Emergent knowledge of a universal phonological principle in the L2 acquisition of vowel harmony in Turkish: A ‘four’-fold poverty of the stimulus in L2 acquisition

Second Language Research

Croteau

2020

In this article we look at some of the structural properties of second language (L2) Japanese WH questions. In Japanese the WH words are licensed to remain in situ by the prosodic contiguity properties of the phrases which have no prosodic boundaries between the WH word and the question particle. In a rehearsed-reading, sentence production task, we look to see whether non-native speakers of Japanese who are learning the L2 in university classes in North America are able to acquire grammars which are constrained by such universal properties as Match Theory and Contiguity Theory. While linear mixed effects analyses of the pitch contours reveal that the L2ers have not acquired the phonetic implementation distinction of the documented pitch boost on WH words compared to non-WH DPs, our data show that the participants have acquired the pitch compression patterns indicative of having no prosodic phrases intervening between the WH word and the question particle. This property of Japanese WH questions is not taught in their classes, and, thus we argue, that the data are supportive of the position that interlanguage grammars are constrained by universal grammatical properties such as the prosodic contiguity of WH-phrase licensing. We also present these results as being counter to the Shallow Structure Hypothesis.

Section: Return To Learnabilitysupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Acquisition of L2 Japanese WH questions: Evidence of phonological contiguity and non-shallow structures

Second Language Research

Croteau

2020

“…He proposes a cue-based model which clarifies which structural properties (i.e., parameters) are logical precursors to the acquisition of subsequent parameters. Özçelik and Sprouse (2016) demonstrate that interlanguage grammars are constrained by phonological universals (such as the behavior of feature spreading).…”

Section: Representational Accountsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…[θ]. Özçelik and Sprouse (2016), however, show that L2 learners are able to acquire the features of secondary articulations (e.g., palatalized consonants). Hancin-Bhatt (1994) proposed that the functional load of a particular feature in implementing a contrast in a language would determine its weighting (with features with high functional load predicted to have greater cross-linguistic influence than those with low functional load).…”

Section: Representational Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ease and Difficulty in L2 Phonology: A Mini-Review

2021

Front. Commun.

A variety of phonological explanations have been proposed to account for why some sounds are harder to learn than others. In this mini-review, we review such theoretical constructs and models as markedness (including the markedness differential hypothesis) and frequency-based approaches (including Bayesian models). We also discuss experimental work designed to tease apart markedness versus frequency. Processing accounts are also given. In terms of phonological domains, we present examples of feature-based accounts of segmental phenomena which predict that the L1 features (not segments) will determine the ease and difficulty of acquisition. Models which look at the type of feature which needs to be acquired, and models which look at the functional load of a given feature are also presented. This leads to a presentation of the redeployment hypothesis which demonstrates how learners can take the building blocks available in the L1 and create new structures in the L2. A broader background is provided by discussing learnability approaches and the constructs of positive and negative evidence. This leads to the asymmetry hypothesis, and presentation of new work exploring the explanatory power of a contrastive hierarchy approach. The mini-review is designed to give readers a refresher course in phonological approaches to ease and difficulty in acquisition which will help to contextualize the papers presented in this collection.

Phonological parsing via an integrated I-language

2022

LAB

Schwartz and Sprouse (2021) argue against property-by-property Transfer (Westergaard, 2021a, b) and for wholesale transfer (Rothman, 2015) into a third language grammar by questioning the cognitive plausibility of “extracting a proper subpart from the … grammar and using that proper sub-system as the basis for a new cognitive state.” I will argue that the insights from the approaches of López (2020); Lightfoot (2020); Dresher (2018), and Westergaard (2021a) when applied to empirical data from L3 English data from L1 Arabic/L2 French speakers, give us reason to question Schwartz and Sprouse’s defence of wholesale transfer, and its typological underpinnings. We can set the study of L3A in a larger context which can unify domains such as the acquisition of phonology and syntax via a unified approach to parsing. By invoking an underspecified, minimal UG, primary linguistic data, and domain-general third factors which act in concert to parse the E-language to select structures, we can capture the underlying similarity of first, second, and third language acquisition. Parsing proceeds in an error-driven fashion, structure by structure, drawing on the Integrated I-language and UG options found in a Repository. In essence, this approach renders the wholesale/property-by-property distinction a false dichotomy.