Markedness pp 291-308 | Cite as

Markedness and Allophonic Rules

  • Marie L. Fellbaum
Chapter

Abstract

In 1977 Eckman argued that Lado’s Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) could he “maintained as a viable principle of second language acquisition” it if was revised to incorporate certain principles from universal grammar. Lado (1957) had stated that:

“...in the comparison between native and foreign language lies the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning...

We assume that the student who comes in contact with a foreign language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those elements that are similar to his native language will he easy for him and those elements that are different will be difficult.“ (p. 2)

Keywords

English Speaker Target Language Short Vowel Universal Grammar Front Vowel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bhat, D.M.S. “A General Study of Palatalization.” Universals of Human Language, Vol. II, Ed. Mouton, 1963, pp. 47–92.Google Scholar
  2. Briere, Eugene John. A Psycholinguistic Study of Phonological Interference. The Hague: Mouton & Co. N. V. 1968.Google Scholar
  3. Dinnsen, Daniel and Fred Eckman. “A Functional Explanation of some Phonological Typologies.” In R. Grossman et al, eds. Functionalism, CHicago Linguistic Society, 1965, pp. 126–134.Google Scholar
  4. Eckman, Fred R. 1977. Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning. 27. 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egon, Veronica. 1981. Eckman’s Markedness Differential Hypothesis: It’s Viability in English and Spanish. Unpublished University of Minnesota manuscript.Google Scholar
  6. Eliasson, Stig. (ed.) Forthcoming. Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Phonology. (Studies in Descriptive Linguistics 13.) Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Farber, Beth. 1982. The Voiceless Stop Consonants of Portuguese and English: A Contrastive Analysis. Unpublished U of Minnesota manuscript.Google Scholar
  8. Gradman, H. 1970. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis: What it is and what it isn’t. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  9. Gundel, Jeanette Kohn. 1982, Jeanette Kohn. 1982. “Another Look at the Markedness Differential Hypothesis.” Paper presented at the 1]th Annual U of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium on Universals of Second Language Acquisition, March 19 & 20, 1982.Google Scholar
  10. Houlihan, Kathleen. On Aspiration and Deaspiration Processes. Current Themes in Linguistics: Bilingualism, Experimental Linguistics, and Language Typologies, ed. F.R. Eckman, 215–239. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. 1977.Google Scholar
  11. Jakobson, R. 1940. Kindersprache, Aphasie, and Allgemeine Lautgesetze. (Tr. as Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague: Mouton, 1968.)Google Scholar
  12. Koutsoudas, Andreas and Olympia Koutsoudas. “A Contrastive Analysis of the Segmental Phonemes of Greek and English.” Language Learning, 12, (1962) 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lisker, Leigh and Arthur S. Abramson. “A Cross-Language Study of Voicing in Initial Stops: Acoustical Measurements.” Reprinted in Word 20, No. 3, (1964) pp. 385–422.Google Scholar
  15. Rubach, Jerzy. Forthcoming. Rule Typology and Phonological Interference. To appear in Eliasson, forthcoming Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Phonology. (Studies in Descriptive Linguistics 13.) Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Sanders, G. 1977. A Functional explanation of elliptical coordinations. In F. Eckman (ed.), Current Themes in Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. Smalley, William A. 1973. Manual of Articulatory Phonetics. Revised Edition. William Carey Library, South Pasadena.Google Scholar
  18. Stevens, Kenneth N. 1975. Modes of Conversion of Airflow to Sound and their Utilization in Speech. Paper presented at the Eighth International Phonetic Sciences, Leeds, England, August 17–23, 1975.Google Scholar
  19. Stockwell, Robert P. & J. Donald Bowen 1965. The Sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 7–18. Reprinted in Rohinett, Betty Wallace & Jacquelin Schachter, eds. Second Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, and Related Aspects. Donald Bowen 1965. The Sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 7–18. Reprinted in Rohinett, Betty Wallace & Jacquelin Schachter, eds. Second Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, and Related Aspects, “Sound Systems in Conflict: A Hierarchy of Difficulty”, (1983) Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar
  20. Viana, Maria de Ceu. “O Indice Duracao e a Analise Acoustics das Oclusivas Orais em Portugues.” Boletim de Filologia, Vol. XXV. (1979) Lisbon.Google Scholar
  21. Wolff, Hans, “Partial Comparisons of the Sound System of English and Puerto Rican Spanish”, Language Learning, III, 1 and 2 (1958), pp. 38–418.Google Scholar
  22. Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. New York: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
  23. Zlatin, Marsha A. 1974. Voicing contrast: perceptual and productive voice onset time characteristics of adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 56, pp. 981–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie L. Fellbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MinnesotaUSA

Personalised recommendations