Acquisition of the Tap-Trill Contrast by L1 Mandarin–L2 English–L3 Spanish Speakers

Abstract

The goals of this study were to investigate the developmental patterns of acquisition of the Spanish tap and trill by L1 Mandarin–L2 English–L3 Spanish speakers, and to examine the extent to which the L1 and the L2 influenced the L3 productions. Twenty L1 Mandarin–L2 English–L3 Spanish speakers performed a reading task that elicited production of rhotics from the speakers’ L3 Spanish, L2 English, and L1 Mandarin, as well as the L2 English flap. The least proficient speakers produced a single substitution initially, generally [l]. The same non-target segment was produced for both rhotics, mirroring the results of previous studies investigating L1 English–L2 Spanish speakers, indicating that this may be a universal simplification strategy. In contrast to previous work on L1 English speakers, the L1 Mandarin–L2 English–L3 Spanish speakers who had acquired the tap did not tend to use it as the primary substitute for the trill. Overall, the L1 was a stronger source of cross-linguistic influence. Nonetheless, evidence of positive and negative L2 transfer was also found. The L2 flap allophone facilitated acquisition of the L3 tap, whereas non-target productions of the L2 /ɹ/ were also observed, revealing that both previously learned languages were possible sources of cross-linguistic influence.

Cross-Linguistic Interaction Between Phonological Categorization and Orthography Predicts Prosodic Effects in the Acquisition of Portuguese Liquids by L1-Mandarin Learners

“…For the previously-reported replacement of EP /ɾ/ by the Mandarin rhotic [ɻ] in coda position, which is similar to the use of [ɻ] for the Spanish tap by L1-Mandarin learners (observed in [4]), we furthermore tested whether this stems from CLI via phonological categorization or via orthography: From the point of categorization, EP /ɾ/ and Mandarin /ɻ/ could be argued to share acoustic-perceptual cues, such as first (F1) and second formant frequencies (F2) and trajectories (see [5]), or phonological features [6], which would result in EP /ɾ/ being perceived as Mandarin /ɻ/. Evidence for this comes from a nonnative perception experiment [7] where various types of rhotics, i.e.…”

“…In Figure 4 we can see that categorization of syllable-final EP [ɾ] by naïve Mandarin listeners manifested large between-and within-subject variation. In the auditory condition (left), participants can be grouped into three types: Type I employing predominantly a lateral (listeners 4,5,8,9,10,11,13,14,18,19), Type II mainly using a stop (listeners 1, 3, 16, 17), and Type III alternating between lateral and stop (listeners 2, 12, 15). Mandarin /ɻ/ only occurred in two instances.…”

Uma análise da influência interlinguística global e local em aprendizes de Espanhol como L3, falantes de mandarim como L1 e inglês como L2 (An analysis of global and local crosslinguistic influence in L1 Mandarin-L2 English learners of L3 Spanish)

“…These participants produced isolated L3 Spanish, L2 English, and L1 Mandarin words, which elicited production of: (1) The Spanish /r/; (2) The English /ɹ/ (to ensure that the L2 English /ɹ/ had been acquired, and was therefore a possible source of transfer); (3) The Mandarin /ɹ̪ / (to determine what type of segment the participants produce in Mandarin, in order to identify any possible L1 transfer. Full details regarding the methodology of the local analysis can be found in Patience (2018).…”

“…To elicit the passages in English and Spanish, the participants were recorded while reading "The North Wind and the Sun" passage in Spanish first, and then English. Note that the participants performed additional production tasks in Spanish, English, and Mandarin, to elicit the target rhotics; details can be found in Patience (2018).…”

“…The last ten years has seen a significant amount of work conducted on L3PP and the conclusions reported in these studies are not always consistent. Some studies have observed greater L1 CLI (e.g., PYUN, 2005;WREMBEL, 2012;2013, LLAMA;LÓPEZ-MORELOS, 2016, 2018, a mix of L1 and L2 CLI (e.g., BLANK;ZIMMER, 2009, WREMBEL, 2014SYPIÁNSKA, 2016), primarily L2 CLI in initial stages followed by L1 CLI (e.g., HAMMARBERG;HAMMARBERG, 2005, LLAMA ET. AL, 2010, WREMBEL, 2010, and primarily L2 CLI (e.g., CHANG, 2015).…”