What L2 phenomena reveal about phonological cognition

1
What L2 phenomena reveal about phonological
cognition
He sees the world simply, without all your
complicated facts

• Bert Vaux, UWM
• NAPhC 4
• May 13, 2006

Bill OReilly
2
Overview

• Focus on comparison of leading theories (DP OT)
• What each predicts to be possible and impossible
• How these predictions compare to the data
• Results of comparison
• SLP facts are inconsistent with the predictions
  of canonical OT and Constraint Demotion
  algorithms
• SLP facts support a derivational model driven by
  generalization formation (rules), a la Kiparsky
  and Menn 1977
• Emergence of UG principles is equally problematic
  for both OT and DP

3
Scientific SLA research questions
theory
Top-down what does each theory predict to be
possible and impossible?
Bottom-up what are the central linguistic
phenomena that any theory must account for?
data
4
Focus on OT. Why?

• Incorporation of markedness (Eckman 2004)
• TETU/ Hidden rankings (Broselow et al. 1998,
  2004, Davidson 2002, Uffmann 2004, etc.)
• Explicit learning theory available for
  exploitation
• CDA/GLA
• Strong testable predictions made by canonical OT
  ( Kager 1999)
• Explanation for cross-linguistic differences
  previously thought to be arbitrary
• Treatment of ? (Lombardi 2003, Eckman 2004)

5
OT on SLA

• We assume that second language acquisition
  involves creation of a new grammar, using the
  same resources as first language acquisition
  (though other cognitive strategies may be used as
  well). One major difference, however, is that the
  initial state of second language acquisition is
  the final state of first language acquisition
  (Pater and Tessier 2005)

6
Predictions of canonical OT

• M/F-based learning
• No opacity, derived environment, or avoidance
  effects that dont appear in L1 or L2
• wouldnt make sense to spontaneously invoke
  constraint conjunction, Null Parse, sympathy
  constraints, etc.
• Consistency
• Consistent cross-linguistic treatment of a given
  phenomenon, e.g. resolution of theta
• same constraints as characterize natural
  languages, so D/_ will always be dealt with via
  devoicing, etc.
• No levels
• no level-based effects, since there are no levels
• unnatural processes will not be imported into L2,
  because they are morphologically conditioned
  (according to Lombardi, Steriade, etc.)
• Markedness
• IL effects will result from either hidden UG
  rankings in L1, or from intermediate degrees of
  constraint demotion/promotion NOT from reversion
  to UG rankings when already superseded by L1
  rankings
• markedness-based changes will conform to
  universal markedness hierarchy
• neutralizations will be in direction of unmarked
  member of opposition
• Natural/unmarked patterns will be easier to learn

7
Some central SLP phenomena

• Contra M/F-based learning
• Nonderived environment blocking
• Opacity
• Avoidance
• Contra Consistency
• Optionality and variation
• Convention vs. automaticity
• Final devoicing
• Contra No levels
• Level-based interference
• Unnatural interference
• Contra Markedness
• Cases where IL phenomenon ? NL, TL
• Unnatural patterns not harder to learn

8
Nonderived Environment Blocking

• Eckman and Iverson 1995 et seqq.
• Suppression of s-palatalization in Korean acq of
  English
• Suppression of spirantization in Spanish acq of
  English
• Kiparsky and Menn 198747derived environment
  effect in acq of Greek
• Polish devoicing and raising with loanwords
• snop (not snup) but pagoda ? pagut, toga ? tuk
• Standard OT treatment of NDEB constraint
  conjunction (Lubowicz 1999)
• Smolensky only postulate CC as warranted by PLD
• DEC is problem for
• OT claim that grammars only differ in constraint
  ranking
• OTs rejection of generalizations/rulesDEC in
  SLA is clearly a generalization kicking in, not a
  constraint conjunction spontaneously appearing

9
Opacity in SLP

• Counterfeeding chain shift substitution
• Cho and Lee 2001, Idsardi 2002 on opacity in
  Korean acq of English
• sin ? sjin thin ? sin
• same is found in L1 (Dinnsen, OConnor, and
  Gierut 2001)
• opaque substitution contrast maintenance
  ordering, not sympathy, turbidity, targeted
  constraints, etc.
• Smolensky only postulate constraint conjunction
  as warranted by PLD
• Idsardi 2002 this spontaneous chain shiftdoes
  not reflect properties of their original L1
  grammar, the target L2 grammar, or of Universal
  Grammaronly by employing persistent rules can we
  correctly create the conditions for chain-shift
  persistence of constraints and constraint
  rankings into the L2 does not correctly induce
  the chain-shifting behavior
• Counterbleeding repairs
• Weinberger 1987412Mandarin learners of English
  who apply final epenthesis before final C-cluster
  simplification, e.g. ? aen?
• Counterfeeding and counterbleeding in toy L2 acq

10
Opacity in toy L2 acq

• Vaux, Nevins, Dye, and Keren (ongoing)
• Learners exposed to PLD providing evidence for
  two generalizations
• V ? Ø / _ V
• s ? / _ i
• How do these interact in absence of evidence for
  interaction in PLD?
• DES, SO

SATA SATI SATO
KOP KOPI KOPO KOPO
11
Opacity in toy L2 acq

• Predictions of canonical DP for NES, BASA
• Possible systems
• nei, basi, neo, baso (CFCB) SP VD
• nei, bai, neso, baso (transparent) VD SP
• nei, bai, neo, bao (CB) VDSP cycl.,
  either order
• Impossible systems
• Any set including nesi
• nei, bai, neo, baso, nei, bai, neso,
  bao, nei, basi, neso, baso, nei, basi,
  neo, bao, nei, basi, neso, bao
• Predictions of canonical OT
• Nothing with basi (CF), bao (CB), neo (CB)
• Preliminary results ?

12
Opacity in toy L2 acq

• Preliminary results

13
Avoidance

• speakers sometimes avoid complex L2
  configurations even if their L1 has them
• Laufer and Eliasson 37, Jordens 1977, Kellerman
  1977, 1978, 1986
• Celce-Murcia 1977
• child learning English and French simultaneously
  avoided words containing fricatives in one
  language by using the word from the other
  language, e.g. couteau for knife
• Well-documented in L1 phonological acquisition
  and disorders also
• cleft palate speech, lisp
• Standard OT treatment of avoidance Null Parse
• Wrongly predicts phonologically empty output,
  rather than contentful output that crashes
• see Orgun and Sprouse 1999, Nevins and Vaux 2004
  for further discussion and exemplification

14
Optionality and variation

• Overview
• How animals deal with ambiguity
• Variable differential substitution
• Implications for generalization formation vs.
  constraint demotion
• Variable repair of Coda/voi

15
Ambiguity and animal wug tests
Gallistel, C. 2003. Conditioning from an
information processing perspective. Behavioural
Processes 61.31234 1-13.
16
Consistency

• Lombardi 2003 repair of L2 ?, ð predictable
  from structure of L1 system
• /s, z/ Japanese, France French, German
• /t, d/ Russian, Quebecois, Hungarian, Sinhalese
• Cf. Ritchie 1968, Nemser 1971, Hancin-Bhatt 1994,
  Weinberger 1997)
• Actual facts intra-lingual/individual variation
  in L1 and L2 acq
• multiple L1 substitutes for unfamiliar/difficult
  L2 sound (Hammarberg 1990)
• Polish replacement of ?, ð by s, z t, d or
  f, v (Gussmann 198431)
• Japanese, German, and Turkish speakers vary in
  what they hear ?, ð as (Hancin-Bhatt 1994)
• Calabrese uses f/v, whereas other Italians use
  t/d (Flege, Munro, and MacKay 1996) (cf. Cockney
  vs. New York Archibald 1998102)
• Unschooled French speakers use t (Berger 1951)
  beginners use f, intermediate learners use t
  (Wenk 1979) Quebecois use t, France uses s
  (Archibald 1998102)
• Korean variation between tense s' and tense
  t' (think ssink ttink) (Oh 2002)
• Austrian learners of English vary between f s
  dental s lenisized ? (Wieden 1997232)
• Cf. L1
• English L1 acq ? ? f in stages IV-VII ð ? d
  or v in stages V-VII (Wenk 1979, Grunwell 1982)
• ? ? f s, e.g. Susies think ? sink fink
  (Vihman and Greenlee 1987)
• Conclusion ambiguity resolved by arbitrary
  choice (convention)

17
Variation is a problem for constraint demotion
algorithms

• inconsistent data, such as variation in the
  ambient language, causes RCD to choke
• McCarthy 2002204-5
• Cf. Hayes 2000
• Intra-individual variability in L2 production
• Tropf 1987174multiple renditions of German
  nicht not in a one-hour session with a Spanish
  speaker learning German nIS 31, nI 25, nISt 4,
  nIs 4, nIk 4, nEt 2, nIC 2, nI?t 1, nIZ 1
• Similar findings in L1 acq
• Hayes alternative (strictness bands) predicts
  that only adjacent constraints can be involved in
  optionality
• Problem Pierrehumberts hovacity data

18
Dealing with coda voice

• Overview
• IL final devoicing as TETU?
• L1 vs. L2 strategies for dealing with coda
  voice
• Sources and mechanisms of devoicing

19
Devoicing as TETU?

• From Uffmann 2004
• 2 guiding principles
• Initial state L1 ranking
• L2 learners may also assume default M F
• Ranking for lgs that dont allow codas
• Coda/voi, Coda Faith
• Ranking for lgs that allow contrastive voicing in
  codas
• Faith Coda/voi, Coda
• Demotion of Coda below Faith based on TL
  evidence
• Coda/voi Faith Coda
• NB requires ignoring evidence for voiced codas
• To get Hungarian-English phenomenon (IL devoicing
  despite both NL and TL having voice contrast in
  codas), Uffmann proposes L2 learners assume
  default M F until they receive evidence to the
  contrary
• Problem contravenes OT assumption that L2
  learners start with L1 ranking (Pater 2005, etc.)

20
L1 vs. L2 strategies for coda voice

• L1 claimed to only use devoicing
• The too many solutions problem (Lombardi 1995,
  Kager 1999, Steriade 2001, McCarthy 2002)
• Lombardi MaxOns, Lar, MaxVoi
• Steriade P-map
• McCarthy 2002 targeted constraints can get
  deletion repair, and therefore shouldnt be part
  of OT
• Kiparsky 2004 blocking also used (Konni, Meccan
  Arabic)
• L2 epenthesis and deletion attested
• Deletion
• Chinese Anderson 1983, Xu 2004
• Epenthesis
• Brazilian Portuguese Major 1987 Korean Kang
  2003, Iverson and Lee 2004 Vietnamese Nguyen
  and Ingram 2004 Chinese Eckman 1981, Xu 2004
• Also found in L1 acq (Major 2001)

21
Problems with OT analysis of final devoicing

• L1 prediction doesnt fall out nicely from
  constraint inventory requires conspiracy of
  several constraints
• Coda/voi-less system (Lombardi 2000, Beckman
  2004) misses key articulatory motivation by
  avoiding (cf. Smith et al. 2005)
• Lombardis scheme should hold for NC as well, but
  doesnt (Myers 2002)
• Lombardi cant get word-initial neutralization,
  like in English and Lac Simon
• L1 prediction falsified by L2 data
• Not clear why devoicing should be easier to learn
  than contrast
• L2 devoicing may not be emergent UG effect
• English has devoicing (Haggard 1978, Ladefoged
  1982, Pierrehumbert and Talkin 1992, Smith 1997)
• May be articulatory phonetic problem
• L2 speakersmay not have developed adequate
  voicing control abilities (Smith et al. 2005)
• English-Hungarian case requires reversion to UG
  ranking, not hidden rankings

22
Levels

• Only low-level automatic L1 rules can cause
  interference (Linell 1979, Rubach 1980, 1984,
  Broselow 1984, Singh and Ford 1987, Eckman and
  Iverson 1995)
• Morphologically-conditioned processes do not
  cause interference
• Problem 1 incoherent in monostratal model
• Problem 2 interference from processes treated as
  morphologically-conditioned in OT (McCarthy 1997,
  Steriade 2001, Picard 2002, Lombardi 2003)
• r-insertion in RP pronunciation of L2 French,
  German, Spanish (Wells 1982)
• Jétais déjàr ici, ich bin jar fertig,
  vivar España
• n-insertion in Korean (H. Kim 1999)
• lukenñu?selph look at yourself

23
Cases where IL phenomenon ? NL, TL

• Cases where hidden rankings arent involved
• Idsardis 2002 spontaneous chain shift
• Hungarian-English final devoicing (?)
• Japanese antepenultimate mora accentuation (?)
• Hungarian gemination after stressed vowel (?)
• Cases where novel marked configurations are
  produced, violating markedness hierarchy
• Russian c
• Odd neutralizations in L1 acq
• Child with dental click for all coronal
  continuants (Bedore et al. 1994)
• Child with ingressives for all postvocalic stops
  (Gierut and Champion 2000)
• 48 subject, Jason, produces pfw to represent
  nearly all word-initial liquid clusters, as well
  as initial labial fricatives (Edwards 1996153)
• Amahls word-initial engma and voiceless
  sonorants (Smith 19734)
• child with s in onset, x in coda (Gierut 1993)
• L2 Yuchuns production of ü for i in English
  UG, phonology, etc.
• NB she doesnt just do it after j

24
Learning unnatural patterns

• CDA predicts that natural patterns will be easier
  to learn than unnatural ones, because they
  require fewer departures from UG ranking.
• Support from Paters 2005 study?
• On the other hand, if learning involves
  formulating rules and their difficulty is
  computed on the basis of their formal structure,
  then unnatural patterns should be equally
  learnable.
• Supported in studies by Pycha et al. 2003,
  Morrison 2005, and Seidl Buckley (forthcoming)

25
Conclusions

• Classic OT predictions disconfirmed by SLP data
• contra M/F-based learning NDEB, opacity,
  avoidance
• contra Consistency variation, convention
• contra No levels Level-based interference,
  Unnatural interference
• contra Markedness Cases where IL phenomenon ?
  NL, TL Unnatural patterns not harder to learn
• Universal markedness/UG plays a role in SLA
• final devoicing, cluster simplification
• Not well captured in OT SLA requires reference
  to UG system overridden by L1 and to phenomena
  not in L1/L2/UG-CON
• Conversely, language allows a broader range of
  possibilities than is countenanced in OT
• strategies to deal with devoicing, unnatural
  rules
• Acquisition is generalization-driven and
  potentially variable
• supported by DEC effects, conventionalized
  segmental substitutions, which V to delete in
  hiatus, deneutralization
• Cf. Kiparsky and Menns 1977 model, which
  involves active hypothesis formation and testing
  on the part of the child, and Fey and Gandour
  1979, vs. Stampes and OTs, which are closer to
  behaviorist stimulus-response
• For variation, cf. Macken and Fergusons flexible
  learning model that allows for variation,
  contrary to earlier deterministic models that had
  predictable L1?L2 transfer

26
References

• Bedore, L., J. Leonard, and J. Gandour. 1994. The
  substitution of a click for sibilants A case
  study. Clinical Linguistics Phonetics
  8283-293.
• Broselow, Ellen, S.-I. Chen, C. Wang. 1998. The
  emergence of the unmarked in second language
  phonology.  Studies in Second Language
  Acquisition, 20, 261-280.
• Broselow, Ellen. 2004. Unmarked structures and
  emergent rankings in second language phonology.
  In Lleó, C., Vogel, I. (Eds.), On the
  acquisition of second language phonology Special
  issue. International Journal of Bilingualism
  8.151-65.
• Cebrian, J. 2002. Phonetic Similarity,
  Syllabification and Phonotactic Constraints in
  the Acquisition of a Second Language Contrast.
  Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
• Celce-Murcia, M. 1977. Phonological factors in
  vocabulary acquisition a case study of a
  two-year-old English-French bilingual. Working
  Papers in Bilingualism 1327-41.
• Cho, Mi-Hui and Shinsook Lee. 2001. Phonological
  transparency and opacity in the sound
  substitution of interlanguages. Studies in
  Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology. 7.2. 449-468
• Connelly, Mark (1994) Phonological Markedness
  and Second Language Error Interpretation.
  Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
• Davidson, Lisa. 2002.  The effects of hidden
  rankings on the acquisition of consonant
  clusters. In A. James J. Leather (Eds.), New
  Sounds 2000 (pp. 87-96).  Klagenfurt, Austria 
  University of Klagenfurt.
• Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams D. R. and Meyer,
  A.S. 2000. Speech errors, phonotactic
  constraints, and implicit learning A study of
  the role of experience in language production.
  Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning,
  Memory, and Cognition, 26 1355-1367.
• Dinnsen, Daniel, Kathleen OConnor, and Judith
  Gierut. 2001. The puzzle-puddle-pickle problem
  and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition.
  Journal of Linguistics 37.
• Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, Katarzyna. 1988. How do
  Poles perform English tips of the slung? In
  Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics
  22179-86.
• Eckman, Fred Iverson, G. K. (1994),
  Pronunciation difficulties in ESL coda
  consonants in English interlanguage In M. Yavas
  (Ed) First and second language phonology.
  (pp.251-265). San Diego Singular Publishing
  Group.
• Eckman, Fred Iverson, G. K.  (1997).  Structure
  preservation in interlanguage phonology.  In S.
  J. Hannahs, M. Scholten (Eds.), Focus on
  phonological acquisition (pp. 183-207). 
  Amsterdam John Benjamins.
• Eckman, Fred, A. Elreyes, Greg Iverson. 2003.
  Some Principles of Second Language Phonology.
  Second Language Research 19169-208.
• Eckman, Fred. (1987b) The reduction of word-final
  consonants in interlanguage. In. A. James L.
  Leather (Eds.) Sound patterns in second language
  acquisition (pp. 143-162). Dordrecht Foris.
• Gierut, Judith and Annette Hust Champion. 2000.
  Ingressive substitutions typical or atypical
  phonological pattern?
• Grijzenhout, Janet and Bertus van Rooy. 200x.
  Second language phonology acquisition through
  gradual constraint demotion.
• Grunwell, P. 1982. Clinical phonology. London
  Croom Helm.
• Gussmann, Edmund. 1984. Contrastive analysis,
  substantive evidence and the abstractness issue.
  In Theoretical issues in contrastive phonology,
  S. Elliason (ed), 27-36. Heidelberg Julius Groos
  Verlag.

27
References

• Kiparsky, Paul. 1977. On the Acquisition of
  Phonology (with L. Menn). In J. Macnamara (ed.),
  Language Learning and Thought, Academic Press,
  1977. Reprinted in Georgette Ioup and S. W.
  Weinberger (eds.), Interlanguage Phonology the
  Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System,
  Cambridge, Mass. Newbury House, 1987.
• Kiparsky, Paul. 2004. Universals constrain
  change, change results in typological
  generalizations.
• Lombardi, Linda. 2001. Why Place and Voice are
  Different Constraint-Specific Alternations in
  Optimality Theory. In Lombardi, Linda, ed. (2001)
  Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory
  Constraints and Representations. Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press.
• Lombardi, Linda. 2003. Second language data and
  constraints on manner Explaining substitutions
  for the English interdentals. Second Language
  Research 19225-250.
• Lubowicz, Anna. 1999. Derived environment effects
  in OT. The Proceedings of the Seventeenth West
  Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by
  Kimary Shahin, Susan Blake and Eun Sook Kim,
  451-65. Stanford, CA Center Study Language
  Information. Rutgers Optimality Archive 239
• Major, Roy. 1987. A model for interlanguage
  phonology. In G. Ioup S. Weinberger.(Eds.)
  Interlanguage Phonology (pp 101 - 124). Rowley,
  MA Newbury House Publishers.
• Morrison, G. S. (2005, May). Phonetic naturalness
  and phonological learnability. Paper presented at
  The 13th Manchester Phonology Meeting (mfm 13),
  Manchester, UK.
• Nguyen, Thu and John Ingram. 2004. A corpus-based
  analysis of transfer effects and connected speech
  processes in Vietnamese English. Proceedings of
  the 10th Australian International Conference on
  Speech Science Technology, Macquarie
  University.
• Pater, Joe and Anne-Michelle Tessier. 2005.
  Phonotactics and alternations Testing the
  connection with artificial language learning. In
  Kathryn Flack and Shigeto Kawahara (eds.),
  University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in
  Linguistics 311-16.
• Pycha, Anne, Pawel Nowak, Eurie Shin, and Ryan
  Shosted. 2003. Phonological Rule-Learning and Its
  Implications for a Theory of Vowel Harmony. WCCFL
  22 Proceedings, ed. M. Tsujimura and G. Garding,
  pp. 101-114. Somerville, MA Cascadilla Press.
• Rubach, J. 1984. Rule typology and phonological
  interference. In Theoretical issues in
  contrastive phonology, S. Elliason (ed), 37-50.
  Heidelberg, Julius Groos Verlag.
• Seidl, A. and E. Buckley. To appear. On the
  learning of arbitrary phonological rules. In
  Language Learning and Development.
• Singh, Rajendra and Alan Ford. Interphonology and
  phonological theory. In Sound patterns in second
  language acquisition, James and Leather, eds.,
  163-172. Dordrecht Foris.
• Smith, Bruce, Darcie DeMille Amy Roberts, Ann
  Bradlow Tessa Bent. 2005. Devoicing in
  word-final voiced stop targets produced by native
  and nonnative speakers of English.
  http//www.sfu.ca/spchlab/A54.pdf
• Smith, Caroline. 1997. The devoicing of /z/ in
  American English effects of local and prosodic
  context. Journal of Phonetics 25.4471-500.
• Stark, J. 1974. Aphasiological evidence for the
  abstract analysis of the German velar nasal.
  Wiener linguistische Gazette 721-37.
• Tarone, E. 1976. Some influences on interlanguage
  phonology. Working Papers in Bilingualism
  887-111.
• Tarone, E.  1988.  Variation in interlanguage. 
  London Edward Arnold.
• Tropf, Herbert. 1987. Sonority as a variability
  factor in second language phonology. In Sound
  patterns in second language acquisition, James
  and Leather, eds., 173-191. Dordrecht Foris.