透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.81.222.152
  • 期刊

從語音轉寫與聲學分析探討印尼學習者華語無聲擦音習得

Indonesian Learners' Acquisition of Mandarin Voiceless Fricatives: Perspectives of Phonemic Transcription and Acoustic Analysis

摘要


第二語言語音習得一直是學習者的難點之一,因此,對比分析(Lado 1957)與語音習得模組(Flege 1987)皆試圖從不同的角度預測並解釋學習者難點。華語有五個無聲擦音:唇齒擦音/f/、齒齦擦音/s/、捲舌擦音/ʂ/、硬顎擦音/ɕ/與軟顎擦音/x/。而印尼語只有兩個無聲擦音:齒齦擦音/s/與喉擦音/h/。因此,研究印尼學習者如何習得華語無聲擦音除了可檢視上述兩個理論外也可瞭解語音習得過程。本研究探討:(1)印尼學習者習得華語無聲擦音的難點,(2)印尼學習者使用哪些聲學特徵以分辨華語無聲擦音和(3)對比分析和語音習得模組哪個理論能做較好的預測。為解答這些研究問題,研究者製作華語與印尼語擦音詞表,詞表中所有的擦音都出現在雙音節詞的第一個語詞,並考量搭配的元音。每組擦音與元音的組合各有兩個語詞,因此,華語詞表共有36個語詞,印尼詞表有14 個語詞。二十位受試者參與詞表唸讀實驗,十位為華語母語者,十位為華語程度中級的印尼學習者。分析方式有語音轉寫與聲學分析,研究者先聽辨學習者音檔並將其擦音歸類為正確與不正確,然後再將擦音噪音部分做頻譜動差分析並測量擦音與元音交界處第二共振峰值。結果顯示捲舌擦音的正確率最低,這主要是由於捲舌輔音為相對有標(marked)的語音。本研究同時發現印尼學習者尚未學會顎化,致使[s]與[ɕ]難以有效地區分。另外,學習者也與母語者使用不同的聲學特徵區別華語無聲擦音。最後,研究結果顯示語音習得模組較能預測並解釋印尼學習者的難點。

關鍵字

擦音 強擦音 擦音習得

並列摘要


Phonological acquisition of second language has been one of the difficulties for L2 learners. The CAH (Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis) claimed that inventories absent from L1 were difficult to learn, while SLM (Speech Learning Model) proposed that it was the similar sounds, but not the new sounds, that caused problems for L2 learners. To test which of these two can make a better prediction, this article attempted to analyze the data of Indonesian's acquisition of Mandarin voiceless fricatives. As contrasted in the two languages, there are in Mandarin five voiceless fricatives: labio-dental /f/, alveolar /s/, retroflex /ʂ/, palatal /ɕ/ and velar /x/. However, in Indonesian there are merely two: alveolar /s/ and glottal /h/. Three research questions are hinged here: (1) Which Mandarin fricative is the most challenging for Indonesian learners, (2) What acoustic cues these learners use to differentiate Chinese fricatives and (3) Which of CAH and. SLM can a better prediction. To answer these questions, the researcher designed two word lists, one for naïve speakers and the other for Indonesian learners. The data were then analyzed first by phonemic transcription and then acoustic analysis. Essentially, there are five phonetic cues adopted for the acoustic analysis, namely, (a) centroid/mean/M1, (b) standard deviation/M2, (c) skewness/M3, and (d) kurtosis/M4, plus (e) the onset of the second formant of the following vowels at the consonant-vowel boundary. The results show that the retroflex and palatal fricatives are more difficult for the learners. In addition, it is found that native speakers and Indonesian learners use different acoustic cues to differentiate those fricatives. In appearance, both CAH and SLM are equally successful in predicting that retroflex and palatal fricatives are challenging. Nevertheless, SLM is even better in claiming that similar inventories are the main causes for the problems.

參考文獻


方淑華、陳慶華、王敬淳、楊惠媚、陳浩然,2015,〈藉學習者口語語料庫探究日籍生常見的華語語音偏誤與教學建議〉,《華語文教學研究》12.3:93-123。
王功平,2011,〈印尼留學生普通話舌尖前/後輔音發音偏誤實驗〉,《華文教學與研究》2:46-55。
史仰恩,2019,《日籍學習者學習華語無聲擦音的習得研究》,中原大學碩士論文,未出版。
刑志群,2010,〈對外漢語聲調教學的現狀與教學法〉,《臺灣華語教學研究》1:1-18。
何沐容,2008,〈語音的僵化現象與教學對策-以高級華語程度的印尼、俄羅斯、韓國人士為例〉,《臺灣華語文教學》4:21-30。

延伸閱讀