A Study on the Correspondence Patterns of Korean Initial Consonants between L1 English and L2 Korean Language - Focusing on Difficulty-
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study aims to propose a This study critically examines the concept of “Correspondence difficulty” as a principle for sequencing the instruction of Korean initial consonants, and identifies various difficulty patterns exhibited by English-speaking learners learning Korean initial consonants. It critiques prior phonological perspectives on difficulty—typological universality vs. specificity, the contrastive analysis hypothesis, and the speech learning model—highlighting that each has limitations for establishing stepwise difficulty levels. In particular, Prator (1967)’s contrastive analysis-based hierarchy struggles to account for the various L1–L2 allophonic correspondences, and Flege (1995)’s similarity-based view (speech learning model) remains debated due to conflicting empirical findings. These discrepancies are attributed to overlooking differences between productive expression and receptive perception in learning, as well as to overgeneralizing diverse phoneme–allophone correspondence patterns between L1 and L2. Based on these insights, the study examines the difficulty patterns that English-speaking learners exhibit when acquiring Korean initial consonants. The analysis reveals that when L1 and L2 allophones are considered, a difficulty hierarchy defined at the phonemic level may differ at the phonetic level. Furthermore, the relative difficulty order can vary between production (speaking) and perception (listening) depending on learner proficiency levels.
Abstract
This study aims to propose a This study critically examines the concept of “Correspondence difficulty” as a principle for sequencing the instruction of Korean initial consonants, and identifies various difficulty patterns exhibited by English-speaking learners learning Korean initial consonants. It critiques prior phonological perspectives on difficulty—typological universality vs. specificity, the contrastive analysis hypothesis, and the speech learning model—highlighting that each has limitations for establishing stepwise difficulty levels. In particular, Prator (1967)’s contrastive analysis-based hierarchy struggles to account for the various L1–L2 allophonic correspondences, and Flege (1995)’s similarity-based view (speech learning model) remains debated due to conflicting empirical findings. These discrepancies are attributed to overlooking differences between productive expression and receptive perception in learning, as well as to overgeneralizing diverse phoneme–allophone correspondence patterns between L1 and L2. Based on these insights, the study examines the difficulty patterns that English-speaking learners exhibit when acquiring Korean initial consonants. The analysis reveals that when L1 and L2 allophones are considered, a difficulty hierarchy defined at the phonemic level may differ at the phonetic level. Furthermore, the relative difficulty order can vary between production (speaking) and perception (listening) depending on learner proficiency levels.