The modification of onsets in a markedness relationship: Testing the interlanguage structural conformity hypothesis

Language Learning

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 327-361

  Carlisle, Robert S ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031512279     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0023-8333.101997010     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Andersen, R. (1978). An implicational model for second language research. Language Learning, 28, 221-281.
2. Anderson, J. (1987). The markedness differential hypothesis and syllable structure difficulty. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguagephonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 279-291). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
3. Battistella, E. (1990). Markedness: The evaluative, superstructure of language. Albany: State University of New York Press.
4. Benson, B. (1988). Universal preference for the open syllable as an independent process in interlanguage phonology. Language Learning, 38, 221-242.
5. Broselow, E. (1983). Non-obvious transfer: On predicting epenthesis errors. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 269-280). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
6. Broselow, E. (1984). An investigation of transfer in second language phonology. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 253-269.
7. Cairns, C., & Feinstein, M. (1982). Markedness and the theory of syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 193-225.
8. Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1975). The acquisition of the English auxiliary by native Spanish speakers. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 421-430.
9. Carlisle, R. (1988). The effect of markedness on epenthesis in Spanish/English interlanguage phonology. Issues and Developments in English and Applied Linguistics, 3, 15-23.
10. Carlisle, R. (1991a). The influence of environment on vowel epenthesis in Spanish/English interphonology. Applied Linguistics, 12, 76-95.
11. Carlisle, R. (1991b). The influence of syllable structure universals on the variability of interlanguage phonology. In A. D. Volpe (Ed.), The seventeenth LACUS forum, 1990 (pp. 135-145). Lake Bluff, IL: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.
12. Carlisle, R. (1992). Environment and markedness as interacting constraints on vowel epenthesis. In J. Leather & A. James (Eds.), New sounds '92 (pp. 64-75). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
13. Carlisle, R. (1994). Markedness and environment as internal constraints on the variability of interlanguage phonology. In M. Yavas (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 223-249). San Diego: Singular Publishing.
14. Clements, G. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech (pp. 282-333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Clements, G., & Keyser, S. (1983). CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315-330.
17. Eckman, F. (1984). Universals, typologies, and interlanguage. In W. E. Rutherford (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 79-105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. Eckman, F. (1987). The reduction of word-final consonant clusters in interlanguage. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 143-162). Providence, RI: Foris.
19. Eckman, F. (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.
20. Eckman, F., & Iverson, G. (1993). Sonority and markedness among onset clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Second Language Research, 9, 234-252.
21. Goldsmith, J. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
22. Greenberg, J. (1978). Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In J. Greenberg, C. Ferguson, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language (vol. 2, pp. 243-279). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23. Harris, J. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: A non-linear analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Harris, J. (1994). English sound structure. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
25. Hodne, B. (1985). Yet another look at interlanguage phonology: The modification of English syllable structure by native speakers of Polish. Language Learning, 35, 404-422.
26. Hooper, J. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.
27. Ioup, G. (1984). Is there a structural foreign accent? A comparison of syntactic and phonological errors in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 34, 1-17.
28. Kaye, J. (1989). Phonology: A cognitive view. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Kaye, J., & Lowenstamm, J. (1981). Syllable structure and markedness theory. In Theory of markedness in generative grammar (pp. 287-315). Pisa, Italy: Scuola Normale Superiore.
30. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
31. Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 421-441.
32. Major, R. (1996). Markedness in second language acquisition of consonant clusters. In Dennis R. Preston & Robert Bayley (Eds.), Variation and second language acquisition (pp. 75-96). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
33. Major, R., & Faudree, M, (1996). Markedness universals and the acquisition of voicing contrasts by Korean speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 69-90.
34. Riney, T. (1990). Age and open syllable preference in interlanguage phonology. In H. Burmeister & P. Rounds (Eds.), Variability in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the tenth meeting of the second language research forum (vol. II, pp. 655-666). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Department of Linguistics.
35. Sato, C. (1984). Phonological processes in second language acquisition: Another look at interlanguage syllable structure. Language Learning, 34, 43-57.
36. Selkirk, E. (1982). The syllable. In H.Van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations: Part II (pp. 337-385). Dordrecht: Foris.
37. Selkirk, E. (1984). On the major class features of syllable theory. In M. Aronoff & R. Oehrle (Eds.), Language sound structure (pp.107-136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Smith, N. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
39. Tarone, E. (1987). Some influences on the syllable structure of interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 232-247). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
40. Tropf, H. (1987). Sonority as a variability factor in second language phonology. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 173-191). Providence, RI: Foris.
41. Vennemann, T. (1988). Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
42. Weinberger, S. (1987). The influence of linguistic context on syllable simplification. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 401-417). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
43. Wolfram, W., & Fasold, R. (1974). The study of social dialects in American English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.