ˘d| :d ] with a lengthened [Q˘ :]. A total of 36% of final (released)
plosives were 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 (see tTable 3). Voiced fricatives, especially /z/, / v/, and / D /, were are
seldom devoiced (5% overall; see tTable 3), but devoicing of the affricate /d Z/ was is
quite common (69%; see tTable 3). Though devoicing was is also occasionally found
among the comparison group, a comparison between the participants’ performance and the
NE’s native speakers’ performance suggests that devoicing of final obstruents without
lengthening of preceding vowels was is much more seriouscommon among the participants
and was is thus regarded non-target-like.
6.3. Participants’ performance on sonorant consonants
In the present study, Tthe lateral /l/ was is found to be one of the most difficult segments to
for the Cantonese participants in the present study despite the fact that other sonorant
consonants, namely nasals, did do not pose many problems. Relatively fewer non-target
productions were are made to the final nasals cued or attempted in the study. Only about
2%, 6%, and 9% of /m/, / n/, and / N / respectively were are modified (an average of 5%;)
see (see tTable 5). and mMost of the non-target productions were are substitution of a non-
target sound for a target sound (e.g., [n] for /m/ as in words like dim). Omission was is also
occasionally found (e.g., sign was pronounced as [s I ]). With respect to /l/, Vvocalization
and omission were are the most common strategies employed to cope with /l/the sound.
About 90% of /l/ were are modified, either by omission or by vocalization by a [u]-like
vowel (see tTable 5). Omission was is typically found when a preceding vowel was is
[+back], such as /ç˘ :/ (e.g., call), but vocalization was 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, was is often pronounced as [hI u], and the word ball, which
has a preceding back vowel, was is often pronounced as [bç˘ :u]. It should be noted that
when the [u]-like vowel was is used to replace /l/, it is likely that itto surfaceed 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; see Bauer and Benedict 1997). This is in accordance with, as it
has been found in 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/ was is also found among the comparison group, but in line
with Cruttenden’s (2001) claim, it was is typically limited to words with a labial articulation
such as careful or people, in line with Cruttenden (2001). Unlike the Cantonese participants,
the NEs native speakers of English did do not exhibit vocalization of /l/ in other contexts
such as ill or ball, and it was is not found in the word- list reading task at all (see tTable 6).7
7

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

7
In view of the significant differences between the participants’ performance and the NE’s
native speakers’ performance, as well as the contexts in which the phenomenon was is
found, vocalization of /l/ by the participants was 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

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 versuss. nasals for the set of sonorant consonants, hasd significant effects on their
overall performance on the superset. Since the participants demonstrated poorer
performance on final /l/ than on final nasals, the actual number of tokens that in which the
final lateral was is cued or attempted may have had 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 been
worsened. Conversely, had the number of words containing a final lateral been decreased,
the overall results would have been improved. The participants’ performance on a superset,
thus, seemsed 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

deceptivemisleading. Nonetheless, it is obvious from the above discussion that the
participants’ performance on the lateral /l/, a sonorant consonant, was is much worse than
their performance on voiceless obstruents, although their performance on voiced obstruents
remainsed the poorest (see tTable 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 Voiced Sonorant
Obstruents Consonants /
Obstruents
(non-release of Laterals only
plosives not
included)
S1 6% 100% for all 29% / 98%
S2 6% participants 25% / 97%
S3 5% except S11 (99%) 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 foregoing previous section outlined the participants’ performance on the three
categories (and subcategories) of consonants in thefor four different tasks. In light of the
results,In this section considers, some insights into the interlanguages of Cantonese ESL
learners, the adequacy of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis MDH and its theoretical
constructs, and the validity of implicational universals, will be discussed in the light of the
results.
7.1. Cantonese ESL learners’ acquisition of English word-final singleton consonants
The results of the study show that the Cantonese ESL participants encounterred some
difficulties in acquiring English word-final voiced obstruents and the lateral /l/ regardless of
their language- training backgrounds. Despite their having learnt learned RP Received
Pronunciation English for at least one whole semester, the university participants, like their
secondary school counterparts with no phonetics training, showed a high percentage of
devoicing of voiced obstruents and vocalization or omission of /l/. Although the phenomena
noted were are also found in the comparison group, the percentages of such productions
made by the Cantonese participants were is much higher, and there was is no evidence of
alternative pronunciation strategies to compensate for the non-target productions. In view of
the fact that RPReceived Pronunciation, or a standard model for pronunciation, is what most
Hong Kong speakers (both teachers and students) aspire afterto, we have reason to believe
that devoicing of voiced obstruents and vocalization of /l/ are indications of the 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 /tSt / was is largely unproblematic. Their performance on voiceless
plosives may have beenbe the result of mother-tongue interference and their lack of
unawareness 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 HypothesisMDH
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 HypothesisMDH. While the relative degree of difficulty between
word-final voiceless and voiced obstruents does receive significant support, that the degree
of difficulty between word-final sonorant consonants and word-final voiceless obstruents
does not., because the pParticipants encountered more difficulties with final /l/ (a less
marked item) than with voiceless obstruents (a more marked item), and they makinge many
more non-target productions to the former than to the latter, to an extenta degree which was
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 (sSee sSection The Three Categories in
Comparison6.4). Cross-linguistic studies of the phonological systems of the world’s
languages, however, are not explicit about these subsets. The Markedness Differential
HypothesisMDH, thus, makes no prediction regarding the relative degree of difficulty of
the individual segments (or subsets) within a superset. Its For this reason, predictions
made with regard to the relative degree of difficulty of different supersets may not be
borne out then.
The English lateral is a good example of this problem. The results of the 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, can hardly not be explained by a theory which that
bases its arguments on existing implicational universals, such as the Markedness
Differential HypothesisMDH.
7.4. Allophonic variations and frequency effects
It appears from the data of thise study that certain factors other than implicational universals
should be given due attention when explanations for the participants’ performance are called
forinvoked. 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,
that is, allophones, may vary in different phonological 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 SLM
Speech Learning Modelmodel, Flege (1995) hypothesizes that positional allophones in the
L2 second language are related to the closest positionally defined allophone in the L1first
language. Flege and Wang (1989) also acknowledge conclude that speech production skills
must be “learned on an allophone-by-allophone basis” (Flege and Wang 1989: 303).
Allophonic variations is, thus, an essential part of should not go unnoticed in 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 thus more basic), than other less frequent ones,
which are (non-basic) ones that and differ from the basic one by possession of a marked
feature (Greenberg 1966). The velarized (dark) [lÚ ] (dark [ ]) 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., Tthus, this may
obscureing the relative markedness (and thus the relative degree of difficulty for L2 second
language learners) between English sonorant consonants and obstruents (voiced or
voiceless) and resulting in an otherwise unexpected pattern of L2 second language
acquisition, found at the level of the languagesuch as the one found reported in the present
study.
While it is beyondthere is no doubt that, other 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
predictors 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 ic-based and is language-specific to the languagespecific. Predicting the
relative degree of difficulty of L2 second language sounds simply on the basis of
universal generalizations made onabout phonemes––, as the Markedness Differential
Hypothesis MDH does––, is far from adequate. Other factors such as allophonic
variations, frequency effects, predictability, and the like, should not be ignoredmust also
be taken into account.

8. CONCLUSION
In this article, I have reported on the results of a study which investigatedd the acquisition of
English word-final singleton consonants by twelve 12 Cantonese learners of English as a
second language in Hong Kong. It was found that the lLearners encountered the most
difficulties with voiced obstruents and the lateral /l/, while their performance on other
sonorant consonants and on voiceless obstruents was is overall good overall. The results of
the study suggest that the Markedness Differential Hypothesis MDH 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.
Thise study reported in this article has both theoretical and pedagogical implications.
On the theoretical side, the data have provided a significant test case for the Markedness
Differential Hypothesis MDH 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 degrees of difficulty of different subsets of the same
superset are 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 was 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, L2 second language learners often need to
precisely perceive new phonemic contrasts before they can produce these same contrasts
accurately. The SLM Speech Learning Model discussed earlier has also been devised on the
premise that a learner’s production of a second-languagen L2 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 may havemight affected ttheir production abilities and whether the
Markedness Differential Hypothesis MDH could account for this aspect of interaction.
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 Publishers.
Anderson, Jennifer L., James L. Morgan, and Katherine S. White. 2003. A statistical basis
for speech sound discrimination. Language and Speech 46(2-3):155–-182.
Bauer, Robert S., and Paul K. Benedict. 1997. Modern Cantonese phonology. New York:
Mouton De Gruyter: New York.
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–-2189. 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 forrom speech sounds to spoken words, ed. Judith C. Goodman and
Howard C. Nusbaum, 167–-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT pPress.
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(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(1):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(1):18-–30.
Eckman, Fred R. 1981b. On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language
Learning 31(1):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(1):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: The Hague.
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(3):337-–356.
Kellerman, Eric. 1979. The problem with difficulty. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin
4(1):27-–48.
Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics. 5th ed. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: the University of Michigan
Press.
Leather, Jonathan. 1999. Second-language speech research: An introduction. Language
Learning 49, Ssupplement (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 Ssounds. 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 Publishing Company.
Major, Roy C. 2001. Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language
phonology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
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, Ssupplement (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 Aannual Boston University
Cconference on Llanguage Ddevelopment, 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/Revue
canadienne de linguistique 48 (3/4): 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 Aannual Boston University
Cconference on Llanguage Ddevelopment, ed. Alejna Brugos, Linnea Micciulla,

and Christine E. Smith, 28(2):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(1):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 Publishers.
Zobl, Helmut. 1983. Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning 33:293-–
313.
Alice Y.W. Chan is an Associate Professor at the Department
of English and Communication, City University of Hong Kong.
Her research interests include second language learning and
teaching, contrastive linguistics and lexicography.
Endnotes
I would like to thank the participants and comparison group
who participated in the study. Thanks are also due to my
research assistants for their administrative assistance. I
am also indebted to the two anonymous reviewers of the
article for their constructive comments on an earlier draft.
This study was supported by City University of Hong Kong
(Strategic Research Grant No. 7001320). The support of the
university is acknowledged.
In Received Pronunciation (RP) English, the liquid /r/ does
not occur in syllablefinal position although it is found
syllable finally in many other varieties (e.g., North
American English).
Because nonrhotic accents are widespread in Hong Kong,
wordfinal /r/ was not investigated in the present study.
Thus, only the sonorant consonants /m/, /n/, / / and /l/ in
wordfinal position were investigated.
Form 4 and Form 5 students in Hong Kong are comparable to
grade 10 and grade 11 students respectively in the U.S. and
Canada. The participants’ proficiency levels were identified
based on the class levels they were in: Form 4 and Form 5
students were categorized as intermediate whereas 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, such
differences were immaterial to the interpretation of the
results.
Words with complex codas of the rC nature, 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 postvocalic /r/ does not seem to have influenced
the participants’ performance on the target consonants.
Examples of the cues given to the participants included:
a picture showing a girl eating an icecream to elicit the
word eat;
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.
Interrater reliability was computed by dividing the number
of identical transcriptions made by the two transcribers by
the total number of transcriptions made.
Vocalization of /l/ is common in many dialects of English
(e.g., Cockney English, Glasgow English, Scottish English).
Table 1: Percentages of nonrelease of voiceless plosives
produced by the participants and the comparison group
Percentages of NonRelease of Voiceless Plosives
(Participants)
Word Picture Passages Conversati Total
list list on
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%

Percentages of NonRelease of Voiceless Plosives
(Comparison group)
Word Picture Passages Conversa Total
list list tion

C1 0% 7% 84% 84% 67%
C2 21% 4% 78% 73% 62%
C3 21% 0% 80% 82% 65%
Average 14% 4% 80% 80% 65%

Table 2: Percentages of nontarget productions made to
voiceless fricatives and affricates by the participants
Percentages of Nontarget productions Made to Voiceless
Fricatives (Participants)
list list on
S1 6% 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%
Percentages of Nontarget productions Made to Voiceless
Affricates (Participants)
list list on
0% for 0% for 0% for 0% for all 0% for
all all all participan all
partici participa particip ts except particip
pants nts ants S2 (9%) ants
except S9 except except
(17%) S1 (29%) S1(8%),

S2 (3%)
and S9
(4%)
Average 0% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Table 3: Percentages of devoicing of final obstruents by
the participants and the comparison group
Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Fricatives
(Participants)
list list on
100% for 100% for 100% for 100% for 100% for
all all all all all
particip participa particip participan particip
ants nts ants ts except ants
except S7 (99%) except S7
S11 (67%) and S11
(99%)
Averag 100% 97% 100% 100% 100%
e
Percentages of Devoicing of Final Voiced Affricates
(Participants)
Word list Picture Passages Conversati Total
list on
100% for 100% for No data 100% for 100% for
all all all all
participa particip participan particip

nts ants ts except ants
except S1, S3, S4 except
S10 (11%) and S6 (no S10 (92%)
data)
Averag 99% 100% No data 100% 99%
e
Percentages of Devoicing of Released Plosives (Comparison
group)
list list on
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)
list list on
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)
list list on
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 nonrelease of voiced plosives
produced by the participants
Percentages of NonRelease of Voiced Plosives
(Participants)
list list on
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%

Table 5: Percentages of nontarget productions made to the
different sonorant consonants by the participants
Percentages of nontarget productions Made to
Sonorant Consonants (Participants)
l m 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%
Averag 90% 2% 6% 9% 5%
e
Table 6: Percentages of vocalization of laterals produced
by the comparison group
Percentages of Vocalization of Laterals (Comparison group)
Word Picture Passages Conversatio Total
list list n
C1 0% 17% 24% 0% 14%
C2 0% 17% 0% 24% 9%
C3 0% 0% 29% 0% 10%

Average 0% 11% 18% 7% 11%
Table 7: Percentages of nontarget productions made to the
three categories of consonants by the participants
Overall Performance
Percentages of nontarget productions made
Voiceless Voiced Sonorant Consonants /
Obstruents Obstruents Laterals only
(nonrelease
of plosives
not included)
S1 6% 100% for all 29% / 98%
S2 6% 25% / 97%
S3 5% participants 27% / 100%
S4 5% 27% / 98%
S5 5% except S11 18% / 94%
S6 6% 24% / 90%
S7 7% (99%) 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%

The Acquisition of English Word-Final Consonants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Acquisition of English Word-Final Consonants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CJL/RCL #2005-108, Copyedited by KP/RMD, 4 October 2007 1

The Acquisition of English Word-Final Consonants

by Cantonese ESL Learners in Hong Kong

City University of Hong Kong

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

to incorporate certain principles of uUniversal gGrammar, Eckman (1977) suggests the

Research Grant No. 7001320).

“independently motivated, empirical construct” rather than a matter of judgment or

conjecture (Eckman 1996: 201). Accordingly, the MDH Markedness Differential

Hypothesis attempts to explain difficulties in L2 acquisition on the basis of cross-linguistic

data. It proposes predicts that:

degree of markedness; and

difficult. (Eckman 1977: 321).

underlying assumptions of the CAHContrastive Analysis Hypothesis, differences

MDHMarkedness Differential Hypothesis, in that learner difficulties are predicted

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 MDH Markedness Differential Hypothesis in predicting areas of

results of these studies generally support the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH, in

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

Supporting evidence for the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH

Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH incorrectly predictsed. Major and Kim (1999)

(Major and Kim 1999, cited in Leather 1999).

Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH or have suggested different extensions. Carlisle

incorporate markedness relationships within the L2 (in addition to markedness

Structural Conformity Hypothesis (SCH) to discard the requirement for areas of

Similarity Differential Rate Hypothesis (SDRH) to suggest “a compound influence of

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

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

the former is a mediating factor affecting second language acquisition.

phonology acquisition models have demonstrated the significance of

similarity/dissimilarity. Examples include the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM)

their phonetic similarity to the phonological categories present in a listener’s native

Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH is based on a functional-typological approach

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

notion of universal markedness for being a non-scientific conceptis insufficient for to

be a probabilistic notion, with predictability positively correlated with unmarkedness.

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

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

markedness as defined in terms of frequencies rather than implicational universals, Major

of markedness needs to be revisited. The validity of the Markedness Differential

The explanatory power of the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH on the learning

showing the compliance of the interlanguage phonology of Cantonese speakers with

speakers in pronouncing word-final obstruents and sonorant consonants. Eckman (1984)

(1) Universal implicational relations

a. As documented in Eckman (1984), ifWord-final there are voiced obstruents

imply word-finally, then there word-final are voiceless obstruents word-finally.;

b. and Word-final if there are voiceless obstruents word-finallyimply word-final,

then there are sonorant consonants. word-finally.

These twois implicational universals suggestsentail that the following markedness

hierarchy (where “>” means “is more marked than”):

(2) Markedness ranking in word-final position

According to the Markedness Differential HypothesisMDH, then, for second

English encounter a lot of difficulties with English word-final obstruents,

it has nevertheless also been discussed in the literatureobserved that––

despite their being universally less marked––word-final nasals preceding

Cantonese learners of English (Chan and Li 2000) despite their being

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

HypothesisMDH for second language phonology acquisition by these learners. The

HypothesisMDH is supported. 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 HypothesisMDH will be

3. DIFFERENCES BBETWEEN ENGLISH AND CANTONESE

syllable-final position (Chan and Li 2000).