THE ACQUISITION of ONSETS in A MARKEDNESS RELATIONSHIP

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 245-260

  Carlisle, Robert S ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937184949     PISSN: 02722631     EISSN: 14701545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S027226319800206X     Document Type: Article

References (30)

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.), Interlanguage phonology: 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, NY: State University of New York Press.
4. Cairns, C., & Feinstein, M. (1982). Markedness and the theory of syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 193-225.
5. Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1975). The acquisition of the English auxiliary by native Spanish speakers. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 421-430.
6. 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.
7. Carlisle, R. (1991a). The influence of environment on vowel epenthesis in Spanish/English interphonology. Applied Linguistics, 12, 76-95.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Carlisle, R. (1997). The modification of onsets in a markedness relationship: Testing the Interlanguage Structural Conformity Hypothesis. Language Learning, 47, 327-361.
11. 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Clements, G., & Keyser, S. (1983). CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315-330.
14. Eckman, F. (1987a). Universals, typologies, and interlanguage. In W. E. Rutherford (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition, (2nd ed., pp. 79-105). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
15. Eckman, F. (1987b). 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.
16. 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.
17. Eckman, F., & Iverson, G. (1993). Sonority and markedness among onset clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Second Language Research, 9, 234-252.
18. Greenberg, J. (1978). Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In J. Green berg, C. Ferguson, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language (Vol. 2, pp. 243-279). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19. Harris, J. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: A non-linear analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Hooper, J. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.
21. 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.
22. Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 421-441.
23. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
24. Major, R. (1996). Markedness in second language acquisition of consonant clusters. In D. R. Preston & R. Bayley (Eds.), Variation and second language acquisition (pp. 75-96). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
25. 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.
26. Sato, C. (1984). Phonological processes in second language acquisition: Another look at interlanguage syllable structure. Language Learning, 34, 43-57.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Vennemann, T. (1988). Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: De Gruyter.
30. 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.