Think or Sink: Chinese Learners ’ Acquisition of English Voiceless Interdental Fricative

1. Think or Sink: Chinese Learners’ Acquisition of English Voiceless Interdental Fricative D. Victoria Rau Hui-Huan Ann Chang

2. Interlanguage Variation & SLA • Interlanguage (transfer, imposition) & vernacular • SLA vs. Labovian sociolinguistics • VARBRUL

3. Phonological variation of (th) in Chinese English (Rau 2004) • The China study (Rau & Tarone 2004), 15 participants • The Taiwan study (Chang 2004), 16 participants

4. Research questions • What are the variable patterns of production of (th) by Chinese learners of English? • How can the patterns be adequately accounted for from language use? • Bybee’s usage model of phonology (2001) • Trudgill’s linguistic and social typology (2004)

6. Hypotheses • Accurate production of English theta by Chinese learners is predicted by the immediate phonetic environments and speech style. • High token frequency containing the variable (th) correlates with high inaccurate production of (th), whereas high phonetic type frequency correlates with high accurate production of (th). • An EFL community exhibits more allophonic variants than an ESL community.

7. Methodology • Independent variables: two internal factor groups, one external factor group • Dependent variable: accurate vs. inaccurate production of (th) • Four tasks: word list reading, passage reading, retelling the story, interview • Questionnaire on preferred substitutes for (th) • 4386 token

8. Results and Discussion (1-1) • Favorable environments: • low front vowel (.60, thank) > mid/rhotacized vowel (.55, third) > high front vowel (.54, think, wealthy) > round vowel (.53, thought) > • Unfavorable environments: • low back vowel (.46, thunder) > high mid vowel after thr (.45, threaten) > back vowel after thr (.43, throw, through) > high front vowel after thr (.31, three) > diphthong (.19, thousand)

9. Results and Discussion (1-2) • Favorable environments: • high front vowel (.58, with, teeth) > low round vowel (.57, moth) > mid front vowel (.55, breath) > • Unfavorable environments: • low front vowel (.49, math) > high round vowel (.46, youth, truth) > diphthong (.45, mouth) > mid/rhotacized vowel (.38, earth)

10. Results and Discussion (1-3) • word list (.63) > passage reading (.54) > • Informal speech style (story retelling and conversation) (.38)

11. Bybee’s usage model of phonology • Inaccurate production of (th) is only slightly correlated with high-frequency items (Spearman's rho = -.492, p <.01). • There is a high correlation between the order of type frequency containing (th) and accurate production of (th) (Kendall's W = -.733, p <.05). • Many reductive sound changes affect high-frequency items first. • Type frequency defined by phonetic features will be more resistant to change because their frequency gives them a high level of lexical strength.

14. Trudgill’s linguistic and social typology • [s] > [sh] > [t] > [f] • The China group: [s], [t], and [sh] • The Taiwan group: [s], [z], [sh], [f], [d], [t], glottal stop, zero • EFL environments exhibit more allophonic complexity than ESL environments

16. Conclusion • The privilege of front vowels over other phonetic environments in promoting accurate production of (th) by Chinese speakers of English. • This pattern reflected a correlation between type frequencies and accurate production of (th), lending support to Bybee’s Usage model of phonology. • The Taiwan group in an EFL environment sustains more allophonic complexity for (th) than the China group in an ESL environment, a case in support of Trudgill’s hypothesized relationships between societal type and core aspects of linguistic structure.