Fred R. Eckman

The Structural Conformity Hypothesis and the Acquisition of Consonant Clusters in the Interlanguage of ESL Learners.

The validity of two implicational universals regarding consonant clusters was tested in an analysis of the interlanguage of 11 subjects who were native speakers of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean. The results were strongly supportive of the two universals, suggesting the possibility that primary language universals hold also for nonprimary languages.

Second language acquisition : theory and pedagogy

Contents: F.R. Eckman, Preface. Part I:Factors Affecting the L2 Setting. S.M. Gass, Learning and Teaching: The Necessary Intersection. L. Schinke-Llano, Reenvisioning the Second Language Classroom: A Vygotskian Approach. A.J. Hastings, The FOCAL SKILLS Approach: An Assessment. S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, Toward Theory-Driven Language Pedagogy. Part II:Input: Internal Factors. L. White, Input, Triggers, and Second Language Acquisition: Can Binding Be Taught? J.L.S. Bruhn-Garavito, L2 Acquisition of Verb Complementation and Binding Principle B. R.L. Hamilton, The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy in SLA: Determining the Basis for Its Developmental Effects. K.C. Croteau, Second Language Acquisition of Relative Clause Structures by Learners of Italian. Part III:Input: External Factors. D. Larsen-Freeman, On the Teaching and Learning of Grammar: Challenging the Myths. K. Bardovi-Harlig, The Interaction of Pedagogy and Natural Sequences in the Acquisition of Tense and Aspect. B. VanPatten, C. Sanz, From Input to Output: Processing Instruction and Communicative Tasks. S.D. Krashen, Free Voluntary Reading: Linguistic and Affective Arguments and Some New Applications. A.A. Ciccone, Teaching with Authentic Video: Theory and Practice. Part IV:Output: Factors Affecting Production. A.D. Cohen, SLA Theory and Pedagogy: Some Research Issues. J.E. Parker, S.M. Heitzman, A.M. Fjerstad, L.M. Babbs, A.D. Cohen, Exploring the Role of Foreign Language in Immersion Education. E. Tarone, A Variationist Framework for SLA Research: Examples and Pedagogical Insights. Part V:Output: Pronunciation. J.C. Paolillo, Markedness in the Acquisition of English /r/ and /l/. R.M. Hammond, Foreign Accent and Phonetic Interference: The Application of Linguistic Research to the Teaching of Second Language Pronunciation. D. Hansen, A Study of the Effect of the Acculturation Model on Second Language Acquisition.

Some principles of second language phonology

The research we report here is intended to build an understanding of several well-known yet poorly comprehended problems relating to phonemic contrasts in the learning of L2 pronunciation. The competing influences of similarity and difference between native and target language sound systems, in particular, are central to this understanding, which we believe show that L2 phonology is a highly abstract enterprise parallel to the phonologies of primary languages, rather than - as has been assumed - a mere imitation of the target language’s pronunciations. We identify three interesting learning situations which involve the target language’s having different phonemic contrasts from the native language. In the first situation, the native language has neither of two sounds which contrast in the target language; in the second situation, the native language includes just one of two sounds which contrast in the target language. And in the third situation, the native language has both of the sounds in question but shows no contrast between them, i.e., a phoneme of the native language has two (or more) allophones that categorize as separate phonemes in the target language.

On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition

The amount of influence that a learners native language has on the acquisition of a second language is an issue which has received considerable attention in research on second language acquisition. The thesis of this paper is that, within the context of the Interlanguage Hypothesis (Selinker 1972) and the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman 1977), some important properties of a learners interlanguage (IL) can be predicted. More specifically, it is shown that speakers of Cantonese and Japanese internalize different IL rules in attempting to deal with English word-final voice contrasts. Whereas speakers of Cantonese devoice word-final obstruents in the target language, Japanese speakers insert a word-final schwa after the voiced obstruent. However, each of these rules can be correlated with facts about the phonology of the native language, supporting the conclusion that some important aspects of ILs can be predicted on the basis of a comparison of the native and target languages.

Some Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis

This paper is intended as a programmatic contribution to the work of a number of scholars in second language acquisition (SLA) who are attempting to explain various facts about SLA in terms of an interaction between native-language transfer and language universals (Gass & Selinker, 1983). In the present paper, some of the theoretical assumptions and consequences of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) (Eckman, 1977) are discussed in comparison with the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Crucial differences between the two hypotheses are presented, and empirical evidence in favor of the MDH is reviewed. Pedagogical implications of the MDH are then taken up, and a strategy for interlanguage-intervention is discussed in light of an empirical study. Finally, several problems for the MDH which have been proposed in the literature are considered.

THE ROLE OF NATIVE LANGUAGE PHONOLOGY IN THE PRODUCTION OF L2 CONTRASTS

We present findings of an investigation into the acquisition of the English /s/-/ʃ/ contrast by native speakers of Korean and Japanese. Both of these languages have the phones [s] and [ʃ], and both languages exhibit a pattern-or motivate a rule-whereby /s/ is realized as [ʃ] before the vowel [i] and the glide [j]-that is, high front vocoids. The crucial difference, and the focus of this study, is that in Korean [s] and [ʃ] are allophones of /s/, whereas in Japanese the two sounds arguably instantiate different phonemes. We present production data showing that the differences in the functioning of [s] and [ʃ] in the second language learners native language have different consequences for the acquisition patterns and the error types produced in the learning of this contrast.

Hypotheses and Methods in Second Language Acquisition: Testing the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy on Relative Clauses

The purpose of this commentary is to discuss some of the findings and claims of the five articles contained in this special issue that deals with the relationship between the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy (NPAH), first proposed by Keenan and Comrie ( 1977 ), and the acquisition of relative clauses (RCs) in three Asian languages—Cantonese, Japanese, and Korean. This topic is of interest to SLA theory for at least two reasons. First, as Ozeki and Shirai (this issue) pointed out, there is significant literature proposing to explain facts about the SLA of RCs involving European languages. This raises the question of whether the NPAH has the same explanatory value for languages that are genetically unrelated and geographically separated. The second reason is that Comrie ( 1998 , 2002 ) recently proposed that nominal-attributive clauses in some Asian languages differ from RCs in European languages in important ways that might have an impact on whether the NPAH holds true for the acquisition of RCs in these languages.

The role of hypercorrection in the acquisition of L2 phonemic contrasts

This article reports empirical findings from an ongoing investigation into the acquisition of second-language (L2) phonemic contrasts. Specifically, we consider the status and role of the phenomenon of hypercorrection in the various stages through which L2 learners develop and internalize a target language (TL) contrast. We adopt the prevailing view in both sociolinguistics and second language acquisition studies that hypercorrection results from a certain amount of linguistic insecurity on the part of the speaker. Based on 53 Korean speakers’ production of English target phonemes, we conclude that a series of hypercorrection errors may well represent the final stage in the acquisition of a contrast, and further, that in order for hypercorrection to occur, there must be a formal connection between the TL contrast being acquired and the phonological structure of the learner’s native language.

On evaluating arguments for special nativism in second language acquisition theory

This article attempts to evaluate several arguments that have been put forth in favour of special nativism in SLA. Specifically, the cases for each of the following claims are considered: 1) that Universal Grammar (UG) being implicated in L2 acquisition is the null hypothesis; 2) that any theory of SLA necessarily needs a theory of grammar; and 3) that showing that interlanguage grammars are underdetermined by the available input implies that UG must be accessible in L2 learning. In each case, it is argued that the arguments for special nativism are not compelling, and that it is therefore reasonable to consider a research programme in SLA theory that is based on general nativism.

Typological and Parametric Views of Universals in Second Language Acquisition

The purpose of this chapter is to compare and discuss two approaches to using linguistic universais in the explanation of second-language acquisition (SLA) and, where possible, to pose questions and raise issues in this area. I will refer to the first approach as the “typological approach.” which is exemplified in work by Gass (1979), Hyltenstam (1984). as well as some of my own work (Eckman, 1977, 1984), and will call the second framework the “Universal Grammar approach” which is exemplified in work by Flynn (1985), Mazurkewich (1984), White (1985), as well as others. First, I will attempt to characterize each of the approaches with respect to SLA, arguing that both are similar in that they share some of the same fundamental assumptions. Next, I will try to differentiate the two approaches; finally, I will discuss some of the argument types that have been used to support the claims of each approach.