Bilingual Phonological Acquisition & Second-Language
Second-‐‑language Phonology, Bilingualism and Speech Sound Disorders Fred R Eckman University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee American Speech-Language Hearing Association Denver, Colorado November 13, 2015
Disclosure Fred R. Eckman Relevant financial relationships Receiving a stipend to assist with travel, housing and expenses Receives a salary as a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Relevant non-financial relationships Serves on Advisory Board for the journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Goals of presentation:
First: To characterize briefly: some of the aims and methods of second-language (L2) phonology and their overlap with research on bilingualism
Second: To characterize in more depth: some of the areas in which L2 phonology and bilingualism are connected and may be able to inform each other
Roadmap
1. Conceptual connections: terms and assumptions 2. Learner systems (briefly) 3. Transfer 4. Allophonic splits 5. Interlanguage (IL) Hypothesis (reconsidered) 6. Characterization of interlanguages ILs and implicational relations ILs as intermediate stages of acquisition
Conceptual connections between L2 phonology and bilingualism Both disciplines Investigate language-contact situations L2 phonology - adult learners, Bilingualism - young children simultaneous bilingualism, sequential (successive) bilingualism
Second-language acquisition after the learner has already acquired or made significant progress in acquiring another language clearest cases of L2 acquisition - language learning in adulthood non-native speaker end-state accented and error-ridden speech
Learner systems Interlanguage Hypothesis
(ILH)
ILH is the claim that L2 learners internalize a learner-system termed an interlanguage (IL);; This system is their own version of the target language (TL);;
L2 learners use this system to produce and comprehend utterances in the TL.
Connection to bilingualism (Dinnsen 1984) Learner systems “The typical second-language learner has acquired his or her own native system and is trying to learn a different (target language) system. The functionally misarticulating child has learned his or her own disordered system and through remediative intervention is trying to learn the ambient (target language) system.” (Dinnsen 1984: 5)
Natural extension (FRE): L2 learners are acquiring their interlanguage system, and bilingual children are learning their child-systems and are faced with acquiring the two ambient languages.
Implications Learner systems The learner’s system must be analyzed on its own grounds to understand the nature of the system (Dinnsen et al. 1990;; Fabiano-Smith & Barlow 2010)
Before intervention can take place, one must know the nature of the learner system in order to have a strategy for intervening.
Transfer Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
“We assume that the student who comes in contact with a foreign language will find some features of quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those elements that are similar to his (sic) native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult”. (Lado 1957: 2)
Transfer Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
“We have ample evidence that when learning a foreign language we tend to transfer (emphasis added) our entire native language system in the process”. (Lado 1957: 11)
Transfer Connection to bilingualism Transfer attested in studies on bilingual acquisition (Paradis et al. 2011;; Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010) Bilingualism: transfer recognized as occurring between the systems of the child-learner, and reflects interaction of these two systems (Fabiano & Goldstein, 2005) Two-way interaction referred to as cross-linguistic effect (Fabiano-Smith & Barlow, 2010)
Transfer Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) L2 phonology: Transfer must be viewed as taking place from the NL system to the learner’s IL system
NL IL
In L2 phonology transfer from NL system to IL system is seen as nterference in acquisition
Maximum difficulty The hypothesis was that allophones reflected maximum difficulty;; “… stated in more general terms, when one significant unit or element in the native language equates bilingually with two significant units in the target language, we have maximum learning difficulty.” (Lado 1957: 15) No explanation or rationale was given for allophonic splits reflecting maximum difficulty.
Maximum Difficulty
Splitting NL allophones into separate phonemes in the TL NL Spanish:
/d/
[d] TL English:
[ð] /d/
/ð/
[d]
[ð]
Maximum Difficulty Splitting NL allophones into separate phonemes in the TL NL Korean: [s]
/s/ [ʃ]
[ʃ] occurs in Korean before [i] & [j], [s] occurs elsewhere TL English:
/s/
/ʃ/
[s]
[ʃ]
Maximum Difficulty Allophonic splits in L2 phonology (Eckman & Iverson, 2013)
Korean learners of English err on words like she and sea Principles of phonology constrain acquiring such contrasts so that the contrast is learned in morphologically composite words only if it is also learned in morphologically simplex words: (a) messy, meshy;; (b) she, sea
Maximum Difficulty Connection to misarticulating speech Allophonic splits in misarticulating children (Gierut, 1986) [f] & [s] allophones of /s/ In child’s system [f] occurred word-initially, [s] occurred elsewhere;; Contrast of [f] and [s] was trained in only post-vocalic position;; Some generalization was observed to other positions;; Ultimately contrast had to be trained in all positions.
Maximum Difficulty Pedagogical implications Expectations of teachers seem to be that L2 learners will have difficulty learning sounds and contrasts that are different from those in the NL;; Attention must be paid to phonological context when teaching allophonic splits, as contrast may be acquired in one environment, but not necessarily in the other environment.
Interlanguage Hypothesis (ILH) Language learners construct their own version of the TL;; use this system to produce and comprehend utterances of the TL.
A consequence of the ILH is that L2 learning becomes the acquisition of an interlanguage.
Interlanguage hypothesis
NL
TL IL
NL utterances L2 utterances TL utterances
Interlanguage Hypothesis Empirical evidence for the necessity of postulating an IL systematicity in the productions of an L2 learner that, cannot be linked to the NL, and cannot be attributed to the TL input, and can be explained only by positing of a third system, an IL.
ILH Sample L2 Data: NL = Spanish L2 pronunciation TL pronunciation Gloss 1.
[ɾɛt]
[ɹɛd]
red
2.
[ɾɛðəәɾ]
[ɹɛɾəәɹ]
redder
3.
[bik]
[bɪɡ]
big
4.
[biɡəәɾ]
[bɪɡəәɹ]
bigger
5.
[sik]
[sɪk]
sick
6.
[sikəәst]
[sɪkəәst]
sickest
7.
[wɛt]
[wɛt]
wet
8.
[wɛtəәɾ]
[wɛtəәɹ]
wetter
9.
[smut]
[smuð]
smooth
10.
[smuðəәɾ]
[smuðəәɹ]
smoother
Interlanguage Hypothesis What needs explanation in the data are L2 pronunciations (1) – (3) and (9) and (10);; This pronunciation pattern can be best explained by Postulating the following lexical representations /ɾɛd/
/ɾɛdəәɾ/
/biɡ/
/smud/
/smudəәɾ/
Along with two rules or constraints as part of the IL (a) Voiced stops become fricatives between vowels (from NL) (b) Final obstruents become voiceless
Interlanguage Hypothesis Empirical implications of IL analysis IL analysis treats learner-data as a language, and analyzes the data on their own grounds;; Alternations between word-final voiceless obstruents and intervocalic voiced obstruents are evidence that the learner’s lexical representation for red and big are /ɾɛd/ and /biɡ/, respectively (i.e., they are TL-like);; In IL analysis URs are an empirical matter.
Interlanguage Hypothesis IL Analysis Pedagogical implications of IL analysis The IL system of this L2 learner has several TL-like aspects, despite errors;; This L2 learner does not need to be taught that the English words red and big end in a final voiced obstruent, despite errors [ɾɛt], [ɾɛðəәɾ], & [bik];; This L2 learner does need to learn to voice the obstruent in final position, but only if the voiceless obstruents alternate;; We do not want the learner to voice final voiceless obstruents on words such as wet, [wɛt] *[wɛd].
Interlanguage Hypothesis IL Analysis Pedagogical implications IL analysis This learner’s lexical representation for smooth and smoother are /smud/ and /smudəәɾ/, respectively: This L2 learner has the target-like pronunciation, [smuðəәɾ], by virtue of transferring the pattern from the NL (i.e., the learner has the correct form for the wrong reason).
Interlanguage Hypothesis The above IL devoicing pattern is independent of both the NL and TL;; It does not derive from the NL, Spanish;; nor does it come from the TL, English. It is attested in the grammars of a number of languages of the world: Catalan, German, Polish, Russian;; it is also attested in English child-language (Dodd, 2014);; it gives credence to the “language-hood” of ILs.
Characterization of Interlanguages Research programs in L2 phonology: Some L2 phonologists try to understand IL phonologies in terms of what is believed to be known about L1 phonologies.
Explanation type: IL phonologies are the way they are, in part, because ILs are natural languages, and therefore subject to at least some of the same constraints as other natural languages.
Characterization of Interlanguages IL as intermediate stage Derived Environments (Eckman & Iverson, 2013) Principles of phonological theory constrain the acquisition of splitting NL allophones into TL phonemes such that it involves two implicationally related stages;;
Characterization of Interlanguages IL as intermediate stage Derived Environments (Eckman & Iverson, 2013) The contrast is learned in morphologically composite words only if it is also learned in morphologically simplex words: (a) she, sea (b) messy, meshy;; The prediction is that stages (1) – (3) should be realized, but stage (4) is predicted never to occur (1) neither (a) nor (b) contrasted (i.e. neither a nor b correct) (2) only (a) but not (b) contrasted (3) both (a) and (b) contrasted *(4) only (b) contrasted
Characterization of Interlanguages IL as intermediate stage Derived Environments (Eckman & Iverson, 2013) Korean L2 learners of English as participants;; Acquisition of (b) types words implies the acquisition of (a) types words, but not vice versa.
Characterization of Interlanguages IL as intermediate stage Derived Environments (Eckman & Iverson, 2013) Korean L2 learners of English as participants;; In other words, some were trained for an IL grammar that apparently does not exist;; Participants trained on only (b) type words generalized contrast- learning to (a) type words
Connection to bilingualism Use of markedness as intervention strategy Markedness (Battistella, 1990;; Greenberg, 1978;; Trubetzkoy, 1939) developed by the Prague School of linguistics in the 1930’s certain contrasts are not equal opposites one member of contrast is privileged and occurs more widely more occurring member is designated as unmarked
Markedness describes a uni-directional, implicational relationship among structures of a language
Connection to bilingualism Example of Markedness Some languages have no word-final obstruents only voiceless word-final obstruents both voiceless and voiced word-final obstruents no language has only voiced word-final obstruents
Therefore If a language has voiced word-final obstruents it necessarily has voiceless word-final obstruents, but not vice versa. Voiced word-final obstruents are marked relative to voiceless word-final obstruents, and voiceless word-final obstruents are unmarked relative to voiced word-final obstruents
Presumably Languages with only voiced word-final obstruents do not (cannot?) exist
Connection to bilingualism Use of markedness as intervention strategy Development of an implicational hierarchy of phonetic inventories for developing children based on markedness relationships (Dinnsen et al. 1990);; Targeting marked structures in training children with phonological disorders has yielded generalization to unmarked structures (Dinnsen & Elbert 1984;; Gierut et al. 1987)
Interlanguage As intermediate stages of acquisition Covert contrasts: A statistically significant acoustic distinction made by a learner between TL phonemes that is nevertheless not perceived by native speakers of the TL. Findings on covert contrasts suggest that transcription data alone are not sufficient for analysis of the acquisition of phonemic contrasts.
Interlanguage As intermediate stages of acquisition Covert contrasts have been attested for more than 30 years in L1 acquisition and in disordered speech, and have been hypothesized as an intermediate stage of acquisition. Macken & Barton (1980) Gierut & Dinnsen (1986)
Covert contrasts have been attested in L2 acquisition only recently and sparsely . Lim & Oh (2008) Eckman, Iverson & Song (2014) Eckman, Iverson & Song (2015)
Discussion & Conclusions L2 phonology and research on bilingualism and speech disorders are conceptually related in several areas Contrast Learner systems as natural languages obeying universal constraints intermediate stages of acquisition reflecting similar learning situations
Thank You!
References Battistella, E. 1 990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure o f L anguage. Albany: The State University of New York Press. Berti, L . C. 2 010. Contrast and c overt c ontrast i n the speech production of c hildren. Pro-‐fono Revista de Atualizacao Cientifica 22, 531 – 536.Best, C. 1 995. A direct realist view of cross-‐l anguage speech perception. In W. Strange (ed.) Speech Perception a nd Linguistic Experience: Issues i n Cross-‐L anguage Research (pp. 1 71 – 204). Baltimore: York Press. Dinnsen D, & Elbert M. 1984. On the relationship between phonology and l earning. ASHA Monogram 1 984, 2 2, 5 9–68. Dinnsen D, Chin S, Elbert M, Powell T. 1 990. Some c onstraints on functionally disordered phonologies. J ournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 33, 2 8–37. Dodd, Barbara. 2 014. Differential diagnosis of pediatric speech sound disorder. Curr Dev Disorder Rep (2014) 1 , 1 89 -‐ 196. Eckman, F. & Iverson, G. 2013. The role of native l anguage phonology i n the production of L 2 c ontrasts. Studies i n Second Language Acquisition, 35, 6 7 -‐ 92. Eckman, F., Iverson, G. & Song, J . Y. 2014. Covert c ontrast i n the acquisition of second l anguage phonology. In Perspectives o n Phonological Theory a nd Acquisition: Papers i n Honor o f Daniel A. Dinnsen, (ed.) by A. Farris-‐Trimble & J . Barlow. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, pp. 2 5 – 48. J ohn Benjamins Publishers. Eckman, F, G. Iverson, & J . Y. Song. 2 015. Overt and Covert Contrast i n L 2 Phonology. J ournal o f Second L anguage Pronunciation 1, 2 54 – 277. Fabiano-‐Smith, L . & Barlow, J . 2 010. Interaction i n Bilingual Phonological Acquisition: Evidence from Phonetic Inventories. J ournal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1 3, 1 – 19. Fabiano-‐Smith, L . & Goldstein, B. 2 005. Phonological c ross-‐l inguistic effects i n bilingual Spanish – English speaking c hildren. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3 (1), 5 6 – 63
Fabiano-‐Smith, L . & Goldstein, B. 2 010. Phonological acquisition i n bilingual Spanish-‐English speaking c hildren. J ournal o f Speech, Language, a nd Hearing Research, 53, 1 60–178. Forrest, K., Weismer, G., Hodge, M., Dinnsen, D. A., & Elbert, M. 1 990. ‘Statistical analysis of word-‐i nitial /k/ and /t/ produced by normal and phonologically disordered c hildren,’ Clinical L inguistics a nd Phonetics 4 : 3 27–340. Gierut, J . A. 1 986. Sound c hange: A phonemic split i n a misarticulating c hild. Applied Psycholinguistics 7 , 57 – 68. Gierut, J . A. & Dinnsen, D. 1 986. On word-‐i nitial voicing: Converging sources of evidence i n phonologically disordered speech, Language a nd Speech 2 9, 97-‐1 14. Gierut, J . A., Elbert, M. & Dinnsen, D. A. 1 987. A functional analysis of phonological knowledge and generalization l earning i n misarticulating c hildren. J ournal o f Speech a nd Hearing Research, 3 0, 4 62 – 479. Greenberg, J. 1 978. Some generalization c oncerning i nitial and final c onsonant c lusters. In J . Greenberg, C. Ferguson, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.) Universals o f Human L anguage, Volume II: Phonology (pp. 2 43 – 279). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lado, R. 1 957. L inguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lim, J -‐A & Oh, M. 2008. Covert Contrast i n Second L anguage Acquisition. Proceedings o f the 1 6th International Conference o n Korean L inguistics, pp. 2 02-‐2 03. International Circle of Korean L inguistics. New York: SUNY at Binghamton & Cornell University. Lin, L uchun, & J ohnson, Cynthia. 2 010. Phonological patterns i n Mandarin–English bilingual c hildren. Clinical L inguistics & Phonetics, April–May 2 010; 2 4(4–5): 3 69–386 Macken, M. A. & Barton, D. 1 980. A l ongitudinal study of the acquisition of the voicing c ontrast i n American-‐English word-‐i nitial stops, as measured by voice onset time, J ournal o f Child L anguage 7 , 4 1-‐7 4.
Maxwell, E. 1 984. O n determining underlying phonological r epresentations of children: A critique of the current theories In M. Elbert, D. Dinnsen & G. Weismer (eds.), Phonological theory and the misarticulating child, 1 8 – 29. Rockville, Md: A merican Speech-‐Language-‐Hearing Association. A SHA Monographs number 22. Maxwell, E. M., & W eismer, G. 1982. The contribution of phonological, acoustic, and perceptual techniques to the characterization of a misarticulating child’s voice contrast for stops, Applied Psycholinguistics 3 , 2 9-‐43. Munson, B., Edwards, J., Schellinger, S. K., Beckman, M. E. & Meyer, M. K. 2 010. Deconstructing phonetic transcription: Covert contrast, perceptual bias, and an extraterrestrial view of Vox Humana. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 2 4, 2 45 – 260. Nemser, W. 1 971b. A pproximative systems of foreign language learners. IRAL 9 , 1 15 – 123. Scobbie, J. M. 1 998. Interactions between the acquisition of phonetics and phonology, in Papers from the 34 th annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. II: M. C. Gruber, D. Higgins, K. O lson, & T. Wysocki (eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 3 43-‐358. Scobbie, J. E., Gibbon, F., Hardcastle, W. J. & Fletcher, P. 2000. Covert contrast as a stage in the acquisition of phonetics and phonology, in Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Language acquisition and the lexicon, in M. Broe, & J. Pierrehumbert (eds): Cambridge University Press, pp. 1 94-‐203. Trubetzkoy, N. 1939. Principles of Phonology. Paris: Klincksieck. Wardhaugh, R. 1 970. The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4.123 – 130.
Disclosure Fred R. Eckman Relevant financial relationships Receiving a stipend to assist with travel, housing and expenses Receives a salary as a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Relevant non-financial relationships Serves on Advisory Board for the journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Goals of presentation:
First: To characterize briefly: some of the aims and methods of second-language (L2) phonology and their overlap with research on bilingualism
Second: To characterize in more depth: some of the areas in which L2 phonology and bilingualism are connected and may be able to inform each other
Roadmap
1. Conceptual connections: terms and assumptions 2. Learner systems (briefly) 3. Transfer 4. Allophonic splits 5. Interlanguage (IL) Hypothesis (reconsidered) 6. Characterization of interlanguages ILs and implicational relations ILs as intermediate stages of acquisition
Conceptual connections between L2 phonology and bilingualism Both disciplines Investigate language-contact situations L2 phonology - adult learners, Bilingualism - young children simultaneous bilingualism, sequential (successive) bilingualism
Second-language acquisition after the learner has already acquired or made significant progress in acquiring another language clearest cases of L2 acquisition - language learning in adulthood non-native speaker end-state accented and error-ridden speech
Learner systems Interlanguage Hypothesis
(ILH)
ILH is the claim that L2 learners internalize a learner-system termed an interlanguage (IL);; This system is their own version of the target language (TL);;
L2 learners use this system to produce and comprehend utterances in the TL.
Connection to bilingualism (Dinnsen 1984) Learner systems “The typical second-language learner has acquired his or her own native system and is trying to learn a different (target language) system. The functionally misarticulating child has learned his or her own disordered system and through remediative intervention is trying to learn the ambient (target language) system.” (Dinnsen 1984: 5)
Natural extension (FRE): L2 learners are acquiring their interlanguage system, and bilingual children are learning their child-systems and are faced with acquiring the two ambient languages.
Implications Learner systems The learner’s system must be analyzed on its own grounds to understand the nature of the system (Dinnsen et al. 1990;; Fabiano-Smith & Barlow 2010)
Before intervention can take place, one must know the nature of the learner system in order to have a strategy for intervening.
Transfer Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
“We assume that the student who comes in contact with a foreign language will find some features of quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those elements that are similar to his (sic) native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult”. (Lado 1957: 2)
Transfer Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
“We have ample evidence that when learning a foreign language we tend to transfer (emphasis added) our entire native language system in the process”. (Lado 1957: 11)
Transfer Connection to bilingualism Transfer attested in studies on bilingual acquisition (Paradis et al. 2011;; Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010) Bilingualism: transfer recognized as occurring between the systems of the child-learner, and reflects interaction of these two systems (Fabiano & Goldstein, 2005) Two-way interaction referred to as cross-linguistic effect (Fabiano-Smith & Barlow, 2010)
Transfer Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) L2 phonology: Transfer must be viewed as taking place from the NL system to the learner’s IL system
NL IL
In L2 phonology transfer from NL system to IL system is seen as nterference in acquisition
Maximum difficulty The hypothesis was that allophones reflected maximum difficulty;; “… stated in more general terms, when one significant unit or element in the native language equates bilingually with two significant units in the target language, we have maximum learning difficulty.” (Lado 1957: 15) No explanation or rationale was given for allophonic splits reflecting maximum difficulty.
Maximum Difficulty
Splitting NL allophones into separate phonemes in the TL NL Spanish:
/d/
[d] TL English:
[ð] /d/
/ð/
[d]
[ð]
Maximum Difficulty Splitting NL allophones into separate phonemes in the TL NL Korean: [s]
/s/ [ʃ]
[ʃ] occurs in Korean before [i] & [j], [s] occurs elsewhere TL English:
/s/
/ʃ/
[s]
[ʃ]
Maximum Difficulty Allophonic splits in L2 phonology (Eckman & Iverson, 2013)
Korean learners of English err on words like she and sea Principles of phonology constrain acquiring such contrasts so that the contrast is learned in morphologically composite words only if it is also learned in morphologically simplex words: (a) messy, meshy;; (b) she, sea
Maximum Difficulty Connection to misarticulating speech Allophonic splits in misarticulating children (Gierut, 1986) [f] & [s] allophones of /s/ In child’s system [f] occurred word-initially, [s] occurred elsewhere;; Contrast of [f] and [s] was trained in only post-vocalic position;; Some generalization was observed to other positions;; Ultimately contrast had to be trained in all positions.
Maximum Difficulty Pedagogical implications Expectations of teachers seem to be that L2 learners will have difficulty learning sounds and contrasts that are different from those in the NL;; Attention must be paid to phonological context when teaching allophonic splits, as contrast may be acquired in one environment, but not necessarily in the other environment.
Interlanguage Hypothesis (ILH) Language learners construct their own version of the TL;; use this system to produce and comprehend utterances of the TL.
A consequence of the ILH is that L2 learning becomes the acquisition of an interlanguage.
Interlanguage hypothesis
NL
TL IL
NL utterances L2 utterances TL utterances
Interlanguage Hypothesis Empirical evidence for the necessity of postulating an IL systematicity in the productions of an L2 learner that, cannot be linked to the NL, and cannot be attributed to the TL input, and can be explained only by positing of a third system, an IL.
ILH Sample L2 Data: NL = Spanish L2 pronunciation TL pronunciation Gloss 1.
[ɾɛt]
[ɹɛd]
red
2.
[ɾɛðəәɾ]
[ɹɛɾəәɹ]
redder
3.
[bik]
[bɪɡ]
big
4.
[biɡəәɾ]
[bɪɡəәɹ]
bigger
5.
[sik]
[sɪk]
sick
6.
[sikəәst]
[sɪkəәst]
sickest
7.
[wɛt]
[wɛt]
wet
8.
[wɛtəәɾ]
[wɛtəәɹ]
wetter
9.
[smut]
[smuð]
smooth
10.
[smuðəәɾ]
[smuðəәɹ]
smoother
Interlanguage Hypothesis What needs explanation in the data are L2 pronunciations (1) – (3) and (9) and (10);; This pronunciation pattern can be best explained by Postulating the following lexical representations /ɾɛd/
/ɾɛdəәɾ/
/biɡ/
/smud/
/smudəәɾ/
Along with two rules or constraints as part of the IL (a) Voiced stops become fricatives between vowels (from NL) (b) Final obstruents become voiceless
Interlanguage Hypothesis Empirical implications of IL analysis IL analysis treats learner-data as a language, and analyzes the data on their own grounds;; Alternations between word-final voiceless obstruents and intervocalic voiced obstruents are evidence that the learner’s lexical representation for red and big are /ɾɛd/ and /biɡ/, respectively (i.e., they are TL-like);; In IL analysis URs are an empirical matter.
Interlanguage Hypothesis IL Analysis Pedagogical implications of IL analysis The IL system of this L2 learner has several TL-like aspects, despite errors;; This L2 learner does not need to be taught that the English words red and big end in a final voiced obstruent, despite errors [ɾɛt], [ɾɛðəәɾ], & [bik];; This L2 learner does need to learn to voice the obstruent in final position, but only if the voiceless obstruents alternate;; We do not want the learner to voice final voiceless obstruents on words such as wet, [wɛt] *[wɛd].
Interlanguage Hypothesis IL Analysis Pedagogical implications IL analysis This learner’s lexical representation for smooth and smoother are /smud/ and /smudəәɾ/, respectively: This L2 learner has the target-like pronunciation, [smuðəәɾ], by virtue of transferring the pattern from the NL (i.e., the learner has the correct form for the wrong reason).
Interlanguage Hypothesis The above IL devoicing pattern is independent of both the NL and TL;; It does not derive from the NL, Spanish;; nor does it come from the TL, English. It is attested in the grammars of a number of languages of the world: Catalan, German, Polish, Russian;; it is also attested in English child-language (Dodd, 2014);; it gives credence to the “language-hood” of ILs.
Characterization of Interlanguages Research programs in L2 phonology: Some L2 phonologists try to understand IL phonologies in terms of what is believed to be known about L1 phonologies.
Explanation type: IL phonologies are the way they are, in part, because ILs are natural languages, and therefore subject to at least some of the same constraints as other natural languages.
Characterization of Interlanguages IL as intermediate stage Derived Environments (Eckman & Iverson, 2013) Principles of phonological theory constrain the acquisition of splitting NL allophones into TL phonemes such that it involves two implicationally related stages;;
Characterization of Interlanguages IL as intermediate stage Derived Environments (Eckman & Iverson, 2013) The contrast is learned in morphologically composite words only if it is also learned in morphologically simplex words: (a) she, sea (b) messy, meshy;; The prediction is that stages (1) – (3) should be realized, but stage (4) is predicted never to occur (1) neither (a) nor (b) contrasted (i.e. neither a nor b correct) (2) only (a) but not (b) contrasted (3) both (a) and (b) contrasted *(4) only (b) contrasted
Characterization of Interlanguages IL as intermediate stage Derived Environments (Eckman & Iverson, 2013) Korean L2 learners of English as participants;; Acquisition of (b) types words implies the acquisition of (a) types words, but not vice versa.
Characterization of Interlanguages IL as intermediate stage Derived Environments (Eckman & Iverson, 2013) Korean L2 learners of English as participants;; In other words, some were trained for an IL grammar that apparently does not exist;; Participants trained on only (b) type words generalized contrast- learning to (a) type words
Connection to bilingualism Use of markedness as intervention strategy Markedness (Battistella, 1990;; Greenberg, 1978;; Trubetzkoy, 1939) developed by the Prague School of linguistics in the 1930’s certain contrasts are not equal opposites one member of contrast is privileged and occurs more widely more occurring member is designated as unmarked
Markedness describes a uni-directional, implicational relationship among structures of a language
Connection to bilingualism Example of Markedness Some languages have no word-final obstruents only voiceless word-final obstruents both voiceless and voiced word-final obstruents no language has only voiced word-final obstruents
Therefore If a language has voiced word-final obstruents it necessarily has voiceless word-final obstruents, but not vice versa. Voiced word-final obstruents are marked relative to voiceless word-final obstruents, and voiceless word-final obstruents are unmarked relative to voiced word-final obstruents
Presumably Languages with only voiced word-final obstruents do not (cannot?) exist
Connection to bilingualism Use of markedness as intervention strategy Development of an implicational hierarchy of phonetic inventories for developing children based on markedness relationships (Dinnsen et al. 1990);; Targeting marked structures in training children with phonological disorders has yielded generalization to unmarked structures (Dinnsen & Elbert 1984;; Gierut et al. 1987)
Interlanguage As intermediate stages of acquisition Covert contrasts: A statistically significant acoustic distinction made by a learner between TL phonemes that is nevertheless not perceived by native speakers of the TL. Findings on covert contrasts suggest that transcription data alone are not sufficient for analysis of the acquisition of phonemic contrasts.
Interlanguage As intermediate stages of acquisition Covert contrasts have been attested for more than 30 years in L1 acquisition and in disordered speech, and have been hypothesized as an intermediate stage of acquisition. Macken & Barton (1980) Gierut & Dinnsen (1986)
Covert contrasts have been attested in L2 acquisition only recently and sparsely . Lim & Oh (2008) Eckman, Iverson & Song (2014) Eckman, Iverson & Song (2015)
Discussion & Conclusions L2 phonology and research on bilingualism and speech disorders are conceptually related in several areas Contrast Learner systems as natural languages obeying universal constraints intermediate stages of acquisition reflecting similar learning situations
Thank You!
References Battistella, E. 1 990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure o f L anguage. Albany: The State University of New York Press. Berti, L . C. 2 010. Contrast and c overt c ontrast i n the speech production of c hildren. Pro-‐fono Revista de Atualizacao Cientifica 22, 531 – 536.Best, C. 1 995. A direct realist view of cross-‐l anguage speech perception. In W. Strange (ed.) Speech Perception a nd Linguistic Experience: Issues i n Cross-‐L anguage Research (pp. 1 71 – 204). Baltimore: York Press. Dinnsen D, & Elbert M. 1984. On the relationship between phonology and l earning. ASHA Monogram 1 984, 2 2, 5 9–68. Dinnsen D, Chin S, Elbert M, Powell T. 1 990. Some c onstraints on functionally disordered phonologies. J ournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 33, 2 8–37. Dodd, Barbara. 2 014. Differential diagnosis of pediatric speech sound disorder. Curr Dev Disorder Rep (2014) 1 , 1 89 -‐ 196. Eckman, F. & Iverson, G. 2013. The role of native l anguage phonology i n the production of L 2 c ontrasts. Studies i n Second Language Acquisition, 35, 6 7 -‐ 92. Eckman, F., Iverson, G. & Song, J . Y. 2014. Covert c ontrast i n the acquisition of second l anguage phonology. In Perspectives o n Phonological Theory a nd Acquisition: Papers i n Honor o f Daniel A. Dinnsen, (ed.) by A. Farris-‐Trimble & J . Barlow. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, pp. 2 5 – 48. J ohn Benjamins Publishers. Eckman, F, G. Iverson, & J . Y. Song. 2 015. Overt and Covert Contrast i n L 2 Phonology. J ournal o f Second L anguage Pronunciation 1, 2 54 – 277. Fabiano-‐Smith, L . & Barlow, J . 2 010. Interaction i n Bilingual Phonological Acquisition: Evidence from Phonetic Inventories. J ournal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1 3, 1 – 19. Fabiano-‐Smith, L . & Goldstein, B. 2 005. Phonological c ross-‐l inguistic effects i n bilingual Spanish – English speaking c hildren. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3 (1), 5 6 – 63
Fabiano-‐Smith, L . & Goldstein, B. 2 010. Phonological acquisition i n bilingual Spanish-‐English speaking c hildren. J ournal o f Speech, Language, a nd Hearing Research, 53, 1 60–178. Forrest, K., Weismer, G., Hodge, M., Dinnsen, D. A., & Elbert, M. 1 990. ‘Statistical analysis of word-‐i nitial /k/ and /t/ produced by normal and phonologically disordered c hildren,’ Clinical L inguistics a nd Phonetics 4 : 3 27–340. Gierut, J . A. 1 986. Sound c hange: A phonemic split i n a misarticulating c hild. Applied Psycholinguistics 7 , 57 – 68. Gierut, J . A. & Dinnsen, D. 1 986. On word-‐i nitial voicing: Converging sources of evidence i n phonologically disordered speech, Language a nd Speech 2 9, 97-‐1 14. Gierut, J . A., Elbert, M. & Dinnsen, D. A. 1 987. A functional analysis of phonological knowledge and generalization l earning i n misarticulating c hildren. J ournal o f Speech a nd Hearing Research, 3 0, 4 62 – 479. Greenberg, J. 1 978. Some generalization c oncerning i nitial and final c onsonant c lusters. In J . Greenberg, C. Ferguson, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.) Universals o f Human L anguage, Volume II: Phonology (pp. 2 43 – 279). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lado, R. 1 957. L inguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lim, J -‐A & Oh, M. 2008. Covert Contrast i n Second L anguage Acquisition. Proceedings o f the 1 6th International Conference o n Korean L inguistics, pp. 2 02-‐2 03. International Circle of Korean L inguistics. New York: SUNY at Binghamton & Cornell University. Lin, L uchun, & J ohnson, Cynthia. 2 010. Phonological patterns i n Mandarin–English bilingual c hildren. Clinical L inguistics & Phonetics, April–May 2 010; 2 4(4–5): 3 69–386 Macken, M. A. & Barton, D. 1 980. A l ongitudinal study of the acquisition of the voicing c ontrast i n American-‐English word-‐i nitial stops, as measured by voice onset time, J ournal o f Child L anguage 7 , 4 1-‐7 4.
Maxwell, E. 1 984. O n determining underlying phonological r epresentations of children: A critique of the current theories In M. Elbert, D. Dinnsen & G. Weismer (eds.), Phonological theory and the misarticulating child, 1 8 – 29. Rockville, Md: A merican Speech-‐Language-‐Hearing Association. A SHA Monographs number 22. Maxwell, E. M., & W eismer, G. 1982. The contribution of phonological, acoustic, and perceptual techniques to the characterization of a misarticulating child’s voice contrast for stops, Applied Psycholinguistics 3 , 2 9-‐43. Munson, B., Edwards, J., Schellinger, S. K., Beckman, M. E. & Meyer, M. K. 2 010. Deconstructing phonetic transcription: Covert contrast, perceptual bias, and an extraterrestrial view of Vox Humana. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 2 4, 2 45 – 260. Nemser, W. 1 971b. A pproximative systems of foreign language learners. IRAL 9 , 1 15 – 123. Scobbie, J. M. 1 998. Interactions between the acquisition of phonetics and phonology, in Papers from the 34 th annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. II: M. C. Gruber, D. Higgins, K. O lson, & T. Wysocki (eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 3 43-‐358. Scobbie, J. E., Gibbon, F., Hardcastle, W. J. & Fletcher, P. 2000. Covert contrast as a stage in the acquisition of phonetics and phonology, in Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Language acquisition and the lexicon, in M. Broe, & J. Pierrehumbert (eds): Cambridge University Press, pp. 1 94-‐203. Trubetzkoy, N. 1939. Principles of Phonology. Paris: Klincksieck. Wardhaugh, R. 1 970. The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4.123 – 130.
