How and When Does the Second Language Influence the Production of Native Speech Sounds: A Literature Review

Abstract

In bilinguals and second language learners, the native (L1) and nonnative (L2) languages coexist and interact. The L1 influences L2 production via forward transfer, as is seen with foreign accents. However, language transfer is bidirectional: even brief experience with an L2 can affect L1 production, via backward transfer. Here, we review the growing literature on backward transfer at the phonetic level and identify various factors that modulate it. Indeed, a multitude of interrelated factors have been shown to determine the strength of backward transfer, including L2 related factors (age of L2 acquisition, L2 pronunciation skill and proficiency, stage of learning, immersion), L1 related factors (amount and circumstances of L1 use), and factors related to both L1 and L2 (language similarity and individual differences). Controlled longitudinal, laboratory studies are required in conjunction with naturalistic ones to tease apart the influences of these different factors on L1 speech.

The Homogenization of Ethnic Differences in Singapore English? A Consonantal Production Study

“…Early studies on cross-linguistic transfer relied on the assumption that the language acquired within the critical age window (Lenneberg, 1967) is invariable and that subsequent learning of languages would not cause any restructuring of the phonetic categories already in place in the first acquired language (L1). Because of this, the malleability of speech contrasts was more often investigated in the direction of how the L1 will affect the subsequently acquired language (L2) (Kartushina, Frauenfelder, & Golestani, 2016). Following this line of research, Baker and Trofimovich (2005) show that late Korean–English bilinguals’ newly formed L2 phonetic categories have a strong influence from L1, demonstrating a unidirectional influence from the L1 on the L2 (Baker & Trofimovich, 2005).…”

The phonetics of second language learning and bilingualism

“…In short, while the theories discussed in §2.1-2.4 often make convergent predictions in regard to L2 phonetic development, they differ in a number of ways. The primary dimensions of difference among these theoretical frameworks are summarized in Table 2, including the L2 experience or proficiency level of the learner described by the theory, the basic unit of analysis, the L2 domain(s) covered, and the foundation of the theory's explanation of CLI in either As discussed above, CLI at the phonetic level has been of special concern in the study of L2 speech and bilingualism, which has spawned a wealth of findings on L1-L2 phonetic interaction in L2 learners of various backgrounds (for further reviews, see Mack, 2003 andKartushina et al, 2016). Apart from showing L1 influence in their L2 production (e.g., Port and Mitleb, 1983;Gass, 1984), learners may produce neither the L1 nor the L2 as native-like (Flege and Eefting, 1987b); they may also show little to no phonetic differentiation between the two languages (e.g., Williams, 1979;Major, 1992), leading to "compromise" values between L1 and L2 norms (e.g., Flege, 1987).…”

Produire, percevoir et imiter la parole en L2 : interactions linguistiques et enjeux théoriques

“…Les prédictions de ces modèles mettent en amont l'hypothèse suivante : les sons de la L2 (inexistants dans la L1) sont plus faciles à acquérir que les segments similaires entre la L2 et la L1, ces derniers activant systématiquement le transfert de la L1. Sauf quelques exceptions, la plupart des recherches ne contestent pas ces prédictions (Kartushina & al. 2016;Colantoni & al.…”

“…Pour ce type d'analyse, nous conseillons au lecteur de consulter plusieurs articles consacrés à cette thématique dans les travaux de Colantoni & al. (2015), Derwing & Munro (2015), Pennington (2015), Kartushina & al. (2016), entre autres.…”