published_or_final_version / Curriculum Studies / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

This study is primarily concerned with the issue of determining whether it is worthwhile to try to teach the correct pronunciation of subphonemic segments in ESL courses. It focuses specifically on the allophones [J, J] produced by the Flapping (or Tapping) of medial and final alveolar stops in North American English. Through an exhaustive examination of the ESL and TESL pronunciation manuals that have been published in the last thirty years or so, an assessment is first made of the manner and extent to which this widespread phonological process has been dealt with by the authors of such books. These findings are then compared with the opinions expressed by researchers in the field of second language education in order to determine what sort of consensus currently exists on this issue. The general conclusion is that since flaps are demonstrably the most salient of all NAE allophones and occur as phonemes in the first language of many ESL learners, these segments should be given due consideration in any pronunciation curriculum.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis. 1976. Ph.D.--Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics. / Microfiche copy available in Archives and Humanities. / Bibliography: leaves 211-218. / Ph.D.

No description available.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / abstract / Linguistics / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / abstract / Linguistics / Master / Master of Arts

Theories of phonological word formation (e.g. Selkirk 1980, 1986; Nespor & Vogel 1986; Lahiri & Plank 2010) assume that prosodic units are not isomorphic with syntactic units. However, the prosodic status of compounds remain uncertain, at least in so far as language planning and phonological encoding is concerned. Theories are not transparent about the prosodic status of compounds: although a noun-noun compound in English consists of two lexical words (and therefore two prosodic words), it can also act as a single prosodic item by exhibiting main stress on the first unit and carrying inflection. Thus the question remains controversial - should these items be treated as a single prosodic unit, similar to a monomorphemic word, or as two distinct units for the purpose of post-lexical representation? Recursive word formation may suggest that compounds are a single unit. Psycholinguistic evidence measuring speech onset latency in native speakers of Dutch and Portuguese also shows compounds being treated as single prosodic units (Wheeldon & Lahiri 1997, 2002; Vigario, 2010). Although recent studies have produced evidence for the prosodification of compounds in native speakers, little is known about the process in non-native speakers. Our research questions are as follows: what is the post-lexical planning unit in English, and how do non-native fluent speakers of English plan these units for the purpose of phonological encoding? To investigate our hypotheses, we focus on the phonological encoding of compounds with and without encliticisation, for native and non-native speakers of English. In a series of delayed priming tasks, we found overwhelming evidence that reaction times reflected the total number of prosodic units in the target sentence. In online tasks, however, speech latencies only reflected the size of the first prosodic unit. Taken together,these results suggest that, despite containing two lexical and prosodic words, English compounds are planned as single prosodic units, exhibiting encliticisation and reaction times similar to those of monomorphemic words. As shown by the results in this study, this naming paradigm has proved extremely beneficial for eliciting data about the structure of prosodic units in speech production. Not only was it successful for native speakers of Dutch, European Portuguese, and English, we also found that it was easily implemented into a study of post-lexical encoding in non-native speakers of English.