Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:38:23.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A DYNAMIC LOOK AT L2 PHONOLOGICAL LEARNING: Seeking Processing Explanations for Implicational Phenomena

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2007

Pavel Trofimovich ,
Elizabeth Gatbonton  and
Norman Segalowitz
Pavel Trofimovich
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Elizabeth Gatbonton
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Norman Segalowitz
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates whether second language (L2) phonological learning can be characterized as a gradual and systematically patterned replacement of nonnative segments by native segments in learners' speech, conforming to a two-stage implicational scale. We adopt a dynamic approach to language variation based on Gatbonton's (1975, 1978) gradual diffusion framework. Participants were 40 Quebec Francophones of different English proficiency levels who produced 80 tokens of English in eight phonetic contexts. In Analysis 1, production accuracy data are subjected to implicational scaling, with phonetic contexts ordered solely by a linguistic criterion—sonority hierarchy. In Analysis 2, the production accuracy data are similarly analyzed but with phonetic context ordering determined by psycholinguistic (processing) criteria—cross-language perceptual similarity and corpus-based estimates of lexical frequency. Results support and extend Gatbonton's framework, which indicates that L2 phonological learning progresses gradually, conforming to an implicational scale, and that perceived cross-language similarity and lexical frequency determine its course.This research was made possible through grants to Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton from the Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and support from the Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance at Concordia University. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Melanie Barrière and Randall Halter in all aspects of data collection and analysis. Many thanks are extended to Dawn Cleary, Winnie Grady, Eva Karchava, Nootan Kumar, Magnolia Negrete Cetina, and Alin Zdrite for their help in various stages of this study. The authors wish to thank Tracey Derwing and Murray Munro for sharing their speech elicitation materials. Sarita Kennedy, Randall Halter, and five anonymous SSLA reviewers provided helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 407 - 448
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Adamson, H.D. & Regan, V. (1991). The acquisition of community speech norms by Asian immigrants learning English as a second language: A preliminary study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 1–22.Google Scholar
Amastae, J. (1978). The acquisition of English vowels. Papers in Linguistics, 11, 423–458.Google Scholar
Andersen, R.W. (1978). An implicational model for second language research. Language Learning, 28, 221–282.Google Scholar
Aoyama, K., Flege, J.E., Guion, S.G., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Yamada, T. (2004). Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese alveolar tap and English /l/ and alveolar approximant. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 233–250.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. (1998). Second language phonology, phonetics, and typology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 189–211.Google Scholar
Atkinson, M. (1982). Explanation in the study of child language development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, C.-J.N. (1973a). Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Bailey, C.-J.N. (1973b). The patterning of language variation. In R. W. Bailey & J. L. Robinson (Eds.), Varieties of present-day English (pp. 156–189). New York: Macmillan.
Baker, W. & Trofimovich, P. (2005). Interaction of native- and second-language vowel system(s) in early and late bilinguals. Language and Speech, 48, 1–27.Google Scholar
Bayley, R. (1999). The primacy of aspect hypothesis revisited: Evidence from language shift. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, 1–22.Google Scholar
Bayley, R. & Regan, V. (2004). Introduction: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 323–338.Google Scholar
Best, C.T., McRoberts, G.W., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 775–793.Google Scholar
Best, C.T., McRoberts, G.W., & Sithole, N. (1988). Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu clicks discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 345–360.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1971). Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language, 7, 457–492.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1975). Dynamics of a creole system. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Boersma, P. & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 45–86.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A.R. & Pisoni, D.B. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2074–2085.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A.R., Pisoni, D.B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.Google Scholar
British National Corpus Consortium. (2000). British National Corpus (World edition). Oxford: Humanities Computing Unit of Oxford University.
Broselow, E., Chen, S.-I., & Wang, C. (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 261–280.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 215–222.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cangelosi, A. & Parisi, D. (Eds.). (2002). Simulating the evolution of language. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cardoso, W. (2007). The variable development of English word-final stops by Brazilian Portuguese speakers: A stochastic optimality theoretic account. Language Variation and Change, 19, 218–249.Google Scholar
Chen, M.Y. & Wang, W.S.-Y. (1975). Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language, 51, 255–281.Google Scholar
Clements, G.N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I (pp. 283–333). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeCamp, D. (1971). Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 349–370). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dickerson, W.B. (1976). The psycholinguistic unity of language learning and language change. Language Learning, 26, 215–231.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D.A. (1984). Methods and empirical issues in analyzing functional misarticulation. In M. Elbert, D. A. Dinnsen, & G. Weismer (Eds.), Phonological theory and the misarticulating child (ASHA Monographs No. 22). Rockville, MD: ASHA.
Dunn-Rankin, P. (1983). Scaling methods. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eckman, F.R. (1991). The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 23–41.Google Scholar
Elman, J.L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.Google Scholar
Escudero, P. & Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 551–585.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C.A. & Farwell, C.B. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition. Language, 51, 419–439.Google Scholar
Flege, J.E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 229–273). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Flege, J.E., Munro, M.J., & Skelton, L. (1992). Production of the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast by native speakers of English, Mandarin, and Spanish. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 128–143.Google Scholar
Flege, J.E., Schirru, C., & MacKay, I.R.A. (2003). Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication, 40, 467–491.Google Scholar
Flege, J.E., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1995). Japanese adults can learn to produce English /r/ and /l/ accurately. Language and Speech, 38, 25–55.Google Scholar
Flege, J.E., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1996). Lexical familiarity and English-language experience affect Japanese adults' perception of alveolar approximant and /l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1161–1173.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C. & Smith, C.L. (1999). French. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet (pp. 78–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gatbonton, E. (1975). Systematic variations in second language speech: A sociolinguistic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Gatbonton, E. (1978). Patterned phonetic variability in second-language speech: A gradual diffusion model. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 335–347.Google Scholar
Gregg, K.R. (1996). The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–81). San Diego: Academic Press.
Guenther, F.H. & Gjaja, M.N. (1996). The perceptual magnet effect as an emergent property of neural map formation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 1111–1121.Google Scholar
Guion, S.G., Flege, J.E., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Pruitt, J.C. (2000). An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults' perception of English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2711–2724.Google Scholar
Gupta, P. & Dell, G.S. (1999). The emergence of language from serial order and procedural memory. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 447–481). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gupta, P. & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: Computational and neural bases. Brain and Language, 59, 267–333.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 9, 139–150.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hyltenstam, K. (1977). Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning, 27, 383–411.Google Scholar
Jamieson, D.G. & Morosan, D.E. (1986). Training non-native speech contrasts in adults: Acquisition of the English /ð/- /θ/ contrast by Francophones. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 205–215.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1912). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig: Teubner.
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W. (1971). Methodology. In W. O. Dingwall (Ed.), A survey of linguistic science (pp. 412–491). College Park: The University of Maryland.
Langman, J. & Bayley, R. (2002). The acquisition of verbal morphology by Chinese learners of Hungarian. Language Variation and Change, 14, 55–77.Google Scholar
Leonard, L.B., Newhoff, M., & Mesalam, L. (1980). Individual differences in early child phonology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 7–30.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Luce, P.A., Goldinger, S.D., Auer, E.T., & Vitevitch, M.S. (2000). Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and PARSYN. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, P.A. & Pisoni, D.B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (Ed.). (1999). The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Major, R.C. (1987). A model for interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 101–125). New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.
Major, R.C. (2002). The phonology of the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 67–92). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Manuel, S.Y. (1995). Speakers nasalize /ð/ after /n/, but listeners still hear /ð/. Journal of Phonetics, 23, 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J.M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrisette, M.L. & Gierut, J.A. (2002). Lexical organization and phonological change in treatment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mougeon, R., Rehner, K., & Nadashi, T. (2004). The learning of spoken French variation by immersion students from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 408–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate achievement in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age, motivation, and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81–108.Google Scholar
Nagy, N., Moisset, C., & Sankoff, G. (1996). On the acquisition of variable phonology in L2. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 111–126.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef
Pienemann, M. & Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children's ESL development and Rapid Profile. In P. McKay (Ed.), ESL development and language literacy in schools (pp. 115–259). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.
Pitt, M.A. & Samuel, A.G. (1995). Lexical and sublexical feedback in auditory word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Politzer, R.L. (1976). The implicational relation paradigm in language acquisition. In A. Juilland (Ed.), Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg (pp. 123–135). Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.
Preston, D.R. (1996). Variationist perspectives on second language acquisition. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 1–45). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Preston, D.R. (2000). Three kinds of sociolinguistics and SLA: A psycholinguistic perspective. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 3–30). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Regan, V. (1996). Variation in French interlanguage: A longitudinal study of sociolinguistic competence. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 177–202). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rickford, J.R. (2002). Implicational scales. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 142–167). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Csibra, G., Johnson, M.H., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2000). Electrophysiological correlates of cross-linguistic speech perception in native English speakers. Behavioural Brain Research, 111, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S.C. (1997). UAB Software. Birmingham: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Snow, C.E. & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.
Tarone, E. (2002). Frequency effects, noticing, and creativity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W.S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.
Trofimovich, P., Baker, W., & Mack, M. (2001). Context- and experience-based effects on the learning of vowels in a second language. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 31, 167–186.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N.S. (1969). Principles of phonology (A. M. Baltaxe, Trans.). Los Angeles: University of California Press. (Original work published 1939).
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vitevitch, M.S., Luce, P., Charles-Luce, J., & Kemmerer, D. (1997). Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech, 40, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M.S. & Luce, P.A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 481–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenk, B.J. (1979). Articulatory setting and de-fossilization. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4, 202–220.Google Scholar
Young, R.F. (1991). Variation in interlanguage morphology. Bern: Peter Lang.