A Model of Classification of Phonemic and Phonetic Negative Transfer: The case of Turkish –English Interlanguage with Pedagogical Applications

Sinan BayraktaroÄŸlu

Abstract


This article introduces a model of classification of phonemic and phonetic negative- transfer based on an empirical study of Turkish-English Interlanguage. The model sets out a hierarchy of difficulties, starting from the most crucial phonemic features affecting “intelligibilityâ€, down to other distributional, phonetic, and allophonic features which need to be acquired if a “near-native†level of phonological competence is aimed at. Unlike previous theoretical studies of predictions of classification of phonemic and phonetic L1 interference (Moulton 1962a 1962b; Wiik 1965), this model is based on an empirical study of the recorded materials of Turkish-English IL speakers transcribed allophonically using the IPA Alphabet and diacritics. For different categories of observed systematic negative- transfer and their avoidance of getting “fossilized†in the IL process, remedial exercises are recommended for the teaching and learning BBC Pronunciation. In conclusıon, few methodological phonetic techniques, approaches, and specifications are put forward for their use in designing the curriculum and syllabus content of teaching L2 pronunciation.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abercrombie, D., (1973, New Edition). Problems and Principles in Language Study, Longman

Agard, F.B., and Di Pietro, R.J. (1965), The Sounds of English and Italian, The University of Chicago Press

BayraktaroÄŸlu S. (2008). Orthographic Interference and the Teaching of British Pronunciation to Turkish Learners, Journal of Language & Linguistic Studies, Vol.4 No: 2, p. 107-43

-----(1992). On sources of pronunciation difficulties in foreign language learning. In R.A. Rodriguez, R.L.Ortega, F.MacArthur (Eds.), New Directions in Foreign Language Teaching Theory and Practice (103-9), ACTA SALAMANTICENSIA MANUALES UNIVERSITARIOS 45, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Also (1985) In Anglo-American Studies. V(2), 115-121.

-----(1989). The Teaching of Pronunciation, Anglo-American Studies, ( IX) 2, 103-116

-----(1979). Yabancı Dil Öğrenim Güçlükleriyle İlgili Araştırma Yöntemleri. İzlem: Yabancı dil Öğretimi Dergisi, 3, 3-15, Tüm Üniversite ve Akademi Okutmanları Derneği (TÜMOK) yayını

-----(1978). Trends in Applied Linguistics and Language Learning: Contrastive

Analysis, Error Analysis, and Interlanguage . Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Dergisi, 6, 55-73.

BayraktaroÄŸlu, A., and BayraktaroÄŸlu, S. (1992). Colloquial Turkish, London and New York: Routledge

Catford, J.C. (1967) Intelligibility. In W.R.Lee (ed.), ELT Selections 2 (142-50). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M. and Goodwin, J.M. (2005). Teaching Pronunciation: A

Reference for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chambers, J.K. (1995), Sociolinguistic Theory, Oxford: Blackwell. Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, (2), 147-160.

--------(1974), The Significance of Learners‟ Errors. In Richards ,J.C. (1974,ed.) Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (p. 19-27) London:Longman . --------- (1978). Language-learner language. In J. C. Richards (Ed), Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 71-92). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. --------- (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Collins, B. and Mees, I.M. (2006), Practical Phonetics and Phonology, London and New York: Routledge

Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruttenden, A. (2008 7th edn; ed.). Gimson‘s Pronunciation of English.London: Edward Arnold

Denison, N. (1961). Phonetics and Phonemics in Foreign Language Teaching. Proceedings of the IV International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Helsinki: 586- 89

Demircan, Ö. (1979). Türkiye Türkçesinin Ses Düzeni: Türkiye Türkçesinde Sesler. Ankara: Türk Dili Kurumu Yayınları

-------(1980). Yabancı Dil Öğretimi Açısından İngilizce‘nin Vurgulama Düzeni. İstanbul: İstanbul üniversitesi Yayınları No: 2773; Yabancı Diller Yüksek Okulu Yayınları No:4

-------(2000). Türkçe‘nin Ezgisi. İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik üniversitesi Vakfı

-------(2001). Türkçe‘nin Ses Dizimi: Sesler, sesbirimler, ayırıcı özellikler, ses değişimleri, vurgu, vurgulama, ezgi, ezgileme. İstanbul: Der Yayınları

Ediskun,H. (1963). Yeni Türk Dilbilgisi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi

Fries, C. C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

--------------(1948) As we see it. Language Learning, 1, 12-16

Gass,S.M. & Selinker, L. (2008, 3rd edn.). Second Language Acquisition. New York and London: Routledge

Gimson,A.C. (1970,2nd edn.). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English, London: Edward Arnold.

Göksel, A .& Kerslake C.( 2005 ), Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York: Routledge

Harmer, J. (2001; 3rd edn.). The Practice of English Language Teaching, Longman

Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior, Vol.II, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Heywood, F. (2004). Why the CEF is important. In Morrow, K. (2004, ed.) Insights from the Common European Framework (12-21), Oxford: Oxford University Press

Jenkins, J. (2006), Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol.16 No.2, 138-62

(2007), English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Johnson,K. & Johnson,H. (1999, Eds.) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London:Longman

Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge

Lado, R., (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press

Lightbown, P.M and Spada. N (2008 3rd edn.). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell,R. & Myles,F,(2004, 2nd edn.).Second Language Learning Theories. London: Hodder Arnold

Morrow, K. (2004 ed.), Insights from the Common European Framework, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Moulton, W.G. (1962a). The Sounds of English and German. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

----(1962b), Toward a Classification of Pronunciation Errors, Modern Language Journal, 46, 101-109

Nemser, W. (1971). Approximate systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 115-23.

Odlin,T. (1989), Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Omaggio, A. (2001). Teaching language in context. Proficiency oriented instruction. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Hainle Publishers

Richards ,J.C. (1974,ed.) Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, London:Longman.

Ritchie, W.C. (1968). On the explanation of phonic interference. Language Learning, 18, 183-98

Roach, P. (2009.4th ed.). English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Saville-Troike, M. (2006), Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209- 30

------(1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman

Selinker, L., & Lamendella, J. T. (1980). Fossilization in interlanguage learning. In K. Croft (Ed.), Reading on English as a second language (pp. 132-143). Boston. MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Selinker, L., & Lakshamanan, U. (1992). Language transfer and fossilization: The “Multiple Effects Principleâ€. In S. M. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 197-216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Stockwell, R. and Bowen, D.J. (1965). The Sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

Swan, M. & Smith, B.(1987.Eds.). Learner English: A teacher‘s guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Swift, L.B. (1962) Some Aspects of Stress and Pitch in Turkish Syntactic Patterns. In American Studies in Altaic Linguistics, Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, 13 pp.331-41

------------(1963) A reference Grammar of Modern Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, 19

Thompson, I. (1998), Turkish Speakers. In Swan, M. & Smith, B. (1987.Eds.). Learner English:A teacher‘s guide to interference and other problems (158-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish Grammar. Cambridge Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press

Valdman, A., (1966, ed ) Trends in Language Teaching . New York and London: McGraw Hill

Wardhaugh, R.(1970). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2).

Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York,1). Reproduced (1974) . The Hague: Mouton

(1957). On the Description of Phonic Interference, Word, 13, 1-11

Wiik, K. (1965). Finnish and English Vowels: A comparison with special reference to the learning problems met by native speakers of Finnish learning English. Turku: Turun Yliopisto; Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, B 94.

Wilkins, D.A. (1972). Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold

Wolff, H., (1950). Partial Comparison of the Sound Systems of English and Puerto Rican Spanish, Language Learning, 3, 1 and 2, 38-41.

Zimmer,K. and Orgun,O. (1999). Turkish, Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University press


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies