Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 13:6 (2023) ► pp.743–766

Phonological parsing via an integrated I-language

The emergence of property-by-property transfer effects in L3 phonology

ORCID logo | University of Victoria

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.

Keywords: L3 phonology, linguistic proximity, contrastive hierarchy, phonological parsing, integrated I-grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Problems with the mechanism of Typological Proximity
  • 3.Empirical evidence: A case study
    • 3.1Loanwords
    • 3.2Phonological comparison
    • 3.3A contrastive hierarchy
    • 3.4Vowels
    • 3.5Consonants
  • 4.An alternative approach: L3 learnability
    • 4.1Phonological knowledge
    • 4.2Similarity
    • 4.3Transfer vs cross-linguistic influence (CLI)
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.21017.arc
References
Al-Athwary, A.
(2017) The phonotactic adaptation of English loanwords in Arabic. Arab World English Journal, 8 (3), 392–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archibald, J.
in press). Feature dependency and the poverty of the stimulus in the acquisition of L2 German plural allomorphy. In C. Isabelli, T. Leal, & E. Shimanskya Eds. Generative SLA in the age of Minimalism: Features, interfaces, and beyond (Selected proceedings of the 15th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference John Benjamins DOI logo
(2021) Turtles all the way down: Micro-cues and piecemeal transfer in L3 phonology. Commentary on Westergaard (2021) “Microvariation in multilingual situations: the importance of property-by-property acquisition”. Second Language Research, 37 (3), 415–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019, June). Assessing linguistic I-proximity in L3 phonology. Paper presented at the Workshop on Third Language Acquisition . Konstanz.
Archibald, J., & Croteau, N.
(2021) Acquisition of L2 Japanese WH questions: Evidence of phonological contiguity and non-shallow structures. Second Language Research, 37 (4), 649–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barfour, A.
(2016) A study of English loanwords in French written texts and advertisements and the perceptions and attitudes of the francophone readership. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama.
Benrabah, M.
(1991) Learning English segments with two languages. In P. Romeas (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 334–337). Université de Aix-en-Provence.Google Scholar
Berwick, R., & Stabler, E.
(2019) Parsing with minimalist grammars. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D.
(2007) Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In M. J. Munro & O.-S. Bohn (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R.
(2009) The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31 (2), 175–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20 1, 3–49.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N., Carr, P., & Docherty, G.
(Eds.) (2000) Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J.
(2012) L3 phonology: an understudied domain. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 33–59). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S.
(2014) Processing ‘words’ in early-stage foreign language acquisition: a comparison of first exposure and low proficiency learners. In Z. Han & R. Rast (Eds.), First exposure to a second language (pp. 107–138). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) First exposure learners make use of top-down lexical knowledge when learning words. In K. Braunmüller, C. Gabriel, B. Hänel-Faulhaber (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 23–46). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) On cognates. Second Language Research, 8 (2), 93–119.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36 (1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowper, E., & Hall, D.
(2019) Scope variation in contrastive hierarchies of morphosyntactic features. In D. Lightfoot & J. Havenhill (Eds.) Variable properties in language: Their nature and acquisition (pp. 27–41). Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A.
(2012) Native listening: Language experience and the recognition of spoken words. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, F.
(1984) L’accentuation dans les phrases en français. In F. Dell, D. Hirst, & J.-R. Vergnaud (Eds.) Forme sonore du langage (pp. 65–122). Hermann.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E.
(2018) Contrastive hierarchy theory and the nature of features. In W. Bennett, L. Hracs, & D. Storoshenko, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 18–29). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
(2009) The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Charting the learning path: cues to parameter setting. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 1, 27–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E., & Kaye, J.
(1990) A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition, 34 1, 137–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E.
(1995) Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Eds.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–276). York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Bohn, O.-S.
(2021) The revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r). In R. Wayland (Eds.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp. 3–83). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.
(1998a) Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 29 1, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998b) Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27 (3), 339–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998c) Learning to parse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27 (2), 285–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, G. D., Goad, H., & Guzzo, N. B.
(2017) Footing is not always about stress: Formalizing variable high vowel deletion in Québec French. In K. Jesney, C. O’Hara, C. Smith, & R. Walker (Eds.) Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology, 41. Linguistic Society of America. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghazali, S.
(1973) Tunisian Arabic and French phonological interference with English as a second foreign language. (Unpublished Masters thesis.) UCLA.
Ghazali, S., & Bouchhioua, N.
(2003) The learning of English prosodic structures by speakers of Tunisian Arabic: Word stress and weak forms. In M. J. Solé, D. Recansens, & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 961–964).Google Scholar
Goad, H., Guzzo, N. B., & White, L.
(2021) Parsing ambiguous relative clauses in L2 English: Learner sensitivity to prosodic cues. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43 (1), 83–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, M., & Reiss, C.
(2000) Phonology as cognition. In Burton Roberts, et al., (Eds.), Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues (pp.161–184). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, D.
(2016) Contrast and phonological activity in the vowel system of Laurentian French. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 371.Google Scholar
(2011) Phonological contrast and it phonetic enhancement: dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology, 28 1, 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S., & Archibald, J.
(2010) Phonological representations and perception of L2 contrasts. In M. Wrembel, M. Kul, & K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, (Eds.), Achievements and perspectives in SLA of speech: New Sounds 2010 (pp. 161–170). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1941) Kindersprache, aphasie, und allgemeine lautgesetze. Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift. Translated by A. R. Keiler as Child Language, aphasia, and phonological universals. Mouton 1968.Google Scholar
Kawahara, S.
(2015) The phonology of Japanese accent. In H. Kubozono (Ed.), The handbook of Japanese language and linguistics: Phonetics and phonology (pp.445–492.) Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamontagne, J., & Goad, H.
submitted). Weight and prominence in French: An examination of corpus data from a Laurentian variety. [URL]
Libben, G.
(2000) Representation and processing in the second language lexicon: The Homogeneity Hypothesis. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 228–248.) Blackwell.Google Scholar
Libben, G., & Goral, M.
(2015) How bilingualism shapes the mental lexicon. In J. Schwieter, (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingual processing (pp. 631–644). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J., & Gagliardi, A.
(2015) How nature meets nurture: Universal grammar and statistical learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12 (1).Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.
(2020) Born to parse: How children select their languages. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, L.
(2020) Bilingual grammar: Toward an integrated model. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, S.
(2011) Contrast and the evaluation of similarity: evidence from consonant harmony. Lingua, 121 1, 1401–1423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakayama, M., Sears, C., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S.
(2013) Masked translation priming with Japanese-English bilinguals: interactions between cognate status, target frequency and L2 proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (8), 949–981. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford, W.
(2012) On the contrastive status of vowel length [Conference presentation]. MOT Workshop on Phonology .
Özçelik, Ö.
(2017) The foot is not an obligatory constituent of the prosodic hierarchy: ‘stress’ in Turkish, French and child English. The Linguistic Review, 34 (1), 157–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçelik, Ö., & Sprouse, R.
(2016) 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, 33 (2), 179–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C.
(2003) Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34 (1), 37–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.
(2019) Parameter hierarchies and universal grammar. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rochet, B.
(1995) Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults. In W. Strange, (Ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience (pp. 379–410). York Press.Google Scholar
Rothman, J.
(2015) Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18 (2), 179–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., González Alonso, J., & Puig-Mayenco, E.
(2019) Third language acquisition and linguistic transfer. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R.
(2021) The full transfer/full access model and L3 cognitive states. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11 (1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A.
(1996) L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 121, 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R.
(2016) The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21 (6), 651–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K., & Keyser, S. J.
(1989) Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language, 65 (1), 81–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Summerell, F.
(2010) The acquisition of Japanese length contrasts. In K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, M. Wrembel, & M. Kul (Eds.), The proceedings of New Sounds 2010 (pp. 475–480). Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M.
(1996) Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12 1, 7–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, W., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J.
(1998) Orthographic neighbourhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 39 (3), 458–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M.
(2021a) Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research, 37 (3), 397–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b) L3 acquisition and crosslinguistic influence as co-activation: Response to commentaries on the keynote ‘Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition.’ Second Language Research, 37 (3), 501–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M., Mitrofanova, N., Mykhaylyk, R., & Rodina, Y.
(2017) Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The linguistic proximity model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21 (6), 666–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P.
(1980) Formal principles of language acquisition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wise, H.
(1997) The vocabulary of modern French. Routledge.Google Scholar
Yang, C.
(2017) Rage against the machine: evaluation metrics in the 21st century. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 24 (2), 100–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J.
(2017) The growth of language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience and Behavioural Reviews, 81 (B), 103–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Archibald, John
2022. Segmental and Prosodic Evidence for Property-by-Property Transfer in L3 English in Northern Africa. Languages 7:1 ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Archibald, John
2023. Using a contrastive hierarchy to formalize structural similarity as I-proximity in L3 phonology. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism DOI logo
Archibald, John
2023. Differential substitution: a contrastive hierarchy account. Frontiers in Language Sciences 2 DOI logo
Kolb, Nadine, Natalia Mitrofanova & Marit Westergaard
2023. Structural similarity in third language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism DOI logo
Kwon, Joy & Glenn Starr
2023. How L1-Chinese L2-English learners perceive English front vowels: A phonological account. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.