Chapter I The Research and Its Background Introduction Learning a foreign language particularly English, after acquiring the

first language, is not as easy as separating different kinds of stone when they are mixed-up with one another. The mere fact that Philippines has thousands of dialects that are spoken by the people is already one of the many factors to be considered when a Filipino is taught another complex language. Normally, mother tongue is the first language to be developed in children when they started to hear and imitate sounds. Hence, it is undisputed fact that children didnt have difficulties in acquiring their first language since there is no other language that may interfere in their acquisition. As John Locke believes that when a child is born, his mind is nothing but a blank slate or what he called tabula rasa. He argues that a child has no innate ideas instead he absorbs knowledge at his early age while preparing himself to perform complex task while he grew up (Orillos,1997). On the other hand, some second language learners find difficulties in producing sounds of English because of too much exposure on their mother tongue as this is them language that embodies his culture and his environment which basically his medium to formulate his thoughts and his means to communicate to his parents, playmates, friends, and to older ones. According to (Ellis, 1985) in his book Understanding Second Language Acquisition, there was strong assumption that most of the difficulties facing
1

the L2 learner in acquiring its phonological sound system were imposed by his or her first language sound system. He further explained that when there were differences between the sound systems of L1 and L2, the learners L1 knowledge on phonemes would interfere with the L2, and when the L1 and L2 phonemes were similar, the L1 would actively aid L2 learning. Hence, this kind of incident among second language learners must be anticipated when teaching them the target language sound systems as it caused a problem on their second language acquisition. With this respect, if he is to learn more complex language that has minimal similarities to his first language, it might be difficult for him to acquire the target language due to the common usage of his first language. Hence, as he is in continuous usage of his first language and thus it interferes in his simulation of sounds in English. With these, it is, however, undeniable that though English is the prominent language and has been used as a medium of instruction in educational institutions, some offices, and in educational books some Filipino English learners are still not proficient and fluent in using the language because of their frequent native language usage. Moreover, L2 learners not simply use their mother tongue in communication instead they are observed using their vernacular as an auxiliary for them to understand vocabularies and to learn syntactical structure in English. On the other hand, the most outcome of interference of native language among the learners is a speech defect in production of English sounds since they are prone to use their native language in communication. In

this case, tendency takes place that their native language phonemes which are not present in the target language interfere in sounds production (Ellis,1999). It is necessary to pinpoint that this phenomenon is observed in Cagayan State University Carig Campus where a number of students are observed to use the prominent native languages in the province namely, Ibanag, Ilocano, and Itawes. Teachers also admit by themselves that some college students commit speech defects when they speak using the said language. Consequently, this is a manifestation that some learners tend to keep quiet during class discussions for they are afraid to mispronounce some words in the target language. Thus in this study, the researchers are looking forward to know the extent of interference of first language phonemes in English production of sounds especially in pronunciation. At the end of the study, the researchers will be able to account the interference of the prominent dialects (L1) of Cagayan in learners acquisition of the phonological structure of the target language English. Theoretical Framework In Second Language Acquisition (SLA), there are numerous theories that sprung claiming how English as a Foreign Language (EFL) can be acquired. As said by these theories, there are factors that influence language acquisition especially if it is a foreign language. Notwithstanding the assertion that Affective Factors greatly influence second language acquisition as what had claimed by Stephen Krashen in his Affective Filter

Hypothesis, that the native language itself of the learner puts much burden in his
3

acquisition and learning of the second language. Instances were observed when primary language interferes in SLA, especially in the production of English sounds (Schutz,2007). Differences of the first and second language in phonological structure affirm difficulty in part of the learners since learning another language is customarily associated with the L1. This claim can be best explained by the Nativist Theory of Eric Lenneberg who argues that language is an innate or inborn capacity of man. Thus children could easily produce sounds of the first language as he complimented in his proposed Theory of Critical Period that in order to have proper language fluency, it should be acquired or learnt before the onset of puberty (Orillos,1997). When the features of the primary language were successfully acquired, a language learner takes it as a habit to possess whoever he communicates with. This is further explained by the Behaviorist Theory of Leonard Bloomfield, B.F Skinner, and Charles Fries that language learners are believed to habitually relate their L1 knowledge to what they recognize in the L2 especially in speaking. Thus language transfer occurs wherein Positive Transfer is a result of similarities between the L1 and the L2 in terms of sound systems, because habits used in the L1 easily transfer to the L2. On the other hand, Negative Transfer is caused by differences between the L1 and the L2, because errors result from using habits from the L1 in the L2 (Ellis,1999). The model exposed above was expanded by the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. It argues that the structures and shape of the source language of an
4

individual which are different from those of the second language could create errors in speaking (Ellis,1985). This aforesaid theory is backed up by Andersens Nativization/Denativization Theory that asserts L2 learners strategy to acquire phonological features of the foreign language is to simplify the learning task by building hypotheses based on the knowledge of his L1 that sometimes causes overgeneralization scope (Orillos,2011). Finally, the Interlanguage Theory of Selinker (1972) rationalized that phonological system which the learner construct at the stage of his development will be easily learned. In this sense, if L2 was learned as the child grew and developed different input it is assumed that L2 acquisition is easily achieved. Likewise, the theory also claims that structured system of language has series of interlocking systems which form what Corder (1967) called the learners built-in syllabus. Hence, if the first language shares a common structured system in the second language then L2 acquisition is successful, otherwise Negative transfer will occur in the learners acquisition of the language caused by overgeneralization as what had covered by the Behaviorist Theory and Andersens Nativization and Denativization Theory. Moreover, based on the Model of Speech Perception-Phonological Acquisition Interaction of Richie (1968) and Michaels (1973) explains that the features used in grammar differ in terms of their level of prominence. The two further explained that these are features that are frequently used in such language. Thus, features more prominent in

L1 system will greatly influence learners perception of new L2 sounds (Hacin and Bhatt, 1994). With these theories, they stand to measure the extent of interference of the source language to the second language acquisition of the learner and these also manifest to what degree do second language learners uses their mother tongue strategies to acquire the foreign language and learn the grammar of it. Conceptual Framework Learning a foreign language is another mixture of knowledge to be stored in a persons memory. According to the Pedagogy of Teaching, learning is a step- by- step process that never stops. Logically speaking, it follows that when learning a language there are factors that affect someones acquisition since theres a prior acquisition of language (first language) that was achieved before second language learning takes place. In this case, learners usually depend on their knowledge on the first language as their technique to learn the foreign language. Thus, the paradigm that follows is a system to be followed in conducting our study. INPUT
OUTPUT

A. Dialect of Respondents B. Extent of Dialect Usage

Oral Test on L1 Phonological Interference Intonational Test Prators Diagnostic Passage

Fig.1.0 The Relationship between the input and the output

The paradigm shows that the independent variables which are the dialect of the respondents and the extent of their first language (dialect) usage affect their proficiency in production of L2 sounds which includes correct pronunciation of words in English and proper intonation. Generally, it is anticipated that the respondents dialect causes their difficulties in phonological production of L2 since it is said that L1 phonemes interfere. On the other hand, it is also perceived that the extent of first language usage of the students seemed to be a contributory factor in pronunciation since too much exposure from L1 sounds would eventually create errors in pronunciation of L2 phonemes. It is presumed that the more the learner is committed on his first language the less proficiency he would get on learning the second language (Ellis, 1985). Thus, these factors that were mentioned above have something to do with the phonological production of L2 learners in English. Exposure of the students in English gives them ultimate benefit for they can be able to master the language and communicate by using it. With this view, it is better to consider ones first language because this may interfere in L2 acquisition of the student and this may also be a cause that the students find difficulties in acquiring English.

Statement of the Problem This study seek to look at the interference of L1 (native language) second language acquisition particularly in L2 learners proper pronunciation of words in English. Precisely, it will answer the following questions: 1. What is the dialect of the respondents? 2. To what extent do the respondents use their dialect at home? 3. What is the performance of the respondents in pronunciation test and intonation test? 4. Is there significant difference in the performance of the respondents in pronunciation test and intonation test when grouped according to the dialect they spoke at home? 5. Is there significant relationship of the respondents score in pronunciation and intonation test to their extent of dialect usage?

Hypothesis In part of this study, these hypotheses will be tested: a. There is no significant difference in the performance of the respondents in pronunciation test and intonation test when grouped according to the dialect they spoke at home. b. There is no significant relationship of the respondents score in pronunciation and intonation test to their extent of dialect usage.
8

Significance of the study This study will recognize the effects of first language phonemes in acquiring second language sounds. Hence, the result of this will be a guide to the following: Learners- they will be guided with the effects of their native language while acquiring English as their second language. Thus, they will know how to adjust themselves in acquiring L2 effectively. Teachers- it will be easy for them to teach L2 to second language learners. They may use this study to explore the variety of frameworks in the adaptation of the curriculum for language learners. Moreover, this will also help them to know and understand policies and procedures that are relevant to culture and identity which ultimately gives them the idea of setting the best approach to teach L2 among second language learners. Parents- this research will encourage them to motivate their children in exposing themselves to L2 for them to learn it proficiently. Administration- this will give them an opportunity to recognize the value of language learning and to promote learning L2 whenever possible. Community- this study will be a signal to the environment to embrace L2 in the society. This will clear out the minds of the mass to positively perceive the fruitful contribution of English to ones success in life.

Future Researchers- this study will be a guide for them when conducting a parallel study of this. Consequently, to sum it up, this will be a beneficial study to everyone since we are living with modernization. Being able to speak with the language will be an instrument of communication wherever a person set forth. Scope and Delimitation This study focused to the language usage of 15 Ilocano, 15 Itawes, and 15 Ibanag first year students of Department of Arts and humanities College of Arts and Sciences, Cagayan State University Carig Campus who were enrolled in the programs Bachelor of Science in Industrial and Commercial Communication, Bachelor of Arts in English, and Bachelor of Arts in Mass Communication this first semester of S.Y 2011-2012. Due to time, reference and financial difficulties, the data will be gathered within the Department of Arts and Humanities. Hence, this research did not seek to explore the interference of L1 nationally in second language acquisition of English sounds. Moreover this study was pursued from August October, 2011. Within the context of this scope and delimitation, it was expected that the study will provide adequate data based on realia which will help the second language learners and second language teachers to effectively learn and teach English.

10

Definition of Terms The following terms are defined according to their operational use and conceptual essence in this study: English refers to the universal language. Communication refers to the exchange of information between people, e.g. by means of speaking, writing, or using a common system of signs or behaviour. Interference refers to the act or an instance of hindering, obstructing, or impeding. Language acquisition is the act of acquiring a language. Language proficiency is the ability of an individual to speak or perform an acquired language. Native tongue is the first language that somebody learns to speak. Dialect is the cultural language spoken by a group of people usually of common cultural origin and is usually a first language learned by an individual since he or she was born. Ilocano is the dialect dominantly spoken by the people of Ilocos region who, in the distant past, migrated to northern part of Cagayan Valley region and to other parts of the archipelago.

11

Ibanag, like Itawes, is a name of a cultural minority called by Spaniards as Ybanags who reside in Cagayan Valley. This hispanized people of Cagayan and Isabela speak Ibanag. Itawes is both a name for indigenous cultural group called Cagay-an, and a name of a dialect believed to have originated from Malaysia and Indonesia. This local language has become a communication facility among people living in the northern part of Cagayan. Oral communication primarily referring to spoken verbal communication typically relies on words, visual aids and non-verbal elements to support the conveyance of the meaning. Speech is the faculty or act of speaking. Phonology is, broadly speaking, the sub discipline of linguistics concerned with "the sounds of language". Phoneme is the smallest segmental unit of sound employed to form meaningful contrasts between utterances. Pronunciation refers to the way in which a sound, word, or language is articulated, especially in conforming to an accepted standard. Intonation refers the rising or falling pitch of the voice when somebody says a word or syllable, or the rising and falling pattern of speech generally.

12

Chapter II Review and Related Literature Being proficient on using the English language is what everyone aspires to have. It is in fact a common phenomenon that everyone should learn to speak and be like native speakers of the language since the language embodies the culture that we have for this millennium. Nevertheless, some existing factors impede our accumulation of the said language since they interfere while we are trying to equip ourselves in English. First Language and Second Language It is now an accepted practice to talk of teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) and teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). Both second and foreign language refers to the target language while first language/native language or mother tongue is the source language. The distinction between a second and a foreign language is based on the social function of the language in the country where it is taught Orello (1997). First Language L1 Native Language Mother Tongue Primary Language Stronger language Source Language Second Language L2 Non-native language Foreign Language Secondary Language Weaker Language Target Language

The two terms, L1 and L2, are related to two processes commonly mentioned in psycholinguistics- L1 acquisition and L2 learning. A language learned other than your

13

native language is known as your second language. Some considerations will have to be anticipated when teaching a language: 1. A child learning his first language is strongly motivated because his needs and wishes are satisfied by the use of language and his control of his environment and himself increases with his increasing mastery of his mother tongue. The second language seldom fulfills such functions when it is learned as a subject in the curriculum. 2. The child is exposed to the first language all his waking hours while he probably hears the second language only during class hours. 3. As the child learns his first language he is also learning the concepts, while learning the second he seldom has to form new concepts except where these are foreign to his own culture. Theories about the Nature of Language (Orillos, 1997) Contrastive Analysis The classic approach to contrastive analysis involves an analysis of L1 (the native language or another tongue) and L2 (the language being learned). The two languages in question are sometimes also referred to as the source language (SL) and the target language (TL). The aim is to bring out points of similarities and differences and thus to predict and explain learners errors and difficulties in second language acquisition.

14

Contrastive Analysis began in the heyday of behaviourism and audio-lingual language teaching, and was associated in the early days with the names of Fries and Lado. Essentially, it is based on two ideas: 1. The first is that differences among languages cause learning difficulties, and conversely, similarities among languages make for ease of learning. 2. The second follows on from the first and concerns itself with interference. Given the behaviorist perspective in which CA developed, and in which learning was seen as habit formation, it was felt that, when learning difficulties occurred, i.e. in areas of differences, it was because the habits of the first language interfered with the habits of the second. Error Analysis Error analysis became distinguished from contrastive analysis by its examination of errors attributable to all possible sources, not just those which result from negative transfer of the native transfer of the native language. Error analysis easily superseded contrastive analysis because of the following discoveries: 1. Only some of the errors a learner makes are attributable to the mother tongue.
15

2. Learners do not actually make all the errors that contrastive analysis predicted they should. 3. At that learners from disparate language backgrounds tend to make similar errors in learning one target language. These Errors are overt manifestations of the learners systems aroused from several possible sources: interlingual errors of interference from the native language, and intralingual errors within the target language. LAD (Language Acquisition Device) The term LAD was actually viewed during the period of the nativist who claimed that every human being is born with a built-in device of some kind that predisposes us to language acquisition- to a systematic perception of language around us, resulting in the construction of an internalized system of language (Orillos, 1997). Eric Lenneberg (1967) proposed that language is a specie- specific behaviour and that certain modes of perception, categorizing abilities, and other language-related mechanisms are biologically determined. Similarly Noam Chomsky (1965) claimed the existence of innate properties of language to explain the childs mastery of his native language in such a short time despite the highly abstract nature of the rules of language. This innate knowledge is embodied in what Chomsky calls a little black box.

16

Interlanguage This refers by Larry Selinker (1972) to a separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from a learners attempted production of a TL norm .It is structurally an intermediate status between the native and target languages. According to Nemser (1971), it is an approximate system that is distinct from the L1 and L2 and forms an evolving series that in a given contact situation, this system of learners at the same stage of proficiency roughly coincides. Pit S. Corder (1971) used the term idiosyncratic dialect to connote the idea that the learners language is a code that is unique to a particular individual: that the rules of the learners language are peculiar to the language of the individual alone. It is a systematic knowledge of language which is independent of both the learners L1 and the L2 system he is trying to learn. It is a system based upon the best attempt of learners to provide order and stimuli to the linguistic stimuli surrounding them. Behaviourist Learning Theory (Ellis, 1985) According to him, this is a general theory of learning (i.e. it applies to all kinds of learning, not just language learning). It views learning as the formation of habits. These arise, as he explained, when the learner is confronted with specific stimuli which lead to specific responses, which are, in turn, reinforced by rewards. Behaviorist learning theory emphasizes environmental factors as opposed to internal, mental factors.

17

Language Interference Language interference (also known as linguistic interference, cross-linguistic interference or transfer) is the effect of language learners first language on their production of the language they are learning. The effect can be on any aspect of language: grammar, vocabulary, accent, spelling and so on. It is most often discussed as a source of errors (negative transfer), although where the relevant feature of both languages is the same, it results in correct language production (positive transfer). The greater the differences between the two languages, the more negative the effects of interference are likely to be. Both of these types, positive and negative, refer to the automatic and subconscious use of old behaviour in new learning situations. Specifically, semantic and syntactic transfer of this nature reflects the most commonly understood uses of the term. Transfer is also used by educational psychologists to refer to the use of past knowledge and experience in a new situation e.g. a literate second language learner does not have to learn that written symbols represent the spoken form of the new language. Corder (1983) suggested the need for a word other than transfer which he claimed belonged to the school of behaviourist learning theory. He suggested the term Mother Tongue Influence. Sharwood Smith (1986) refined the idea still further by suggesting Cross Linguistic Influence, which would take into account the potential influence of L3 and L2 where another learned language, but not the L1, might have an effect on the learning of L2.

18

Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) suggest that there are two possible ways of describing term interference. One is from a psychological perspective, which suggests that there is influence from old habits when new ones are being learned. The second is from a socio-linguistic perspective which describes the language interactions which occur when two language communities are in contact. L1 Interference in L2 Acquisition The phenomenon of the first language influencing the learning of the target language is frequently labelled as L1 interference to transfer. If this transfer facilitates the learning of the target language, then we are dealing with positive transfer. On the other hand, when L1 is perceived as the cause of common mistakes in the target language, the preferred term is negative transfer. Errors in pronunciation generally result from the phonological differences both languages. Some English consonants and vowels are practically non-existent in other languages. In this case, students are often tempted to use sounds that, in their opinion, closely reflect the English sound. Thus, in the early stages of language learning, we frequently hear /t/ or /f/ instead of //. In some other language alphabets, one letter corresponds to one sound. This is why some students experience difficulties when faced with the various spellings of the same sounds in English. For example, the English vowel /i/ can be represented with eve, meet, honey, heat, believe, conceive, etc. Students find it difficult to understand that, unlike their native language, English can use several letters to symbolize one sound. The
19

situation is further complicated by the lack of differentiation between long and short vowel sounds. Hence, students often use only the letter I to denote the sound in the above-mentioned words. This is also the case of other with the alternative spellings of the other consonants, vowels and diphthongs in English. Views on L1 interference In an issue of Speak Out! , Jennifer Jenkins (1996) outlines the need for a change in pronunciation modification priorities from system based on a native model of pronunciation towards a system that modifies the errors which impede communication across an international context. The motivation for this new system of priorities stems from the assumption that non-native speakers will spend more time speaking to other non-native speakers of English than to native speakers owing to the fact that there are now far more non-native speakers of English in the world than native speakers. This is particularly the case for EFL learners who usually return to their own countries after studying abroad (Malana, 2011). Jenkins list of priorities was built upon the work of Jenner (1989) who sought to establish a common core of English phonology: Jenner recently advocated he need to establish what all native speakers of all varieties (of English) have in common which enables them to communicate effectively with native speakers of other varieties other than their own. Jenkins has adapted Jenners list of priorities from a list designed to offer the learner a guarantee of intelligibility and acceptability to native speakers anywhere in the
20

world (Jenner, 1989), to a list of priorities which also takes the listener intelligibility of non-native speakers into account. The following is a summary of her list of nine significant aspects of pronunciation to be focused on for pronunciation error elimination. Vowel quantity. Jenkins believes that because the extra-long vowels of English vary in length from one NS to another, there is a little common ground between them. Provided the learner is consistent in use, quality is unlikely to affect intelligibility greatly.

Diphthongs. Diphthong length but not quality is essential to intelligibility as diphthong quality varies between groups of NS without a great loss intelligibility, length, however, is more critical. Jenkins herself admits that future research into diphthongs may reverse this decision.

Phonetic realizations. The majorities of phonetic realizations in the L1, which are transferred to the L2, do not interfere with intelligibility and are merely perceived as characteristics of a foreign accent. Other phonetic transfers do interfere, however, and may lead to unintelligibility. Jenkins mentions however that there are sometimes alternate pronunciations which may be taught that are acceptable even to native speakers. Consonant cluster simplification. Many L1 languages have more phonotactic restrictions on consonants than English does. The predominance of open (CV) syllables in languages other than English as well as restrictions on the position
21

consonants may take within the word is negatively transferable to English. The resulting production is either epenthesis (vowel addition) or omission (consonant deletion). Jenkins believes that where learners use the strategy of epenthesis, intelligibility is rarely affected, since listeners are able to recover the original form. However, consonant deletion causes considerable problems for NNS listeners in particular, since the target form is not recoverable from the output. Word stress. Researchers have shown that NS listeners identify words on the basis of their stress patterns, first picking out the stressed syllable and then searching their mental lexicons on the basis of this syllable., judging possible candidates according to how well they fir the unstressed syllables on either side of it. Jenkins asserts that this is more of a problem for NS listeners than for NNS listeners, assuming that NNSs listen more for contextual cues when differentiating similar nouns and verbs. Based on what has been said, so far, it becomes clear that although the source and the target language may share some structural and lexical similarities, there may also appear some common errors as a result of L1 interference. We should therefore teach our students to appreciate and acknowledge these differences if they are to become successful communicators and proficient speakers of the target language.

22

Phonetic Interference (Pronunciation and Intonation) Phonetics is about describing the sounds of speech and the patterns they make. Among its various applications the one that will be uppermost in the minds of most readers is that teaching and learning the pronunciation of a foreign language (Malana, 2011). When we encounter a foreign language, our natural tendency is to hear it in terms of the sounds of our own language. We actually perceive it rather differently from the way native speakers do. Equally, when we speak a foreign language we tend to attempt to do so using the familiar sounds and sound patterns of our mother tongue. We make it sound, objectively, rather differently from how it sounds when spoken by native speakers. This is the well-documented phenomenon of phonological interference (Crystal 1987: 372). Our L1 (mother tongue) interferes with our attempts to function in the L2 (target language). We can easily demonstrate the effects of interference by considering the pronunciation of loanwords. English has borrowed the word futon from Japanese; Japanese has borrowed the word football from English. In each case the loanword has its pronunciation modified so that it accords with the sounds and sound patterns of the language into which it is borrowed. Pronunciation errors have long been thought to be caused by the transfer of phonological aspects from L1 to L2. These, according to Selinker (1972), maybe

23

attributed to inter-language transfer. Inter and intra speaker variables that will attributed to other recognized items as will be mentioned later. Following reviews a hierarchy of significant pronunciation errors proposed by Jenkins (1990). When a language learner attempts to produce an L2 sound their relative success at approaching the target is reliant on their ability to disassociate their L2 utterance from their repertoire of L1 phonemes and allophones. Disassociation is often necessary because two languages may contain sounds which seem to be the same but are produced by differing articulator motions. They are therefore acoustically different and maybe perceived to be divergent from the target by the listener. While it is possible for adult speakers to learn to produce acoustically acceptable approximations of targets such as the trouble-some / 1 / and / r / distinction overtime (Fledge, 1995) the level of success varies between individual speakers. It is a common remark that the more successful producers of near-native sounding pronunciation are rare, gifted, or talented. Their success could be more attributed to their ability to disassociate phonological aspects of the L1 and L2 and thus minimize the transfer of phonological features from one language to the other. Assumptions regarding the variable success of learners L2 concern the relative difficulty different nationalities encounter in their production of acceptable English pronunciation. A very useful observation to consider in the contrastive analysis of various language groups and their L2 English production is that nationalities with a vastly
24

different phonetic inventory to that of English, often find it easier to produce an acceptable phonetic target in the L2 than a nationality whose L1 contains contrasting sounds (Fledges Speech Learning Model, 1987, 1995). For example, Japanese students have an advantage over Koreans when it comes to the production of English vowels. As Japanese only contains five simple monophthongal vowels to Koreans ten, Japanese English speakers only have five vowels to interfere with the twelve monophthongs present in English. Therefore, it may be assumed that it is a simpler task to learn totally foreign sounds than sounds which bear a resemblance to sound found in the L1. Furthermore, fossilized errors, which are attributable to the negative transfer of L1 to L2, may more easily be unlearned when they are of the foreign rather than the familiar variety. For example, English, /v/, which is totally foreign to Korean and often approximated by /b/, is less of a problem to unlearn than the negatively transferred Korean high front vowel / I / which typically replaces the similar but durational longer English high front vowel / i /. Each language has its own pattern relating to the length of vowels. Languages vary widely as to whether and how much vowel duration is affected by the following consonant. English has extremely exaggerated pre-consonantal vowel duration when preceding voiced consonants (Takahashi, 1987). There are, however, some universal (inter-lingual) consistencies in vowel length. Low vowels are always longer than high vowels, and back vowels tend to be longer vowel duration is often regarded to be universal.

25

Phonological Universals are phonological patterns which are common to all known languages. They are also referred to as being unmarked, (common and regularly occurring phenomena), or inversely, as being marked, (distinctive and unique phenomena). In English for example, / s / is unmarked and / / is marked. Another notion, implicational universals, is that the presence of a marked segment / / in a language implies the presence of an unmarked segment / s /, but the reverse is not true. Many studies have been undertaken to determine the degree of difficulty in acquisition of the various elements of L2 phonology (Altenberg and Vago, 1983; Broselow, 1984; Payne, 1976) based on markedness theory of universals. Takahashi (1987) concluded from an analysis of their studies that those less marked phonetic or phonological characteristics of L1 are harder to unlearn. That is, those characteristics which are acquired early in L1 acquisition and are important (yet commonly occurring) characteristics of L1 are easily carried over in the production of the L2 phonological system and remain persistently as the L2 learners foreign accent. The development of an absolute hierarchy of markedness in and between languages is an almost impossible task given the enormous number and diversity of languages. Markedness theory has, however, contributed to a general understanding of the tendencies of simplification adopted by L2 learners. Some of these are outlined in the succeeding discussions. In all languages there appears to be a universal preference for the open CV (consonant-vowel) syllable. A study by Koshevnikov and Chistovich (1965) showed that in a stressful situation, speakers tended to revert to very simple CV patterns of pronunciation in their own native language. Tarone (1972) has argued that the simple
26

open syllable maybe universal articulatory and perceptual unit; that is, that the articulators tend to operate in basic CV programs in all languages, and the various languages simply elaborate upon this program by adding various combinations of initial and final consonants. From this, it could be hypothesized that in inter-language transfer, first languages with a greater propensity towards open syllables will have a greater degree of difficulty in assimilating the syllable structure of English. Avoidance is a general tendency for learners to avoid those aspects of production that they know to be problematic for them (Schachter, 1974). Avoidance strategies maybe employed at the grammatical as well as at the phonemic level. At the grammatical level, an article (a, an, the) maybe left out of the utterance when the student suspects an article is necessary and yet chooses to avoid using one rather than running the risk of selecting the wrong one. Over-generalization is described by Richards (1973) as the application of a newly learned target language rule to an inappropriate form or context. For example, pitch, duration, and intensity as features of stress being used too often to highlight every content word in an utterance. Over-elaboration is usually caused by exposure to language acquisition strategies that are heavily reliant on reading and writing, to the detriment of speaking. In an attempt to produce accurate target language utterances, the learner produces an-native like stilted and formal speech which maybe syntactically accurate but unnatural (Tarone, et. Al., 1983). Hypercorrection or overcompensation phenomenon can
27

be found to occur after students have become aware of a negative transfer effect and arises from the strategy they employ to deal with this (Wardhaugh, 1986). For example, Japanese does not possess the CV / si: / (see) but does contain the CV / Si: (she), so the expected negative transfer effect is the production of / Si: (she) for the word see. Elision is the non-articulation of a sound and epenthesis is the addition of a sound to a word in L2. Both are a negative transfer effect of phonotactic constraints in the L1. As further explained, Avanika Sinha, Niroj Banerjee, Ambalika Sinha and Rajesh Kumar Shastri mentioned three models to explain the functioning of L1 in L2. The first model talks about the relationship between mature phonological system and speech perception. The Perceptual Assimilation Model (PSM) was developed to analyze the functioning of speakers L1 phonological system in the perception of nonnative sounds (Best, 1994). Another model that focuses on the issue of L2 segment acquisition is the Speech Learning Model (SLM). The SLM tries to find out how speech perception affects phonological acquisition by distinguishing the two kinds of sounds: new (not identified by any L1 sound) and similar (identified by L2 sounds). It was suggested that phonetic systems in production and perception tend to be adaptive over the life span and reorganize in response to the sounds in the L2 inputs. This process is known as equivalence classification that obstructs the establishment of new phonetic categories for similar sounds. However, the researchers are unable to explain the nature of that mechanism (Flege, 1995). The other model of speech perception-phonological acquisition interaction is the extended work of Ritchie (1968) and Michaels (1973). Thus, it explains that the
28

features used in grammar differ in terms of their level of prominence. Features that are used frequently in the languages phonology will be more prominent than the less frequently used ones. Thus, features more prominent in L1 system will greatly influence learners perception of new L2 sounds (Hancin and Bhatt, 1994). According to the theory of feature-geometry, each phoneme is unique in terms of its structure that separates it from other segments in an inventory (Clements, 1985; Sagey, 1986). One question always emerges why foreign sounds are perceived in terms of native sound categories. There is also a need to examine the genetic development of these systems. Universally the same principal applies on both first and second language acquisition, though there is a dissimilarity in terms of processing capacities that leads to interference. The contrastive analysis hypothesis argues that the structures and shapes (That is, Hindi letters consist of various types of matras and signs) of the first language of an individual are different from those of the second language that could create errors in speaking, reading and writing (Dulay et al., 1982). Lennenberg (1967), proposed his theory of critical period in which he argued that in order to have proper language fluency, it should be acquired or learned before the onset of puberty. However, he left out the point that whether this applies only to the first language acquisition or extend up to the second language acquisition also. Lennenberg suggested two parts; firstly, normal language learning occurs within childhood. Secondly, reaching the adult age values by puberty, brain loses its plasticity and reorganizational capacities necessary for language acquisition. There are two distinctions to know the effect of critical period hypothesis on first and second language acquisition separately as said by Avanika Sinha, Niroj

29

Banerjee, Ambalika Sinha and Rajesh Kumar Shastri. Firstly, at early stage, humans are quite capable of learning languages. If it is not done, it will reduce with maturation. Nevertheless, if the reverse happens the capability of learning further languages will remain intact throughout life. (Lenneberg, 1967) gave the phenomenon cerebral dominance and concluded that in childhood the left hemisphere is ordinarily more directly involved in language and speech than the right. After attaining a maturity, the two hemispheres become quite specialized for function and with the completion of lateralization (shifting language entirely to the left and the rest to the right one) the polarization of function between the two hemispheres take place. Comparative inability of younger children to transfer and recall vocabulary in terms of their first language gives them an advantage in learning a second language without interference from their first language. Furthermore, according to (Lord, 2008), show that the L1 and the L2 interact to produce a hybrid system subject to modification, and offer insight into how L2 learners manage assimilation of two linguistic systems, in keeping with the Merger Hypothesis and Equivalence Classification. As with any investigation, there are some limitations to this study that may have impacted the results and should be considered and corrected in future work. To begin with, the sample size in this pilot study was extremely small, which could have affected the statistical tests and, by extension, the internal validity of the study. An examination of standard deviations also reveals that variability is not uniform even within participant groups. This too could be related to the small number of participants, whereas a larger group might have yielded more heterogeneous samples, or

30

at the very least afforded the opportunity to discard some of the most extreme outliers. As always, when working with bilinguals, it is extremely difficult to ensure homogeneity of language levels (of the L1, L2 or both), and a larger sample size might help to remedy this shortcoming as well. At the same time, it must be recognized that the experimental group in this study does indeed differ from Fleges (i.e., 1987), in that they were not immersed in the L2 environment at all times, but only during limited periods of their daily professional lives. Therefore, in order to more accurately replicate Fleges work, and to truly find evidence from Spanish-English bilinguals that would mirror his FrenchEnglish bilinguals, a different group of participants would need to be investigated; namely, this study could be replicated with a group of English speakers living in a Spanish-speaking country at the time of testing and for an extended period of time. The data obtained from this group would be more comparable to those obtained in Fleges study. Nonetheless, it is interesting to explore how the L1 and L2 systems of advanced L2 speakers may be modified without this intense immersion, as the results presented here have suggested is possible.

a) Evidence regarding accents Foreign accent is the inability of non-native language users to produce the target language with the phonetic accuracy required by native listeners for acceptance as native speech. Although, there is, in all languages, a fairly large variation in phonetic realization depending on a number of regional, social and stylistic factors. Native speakers, presumably because of extensive experience with the language,

31

seem to have little trouble recognizing the deviant phonetic realization of the language usually known as foreign accent. Strange (1995) used the term perceptual foreign accent to refer to the significantly difficulty which adults have perceiving most (but not all) phonetic contrasts that are not functional in their native language and she notes that this can interfere with learning an L2 phonology. By the time, cerebral lateralization is complete at puberty there is the appearance of foreign accent (Scovel, 1967). The chance of acquiring mastery at second language acquisition is higher before the age of about 12 since the lateralization is not completed yet. The term interference is derived from a learning theory approach that explains about the process of habit formation constitutes in language learning. Interference included those errors that occur in the learning of a second language. These kinds of errors must be categorized in terms of three errors: Developmental errors: Those errors that do not reflect the learners first language (L1), but found among those who acquire the second language (L2) during childhood as a first language. Ambiguous errors: Those errors that can be categorized as due either to interference or as developmental Sinha et al. 119 errors. Unique errors: Those errors that cannot be categorized as due either to interference or as developmental errors. Interference results from the fact old habits (the first language) must be unlearned before new habits (the second language) can be mastered (Dulay and Burt, 1972). Taylor (1975) has pointed out

32

that while learning a language humans over generalize target language rules, reduce grammatical redundancies, and omit those rules that they have not learned. Flege (1999) argued on this issue and proposed three hypotheses that account for foreign accents; 1) Exercise hypothesis in which ones ability to learn to produce and to perceive speech remains intact across the life span, but only if one continues to learn speech uninterruptedly. 2) Unfolding hypothesis in which as much fully developed the L1 phonetic system will be at the starting of L2 learning the more foreign accented the pronunciation of the L2 occurs. 3) In Interaction hypothesis bilinguals are fully unable to separate the L1 and L2 phonetic systems, necessarily interacting with each other. To the L2 user, however, difficulties of comprehension caused in part by phonetic and phonological factors can certainly be as problematic in the everyday use of the L2 as the difficulty in making oneself understood due to non-native pronunciation. b) Phonological awareness Phonological awareness plays a major role in learning to read words, sentences or paragraphs in a particular language. It refers to the sound of ones language in the processing of writing and speaking. So, it is the awareness of and access to the phonology of ones language. Successful acquisition of phonological

33

representations needs accurate perception of phonemic. It is proved empirically that phonological awareness helps in the development of fine reading. Findings on Phonological Interference A.Foreign Findings

A teacher of English in a typical suburban college in Mumbai found a genuine problem in poor pronunciation of English among L2 learners. In spite of repeated attempts at correcting them, students show varying levels of first language interference. Certain typical problems in pronunciation that one commonly observes are:

1. Among Maharashtrian speakers of English, one notices that monosyllabic English words are usually lengthened i.e. more time than necessary is taken while pronouncing certain sounds. /I/ becomes /i/ (live- leave; bid bead) etc. /e/ becomes /ei;/ red raid; Thus, the word "bill" becomes "beel", the word "pen" becomes "pane", the word "red" becomes "rade", "Bread" becomes "brade", etc. Consonants like "f" become unduly emphasized into "ph" and "v" becomes "vh" thus "vast" and "why" become "vhaast" and "vhhy" and "form" and "father" become "phorum" and "phather". 2. Gujarati speakers of English also contribute to a lot of humour through their speech. Thus several sounds are pronounced in a tangential way with "doll" becoming "dole" and "tall" becoming "tole". "Wrap" becomes "rape" and "thanks" becomes "thenks". "Snacks" amusingly enough, become "snakes". Gujarati

34

speakers also find it difficult to pronounce the syllable "sh" - so do north Indians, especially speakers from areas like Jharkhand. 3. North Indians typically pronounce words like "school" as "is-school" and "spoon" as "is-spoon"; i.e. the vowel sound /i/ is inserted before a consonant cluster beginning with /s/. Thus school becomes is-school and spoon becomes isspoon. Other examples one could mention are words like temporary, government, verbally and reason. "Temporary" becomes "temprovaary" and "government" becomes "gorment"; "verbally" becomes "bharbhally" and "reason" becomes "rejun". The consonant cluster /pr/ is also difficult and thus names like prakash are pronounced as parkash and words like proud become parroud. 4. South Indians also make unusual mistakes due to first language interference. The vowel sound / / becomes /a:/ Tamilians typically say caast instead of cost, laast instead of lost, shaak for shock and waater for water. They also use "wonly" instead of "only" and "yum-A" instead of "M.A. Malayalis typically say "simbly" instead of "simply" and "loafing" instead of "laughing".

The issue that was raised here is that the Indian speaker of English as a second language learner is bound to be at some kind of a disadvantage owing to his first language or native tongue "interfering" with his pronunciation of English. The "interference" occurs only because he is unaware and not habituated to uttering words in Standard English or accepted English. With a little bit of training and conscious effort the

35

problem

can

easily

be

sorted

out.

(http://www.newquestindia.com/Archive/169/Html/Learning_English_Lakshmi.html)

Moreover, a study has shown also that English speaking learners of Spanish have difficulty producing the reduced aspiration of Spanish voiceless stops. Gonzlez-Bueno (1997), for example, examined Intermediate Spanish students in the university setting and confirmed this initial difficulty, although she also showed that explicit pronunciation instruction could help them overcome these problems. Similarly, Flege (1980) investigated the ability of Saudi learners of English to produce sounds in their L2 and whether they experienced interference from the L1 in doing so. His findings confirmed the influence of L1 in L2 phonology, in that the word-final and initial Voice Onset Time (VOT) values of the participants were similar to their L1. When (Lord, 2008) cited that further work by Flege (1987) attempted to explain this L1-L2 relation through the development and formation of phonetic categories. In this study Flege investigated Spanish speakers articulation of English voiceless stops in carrying out imitation tasks. Using a VOT continuum to evaluate accuracy of pronunciation, he discovered that the speakers who were able to accurately produce English /t/ had formed a phonetic category {th}, allowing them to pronounce the stop with aspiration and achieve VOT values consistent with those of native English speakers. Those who articulated English stops with less aspiration, and thus had shorter VOT values, were analysed as either having incorrect phonetic categories or as having not yet formed a separate phonetic category for English /t/. Flege also found that age of acquisition can be an important factor in this process of developing phonetic categories,
36

as the speakers who had learned English at an early age were more likely to have formed a phonetic category for English /t/ than those who learned English later. Of course, Flege (i.e., 2005) recognizes, as have others, that age is a factor that is difficult to isolate from other relevant factors such as language use and language input, thereby making its role hard to categorize. Fleges (1991) later work continued with this same vein of investigation, but refined his hypothesis to propose the Speech Learning Model (SLM). This model, through Equivalence Classification, stipulates that speakers who learn an L2 early (as children) will establish two different categories for their two languages (i.e., Spanish and English). Based on bilingual VOT data, Flege proposes those who learn an L1 and an L2 earlier rather than later can, in a sense, separate their two languages by separating the sounds. However, he also predicts that adults learning a second language are not able to create two unique categories for sounds that are similar in the two languages and will therefore classify the L2 sound using the L1 category. This erroneous classification will, of course, result in non-native-like VOT values in the L2. Thus, Equivalence Classification leads to the conclusion that if one cannot form a new category for an L2 sound, one cannot produce that sound authentically. Another study, Thornburgh and Ryalls (1998), also looked at the influence of age on the VOT values of English stops produced by Spanish-English bilinguals. The authors hypothesized those Spanish speakers who had learned English prior to age 12 should more closely approximate English VOT values than those who had learned English after age 12. They found that the pre-12 participants produced more accurate English VOTs than the post-12 group, and

37

made a larger distinction between their voiced and voiceless stops, indicating that learning English prior to the age of 12 may have enhanced their ability to correctly distinguish the L1 and L2 categories. Of course, there are numerous other studies that investigate VOT acquisition in second languages, although in the interest of conciseness this review focuses on those studies that lay the groundwork for the present study. Yet even from this admittedly brief review, it is clear that the work that has been done exploring an L2 learners ability to acquire new VOT values, and the difficulty encountered in doing so, has confirmed a significant role for the L1 in this process, (Lord, 2008).

B. Local Findings and Excerpts Among some researchers, Miguel and Barruga (2009), found out that Galasso (2002) in his revised study about Transferring the Pop- drop Parameter from Spanish to English some broad ideas expressed in his study constitute the difficulty for position in SLA that call for a natural clean slated Universal Grammar(UG) for L2 learners. Furthermore, the notion of L1 interference seems to correlate with other studies which clearly show that the nature of L2 errors is not just a common random error. According to them, Galasso highlighted that the L1 influence may thus be an indicator of low

acquisition or the result of the performer attempting to produce before having acquired enough of the target language. On the other hand, on that same thesis, the researchers also found out Littlewoods (2004) saying that when the second language shares a wide range of structures with the
38

mother tongue, transfer is a powerful process that the learner and deep into the new system. Though his mother tongue interferes, the fact that the learner had acquired just something is a start f learning L2. Moreover, Geronimo(2003) on his study The Causes of Difficulties in English Among Fourth Year Student in Three High School in Roxas Isabela, he pointed out that one of the findings is, the first language interferes since they usually speak with their mother tongue. These speculations are not just said to be fabricated since Brennus (2005) also notify that there is a process in linguistic called interference where syntax and pronunciation from one language (usually the vernacular) interferes with another. He cited that an experience of him where he met a man from the Peoples Republic of China once who said to him, I stay in American house, when he supposed to say Im staying with an American house. Mother tongue, for him, really interferes with the way the native speaker speaks because the syntax that their language follows is different when it comes to English language. Phonological Interference Kenworthy (1987) cited by Callangan (2005) in her research, observed that there are many factors affecting pronunciation learning but first of all, he claimed that native language plays an important role in learning English pronunciation. She further explained Kenworthy (1989) that there are many factors observed affecting the pronunciation of English learners. Factors such as vernacular, intelligence, age, socio- economic status and sex were pinpointed. Among the factors mentioned, first language interference is
39

foremost in determining the extent to which a second language was acquired (Schachter, 1996). Callangan also reported that several factors related to first language and second language shape their second language learning. These factors include the linguistic distance between the two languages, students level of proficiency in the native language and their knowledge of the second language, the dialect or the native language spoken by the students the relative status of the students language in the community and societal attitudes toward the students native language (Horace,2003). On the other hand, Malana (2011), in her study on the First Language Interference in English Acquisition found out that the cultural groups mentioned like Ilocano, Itawes, and Ibanag, in general are loyal to their own native language. Moreover, she claimed that Ilocanos have greater tendencies of transferring rules or patterns of intonation from their L1 in learning L2 which is why committed more errors when asked to read sentences with their proper intonation. She also added that Ibanag had tendency of transferring rules on pronunciation from L1 to L2 which is why they committed more errors on pronunciation. These learners, as she had expanded, referred back to their own language when confronted with difficulties in learning the target language. According to her, this was usually the common strategy that they use whenever they find it hard to proceed with a learning task in L2, although they shifted back to English easily. In addition to this, Callangan (2005) found out that Ilocanos have fifteen consonant sounds and only five vowel sounds; the Itawes have 21 consonant sounds and five vowel sounds whille the Ibanags have 20 consonant phonemes and five vowel sounds. The researcher also found out that the sounds or sound errors produced by the
40

respondents are those which are missing in their native language phonological systems. Among the phonemes of English which are not present in Ilocano dialect are [f, v, , , z], in Ibanag [, , , , i, o, u, ], and in Itawes [, , , , , , i, , u]. On the other hand, the easy sounds of L2 that were pronounced and produced very well by the respondents are: in Ilocano [p, b, t, k, d, g, m, n, , j, s, h, l, r, w, y, a, , I, o, ], in Ibanag [p, b, t, k, d, g, m, n, j, f, v, s, z, , h, l, r, w, y, , a, , I, o, ] and in Itawes [p, b, t, k, d, g, m, n, j, f, u, s, z, sh, , h, l, r, w, y, , a, , I, o, ]. In terms of phonetic transfer Ilocanos are prone to transfer the following consonant phonemes [f, , , ] vowels [, , , , I, , u], among Itawes [, , ] and [, , , , i, , u] and Ibanag were [, , ] and [, , , , i, , u].

41

Chapter 3 Research Methodology This chapter presents the following steps that were followed in conducting this study. Locale of the Study This study used Descriptive Comparative Method research design. It described the relationship of the independent and dependent variables which were the dialect used by the respondents and their extent usage of their native tongue (dialect) to their pronunciation and intonation scores. It was also designed to compare the performance of the respondents in pronunciation and intonation test when grouped according to dialect they spoke. Additionally it described in detail how the first language (L1) or native language, perceived as one of the factors in acquiring L2, interferes in English phonological production of sounds of some learners like in pronunciation. Respondents and Sampling Procedure The 45 freshmen students, the respondents, were selected through purposive sampling technique from the Department of Arts and Humanities. The researchers assured that the respondents are native speakers of the prominent dialects in Cagayan: Ilocano, Itawes, and Ibanag. This study generally focused on the mentioned three native languages commonly used by the students in Cagayan State University Carig Campus.
42

There were 15 respondents who spoke each of the following native language (Ilocano, Itawes, and Ibanag). Thus, the study covered 45 freshmen respondents all in all coming from the purposively selected department, Department of Arts and Humanities of College of Arts and Sciences. The three courses were Bachelor of Arts in English, Bachelor of Arts in Mass communication and Bachelor of Science in Industrial and Commercial Communication which were courses having similar curriculum in terms of English subjects. Research Instrument The researchers made used of a Survey Questionnaire. The questionnaire solicited information on what dialect were spoken by the respondents and the extent of usage of native language. The likert scale below was used to interpret at what extent the respondents use their native language at home. Range 5 4 2 1 Adjectival Description Always Often Seldom Never

The second part brought the respondents to an oral test in intonation and pronunciation. For the pronunciation test, the Prators Diagnostic Passage which was written in American English was adopted to determine the performance of the
43

respondents in pronunciation and to read the passage with correct English vowel and consonant sounds production. Meanwhile, ten sentences were also provided to determine their performance in intonation. The questionnaire was pre-tested to the second year students of Bachelor of Arts in English before it was administered to the respondents. Likewise, a tape recorder was utilized to validate the results in the oral test and for a better analysis of their sound production both in intonation test and pronunciation test. Data Gathering Procedure Permission was asked from the Dean to purposively select our respondents from the programs Bachelor of Science in Industrial and Commercial Communication, Bachelor of Arts in Mass Communication, and Bachelor of Arts in English. The survey on to what extent the respondents use their dialect was conducted immediately simultaneously with the oral test. Since the respondents came from different courses and has different time availability, the researchers floated the test in different sessions when the respondents can conveniently answer the tests. The first phase involved the students to answer the survey questionnaire. On the second phase engaged the respondents with the oral test with an anticipated adequate span of time. The task on the oral part was recorded individually to ensure the accuracy and conciseness of data gathered. Additionally, the researchers also empirically validated the
44

data for the researchers in coming up with precise coding and decoding of the oral task, which ultimately results to correct interpretation and analysis as far as interference was concerned. The recorded tests were consulted to a Speech and Oral Communication teacher and were been deciphered to ensure the reliability of the data being analysed and interpreted. Statistical Tool The data gathered from the study underwent statistical treatment to determine the relationship of the independent variable and the dependent variable. In interpreting the data collected, this study made used of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Least Significant Difference (LSD) in determining the significant difference on the performance of the respondents when grouped according to dialect they spoke in pronunciation and intonation test. Further, Spearman R was also used to determine the significant relationships of the respondents score in pronunciation and intonation to their extent of first language usage. Lastly, weighted mean average was also utilized to determine the extent usage of first language of the respondents at home.

45

Chapter IV Analysis, Presentation, and Interpretation of Data

This chapter presents the analysis, presentation, and interpretation of data collated from the results of the oral tests in phonological production of English sounds, particularly pronunciation and intonation tests, that were conducted. Dialect Spoken by the Respondents Table 1.0 Dialect Spoken by the Respondents Dialect Ilocano Itawes Ibanag Total Frequency (f) 15 15 15 45 Percentage (%) 33.33 33.33 33.33 99.99

The table above shows that this study involved 45 students by which 15 of them were Ilocano speakers, 15 were also Itawes speakers and 15 respondents were Ibanag speakers. Extent of Dialect Usage of Respondents Table 1.1 Extent of Dialect Usage of Ilocano Respondents Extent of Dialect Usage at Home 1. I use the dialect when talking with my siblings. 2. I use the dialect when talking with my father. 3. I use the dialect when talking with my mother. 4. I use the dialect when talking with my cousins. 5. I use the dialect when talking with my aunt. 6. I use the dialect when talking with my uncle. 7. I use the dialect when talking with my grandmother. Mean Average 4.266666667 4.666666667 4.666666667 4.266666667 4.4 4.466666667 4.733333333 Corresponding Scale often often often often often often often
46

8. I use the dialect when talking with my grandfather. 9. I use the dialect when talking with my friends. 10. I use the dialect when talking with my neighbor. 11. I use the dialect when talking with our visitors. 12. I use the dialect when talking to my pet. 13. I use the dialect when asking a request from my siblings. 14. I use the dialect when asking a request from mu elder siblings. 15. I use the dialect when asking a request from my younger siblings. 16. I use the dialect when I am angry. 17. I use the dialect when I command my siblings. 18. I use the dialect when fighting with someone in the family. 19. I use the dialect when saying bad words. 20. I use the dialect when asking money from my father. 21. I use the dialect when asking money from my mother. 22. I use the dialect when teaching my siblings in their assignments. 23. I use the dialect when I dont feel like doing something which my parents demand me to do. 24. I use the dialect when arguing with my parents. 25. I use the dialect when buying on the stores. Extent of Dialect Usage of Ilocano Respondents

4.266666667 3.4 3.933333333 2.933333333 3.133333333 3.933333333 4.066666667 4.466666667 3.933333333 4 4 3.4 4 4.066666667 3.133333333 3.466666667 3.8 3.266666667 3.946666667

often sometimes sometimes seldom sometimes sometimes often often sometimes often often sometimes ofetn often sometimes sometimes sometimes sometimes sometimes

As shown in Table 1.1, Ilocano respondents often use their dialect when talking with their siblings, when talking with their father. when talking with their mother, when talking with their cousins, when talking with their aunt, when talking with their uncle, when talking with their grandmother, when talking with their grandfather, when asking a request from their elder siblings, when asking a request from their younger siblings, when
47

they command their siblings, when they are fighting with someone in the family, when asking money from their father, and when asking money from their mother. Meanwhile, they sometimes use the dialect when saying bad words, when teaching their siblings in their assignments, when they dont feel like doing something which their parents demand them to do, when arguing with their parents, when buying on the stores, when they are angry, when talking to their pet, when asking a request from their siblings, when talking with their neighbour, and when talking with their friends. They also use the dialect seldom when to talking with their visitors. Thus, the Ilocano respondents had a mean average score of 3.95 with a descriptive value of sometimes as to the extent of their dialect usage. Table 1.2 Extent of Dialect Usage of Itawes Respondents Extent of Dialect Usage at Home 1. I use the dialect when talking with my siblings. 2. I use the dialect when talking with my father. 3. I use the dialect when talking with my mother. 4. I use the dialect when talking with my cousins. 5. I use the dialect when talking with my aunt. 6. I use the dialect when talking with my uncle. 7. I use the dialect when talking with my grandmother. 8. I use the dialect when talking with my grandfather. 9. I use the dialect when talking with my friends. 10. I use the dialect when talking with my neighbor. 11. I use the dialect when talking with our visitors. 12. I use the dialect when talking to my pet. 13. I use the dialect when asking a request from my siblings. 14. I use the dialect when asking a request from mu elder siblings. Mean Average 4.015329945 4.229949169 4.449237541 3.738563115 4.078446722 4.176700825 3.65051238 3.757685703 2.365285538 3.479283064 2.189245953 2.838689301 3.580339513 3.705092698 Corresponding Scale often often often sometimes often often sometimes sometimes seldom sometimes seldom seldom sometimes sometimes
48

15. I use the dialect when asking a request from my younger siblings. 16. I use the dialect when I am angry. 17. I use the dialect when I command my siblings. 18. I use the dialect when fighting with someone in the family. 19. I use the dialect when saying bad words. 20. I use the dialect when asking money from my father. 21. I use the dialect when asking money from my mother. 22. I use the dialect when teaching my siblings in their assignments. 23. I use the dialect when I dont feel like doing something which my parents demand me to do. 24. I use the dialect when arguing with my parents. 25. I use the dialect when buying on the stores. Extent of Dialect Usage of Itawes Respondents

3.576390474 3.645857111 3.687856666 3.317849989 2.767749832 3.516247478 3.743712169 2.15568254 3.335238095 3.028571429 2.428571429 3.418323547

sometimes sometimes sometimes sometimes seldom sometimes sometimes seldom sometimes sometimes seldom sometimes

Table 1.2 indicates that Itawes respondents often use their dialect in the following instances: when saying bad words, when teaching their siblings in their assignments, when they dont feel like doing something which their parents demand them to do, when arguing with their parents, when buying on the stores, when they are angry, when talking to their pet, when asking a request from their siblings, when talking with their neighbours and when talking with their friends. They also use the dialect sometimes when arguing with their parents, when they dont feel like doing something which their parents demand them to do, when asking money from their mother, when asking money from their father, when they are angry, when they command their siblings, when fighting with someone in the family, when asking a request from their siblings, when asking a request from their elder siblings, when asking a request from their younger siblings, when talking with my neighbours, when talking with their grandmother, when talking with their grandfather,
49

and when talking with their cousins. The following instances were when the respondents use their dialect seldom: when buying on the stores, when teaching their siblings in their assignments, when saying bad words, when talking with their visitors, when talking to their pet, and when talking with their friends. Nevertheless, the respondents generally use their dialect sometimes with a mean average score of 3.42. Table 1.3 Extent of dialect Usage of Ibanag Respondents Indicators on Extent of Dialect Usage 1. I use the dialect when talking with my siblings. 2. I use the dialect when talking with my father. 3. I use the dialect when talking with my mother. 4. I use the dialect when talking with my cousins. 5. I use the dialect when talking with my aunt. 6. I use the dialect when talking with my uncle. 7. I use the dialect when talking with my grandmother. 8. I use the dialect when talking with my grandfather. 9. I use the dialect when talking with my friends. 10. I use the dialect when talking with my neighbor. 11. I use the dialect when talking with our visitors. 12. I use the dialect when talking to my pet. 13. I use the dialect when asking a request from my siblings. 14. I use the dialect when asking a request from mu elder siblings. 15. I use the dialect when asking a request from my younger siblings. 16. I use the dialect when I am angry. 17. I use the dialect when I command my siblings. 18. I use the dialect when fighting with someone in the family. 19. I use the dialect when saying bad words. 20. I use the dialect when asking money from my Mean Average 3.8 4.133333 4.133333 3.466667 3.733333 3.666667 3.866667 3.466667 2.466667 3.133333 2.6 2.333333 3.2 2.933333 2.8 3.133333 3.4 2.733333 2.133333 3.666667 Corresponding Scale Sometimes Often Often Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Seldom Sometimes Seldom Seldom Sometimes Seldom Seldom Sometimes Sometimes Seldom Seldom Sometimes
50

father. 21. I use the dialect when asking money from my mother. 22. I use the dialect when teaching my siblings in their assignments. 23. I use the dialect when I dont feel like doing something which my parents demand me to do. 24. I use the dialect when arguing with my parents. 25. I use the dialect when buying on the stores. Extent of Dialect Usage Ibanag Respondents

3.666667 2.466667 2.8 2.8 2.466667 3.16

Sometimes Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Sometimes

Table 1.3 states that the respondents use their dialect often for the following situations: when talking with their father and when talking with their mother. Other instances when the respondents use their dialect in communication were: when talking with their siblings, when talking with their cousins, when talking with their aunt, when talking with their uncle, when talking with their grandmother, when talking with their grandfather, when talking with their neighbour, when asking a request from their siblings, when they are angry, when they command their siblings, when asking money from their father, when asking money from their mother. Finally they seldom use the dialect when talking with their friends, when talking with their visitors, when talking to their pet, when asking a request from their elder siblings, when asking a request from their younger siblings, when fighting with someone in the family, when saying bad words, when teaching their siblings in their assignments, when they dont feel like doing something which their parents demand them to do, when arguing with their parents, and when buying on the stores. Hence, Ibanag respondents use their dialect sometimes with an average mean score of 3.16.

51

The Intonation Performance of Respondents when Grouped According to Dialect they Spoke Table 1.4 ANOVA, The Intonation Performance of Respondents when Grouped According to Dialect they Spoke SS Between 8.04 Within 76.93 Ns-not significant **-significant at 1 % df 2 42 MS 4.02 1.83 F 2.19 P 0.123878 Ns

Table 1.4, on the other hand, reveals that the performance of the respondents in Intonation, when grouped according to dialect they spoke, has no significant difference. Thus, it means that the respondents have an equal performance even if they are grouped according to the dialect they spoke. However, this finding differs the claim of Malana (2011), in her study First Language Interference in English Acquisition where she affirmed that Ilocano are more inclined to transferring rules of intonation which made them commit more errors than those of the Ibanag and Itawes. The Pronunciation Performance of Respondents when Grouped According to Dialect they Spoke Table 1.5 ANOVA, Pronunciation Performance of Respondents when Grouped According to Dialect they Spoke SS Between 122.1333 Within 167.0667 Ns-not significant **-significant at 1 % Df 2 42 MS 61.06667 3.977778 F 15.35196 P 0.00001 **

52

Table 1.5 disclosed that in terms of Pronunciation, the performance of Ilocano is better than those of the Ibanag respondents. Thus, the performance of the respondents has significant difference at one percent. Comparison of the Pronunciation of Respondents According to Dialect they Spoke Table 1.6 LSD, Comparison of the Pronunciation of Respondents According to Dialect they Spoke IBANAG M=52.200 IBANAG ITAWES Ilocano 0.207019 0.000231 ITAWES M=51.267 Ilocano M=55.133

0.000004

Table 1.6 further explains that Ilocano respondents has the highest mean score of 55.133 in pronunciation than those of the Itawes respondents who had a mean score of 51. 267 and Ibanag at 52.200. Hence, the finding of Malana in pronunciation did agree with the result of this study when she stated in her study that Ibanag had tendency of transferring rules on pronunciation from L1 to L2 which is why they committed more errors on pronunciation. Nevertheless, Table 1.2 study shows that Ibanag and Itawes respondents has no significant difference in performance which they are both inclined to transfer rules of pronunciation by falling back to their L1. Ilocano respondents, on the other hand, performed better in pronunciation.

53

Mean Score of the Respondents in Intonation and Pronunciation Test Table 1.7 Mean Score of the Respondents in Intonation and Pronunciation Mean Intonation Pronunciation 3.42222 52.86667 Minimum 0 48 Maximum 7 61 Std.Dev. 1.389717 2.563733

Table 1.7 displays the performance of the respondents in intonation test and pronunciation test. It shows that the respondents mean score in intonation is 3.4222 by which one or some of the respondents gained a maximum score of seven out of ten. On the other hand, the respondents also had a mean score of 52.86667 in pronunciation test. In this part, some of the respondents got a maximum score of 61 and minimum score of 48 from 135 words in the Prators Diagnostic Passage.

Relationship between the Pronunciation Scores of Ilocano Respondents and their Extent of Dialect Usage Table 1.8 SPEARMAN R, Relationship between the Pronunciation Scores of Ilocano Respondents and their Extent of Dialect Usage Indicators on Extent of Dialect Usage 1. I use the dialect when talking with my siblings. 2. I use the dialect when talking with my father. 3. I use the dialect when talking with my mother. 4. I use the dialect when talking with my cousins. 5. I use the dialect when talking with my aunt. 6. I use the dialect when talking Valid N 15 15 15 15 15 15 Spearman R -0.06013 -0.23549 -0.23549 -0.05412 -0.12827 -0.32129 t(N-2) -0.21721 -0.87363 -0.87363 -0.19542 -0.46634 -1.2233 p-level 0.831416 0.398172 0.398172 0.848084 0.648691 0.242928 ns ns ns ns ns ns
54

with my uncle. 7. I use the dialect when talking with my grandmother. 8. I use the dialect when talking with my grandfather. 9. I use the dialect when talking with my friends. 10. I use the dialect when talking with my neighbour. 11. I use the dialect when talking with our visitors. 12. I use the dialect when talking to my pet. 13. I use the dialect when asking a request from my siblings. 14. I use the dialect when asking a request from mu elder siblings. 15. I use the dialect when asking a request from my younger siblings. 16. I use the dialect when I am angry. 17. I use the dialect when I command my siblings. 18. I use the dialect when fighting with someone in the family. 19. I use the dialect when saying bad words. 20. I use the dialect when asking money from my father. 21. I use the dialect when asking money from my mother. 22. I use the dialect when teaching my siblings in their assignments. 23. I use the dialect when I dont feel like doing something which my parents demand me to do. 24. I use the dialect when

15 15 15 15 15 15 15

0.494275 0.547765 0.224011 -0.27919 0.138217 0.314398 0.100798

2.05007 2.36065 0.82875 -1.04832 0.50318 1.19413 0.36529

0.061089 0.034533 0.422204 0.313593 0.623257 0.253761 0.720766

ns ** ns ns ns ns ns

15

-0.345008

-1.32532

0.207887

ns

15

0.087626

0.31716

0.756159

ns

15 15 15

0.040907 0.077329 -0.136813

0.14762 0.27965 -0.49797

0.884911 0.784144 0.626822

ns ns ns

15 15 15 15

0.323751 0.069701 -0.038922 -0.052205

1.23375 0.25192 -0.14044 -0.18849

0.239137 0.805039 0.890465 0.853406

ns ns ns ns

15

0.045218

0.16320

0.872868

ns

15

-0.376182

-1.46387

0.166988

ns
55

arguing with my parents. 25. I use the dialect when buying on the stores. Ns- not significant **-significant

15

-0.373537

-1.45190

0.170233

ns

Table 1.8 shows that generally there is no significant relationship of the Ibanag respondents score in pronunciation and the extent of usage of their dialect which may seem to affect their performance in pronunciation test. Nevertheless, one indicator had been seen which has a significant relationship on the scores of the Ilocano respondents in pronunciation which is when the respondents talk with their grandfather using dialect. Relationship between the Pronunciation Scores of Itawes Respondents and their Extent of Dialect Usage Table 1.9 SPEARMAN R, Relationship between the Pronunciation Scores of Itawes Respondents and their Extent of Dialect Usage Indicators on Extent of Dialect Usage 1. I use the dialect when talking with my siblings. 2. I use the dialect when talking with my father. 3. I use the dialect when talking with my mother. 4. I use the dialect when talking with my cousins. 5. I use the dialect when talking with my aunt. 6. I use the dialect when talking with my uncle. 7. I use the dialect when talking with my grandmother. 8. I use the dialect when talking with my grandfather. 9. I use the dialect when talking with my friends. Valid N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Spearman R 0.183622 0.535081 0.479723 0.397303 0.379696 0.271293 0.114775 0.170782 0.298029 t(N-2) 0.673509 2.283691 1.971307 1.560987 1.479836 1.016274 0.416581 0.624945 1.125716 p-level 0.51242 0.039846 0.070357 0.142533 0.162739 0.328041 0.683781 0.542821 0.280639 ns ** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
56

10. I use the dialect when talking with my neighbour. 11. I use the dialect when talking with our visitors. 12. I use the dialect when talking to my pet. 13. I use the dialect when asking a request from my siblings. 14. I use the dialect when asking a request from my elder siblings. 15. I use the dialect when asking a request from my younger siblings. 16. I use the dialect when I am angry. 17. I use the dialect when I command my siblings. 18. I use the dialect when fighting with someone in the family. 19. I use the dialect when saying bad words. 20. I use the dialect when asking money from my father. 21. I use the dialect when asking money from my mother. 22. I use the dialect when teaching my siblings in their assignments. 23. I use the dialect when I dont feel like doing something which my parents demand me to do. 24. I use the dialect when arguing with my parents. 25. I use the dialect when buying on the stores. Ns-not significant **-significant

15 15 15 15

0.22049 -0.075499 0.045031 0.073911

0.815047 0.272994 0.162527 0.267222

0.429725 0.789147 0.873390 0.793491

ns ns ns ns

15

0.358887

1.386344

0.188959

ns

15

0.270186

1.011802

0.330095

ns

15 15 15

-0.210316 0.433173 -0.262579

0.775653 1.732842 0.981172 0.261954 2.415379 0.528484 0.410425

0.451834 0.106763 0.344416

ns ns ns

15 15 15 15

-0.072462 0.556562 0.145026 0.113101

0.797462 0.031174 0.606068 0.688178

ns ** ns ns

15

-0.172459

0.631270

0.538806

ns

15 15 15

-0.088607 0.228232 0.099568

0.320739 0.845212 0.360789

0.753506 0.413279 0.724052

ns ns ns

57

Table 1.9 shows that Itawes respondents score in pronunciation also has no significant relationship in the extent usage of their dialect. Nonetheless, two indicators also showed up which has significant relationship to the respondents score and performance in pronunciation. These indicators were, when the respondents talked with their father and when they ask money from their father. Relationship between the Pronunciation Scores of Ibanag Respondents and their Extent of Dialect Usage Table 1.10 SPEARMAN R, Relationship between the Pronunciation Scores of Ibanag Respondents and their Extent of Dialect Usage Indicators on Extent of Dialect Usage 1. I use the dialect when talking with my siblings. 2. I use the dialect when talking with my father. 3. I use the dialect when talking with my mother. 4. I use the dialect when talking with my cousins. 5. I use the dialect when talking with my aunt. 6. I use the dialect when talking with my uncle. 7. I use the dialect when talking with my grandmother. 8. I use the dialect when talking with my grandfather. 9. I use the dialect when talking with my friends. 10. I use the dialect when talking with my neighbour. 11. I use the dialect when talking with our visitors. 12. I use the dialect when talking to my pet. 13. I use the dialect when asking Valid N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Spearman R -0.1511 -0.24743 0.061475 -0.09855 -0.25451 -0.240340 -0.124303 -0.095659 -0.297439 -0.422477 -0.385932 -0.144931 0.112159 t(N-2) p-level

-0.55114 0.590888 ns -0.92074 0.373956 ns 0.22207 0.82771 ns

-0.35708 0.726765 ns -0.94888 0.359988 ns -0.89273 0.388231 ns -0.45169 0.658939 ns -0.34649 0.734517 ns -1.12327 0.281640 ns -1.68061 0.116693 ns -1.50835 0.155377 ns -0.52813 0.606307 ns 0.40696 0.690657 ns
58

a request from my siblings. 14. I use the dialect when asking a request from mu elder siblings. 15. I use the dialect when asking a request from my younger siblings. 16. I use the dialect when I am angry. 17. I use the dialect when I command my siblings. 18. I use the dialect when fighting with someone in the family. 19. I use the dialect when saying bad words. 20. I use the dialect when asking money from my father. 21. I use the dialect when asking money from my mother. 22. I use the dialect when teaching my siblings in their assignments. 23. I use the dialect when I dont feel like doing something which my parents demand me to do. 24. I use the dialect when arguing with my parents. 25. I use the dialect when buying on the stores. Ns-not significant **-significant

15 15

-0.406250 -0.317049

-1.60299 0.132945 ns -1.20532 0.249561 ns

15 15 15

-0.225598 -0.273644 -0.262507

-0.83493 0.418838 ns -1.02579 0.323700 ns -0.98088 0.344555 ns

15 15 15 15

-0.305903 -0.170273 0.124357 -0.210367

-1.15848 0.267506 ns -0.62303 0.544043 ns 0.45188 0.658801 ns

-0.77585 0.451721 ns

15

-0.233479

-0.86575 0.402323 ns

15 15 15

-0.416732 -0.327758 -0.193241

-1.65292 0.122281 ns -1.25084 0.233036 ns -0.71012 0.490170 ns

Table 1.10 solidly disclosed that Ibanag respondents score has no significant relationship to the extent usage of their dialect. Hence, it means that the extent of their dialect usage did not affect their performance in pronunciation test.

59

Common errors of the Respondents in Pronunciation test Table 2.0 Common errors of the Respondents in Pronunciation test
Mispronounced Words Word transcription Respondents Pronunciation

The Farmers And Younger School Children Wanted Birds Because Up Owls Crows Thrushes Together Wise Judge About They Anything Man Says Little Standing Their Worms Houses Usual Anyone Plants This A Asked

[] [farmz] [nd] [j] [skul] [tildrn] [wantId] [bdz] [bIkz] [p] [als] [kros] [rIz] [tg] [waIz] [dd] [bat] [e] [nII] [mn] [ss] [lItl] [stndI] [er] [wmz] [hasIs] [jual] [n1wn] [plnts] [Is] [] [skt]

[da] [farmrs] [n] [jar] [skl] [t1ldrn] [wantd] [brds] [b1ks] [ap] [ols] [kras] [tras] [tgdr] [wa1s] [dad] [abat] [de] [n1t1] [man] [ses] [l1tl] [stand1] [der] [wrms] [hass] [jswal] [n1wan] [plants] [d1s] [a] [as]

60

The table above reveals the critical sounds of English which are not given emphasis by the respondents when reading the Prators Diagnostic Passage which is written in English American Standard. The critical sounds as what is illumined by this study are [a, , , , , and ]. It was obviously seen from the table on its second and third column by comparing the two columns that the above mentioned sounds are those errors that the respondents have actually committed. Relating this outcome from the study of Callangan (2005) entitled Interference of Native Language Sound System on English Phonological Acquisition, it would coincide into her conclusion of claiming that these errors are caused by the absence of these critical sounds from their dialects alphabet. Moreover, there are also rules in English Speech that the respondents do not know that is why they just read the words by falling back to their knowledge on their L1. Some of these rules are: a) when a letter s is preceded by voiceless sounds like {p, t, k, I} the production of sound should also [s] for instance owls, it must be pronounced as [als]. In contrast, when s is preceded by a voiced sounds and vowel sounds the pronunciation of phoneme s becomes z like birds which is pronounced as [bdz], b) when a regular verb is in its past tense like wanted the pronunciation of the -ted must be [-tId]. As a result of this study, we can perceive that some of the respondents committed errors on the critical sounds of English since their native language alphabet does not contain the mentioned critical sounds. Hence, it means that the respondents errors are due to the absence of some phonological structures which they are not exposed with.

61

Chapter V Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations Summary of Findings This study was pursued to point out some instances wherein native language interferes in the phonological production of English sounds. Thus as a second language learner there is a need to pay attention on the effect of native language habits in being proficient with the English language. As to the results of this study, it successfully answer the problems which were stated in this study. 1. What is the dialect of the respondents? The dialect of the respondents was Ilocano, Itawes and Ibanag. There 15 of the respondents who spoke Ilocano, 15 who spoke Itawes, and 15 who spoke Ibanag. 2. To what extent do the respondents use their dialect? Ilocano respondents sometimes use their dialect in any acts of interaction at a mean average of 3.95. Like Ilocano respondents Itawes and Ibanag respondents sometimes use their dialect in interaction however they only gain a mean score of 3.42 and 3.16 respectively. 3. Is there significant difference on the performance of the respondents in intonation and pronunciation test when grouped according to dialect they spoke?
62

In intonation test, it was known that the respondents performance has no significant difference while in pronunciation test it was revealed that there is a significant difference in their performance at one percent. This study states that Ilocano respondents performed better in pronunciation than the Itawes and Ibanag respondents. It was further explained that Ilocano respondents got the highest mean average score of 55.133 while Itawes and Ibanag only had 51.267 and 52.200 respectively. 4. Is there significant relationship of the respondents score in pronunciation to their extent of dialect usage? It was shown in this study that the extent of first language usage of the respondents has no significant relationship on the respondents score in pronunciation. Thus, the extent of their dialect usage had not affected their score. Nevertheless, as observed and noted, the researchers found out that in intonation test some of the Ilocano respondents have their monotonous tone which made them fail in this test. Unlike the Ilocano respondents, the Itawes can vary their tone yet it was still perceived that they have a high pitch tone that made them miss the mark from the test. Eventually, the Ibanags are very cautious in varying their tone while reading the ten sentences yet their tone was somewhat monotonous and high pitch in some part of the test.

63

Results also revealed that some of the respondents were not capable of producing critical sounds of English in which they read the Prators Diagnostic Passage written in American English by simply producing the sounds present in their native language alphabet. Some of the critical sounds of English which were not aspirated, omitted and applied by the respondents were {, , , , , , , }. Moreover, the respondents are not well equipped about the rule of speech that when a letter s is preceded by voiceless sounds like {p, t, k, l} the production of sound should also [s] for instance owls, it must be pronounced as [als]. In contrast, when s is preceded by a voiced sounds and vowel sounds the pronunciation of phoneme s becomes z like birds which is pronounced as [bdz]. With these results that were found, interference of L1 in second language acquisition was visible because the knowledge of L2 learners on their L1 was intervening in both pronunciation and intonation test of English. Besides, their L1 was also observed as their foundation to read English words like what had happened in the pronunciation test wherein all of the respondents read thrushes as [trus], farmers as [farms], anything as [nItI], wanted as [wantd], houses as [hass], standing as [standI], and others that were mentioned in table 1.5 in chapter four.

64

Conclusion Native language has been claimed as one of the factors affecting the second language proficiency of second language learners thus to make it more reasonable to assert this statement this study was conducted. Based on our study, we found out that there are some instances wherein native language caused second language learners a difficulty in being proficient in English as their second language. It is necessary to point out that these results of our study could ease the learners on how to learn English better and proficiently. The following are the facts that were been empirically noted: a) There were 15 respondents in each dialect. There were 15 of the respondents who spoke Ilocano, 15 spoke Itawes and 15 spoke Ibanag. b) Ilocano respondents sometimes use their dialect in any acts of interaction at a mean average of 3.95. Like Ilocano respondents Itawes and Ibanag respondents sometimes use their dialect in interaction however they only gain a mean score of 3.42 and 3.16 respectively. c) In intonation test, it was known that the respondents performance has no significant difference while in pronunciation test it was revealed that there is a significant difference in their performance at one percent. This study states that Ilocano respondents performed better in pronunciation than the Itawes and Ibanag respondents. It was further explained that Ilocano respondents got the highest mean average score of 55.133 while Itawes and Ibanag only had 51.267 and 52.200 respectively.

65

d) It was shown in this study that the extent of first language usage of the respondents has no significant relationship on the respondents score in pronunciation. Thus, the extent of their dialect usage had not affected their score. e) In terms of intonation test, when the respondents read sentences written in English Ilocanos are found to be very monotonous by which one could guess what dialect he or she speaks. On the other hand, the Itawes and the Ibanags could vary their tone however they read too fast that make their intonation unacceptable. Moreover, they are also having this high pitch tone unlike those Ilocanos. f) The three groups of respondents named according to their dialect which are Ilocano, Itawes, and Ibanag cannot aspirate the critical sounds which are [, , , , and ]. g) In pronunciation test we found out that Ilocano respondents perform better in this task while the Ibanag and Itawes respondents do not have significant difference in their performance.

66

Recommendation This study do not aimed to point out that second language learners are not good speakers of English instead the researchers pursued this study to expose how native language could hinder everyones desire to have a good command of the English language not only focusing on grammar but how to communicate the language. Since it is a truth that proficiency in English is more seen on how we speak with the language for we involve ourselves in interaction always. There must be flaws attesting native language interference in sound production of English yet exposure and more practice could make everything happen in possible ways. Hence, these recommendations will make everyone competently use the second language English. a) In teaching English, language teachers should expose the second language learners to minimal drills as shown below. [t]-[] [d]-[ ] [i]-[I] [a]-[] [s]-[] [z]-[] [ds]-[d] [s]-[z] [ts]-[] [u]-[U] [o]-[] [z]-[]

b) Drill on voicing helps to enhance their pronunciation. The chart below illustrates that each symbol on the top represents the voiceless member such pair, while on the bottom represents the voiced member:

67

[p] [b]

[t] [d]

[k] [g]

[] []

[f] [v]

[s] [z]

[] []

[] [d]

c) To master the phonemes of English second language learners should read more English articles, passages, or any English writings aloud for them to be used of these lost phonemes in their dialects alphabet. d) It is highly recommended also that language teachers should involve their student always in speaking activities and if possible must correct immediately some mispronounced words of the students. e) All teaching-learning activities must be based on actual life experiences and situations to the learners but they must be encouraged to think and speak in terms of English. f) Native language has really an interference in producing sound for it mix up in intonation enhancement of English thus speech laboratories are very much useful to students for it helps focus in producing sounds in accordance with the tone acceptable in English and not to their dialect. Using Speech Laboratory in this instance would mold the students craft in speaking English fluently. g) In addition, teachers should provide opportunities in involving second language learners conversing, exchanging ideas or presiding over meetings. Some school activities such oratorical contests, monologues, public speaking, extemporaneous speaking could be a best exercises to equip second language learners in producing the sounds of English.
68

Also, these activities could boost their self-confidence to use the language with a good command and proficiency. h) Lastly, future researchers should conduct researches which are related to this study to promote better proficiency of English especially in oral aspect.

69

Bibliography Books
Cohen, Andrew D. (ed) (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Addison Wesley Longman Inc. New York. Ferguson, Charles A et. al (ed) (1992). Phonological Development Models, Research, Implications . Shrum, Judith L. and Glisan, Eileen W. (ed) (2000). Teachers handbook. Heinle: Thomson Learning, Inc. Nunan, David (ed) (2009). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Pasig City, Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd. Orillos, Lorenzo Q. (ed) (1997). Langauge Acquisition Theories, Principles and Research. Diliman, Quezon City: UP Open University. Erickson, Joan G. and Omark, Donald R. (ed) (1981). Communication Assessment of the Bilingual Bicultural Child. Ellis, Rod (ed) (1994) (1999). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod (ed) (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Lord, Gillian. Second Language Acquisition and First Language Phonological Modification. Rubin, Joan (1979). Sociolinguistic Aspects of Language Learning and Teaching. Pg. 17-109. Oxford University Press. Guzman, Maybelle K. (1998). Living Language(Assessment of Language Proficiency and Needs in the Professions in the Workplace. UP Office of Research Coordination, UP Educational Research program Center for Integrative and Development Studies. Alatis, James E., and Staczek, John J. (1970). Perspective on Bilinguals and Bilingual Education. Georgetown University Press, USA. DiPietro, R. (1978). Code- Switching as a Verbal Strategy among Bilinguals. Hornbeam Press. Columbia. S.C.

70

Published Thesis Books

Miguel, Kazleen S. and Barruga, Maricel A. (2009). Mother Tongue Interference in English Classes of the First Year Students of the School of Arts and Sciences St. Paul University of the Philippines. Callangan, Imogen Claire M. (2005). Interference of Native Language Sounds System on English Phonological Acquisition. Malana, Maribel F. (2011). First Language Interference in Learning the English Language. Perez, Elizabeth M. (1990). A Contrstive Analysis of English and Itawes Segmental Phonemes and an Error Analysis of Predicted Pronunciation Difficulties.

Web Excerpts
http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v1n1/bhela/bhela.pdf http://www.csun.edu/~galasso/pro.pdf http://iteslj.org/Articles/Skiba-CodeSwitching.html http://sla.sjtu.edu.cn/thesis http://www.tr.wou.edu/eec/document http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/069.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774106/ http://www.newquestindia.com/Archive/169/Html/Learning_English_Lakshmi.html http://www.academicjournals.org/AJPC/PDF/Pdf2009/Sept/Sinha%20et%20al.pdf http://www.csun.edu/~galasso/lang1.htm http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2073.pdf http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/10/paper1795.pdf http://sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning.pdf http://journals.tc-library.org/templates/about/editable/pdf/Alice_FINAL.pdf http://www.google.com/#q=interference+of+first+language+in+second+language+acquisition http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/practice/multicultural/issues/TalkBilingualLangDevelop.pdf

71

APPENDIX Questionnaire in Conducting Native Language Interference in the Phonological Production of English Sounds" QUESTIONNAIRE NATIVE LANGUAGE INTERFERENCE IN THE PHONOLOGICAL PRODUCTION OF ENGLISH SOUNDS Name:_________________________________ Course:_________________________ Dialect:____________________ I. Indicate to what extent do you use your dialect (first language) at home? Put a check mark on the box which corresponds to your answer by using the scale given below. 5- always 4- often 2- seldom 1- never Extent of Dialect Usage at Home 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. I use the dialect when talking with my siblings. I use the dialect when talking with my father. I use the dialect when talking with my mother. I use the dialect when talking with my cousins. I use the dialect when talking with my aunt. I use the dialect when talking with my uncle. I use the dialect when talking with my grandmother. 8. I use the dialect when talking with my grandfather. 9. I use the dialect when talking with my friends.
72

10. I use the dialect when talking with my neighbor. 11. I use the dialect when talking with our visitors. 12. I use the dialect when talking to my pet. 13. I use the dialect when asking a request from my siblings. 14. I use the dialect when asking a request from mu elder siblings. 15. I use the dialect when asking a request from my younger siblings. 16. I use the dialect when I am angry. 17. I use the dialect when I command my siblings. 18. I use the dialect when fighting with someone in the family. 19. I use the dialect when saying bad words. 20. I use the dialect when asking money from my father. 21. I use the dialect when asking money from my mother. 22. I use the dialect when teaching my siblings in their assignments. 23. I use the dialect when I dont feel like doing something which my parents demand me to do. 24. I use the dialect when arguing with my parents. 25. I use the dialect when buying on the stores.

II.

TEST ON LANGUAGE INTERFERENCE (ORAL) A. INTONATION Directions: Say the following sentences with the proper intonation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Look! Really! Is that so? Is that a giant bird or a plain? It could be an eagle, a hawk or a vulture. Its not an owl, is it? What could it be?
73

8. If it comes, Ill be able to tell. 9. I really dont know. 10. Its carnivorous, isnt it?

B. PRONUNCIATION Directions: Read the passage below with proper pronunciation. Prators Diagnostic Passage 1.)The farmers and the younger school children wanted to kill the birds because the birds ate up the crops. 2.) So the owls, the crows and the thrushes came together to tell a wise judge about it. 3.) They asked him if they had done anything wrong. 4.) The judge said Is what the man says about you true or not? 5.)Mr. Judge, said Mrs. Crow, I pulled up a few little corn plants that were standing in their garden, but I didnt know it was corn. 6.) I never cared much for corn myself. 7.) The mice and the big worms in the field near the houses are my usual food. 8.) How can I hurt or rob anyone? 9.) We wish to teach this people that we are the good friends of the farmers, 10.) she said in a quiet voice. Adopted from the instrument used by Callangan (2005) in her research entitled Interference of Native Language Sound System on English Phonological Acquisition

74