Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:40:48.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphophonemic transfer in English second language learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2010

SZE WEI PING  and
SUSAN J. RICKARD LIOW
SZE WEI PING*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore
SUSAN J. RICKARD LIOW
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore
*
Address for correspondence: Sze Wei Ping, Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore, Block AS4, #02-07, 9 Arts Link, Singapore117570[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Malay (Rumi) is alphabetic and has a transparent, agglutinative system of affixation. We manipulated language-specific junctural phonetics in Malay and English to investigate whether morphophonemic L1-knowledge influences L2-processing. A morpheme decision task, “Does this <nonword> sound like a mono- or bi-morphemic English word?”, was developed by crossing English Transitional Probability (high vs. low) with Malay Transitional Possibility (possible vs. impossible). The data for Malay-L1/English-L2 adults (N = 21) provide clear and reliable empirical evidence of L1-to-L2 morphophonemic transfer: Participants were more accurate at identifying transitional boundaries in English when they are also possible in Malay. Pedagogical implications are discussed.

Keywords

bilingualismaffixationcross-linguisticmorphologyphonology
Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 423 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-jasser, F. (2008). The effect of teaching English phonotactics on the lexical segmentation of English as a foreign language. System, 36, 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, E. P. (2005). The perception of word boundaries in a second language. Second Language Research, 21, 325–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anglin, J. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (10, Serial No. 238).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283–316.Google ScholarPubMed
Bates, E., & Elman, J. (1996). Learning rediscovered. Science, 274, 1849–1850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, R., Hay, J. & Jannedy, S. (2003). Introduction. In Bod, R., Hay, J. & Jannedy, S. (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, pp. 1–10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., & Nomanbhoy, D. M. (1993). Phonological and morphological awareness in first graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cooper, N., Cutler, A., & Wales, R. (2002). Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: Evidence from native and non-native listeners. Language and Speech, 45, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just “more phonological”? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., & Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 551–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, N. (1988). English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabiano-Smith, L., & Barlow, J. A. (2009). Interaction in bilingual phonological acquisition: Evidence from phonetic inventories. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabiano-Smith, L., & Goldstein, B. (2005). Phonological cross-linguistic effects in bilingual Spanish–English speaking children. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1991). The interlingual identification of Spanish and English vowels: Orthographic evidence. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 701–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (1999). Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. (2003). Causes and consequences of word structure. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, J., & Baayen, R. (2005). Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 343–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, J., Pierrehumbert, J., & Beckman, M. (2004). Speech perception, well-formedness and the statistics of the lexicon. In Local, J., Ogden, R. & Temple, R. (eds.), Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology VI, pp. 58–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hua, Z. (2002). Phonological development in specific contexts: Studies of Chinese-speaking children. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jared, D., & Szucs, C. (2002). Phonological activation in bilinguals: Evidence from interlingual homograph naming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2003). Probing the effects of the L2 on the L1: A case study. In Cook, V. (ed.), Effects of the second language on the first, pp. 81–102. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justice, P. W. (2004). Relevant linguistics: An introduction to the structure and use of English for teachers (2nd edn.). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Koda, K. (2000). Cross-linguistic variations in L2 morphological awareness. Applied Psycholingusitics, 21, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koh, B. B. (1978). The teaching of Malay affixes. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd.Google Scholar
Kuo, L. J., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (2001). Vowels and consonants: An introduction to the sounds of languages. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lim, H. B. (1969). Kamus Bahasa Melayu kechil [Malay dictionary]. Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Book.Google Scholar
Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride-Chang, C., Cho, J. R., Liu, H., Wagner, R. K., Shu, H., Zhou, A., Cheuk, C. S. M., & Muse, A. (2005). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 140–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McQueen, J. M. (1996). Word spotting. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 695–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQueen, J. M. (1998). Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meador, D., Flege, J. E., & Mackay, I. R. A. (2000). Factors affecting the recognition of words in a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P., Milton, J., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2001). LEX: The manual. University of Wales Swansea, Centre for Applied Language Studies. http://www.swan.ac.uk/cals/calsres/free/free.htm (retrieved January 2, 2006).Google Scholar
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (1992). General guidelines for the formation of terms in Malay. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, W., Berninger, V. [W.], Abbott, R. [D.], Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second-grade readers and at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoladis, E. (2002). What's the difference between ‘toilet paper’ and ‘paper toilet’? French–English bilingual children's crosslinguistic transfer in compound nouns. Journal of Child Language, 29, 843–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicoladis, E. (2003). Cross-linguistic transfer in deverbal compounds of preschool bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimmo, L. M., & Roodenrys, S. (2002) Syllable frequency effects on phonological short-term memory tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 643–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 436–486. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, J., & Tessier, A-M. (2005). Phonotactics and alternations: Testing connection with artificial language learning. In Flack, K. & Kawahara, S. (eds.), Papers in experimental phonetics and phonology (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 31), pp. 1–16. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Stochastic phonology. GLOT International, 5, 1–13.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rickard Liow, S. J., & Poon, K. K. L. (1998). Phonological awareness in multilingual Chinese children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholes, R. (1968). Phonemic interference as a perceptual phenomenon. Language and Speech, 11, 86–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Katz, L., Fowler, A. E., Liberman, A., Brady, S., Thorton, R., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L., Fletcher, J., Stuebing, K., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: Comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology and syntax. Psychological Science, 6, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegal, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1989). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sun, C. (2006). Chinese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sze, W. P., & Rickard Liow, S. J. (2008). Cross-linguistic generalization of morphological processes. Presented at the Workshop on Writing Systems: Analysis, Acquisition & Use, Institute of Education, London.Google Scholar
Tadmor, U. (2009). Malay-Indonesian. In Comrie, B. (ed.), The world's major languages (2nd edn.), pp. 791–818. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tan, T. S., & Tan, A. L. (eds.) (1980). Kamus am terbaru Bahasa Malaysia [New Malay dictionary]. Selangor: Pustaka Umum.Google Scholar
Tsukada, K. (2006). Cross-language perception of word-final stops in Thai and English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsushima, T., Takizawa, O., Sasaki, M., Shiraki, S., Kanae, N., Morio, K., & Best, C. (1994). Discrimination of English /r–l/ and /w–y/ by Japanese infants at 6–12 months: Language-specific developmental changes in speech perception abilities. Proceedings of International Conference of Spoken Language Processing, 94, 1695–1698.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 481–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wurm, L. H. (1997). Auditory processing of prefixed English words is both continuous and decompositional. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 438–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yap, M. J., Rickard Liow, S. J., Jalil, S., & Faizal, S. (in press). The Malay Lexicon Project: A database of lexical statistics for 9,592 words. Behavior Research Methods.Google Scholar