Phonological cross-linguistic influence at the initial stages of L3 acquisition

Abstract

This study investigates sources of phonological cross-linguistic influence (CLI) at the initial stages of third language (L3) acquisition in light of the predictions of the second language (L2) Status Factor Model, the Typological Primacy Model, the Cumulative-Enhancement Model, the Linguistic Proximity Model and the Scalpel Model. The productions of L3 rhotic sounds, /w/ and final obstruent devoicing, elicited in a delayed repetition task, were analysed auditorily in two groups of adolescent instructed learners with L1-German–L2-English–L3-Polish and L1-Polish–L2-English–L3-German language backgrounds. The results showed that dominant articulatory routines from the L1 play an important role in determining the source(s) of phonological CLI in the initial stages of L3 acquisition, at least in a learning constellation when L2 articulations have not been mastered yet in a consistently target-like manner. Based on loglinear and multiple correspondence analyses, the sources of phonological CLI were found in this study to vary feature-by-feature, thus giving some support to the Linguistic Proximity Model and the Scalpel Model. However, the high inter- and intra-individual variation that was found is so far not accounted for by any of the existing models.

Learning and unlearning voicing assimilation

“…Wrembel et al (2020) in a speech perception study with L1 Polish speakers, focusing on the acquisition of rhotics and final (de)voicing, also conclude that acquisition is feature-dependent. Kopečková et al (2022) in production studies also with L1 Polish learners show that transfer comes from both previously acquired languages based on the perceived structural similarity of the examined features. Wrembel (2021) advocates for a dynamic account of CLI in L3 phonology rather than transfer from L1 or L2 only, wholesale or feature-based, since a multilingual speaker has continuous access to the previously acquired language systems.…”

“…Studies on "feature changing" phonological processes where no new phonetic category is created like word-final devoicing (or the lack of it) also seem to indicate that L1 is hard to overcome. Kopečková et al (2022) in a delayed repetition task with beginner L3 learners (L1 German, L2 English, L3 Polish and L1 Polish, L2 English, L3 German) found that more than half of the realizations showed L1 influence (the realizations were basically identical in all three languages), while the other half was some other sound substitution. The authors, however, did not measure the amount and proportion of voicing in the final obstruent; rather, they classified obstruents into three categories (voiced, voiceless and partially voiced).…”

Investigating the Phonetic CLI on Swahili TLA The acquisition of nasal plosive by L1 Mandarin speakers learning English (L2) and Swahili (L3)

“…In phonology it seems that all learners (including advanced learners), retain an L1-based accent (and intonation) in their speech, L2-transfer appears to be relatively rare [8]. The team of Kopečková believes that people who studying L3 have two previously acquired languages which may unconsciously mix with other languages as a source of CLI during their L3 acquisition [9]. Geoffrey Schwartz has observed an asymmetry by which voiceless stops were less susceptible to phonetic CLI than voiced stops [10].…”

“…As conclusion, CLI has been attracting the attention of many scholars of TLA field in recent years. Plenty of findings have been made about the phonetic interactions among L1, L2, and L>=3 involving many consonants [8][9][10][11][12]. However, research about L3 Swahili nasal plosive phonemes acquisition by focusing on CLI has hardly been noticed.…”

The effect of previously acquired languages on third language acquisition

“…Considering that in terms of content, SM is more of a complementary illustration based on the LPM theory, and the two are not fundamentally different from each other in terms of the four main perspectives shown in Tables 1 and in this study, instead of deliberately distinguishing between the two models, they are collectively referred to as the hybrid transfer models. Several studies have presented relevant evidence supporting these models [ [19] , [20] , [21] ].…”