Cover not available
Part of
Current Perspectives on Generative SLA - Processing, Influence, and Interfaces: Selected proceedings of the 16th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference
Edited by Marta Velnić, Anne Dahl and Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 70] 2024
► pp. 264–289

Chapter 11
“And yet it moves”

Finding a place for phonology in the GenSLA cosmos

| University of Victoria
The study of Lx phonology is under-represented in the GenSLA literature. I argue that this is largely because the complex learnability issues in the phonological domain have been under-appreciated. Drawing on examples from features and syllables, I illustrate that the acquisition of phonology is subject to poverty of the stimulus effects. Consequently, it follows that phonological representations are learned and not merely noticed in the environment. Furthermore, phonological grammars are shown to be generative, and hierarchical. By adopting abstract representational models we can both describe and explain learner behaviour. I explore the role of phonology in morphological and syntactic interfaces, and conclude with a discussion of real-world implications with regard to pronunciation training, and broader societal concerns.
Keywords: multilingual phonology, phonological represesentations, phonological features, poverty of the stimulus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Phonology is generative
    • 1.2Phonology is learned (not noticed)
    • 1.3Phonology is hierarchical
  • 2.Learning phonology
    • 2.1The acquisition of features
    • 2.2Feature hierarchies
    • 2.3CH redeployment
  • 3.Holistic approaches
  • 4.Illusory vowels
  • 5.Structure and markedness
  • 6.Stress
  • 7.Interfaces
    • 7.1Phonology/morphology interface
    • 7.2Phonology/syntax interface
  • 8.Broadening circles
    • 8.1Pedagogic utility
    • 8.2Social justice
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.70.11arc
References (114)
References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 481–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., & Lohndal, T. (2018). Units of language mixing: A cross-linguistic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archibald, J. (1993a). Language learnability and L2 phonology: The acquisition of metrical parameters. Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993b). The learnability of English metrical parameters by adult Spanish speakers. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 31(2), 129–142.Google Scholar
(2005). Second language phonology as redeployment of phonological knowledge. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 50(1–4), 285–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Reverse engineering the L1 filter: Bagging the elusive construct of intake frequency. Plenary speaker at New Sounds conference at Concordia in Montreal.
(2014). Did he say wet, when, or went? Second language learners and consonant clusters. TESL Ontario Contact, November.Google Scholar
(2016). Phonology at the interface: Late insertion and spell out in L2 morphophonology. Paper presented at News Sounds 2016, Aarhus, Denmark, June.
(2021). Speaking and hearing with an accent. Frontiers for Young Minds: Understanding Neuroscience, 9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022a). Feature dependency and the poverty of the stimulus in the acquisition of L2 German plural allomorphy. In T. Leal, E. Shimanskya, & C. Isabelli (Eds.), Generative SLA in the age of minimalism: Features, interfaces, and beyond. Selected proceedings of the 15th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 117–136). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022b). Mix and match: Why phonology matches syntax but not morphology in intraword codeswitching. Poster at the Mental Lexicon conference. Niagara-on-the-Lake. October.
(2023). Using a contrastive hierarchy to formalize structural similarity as I-proximity in L3 phonology. In N. Kolb, N. Mitrofanova, & M. Westergaard, (Eds.), Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 13(5), 614–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Phonology in multilingual grammars: Representational complexity and linguistic interfaces. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). A transition theory of L3 segmental phonology: Phonological features and phonetic variation in multilingual grammars. In E. Babatsouli (Ed.), Multilingual acquisition and learning: Towards an eco-systemic View of diversity. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Archibald, J., O’Brien, M. & Sewell, A. (2021). L2 phonology meets L2 pronunciation. Frontiers in Communication: Language Sciences, 6, 804062. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archibald, J., Yousefi, M., & Alhemaid, A. (2022). Redeploying appendices in L2 phonology: Illusory vowels in L1 Persian and Arabic acquisition of English sC initial clusters. Journal of Monolingual and Bilingual Speech 4(1), 76–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barriuso, T. A., & Hayes-Harb, R. (2018). High variability phonetic training as a bridge from research to practice. CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 177–194.Google Scholar
Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R. & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R., Friederici, A., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. (2013). Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Science 17(2), 89–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Best, C. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171–206). York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C., & Tyler, M. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception. In O.-S. Bohn & M. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language 68(4), 706–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. (2011). A programme for bidirectional phonology and phonetics and their acquisition and evolution. In A. Benz & J. Mattausch (Eds.), Bidirectional optimality theory (pp. 33–72). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., Chládková, K., & Benders, T. (2022). Phonological features emerge substance-freely from the phonetics and the morphology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 67(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohn, G. P., & Santos, R. (2018). The acquisition of pre-tonic vowels in Brazilian Portuguese. Alfa, 62(1), 191–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bromberger, S., & Halle, M. (1989). Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(1), 51–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E., & Finer, D. (1991). Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research, 7(1), 35–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 4–63). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cardoso, W. (2008). The development of sC onset clusters in interlanguage: Markedness versus frequency effects. In R. Slabakova, J. Rothman, P. Kempchinsky, & E. Gavruseva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007) (pp. 15–29). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Teaching foreign sC onset clusters. In K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, M. Wrembel, & M. Kul (Eds.), Achievements and perspectives in second language acquisition of speech (pp. 29–40). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cardoso, W., John, P., & French, L. (2009). The perception of sC onset clusters in second language phonology: A variationist perspective. In B. Baptista, A. Rauber, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Recent research in second language phonetics/phonology: Perception and production (pp. 203–233). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Cardoso W., Collins, L., & Cardoso, W. (2021). Developmental sequences in second language phonology: Effects of instruction on the acquisition of foreign sC onsets. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 662934. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, W., & Liakin, D. (2009). When input frequency patterns fail to drive learning: Evidence from Brazilian Portuguese English. In B. Baptista, A. Rauber, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Recent research in second language phonetics/phonology: Perception and production (pp. 174–202). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. (2006). The sonority cycle and the acquisition of complex onsets. In B. Baptista & M. Watkins (Eds.) English with a Latin beat – Studies in Portuguese/Spanish English interphonology (pp. 105–137) Johns Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, M. (2019). Now you hear it, now you don’t: Malleable illusory vowel effects in Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(5), 1101–1122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cebrian, J., & Carlet, A. (2014). Second-language learners’ identification of target-language phonemes: A short-term phonetic study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 474–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. Praeger.Google Scholar
(1989). Necessary illusions: Thought control in democratic societies. South End Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2017). Critical commentary: Some notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowper, E., & Hall, D. C. (2019). Scope variation in contrastive hierarchies of morphosyntactic features. In D. W. Lightfoot & J. Havenhill (Eds.), Variable properties in language: Their nature and acquisition (pp. 27–41). Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummings, A., Wu, Y., & Ogiela, D. (2021). Phonological underspecification: An explanation for how a rake can become awake. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 585817. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, L., & Wilson, C. (2016). Processing nonnative consonant clusters in the classroom: Perception and production of phonetic detail. Second Language Research, 32(4), 471–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delgado, R, Cabrelli, J., & López, L. (2022). Code-switching in the phonological word. Paper presented at the UIC Bilingualism Forum.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J. & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language 41(4), 496–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, E. (2009). The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The arch not the stones: Universal feature theory without universal features. Nordlyd, 41(2), 165–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Dupoux, E., Kakehi, L., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C., & Mehler, J. (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1568–1578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durvasula, K., & Kahng, J. (2015). Illusory vowels in perceptual epenthesis: The role of phonological alternations. Phonology, 32(3), 385–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (1990). A theory of second language acquisition within the framework of natural phonology. Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. (1991). The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(1), 23–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F., & Iverson, G. (1997). Structure preservation in interlanguage phonology. In S. J. Hannahs & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Bohn, O.-S. (2021). The revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r). In R. Wayland, (Ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp. 3–83). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischhacker, H. (2001). Some principles of second language phonology. Second Language Research. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 71–116.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In W. Rutherford & M. Hines (Eds.), On TESOL’81 (pp. 129–139). TESOL.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E. (1978). Patterned phonetic variability in second-language speech: A gradual diffusion model. Canadian Modern Language Review 34(3), 335–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goad, H. (2012). sC Clusters are (almost always) coda-initial. The Linguistic Review, 29(3), 335–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González Poot, A. (2004). Spanish rhymes: A challenge to constraints on syllable structure. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics, 25(1), 109–152.Google Scholar
González Poot, A. (2011). Conflict resolution in the Spanish SLA of Yucatec ejectives: L1, L2, and universal constraints (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary.
González Poot, A. (2014). Conflict resolution in the Spanish L2 acquisition of Yucatec ejectives: L1, L2 and universal constraints. In The Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.
Gordon, M. (2006). Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, typology. Routledge.Google Scholar
Hall, D. C. (2017). Contrastive specification in phonology. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayter, E., & Archibald, J. (2022). Why high-variability phonetic training works: A phonological account. Poster presented at the Bilingualism Forum, October. University of Chicago at Illinois.
Hestvik, A., & Durvasula, K. (2016). Neurobiological evidence for voicing underspecification in English. Brain & Language 152, 28–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M., & Roeder, R. (2022). Phonological mergers have systemic phonetic consequences: Palm, trees, and the Low Back Merger Shift. Language Variation and Change 34(1), 29–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iverson G., & Salmons, J. (1995). Aspiration and laryngeal features in Germanic. Phonology, 12(3), 369–396. 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
Kabak, B. (2019). A dynamic equational approach to sound patterns in language change and second-language acquisition: The (un)stability of English dental fricatives illustrated. In B. Busse & R. Moehlig-Falke (Eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics: New perspectives on a ubiquitous concept (pp. 221–254). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabak, B., & Idsardi, W. (2007). Perceptual distortions in the adaptation of English consonant clusters: Syllable structure or consonantal contact constraints? Language and Speech, 50(1), 23–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kijak, A. (2009). How stressful is L2 stress? LOT.Google Scholar
Lleó, C., & Vogel, I. (2004). Learning new segments and reducing domains in German L2 phonology: The role of the prosodic hierarchy. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(1), 79–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, L. (2020). Bilingual grammar: Toward an integrated model. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, L., Alexiadou, A., & Veenstra, T. (2017). Code-switching by phase. Languages, 2(9). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, M., Flege, J. E., & Mackay, I. (1996). The effects of age of second language learning on the production of English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17(3), 313–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58(3), 479–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Natvig, D., & Salmons, J. (2021). Connecting structure and variation in sound change. Cadernos de Lingüistica, 2(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford, W. (2015). Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence from Algonquian vowel systems. Language, 91(2), 308–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçelik, Ö. (2021). L2 acquisition of a complex stress pattern: UG-constrained learning paths in Khalkha Mongolian. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 12, 627797. 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
Purnell, T. (2022). Dialect vowel variation reflects phonology: Evidence from American Dialect Society publications. Talk at the University of Victoria.
Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., & Murphy, G. (2006). The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 97–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiss, C. (2017). Substance free phonology. In S. J. Hannahs & A. Bosch (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiss, C., & Volenec, V. (2022). Conquer primal fear: Phonological features are innate and substance-free. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 67(4), 581–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R., Avcu, E., Han, C., & Hestvik, A. (2022). Auditory predictions are phonological when phonetic information is variable. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(9). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, N. (2010). Uttering trees. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Contiguity theory. The MIT Press.Google 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
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. 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, G. (2020). Refining representations for L2 phonology. Second Language Research, 36(4), 691–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. (2011). The syntax-phonology interface. In J. Goldsmith, J Riggle, A. C. L. Yu (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (2nd ed.). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanich, S., & Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2018). Phonological factors of Spanish/English word-internal code-switching. In L. López (Ed.), Code-switching – Experimental answers to theoretical questions. In honor of Kay González-Vilbazo (pp. 195–222). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanich, S., Cabrelli, J., Hilderman, D., & Archibald, J. (2019). The morphophonology of intraword codeswitching: Representation and processing. Frontiers in Communication: Language Sciences, 4, 54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K., & Keyser, J. (1989). Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language, 65, 81–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tetzloff, K. (2022). Examining variability in Spanish monolingual and bilingual phonotactics: A look at sC-clusters (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Tremblay, A., & Coughlin, C. (2017). Cue-weighting mechanism and bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 708–709. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, commentary (pp. 5–31). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Van Leussen, J.-W., & Escudero, P. (2015). Learning to perceive and recognize a second language: The L2LP model revised. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1000. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinberger, S. (1988). Theoretical foundations of second language phonology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington.
Westergaard, M. (2021). Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research, 37(3), 397–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K,. & Culicover, P. (1983). Formal principles of language acquisition. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. (2004). A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchener, & D. Steriade (Eds.), Phonetically based phonology (pp. 34–57). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, J. (2021). A contrastive hierarchy analysis of the Mandarin vowel system. Canadian Linguistics Association Conference.
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. (2017). The growth of language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81(B), 103–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (1993). The acquisition of prosodic structure in a second language. Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar