• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Erasable/Inerasable L1 Transfer in Interlanguage Phonology: An Optimality Theory Analysis of /a?n/and Sentence Stress in Chinese Learners of English

    2022-11-12 06:30:50fanYi
    Contemporary Social Sciences 2022年5期
    關(guān)鍵詞:龐德布朗

    fan Yi

    Peking University

    Abstract: The areas affected by the L1 transfer to L2, such as phonotactics and stress, appear to have different degrees of erasability through training and practice. This paper attempts a theoretical analysis to account for empirical observations of L1 transfer in diphthong-coda coalescence and in sentence stress for Chinese learners of English in an American accent training course. Using the framework and tableau method of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993), the phonological paradigm that views languages’ differences as symptomatic of differences in rankings of a set of universal violable constraints, this paper posits the underlying ranking at work in (a) the segmental case where [a?] is the observed output for /a?n/; (b) the suprasegmental case where no stress contrast is observed for a pair of phonologically similar sentences with contrastive stress. It is argued that, in the segmental case, the coalescence of the second vowel of a diphthong with an alveolar nasal coda results from the high ranking of markedness constraints, including Complex Syllable; and in the suprasegmental case, sentence stress is greatly affected by changes in the ranking of the constraint culminativity.Aside from shedding light on the understudied issue of diphthong-coda coalescence, this research also contributes to the discussion of the comparative erasability of L1 transfer for the two areas and demonstrates how a deduction-based theoretical method may actually have practical implications for guiding the design of L2 teaching methodology of English pronunciation as well as for promoting native English speakers’ clearer understanding of Chinese learners of English on the global stage.

    Keywords: Chinese ESL learners, coalescence, diphthong, second language acquisition, sentence stress, Optimality Theory

    Introduction

    The term “interlanguage” (Selinker 1972) refers to the linguistic systems of L2 learners,conceived of as distinct from both the L1 and the L2 systems. By recognizing that L2 learners’ language systems are as fully developed and rule-governed as any language system, the interlanguage theory offers a dynamic, pragmatic perspective on these systems’ nature and changes,more so than the earlier contrastive analysis theory, which focuses on explaining L2 learners’ error production solely through observable differences between the L1 and the L2. In the decades since Selinker’s first coining of “interlanguage,” SLA researchers have attempted to flesh out the theory,such as Major (2001), whose Ontogeny Phylogeny model posits that L1, L2, and Universal Grammar(UG) all have effects on the interlanguage, but in a specific order at different stages of the acquisition of L2. However, recognizing the idiolect status of interlanguage also raises some difficulties: how exactly do we characterize it, and how do we generalize various kinds of interlanguage formed from different L1 and L2 contexts? Pursuing the answers to these questions may contribute to refining pedagogical methods from an educational perspective, illuminating underlying mechanisms of language interactions from a theoretical perspective, and improving native speakers’ understanding of interlanguage traits for better communications from a social perspective.

    Optimality Theory (OT), originally formulated by Prince and Smolensky in 1993, presents a flexible, constraint-based approach that can show clearly what kind of influences L1, L2, and UG can have on the idiolect. This framework advances the following procedure: for an input, potential candidates are generated and subjected to evaluation by a set of constraints that are universal, which then determines the optimal output. In general, constraints fall under two categories: faithfulness constraints, which are concerned with preserving traits of the input, and markedness constraints, which are concerned with the “preferred shape” of surface representations (Iosad 2018). While the ranking of constraints essentially encodes properties specific to the language, OT can account for the fact that interlanguage forms can have phonological elements that seem to be unpredictable from either L1 or L2 surface rules because low-ranked constraints can exert influence on the output, in a situation of the “emergence of the unmarked” (McCarthy & Prince 1994). Furthermore, the development of the interlanguage of ESL speakers over time could be modeled from an OT perspective as migration of constraint rankings: at first, any highly ranked markedness constraints that are characteristic of L1 retain their prominence since L1 is the initial base upon which the interlanguage develops; then, as L2 input increases, learners proceed to rerank constraints, and faithfulness constraints and markedness constraints highly ranked in L2 rise in prominence. The dynamic system of this reorganization may find a stable equilibrium before approaching the native L2 ranking.

    Despite the many possible advantages OT may offer for explaining interlanguage issues, the application of this framework remains at a nascent stage in L2 phonological acquisition research.Currently, there does not yet exist an extensive body of OT research concerning the interlanguage of L1 Mandarin Chinese and L2 English specifically, but evidence from research on the interlanguage of L2 English with various other L1 support the viability of such an approach in general, particularly in regards to phonotactics - c.f. Broselow, Chen, and Wang (1998) on obstruent codas of Chinese ESLs,also further discussed in section 3.1.1 of this paper; Hancin-Bhatt (2000) on codas in Thai ESLs; Bunta and Major (2004) on vowels of Hungarian ESLs; Cardoso (2006) on voiceless codas of Brazilian Portuguese ESLs; Chan (2010) on initial consonant clusters of Cantonese ESLs; Nguyen (2019) on final consonant clusters of Vietnamese ESLs; Al-Yami and Al-Athwary (2021) on consonant clusters of Saudi ESLs. Additionally, OT research has been conducted on the phonotactics in the interlanguage of L1 English with L2 of other languages, e.g., Zhang (2016) on L2 Mandarin; Guimaraes (2017) on L2 Brazilian Portuguese. This paper extends this OT L2 phonotactics research tradition by contributing new research on the coalescence of diphthongs and consonants in the interlanguage of Chinese ESLs,which is an understudied area. This paper also engages in conversation with coalescence research in OT outside of the interlanguage context, such as Zaleska (2020).

    When moving beyond the lexical level, the interface of syntax and phonology is involved, so more variables need to be considered. For instance, sentence stress has attracted numerous studies in terms of specific languages. Selkirk (1995; 2000) theorizes the interaction of constraints on the stress in prosodic phrasing, highlighting focus as well as sentence stress in default English sentences. Ishihara (2011)examines the role of focus as independent from prosodic phrasing in Japanese, which leads to multiheaded or headless prosodic phrases. Feldhausen (2016) uses Stochastic Optimality Theory to account for inter-speaker variation in an examination of clitic left dislocations in Spanish prosody. However,there have been very few studies on sentence stress of the interlanguage of speakers whose L1 is a tonal language, and L2 is a stress-timed language. But in fact, sentence stress is exactly the area where these learners make the most noticeable errors. For example, Nguyn, Ingram, and Pensalfini (2008) observe how prosodic transfer from L1 Vietnamese has affected learners’ ability to produce and perceive focus in noun phrases in the phrase prosody of English. Ji and Liu (2021) investigate Chinese ESLs’ sentence stress errors. This paper independently confirms some theoretical conclusions of Ji and Liu regarding Align constraints, but while Ji and Liu examine stress using an excerpt of textbook sentences as the test case, this paper directly examines a matched pair of phonologically similar sentences.

    Thus, there are two focuses of study in this paper based on the observations of Chinese learners of English in a training course: first, diphthong interactions with nasal codas, which is the aspect that is most resistant to change; second, sentence stress in relation to constraints regarding new information and focus, which is the aspect that has very noticeable change. Therefore, the direction shaping the investigations of this paper is to visualize the factors behind the problems made by Chinese learners of English. By studying the most difficult and easiest aspects of the interlanguage of some students, some recommendations can be made about the balance of content focus in second language pronunciation classes. Furthermore, as increasing numbers of Chinese learners of English engage in academic and business pursuits internationally, the traits of interlanguage of Chinese learners are also worthy of being brought to the attention of native English speakers and other global audiences to facilitate better understanding and smoother international communications.

    Context on Empirical Observations

    The empirical observations for which the theoretical analysis of this paper attempts to explain originate from a data corpus formed during an observational study of Chinese university students from diverse majors and different years of graduating classes who signed up for an American accent training course. These students attended the training course with the intention of pursuing educational or vocational opportunities abroad in the future. The classes incorporated both segmental and suprasegmental training, emphasizing how to pronounce vowels and consonants correctly and how to produce complicated onset and coda clusters, as well as explicitly examining sentences and sentence stress. Prior to the start of the classes, students were asked to submit a voice recording of their reading of a diagnostic sheet of sample words and sentences. Throughout each week, students submitted homework assignments of their recorded readings of assigned sentences and paragraphs. The course concluded with the students submitting a recording of them rereading the diagnostic assignment. Aside from the sound files from these assignments, observations were also drawn from student performance and participation in class.

    From the variety of information available for examination, the aspect selected for analysis was the one that appeared to be most resistant to change across all levels of English proficiency or amount of experience studying English, and the aspect that appeared to have the most change across the students.Although the errors in these categories appear to result from L1 interference, sentence stress is an area where this interference could be overcome. Specifically, the items examined are the word “down” and the underlined portion of these sentences: (a) How many pets do you have? I have two. (b) I study hard because I have to.

    Theoretical Analysis of Phonotactics and Stress

    Part 1: Phonotactics

    The Case of “Down”

    “Down” was the most frequently mispronounced word in the diagnostic test as well as the end of the course follow-up. To evaluate this situation, first, a previous study examining obstruent codas is discussed in depth, then a new ranking system accommodating nasal codas is built from that study’s ranking basis, and then the discussion is expanded to other diphthongs.

    Obstruent Codas: A Summary and Evaluation of Broselow, Chen, and Wang (1998)

    Broselow, Chen, and Wang’s 1998 paper analyzes Chinese native speakers’ simplification of English forms with obstruent codas. Through OT, they reveal how L2 learners’ strategies reflected the influence of previously low-ranked markedness constraints in the native language that now rose high enough in the interlanguage ranking to make a difference.

    From a preliminary analysis, they note that participants resorted to epenthesis, deletion, or devoicing when faced with obstruent codas, which are not seen in Chinese. They posit the following rankings for a generalization of the interlanguage of each situation (lettering of rankings mine, for ease of distinction and reference):

    Ranking a - simple deletion: No Obs Coda >> Dep >> Max

    Ranking b - simple epenthesis: No Obs Coda >> Max >> Dep

    Ranking c - simple devoicing: No Voiced Obs Coda >> Max, Dep >> Ident (voi) >> No Obs Coda

    There was also some inconsistency of strategies for individual participants, some of which Broselow et al. attribute to the malleable nature of interlanguage systems, but some of which they account for by bringing to the fore a particular markedness constraint, Wd Bin (Word Binarity), that favors words containing two syllables.

    Then, they incorporate Wd Bin in positing two possible ranking systems to account for certain inconsistent participants: one which results in epenthesis if the input form is monosyllabic, but in deletion, if it is disyllabic:

    Ranking d: No Obs Coda >> Max, Dep >> Wd Bin

    And another, which results in epenthesis for monosyllabic inputs but devoicing for disyllabic inputs:

    Ranking e: No Voiced Obs Coda >> Wd Bin >> Max, Dep >> Ident (voi), No Obs Coda

    Whileranking eis an interesting hypothesis and appears to present an explanation of occasional devoicing, I find its validity as an interlanguage grammar ranking doubtful and to be challenged. After all, the ranking of Wd Bin above faithfulness constraint Dep would entail that monosyllabic inputs with no codas or with sonorant codas would also have winning outputs with epenthesis. In fact, these occurrences are next to none, based on my data. How to accommodate and repair this ranking would be something to explore at a different time. Now, I would like to useranking das a basis to build upon a more detailed ranking to accommodate some phenomena in nasal codas and also complex codas with both a nasal and an obstruent.

    Extension to Nasal Codas

    The particular subset of codas in Broselow et al.’s (1998) investigation, obstruent codas, presents a complex case in interlanguage phonology because obstruent codas are not observed or deduced to be in any underlying forms in Chinese. On the other hand, the Chinese language does have two nasal codas:the alveolar nasal [n] and the velar [?]. Thus, it might seem, at first glance, that if an input contained such a simple allowed nasal coda, then the winning output coda should be preserved and epenthesis unnecessary: for example, an input of /s?n/ would be predicted to be mapped to an output of [s?n]; an input of /da?n/ would be predicted to be mapped to an output of [da?n].

    In fact, while the output of soon [s?n] for /s?n/ was indeed generally seen, the overwhelming majority of students I observed exhibited an output of [da?] for /da?n/. The discrepancy shows that there are some constraints at work in the interlanguage whose effects might not be readily deduced from observing obstruent codas alone. This manifests in significant interactions between the vowels and the codas: coalescence of the second vowel of a diphthong with the alveolar nasal coda.

    Here, it is also appropriate to briefly describe the phonotactics of diphthongs in the native Chinese. While diphthongs do occur, they do not appear in the environment of nasal codas.Furthermore, while /a?/ does not exist in Chinese, /au/, which is very close, does, which the participants often use instead in their interlanguage. However, for the purposes of this paper, I have notated any production of [a] as [a?] for simplicity. The one-to-one correspondence can be seen as an allophone issue of phonetics that does not erase any contrasts, much like the American pronunciation of /a?/ can actually be /??/.)

    The constraints that are relevant to this case are as follows:

    Markedness constraints:

    ● Complex Syllable: assign one violation mark for every complex syllable (μμμ). In this case, a diphthong and a nasal consonant would constitute a complex syllable.

    ● No Obs Coda: assign one violation mark for an obstruent coda (from Broselow et al.).

    ● Onset: assign one violation mark for an onset-less syllable. (In this case, its inclusion is necessitated by a hypothetical losing candidate where a diphthong is parsed as two syllables.)

    Faithfulness constraints:

    ● Ident: assign one violation mark for each input segment changed in the output.

    ● Max: assign one violation mark for each input segment deleted in the output.

    ● Ident (dorsal): assign one violation mark for every dorsal feature altered from the input. Dorsal includes features, such as the place of a vowel as well as that of a consonant; the back and high features of a vowel would be equivalent to the glottal feature of a consonant.

    ● Max (dorsal): assign one violation mark for every dorsal feature deleted from the input.

    ● Linearity: assign one violation mark for disruption of the order of features from the input.

    ● Uniformity: assign one violation mark for each case of coalescence.

    Twelve ranking arguments for these constraints are deduced as follows:

    (1) Complex Syllable >> Ident

    da?n *Complex-Syllable Ident da? *da?n *W L

    (2) Complex Syllable >> Uniformity

    da?n *Complex-Syllable Uniformity da? *da?n *W L

    (3) Max >> Ident

    da?n Max Ident da? *da? *W L

    (4) Max >> Uniformity

    da?jnk Max Uniformity da?j,k *da? *W L

    (5) Max (dors) >> Uniformity

    da?jnk Max (dors) Uniformity da?j,k *dan *W L

    (6) Dep >> Uniformity

    da?jnk Dep Uniformity da?j,k *da?.n? *W L

    (7) Dep >> Ident

    da?n Dep Ident da? *da?.n? *W L

    (8) Linearity >> Uniformity

    da?jnk Linearity Uniformity da?j,k *da.n? *W L

    (9) Linearity >> Ident

    da?jnk Linearity Ident da?j,k *da.n? *W L

    (10) Onset >> Uniformity

    da?jnk Onset Ident da?j,k *da.?n *W L

    (11) Onset >> Ident

    da?jnk Onset Ident da?j,k *da.?n *W L

    (12) Dep >> Onset

    ɑn Dep Onset ɑn *dɑn *W L

    The results of the above ranking arguments are incorporated with the assumptions and rankings ofranking dof Broselow et al. (context-dependent epenthesis or deletion) to produce the following ranking and tableau for [da?n]:

    No Obs Coda, Complex Syllable >> Max (dorsal), Ident (dorsal), Linearity, Max, Dep >> Onset >>Uniformity, Ident >> Word Binarity

    da?jnk No Obs Coda*Comp-Syll Max(Dors)Ident(Dors) Lin Max Dep Ons Uni Ident Wd Bin da?j,k * * *da?n *! *da.?n *!dan *! * *da? *! *da?.n? *!d?an *! * *da.n? *! *da? *! * * *

    It needs to be clarified that, although it seems that many constraints cannot be ranked in relation to each other, it is still useful to keep a distinct Max (dorsal) from Max as a reminder of what features are coalescing. In a situation where coalescence is not recognized, we would have to mark [da?] for Max,and be subject to the quandary that [dan] is more optimal than [da?]:

    da?n Max Ident da? * *dan *

    A Further Integration with Broselow et al. (1998): Considering the Monosyllabic Complex Coda Input [ba?nd], and Disyllabic Complex Coda Input “?ba?nd”

    As the next step in the exploration, I now look at the case when there is an input with a complex coda consisting of both a nasal and an obstruent stop. The integrated ranking predicts coalescence with epenthesis for [ba?nd] and coalescence with deletion for “?ba?nd,” as shown as follows:

    ba?nd No Obs Coda*Comp-Syll Max(Dors)Ident(Dors) Lin Max Dep Ons Uni Ident Wd Bin ba?.d? * * *ba? * * * *!ba?nd *! * *ba.?n.d? *! *band *! * * * *ban.d? * *! *ba? *!* *b?an.d? *! * *ba?.d? * *!

    Note, however, that the above ranking seems unsatisfactory due to the fact that the deciding constraint, Wd Bin, is lower than the mutually unranked Max and Dep, in which the first two candidates each have a violation. Yet, while the first solution is to treat this as evidence that Wd Bin should be ranked higher than Dep, this would also be a problematic move since doing so would mean that an input of a monosyllabic word with no coda or with no complex syllable and a nasal coda, would have as its most favored output, a candidate with epenthesis. This is not observed. How exactly to resolve this point could be a good future exploration.

    ?ba?nd No Obs Coda*Comp-Syll Max(Dors)Ident(Dors) Lin Max Dep Ons Uni Ident Wd Bin ?.ba?.d? * * * * *!?.ba? * * * *?.ba?nd *! * *?.ba.?n.d? *!* **?.band *! * * * *?.ban.d? * *! * * *?.ba? *!* *?.b?an.d? *! * * * *?.ba?.d? * *! * *

    Although there are no neat comparable pairs in the actual recorded data to fully verify this, in the memory of students’ oral responses in class, such patterns seem to exist for some individuals. It would be a good case to test in follow-up studies.

    Additional Thoughts on More Situations Involving [a?n]

    From the process of doing the OT analysis, some more loose ends and stray thoughts relating to “a?”have been encountered; as they enrich the context and point to future areas of interest, they will also be discussed below.

    First, what would happen in the case of [a?n] occurring in the middle of a word but not immediately followed by any consonants? For example, among the words tested in my data is the word “downy.”Seeing that it can be parsed in a way that avoids Complex Syll by making the [n] the onset of the second syllable, it might have been expected that the majority of the students would be able to pronounce it as /da?.ni/:

    da?ni No Obs Coda*Comp-Syll Max(Dors)Ident(Dors) Lin Max Dep Ons Uni Ident Wd Bin da?.ni *da?.ni

    However, it was found that there was a substantial number who continued to pronounce it as /da?.ni/; of these students, all pronounced /da?n/ as /da?/. This phenomenon of defying phonotactics is a case of faithfulness to an identified morphological base, which can be explained by Output-Output Correspondence (Benua 1997; Burzio 2005). Once “down” is recognized as the noun root of the adjective, there is a tendency to retain faithfulness to its standalone pronunciation even in the adjectival form.

    Second, are there more reasons why the coalescence might happen? There is interference by English loanwords and proper name translations into Chinese. Yip (1993) discusses the phonology of English loan words in Cantonese, arguing that it is a process of subjecting English inputs to the constraints that define well-formedness in Cantonese. Silverman (1992) points out that in adapting loan words, only part of the signal is detected by a Perceptual Scan, and the result of the scan is registered as the input. I think that knowledge of such transliterated words can be a source of interference with L2 learning of new words that are similar to transliterated ones. In my specific example, proper nouns that include segments of /a?n/, such as “Brown” (布朗) or “Pound” (龐德),are often transliterated in Chinese with characters that have the pinyin “ang,” which is pronounced/a?/. Even when participants can distinguish audio input of /a?/ versus /a?n/, they cannot maintain a consistent distinction in the production of these sounds, showing that the Perceptual Scan is not an issue.

    Third, what of [a?] with other nasal codas? Because there does not seem to normally exist in English the combinations of /a?m/ or /a??/, and the sentences and word sets provided to the students to use contained no nonce words, there was no opportunity to see how the students would respond in other contexts of a? + nasal coda.

    Fourth, can [a?] to /a?/ be seen in other obscure situations? Students have been observed to render[al] as /a?/, in words such as “call.” Had English contained common words with [aln] sequence, those could have been a test case to see if the winning output might end up being /a?/ as well. (Of course,this would involve more complexity than could be contained in the scope of this paper, but it is an interesting thought nonetheless.)

    Extensions: Diphthongs Other Than [a?] + Nasal Codas

    The mapping of [da?n] to /da?/ is perhaps distinct enough for those unfamiliar with phonetics to pick up, but an examination of other diphthongs with this constraint ranking sheds light on other details, too.

    A diphthong that also ends with “?” is [o?]. Like [a?], it has an analog in Chinese, which is [ou],which similarly cannot exist with nasal codas.

    A review of the assignment texts for words incorporating [o?n] resulted in finding “tone”and “phone.” The previous ranking constraints that were built in place to explain [da?n] to /da?/,when applied to [to?n], predict a winning output of /to?/ for the interlanguage. The review of the recordings of the students confirmed that this was indeed a very common output. This output /o?/may not strike a listener as having the same degree of deviance from /o?n/ as /a?/ has compared to /a?n/, possibly because “o” is already a back vowel like “?,” and the change of sound in the diphthong is just a small shift from mid to high position. In contrast, “a?” has a central (or front)to back, low to high shift.

    This paper tried to verify this result with the case of “phone.” The most common outputs for it were“f??” as well as “fo?,” which may seem unusual. However, it should be taken into account that it is not uncommon for British English to be the variety taught in Chinese primary schools, and in British English, “phone” would be [f??n]. English taught at beginner levels often focused on concrete nouns of daily life, so it is not unlikely that some students acquired [f??n] as the underlying input, but at a later time, under different tutelage, acquired the more abstract word “tone” as [to?n]. Another equally pertinent factor is that in Chinese, bilabials and labiodentals cannot precede [o?] but can precede [??].Students whose interlanguage was closer to that of the L2 English likely demoted this markedness constraint to be able to produce /fo?/.

    Finally, a few other common diphthongs will be summarily touched upon. The diphthong [e?] (which has a Chinese counterpart [ei]); [a?] (counterpart [ai]); [??] (closest equivalent is [uai], which occurs in complementary distribution to [ai]) all have high front vowels as the second part of the diphthong. To subject an input like line [le?n] or lane [la?n] or loin [l??n] to our ranking order implies that coalescence would be again favored, generating a nasal that would preserve the features of +high and +front. Such a candidate would be the palatal nasal [?]. It is important to note that in both English and Mandarin Chinese, [?] does not normally exist, especially not as codas, so *[?] is likely a markedness constraint that plays a role in preventing this coalescence in the majority of cases. It appears that the strategy adopted by many students instead is nasalization of [?] along with the dropping of the velar nasal. This does not violate *[?] and Complex Syllable, and the retention of the nasalization may be considered another facet of coalescence able to occur. This can be a direction for future investigation as well.

    Part 2: Sentence Stress

    An observation from the experience of teaching sentence stress is that students may not know where to place stress initially. They may place equal stress on every single word, an effect of L1 transfer because in Chinese, sentence stress is minimal due to tone assignments to individual words.When students were taught to recognize that new information and content words should be stressed,their sentence stress patterns improved.

    Stress: Definitions

    One early conceptualization of stress is by Newman (1946: 172-173), who defines stress in English as the “pitch, vowel quantity, and articulatory force” given to a certain syllable in a word or a certain word in a phrase or a sentence. Schmerling (1976: 4) defines stress as a “subjective impression of prominence.” Cruttenden (1997: 18) uses stress to mean prominence in length, loudness, and pitch. He distinguishes four degrees of stress in English at the constituent level and beyond: 1) primary stress; 2)secondary stress; 3) tertiary stress; 4) unstressed.

    From the above definitions, we can see that there is a consensus that stress refers to the perceived prominence in terms of pitch, force, and duration, which is given to a certain syllable in a word or to a certain word in a phrasal constituent or a sentence. It can be categorized into lexical stress (or word stress), phrasal stress (or pitch accent), and sentence stress (or nuclear stress).

    Chomsky and Halle (1968) advocate the predictability of sentence stress from words and the structure or structures of the higher orders of the phrasal organization through the algorithm of the Nuclear Stress Rule, which assigns stress to the right-edge word within the boundaries of phrases.Schmerling (1976) examines Chomsky and Halle’s Cyclic Approach to assigning stress using the Nuclear Stress Rule. In every hierarchy, there is one main stress within the phrase. Thus, while words have lexical stress, there is a word that receives prominent stress in a phrase, and a phrase that receives prominent stress in a clause. This simplistic hierarchy is still a good model for instructing Chinese learners of English, who benefit from learning about the placement of stress in different levels of context because of the lack of this hierarchy in Chinese.

    Büring (2016: 7) posits an alternative procedure for assigning stress in default sentences that have no context:

    Sep 1: Put pitch accents on open class elements; put the minimal number to guarantee that each syntactic phrase contains at least one PA (pitch accent).

    Step 2: (a) Delete pitch accents if they are followed by at least one other PA, or alternatively; (b) Add pitch accents on open class elements (OCEs) if they are followed by at least one other PA.

    Büring takes open class elements (OCEs) to mean content words, such as nouns, adjectives,and main verbs, and closed class elements (CCEs) to mean function words, such as pronouns,prepositions, determiners, and auxiliaries. Büring’s reduced focus on hierarchies and greater emphasis on distinguishing the classes of elements indicates the recognition of the need to account for morphosyntactic characteristics in assigning stress.

    However, another factor also needs to be considered: the information structure of the sentence. Given information is the topic or theme, and new information is comment and rheme. New information is also the undeletable part of words that answers whquestions. Focus is where new and contrastive information lies; it is a grammatical category.Certain structures, such as cleft sentences and passive voice sentences, can foreground fixed focus positions. New information and focus usually invite sentence stress.

    Thus, syntactic structures, as well as parts of speech and information structures, are all important factors in determining sentence stress.

    As Figure 1 above shows, there is a hierarchy of phonological units, and sentence stress will interact among interface categories from a prosodic word (ω) and a phonological phrase (φ) to an intonational phrase (ι) and an utterance (υ).

    Figure 1: Hierarchy of phonological units (cf. Selkirk 1978; Ito & Mester 2012)

    An Examination of Simple Sentence Stress

    At this point, it can be said that sentence stress is no simple matter to approach. For this analysis,two simple sentences of 3 words each, being a pair of contrastive stress, will be used. They are: How many pets do you have? (a) I have two. (b) I study hard because I have to.

    The sentence stress constraints determined to be relevant for this analysis are drawn from established constraints in OT studies of stress or adapted from examinations of stress from other perspectives:

    ● Culminativity: Each prosodic phrase (φ, ι) contains one and only one grid-mark (i.e., prominence or stress) (Ishihara, 2011:1881).

    ● Align R φ [Align (φ, R; P, R)]: For each φ, there is a P such that the right edge of φ coincides with the right edge of P (modeled after the template of Ishihara, 2011:1876.)

    ● *Unstressed content word at φ level: For each φ, the content words are allotted stress.

    ● *Unstressed new information: For each φ, words that produce new information are allotted stress.

    ● Max (stress)-assign one violation mark for every point of stress that exists in the phonological phrase level that is not stressed in the intonational phrase.

    The actual sentence stress patterns varied from student to student, but there appears to be a rough pattern that is dependent on the level of English or length of English study. For example, beginners,such as students who did not major in English language and were freshmen, tended to put stress on every single word equally. Intermediate students, students who had studied college-level English courses and who generally had had more practice and exposure to listening and speaking in English,tended to assign stress only on some words but did not always do so on the right words. There were also advanced students whose sentence stress patterns approximated those produced by native speakers. As the most interesting of the three, the output of a representative intermediate student was chosen for the OT analysis:

    How many pets do you have? I have two

    I study hard because I have to.

    The ranking order is as follows: Align R φ, Max (stress) >> Culminativity >> *Unstressed content word at φ level, *Unstressed new information.

    This ranking order shows that the constraints that take into account information structure and category of words are low in consideration of the observed Chinese learners of English before any training.

    Below are some results showing the different constraint rankings and winners of the most common student response post-training course:

    The new ranking order thus is as follows: Culminativity >> *Unstressed new information >> Align R φ >> Max (stress) >> *Unstressed content word at φ level

    This ranking of a representative output of post-training results reveals how markedness constraints regarding content and information structure have altered.

    This examination of a pair of phonologically similar sentences makes it more evident to notice the differences in the rankings of Chinese learners of English of different proficiency levels. By completing a period of study in the American accent training course, students were able to revise and update the ranking order of constraints in their interlanguage. The pair of test sentences make it clear that the promotion of the constraint, Culminativity, and the demotion of the constraints, Align R φ and Max(stress) are necessary for students to acquire L2 English stress patterns.

    Conclusion

    The results of this theoretical analysis reveal interesting insights concerning the empirical observation that for Chinese learners of English, L1 transfer in certain aspects of phonotactics appears to be harder to alter than that in sentence stress. This may be because the phonotactics of L1 has comparable complexity to L2, whereas, in the area of sentence stress, L1’s rules are nearly nonexistent.

    The case of [da?n] to /da?/ serves as a fascinating exemplar of coalescence in the interlanguage of Chinese learners of English. However, it appears to be the tip of an iceberg, as many variations and related points of interest remain to be satisfactorily explained. The striking persistence of this particular“L1 transfer” effect is, in fact, much like the emergence of the unmarked. Its stability across students’experience levels and training times poses a classroom challenge and merits the development of future strategies specifically targeting coalescence.

    Meanwhile, the initial patterns of sentence stress produced by the observed Chinese learners of English appear to be a correlation between the level of expertise or experience in English and the highest phonological level that was recognized. For example, beginner learners only noticed lexical stress and did not account for phonological phrase stress; intermediate learners showed variability in stress indicating recognition of phonological phrase stress, and advanced learners showed the most nuanced stress variability that could come from also being aware of intonational phrase stress (see Figure 2 below). The teaching of stress, then, entails not instructing any alternative system of stress but building up the incorporation of higher levels of phonological units.

    Figure 2: Generalization of patterns of sentence stress at different proficiency levels

    In the context of language teaching, phonotactic errors might be prominent to the instructor and tempting to be the focus of training through repetition, but some can be very difficult to change due to the order of the constraints of the interlanguage that makes a certain pronunciation very stable. The focus of pronunciation training might be better placed on sentence stress, which was observed to be an area of solid improvement. Errors in sentence stress may impede communication effectiveness more so than particular phonotactic errors.These observations may not only be of interest to instructors in China but also be relevant to those in English-speaking countries, for example, training programs at universities with a tradition of recruiting international graduate students as teaching assistants.

    As a theoretical analysis of field observations, this paper also demonstrates the potential value of Optimality Theory as a tool for instructors of pronunciation seeking to identify areas in students’performance that may require targeting. As stressed previously, interlanguage may be idiosyncratic. In a classroom, students may have a variety of L1 dialect backgrounds and L2 proficiency levels; limited resources and time constraints may not permit instructors to systematically uncover all areas of each student’s errors. However, with OT, instructors may be able to logically deduce a student’s underlying ranking order of phonological constraints based on a sample of the student’s output and use this order to extrapolate and identify other potential issues. This may help instructors better tailor training to the needs of students. Although what has been discussed is drawn from the context of L1 Chinese and L2 English, the usefulness of this technique theoretically can be extended to other L1 and L2 combinations of interest worldwide, for example, L1 English and L2 Chinese.

    Besides pedagogical implications, this paper, by explaining the variation in interlanguage levels of Chinese ESLs objectively in terms of linguistically grounded constraint rankings, may contribute to native English speakers’ clearer and less biased understanding of the pronunciation patterns of Chinese speakers of English in business and academic situations on the global stage. Popularizing such a perspective of interlanguage is conducive to the avoidance of misunderstandings of additional meanings conveyed by L1-influenced pronunciation and to the strengthening of successful international dialogue.

    猜你喜歡
    龐德布朗
    Legendary British Climber Joe Brown喬·布朗
    “走過同一塊地毯”:龐德與詹姆斯美學(xué)思想比較研究
    你好,我是布朗熊
    你好,我是布朗熊
    丹·布朗主要作品
    “我”與“你”的相遇——龐德、斯奈德所譯漢詩的主體間性管窺
    龐德子
    飛天(2015年12期)2015-12-24 19:40:38
    《面對(duì)伏拉龐德修道院酒神壁畫的沉思》作品分析
    人間(2015年21期)2015-03-11 15:23:38
    從學(xué)術(shù)史探索中走近學(xué)術(shù)龐德——評(píng)《外國文學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)史研究:龐德學(xué)術(shù)史研究》
    中國出版(2015年22期)2015-01-30 15:03:23
    海明威學(xué)寫詩
    做人與處世(2014年3期)2014-05-23 18:43:41
    精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 国产激情久久老熟女| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 午夜福利视频精品| 黄色 视频免费看| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 在线av久久热| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 日本欧美视频一区| 国产一级毛片在线| 亚洲全国av大片| 国产在视频线精品| 一本久久精品| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲 | 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 午夜两性在线视频| 黄色 视频免费看| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 午夜视频精品福利| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 丝袜美足系列| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 一本久久精品| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 搡老岳熟女国产| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看 | 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 久久影院123| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 久久 成人 亚洲| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 在线 av 中文字幕| 午夜激情av网站| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| tube8黄色片| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 男女国产视频网站| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 亚洲av男天堂| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 悠悠久久av| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 国产在线观看jvid| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 考比视频在线观看| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 97在线人人人人妻| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 一级黄色大片毛片| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 久久久精品94久久精品| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 制服诱惑二区| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 大香蕉久久网| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 9191精品国产免费久久| 亚洲第一av免费看| 两性夫妻黄色片| 中国国产av一级| 欧美日韩精品网址| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡 | 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 9191精品国产免费久久| 精品人妻1区二区| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 精品一区在线观看国产| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频 | 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 免费在线观看日本一区| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 色94色欧美一区二区| 成人国产av品久久久| 午夜免费鲁丝| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 午夜福利,免费看| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 9热在线视频观看99| 国产又爽黄色视频| 国产成人影院久久av| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区 | 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产av又大| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 中文欧美无线码| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 成人国产av品久久久| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 色94色欧美一区二区| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 午夜福利视频精品| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 91字幕亚洲| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 久久热在线av| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 午夜免费鲁丝| av在线老鸭窝| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 久久热在线av| av线在线观看网站| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 手机成人av网站| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 美女福利国产在线| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 91字幕亚洲| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 亚洲综合色网址| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 久9热在线精品视频| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网 | 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 一区福利在线观看| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 日本五十路高清| 欧美日韩黄片免| 97在线人人人人妻| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区 | 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网 | 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 咕卡用的链子| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 精品久久久精品久久久| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 一区二区三区激情视频| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 9热在线视频观看99| 亚洲国产精品999| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 欧美日韩av久久| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 亚洲国产欧美网| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 99香蕉大伊视频| 无限看片的www在线观看| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 9191精品国产免费久久| 成年动漫av网址| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 99久久综合免费| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 黄片小视频在线播放| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 亚洲成人手机| 一区福利在线观看| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 9191精品国产免费久久| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 一个人免费看片子| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 岛国毛片在线播放| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 桃花免费在线播放| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 国产精品.久久久| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 久久性视频一级片| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 成人手机av| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www | 亚洲精品第二区| 91成年电影在线观看| 一级毛片电影观看| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 亚洲 国产 在线| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美 | 人妻久久中文字幕网| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 香蕉国产在线看| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区 | 人人妻人人澡人人看| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 日韩有码中文字幕| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 91精品三级在线观看| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 欧美日韩黄片免| 黄色视频不卡| 精品国产一区二区久久| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 91字幕亚洲| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 午夜久久久在线观看| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| www日本在线高清视频| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 成人国产av品久久久| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 性色av一级| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区 | 岛国在线观看网站| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | bbb黄色大片| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 麻豆av在线久日| 一本综合久久免费| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 亚洲国产精品999| 国产男女内射视频| 天天影视国产精品| 桃花免费在线播放| av线在线观看网站| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 999精品在线视频| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 国产三级黄色录像| 精品第一国产精品| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 蜜桃在线观看..| av网站在线播放免费| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 18禁观看日本| 一进一出抽搐动态| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 一区在线观看完整版| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 久久精品成人免费网站| av免费在线观看网站| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 窝窝影院91人妻| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 少妇 在线观看| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 国精品久久久久久国模美| www.av在线官网国产| 夫妻午夜视频| 丝袜喷水一区| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 亚洲av男天堂| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 一个人免费看片子| 91麻豆av在线| 日韩电影二区| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| av在线播放精品| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 香蕉丝袜av| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频 | 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 精品第一国产精品| 午夜视频精品福利| 欧美大码av| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www | 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 美女中出高潮动态图| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 曰老女人黄片| tube8黄色片| 男人操女人黄网站| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| avwww免费| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区 | 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 不卡av一区二区三区| 国产成人精品在线电影| 热re99久久国产66热| www.av在线官网国产| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲国产av新网站| av线在线观看网站| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡 | 超色免费av| 搡老乐熟女国产| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 99久久人妻综合| 一进一出抽搐动态| 亚洲 国产 在线| 中文字幕色久视频| 亚洲国产看品久久| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 欧美在线黄色| 777米奇影视久久| tube8黄色片| 国产高清videossex| 1024香蕉在线观看| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 美女中出高潮动态图| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 午夜老司机福利片| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 手机成人av网站| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 国产成人av教育| 我的亚洲天堂| 国产精品影院久久| 国产一区二区激情短视频 | 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 老司机靠b影院| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 精品少妇内射三级| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 悠悠久久av| 高清av免费在线| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| a级毛片黄视频| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 日韩视频在线欧美| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 久久久久视频综合| 亚洲精品一二三| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 日本91视频免费播放| 天堂8中文在线网| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 一区二区三区激情视频| 成人国产av品久久久| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 日本av免费视频播放| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 乱人伦中国视频| 国产高清videossex| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 久久av网站| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 两性夫妻黄色片| 国产在线观看jvid| 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 国产精品.久久久| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 久久这里只有精品19| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 不卡av一区二区三区| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 精品国产国语对白av| 午夜福利在线观看吧| av在线app专区| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 777米奇影视久久| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 91精品三级在线观看| 精品福利观看| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| a级毛片黄视频| 国产麻豆69| 99国产精品免费福利视频| av免费在线观看网站| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文|