Cover not available
Part of
Multilingual Acquisition and Learning: An ecosystemic view to diversity
Edited by Elena Babatsouli
[Studies in Bilingualism 67] 2024
► pp. 348–379

Chapter 13
Phonological features and phonetic variation in multilingual grammars

Restructuring an L3 contrastive hierarchy

| University of Victoria

Drawing on Archibald (2022a, b), the chapter shows how a contrastive hierarchy model of segmental phonology can provide formal model of determining cross-linguistic similarity. Looking primarily at Arabic-French learners of English, the L1 and L2 features (including the markedness value of the feature) and the rankings influence L3 acquisition. Neurolinguistic and sociolinguistic evidence for the differential behaviour of marked versus unmarked values are discussed, and then it is shown how this variation can act as a cue for the learner to discover the L3 grammatical hierarchy. The author explores a theory of L3 restructuring based on principles of merger, redeployment, and triggering. Ultimately, it is argued that the learner compares the L1 and L2 contrastive hierarchy parses of the L3 input and chooses the one which is optimal for the L3 grammar.

Keywords: L3 acquisition, contrastive hierarchy, restructuring, phonology, variation, markedness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Phonological features
    • 2.1The phonetics/phonology interface
      • 2.1.1Rhotics
      • 2.1.2Laryngeals
    • 2.2The role of input
    • 2.3Input variation as a learning cue
    • 2.4Laryngeal features redux
    • 2.5Privative or binary?
    • 2.6A learning theory
  • 3.The contrastive hierarchy, cue re-weighting and the parsing of English
    • 3.1Features, cues and variation
    • 3.2Processing markedness
    • 3.3Reanalysis with contrastive hierarchy theory
    • 3.4Arabic-French learners of English
  • 4.Restructuring
    • 4.1Phonological learnability
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.67.13arc
References
Al-Tamimi, J.
(2017) Revisiting acoustic correlates of pharyngealization in Jordanian and Moroccan Arabic: Implications for formal representations. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archibald, J.
(2023) Differential substitution: a contrastive hierarchy account. Frontiers in Language Sciences 2:1242905. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023) Using a Contrastive Hierarchy to formalize structural similarity as I-proximity in L3 phonology. In N. Kolb, N. Mitrofanova, & M. Westergaard (Eds.), Structural similarity across domains in third language acquisition[URL]. Special issue of Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 13(5), 614–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022b) Segmental and prosodic evidence for property-by-property phonological transfer in L3 English in northern Africa. Languages, 7(1), 28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022c) Using Jaccard distance to measure the linguistic I-proximity of phonological inventories in a contrastive hierarchy. L3 Workshop. London. October.
(2021) Phonological redeployment and the mapping problem: Cross-linguistic E‑similarity is the beginning of the story, not the end. Second Language Research, 39(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, J., Jessen, M., & C. Ringen
(2013) Empirical evidence for laryngeal features: Aspirating vs. true voice languages. Journal of Linguistics, 49, 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benrabah, M.
(1991) Learning English segments with two languages. In P. Romeas (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 334–37). Université de Aix-en-Provence.Google Scholar
Berwick, R.
(1985) The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohn, O. S.
(1995) Cross-language speech perception in adults: First language transfer doesn’t tell it all. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 279–304). York Press.Google Scholar
Cowper, E. & Hall, D. C.
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
(2014) Reductio ad discriminem: Where features come from. Nordlyd, 41(2), 145–164. 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
Deterding, D., & Nolan, F.
(2007) Aspiration and voicing of Chinese and English plosives. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 385–388). Saarland University.
Docherty, G.
(1992) The timing of voicing in British English obstruents. Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E.
(2009) The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. (
2018) Contrastive hierarchy theory and the nature of features. In W. G. Bennett, L. Hracs, & D. R. Storoshenko (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 18–29). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Eulitz, C., & Lahiri, A.
(2004) Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 577–583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, A. L., Baldwin, K., & Nusbaum, H. C.
(2000) Effects of training on attention to acoustic cues. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 1668–1680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fu, Z., & Monahan, P.
(2021) Extracting phonetic features from natural classes: A mismatch negativity study of Mandarin Chinese retroflex consonants. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, H., & Roeder, R.
(2022) Phonological mergers have systemic phonetics consequences: PALM, trees, and the low back merger shift. Language Variation and Change, 34(1), 29–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. C.
(2016) Contrast and phonological activity in the vowel system of Laurentian French. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 37. Retrieved on 17 December 2023 from [URL]Google Scholar
Harmon, Z., Idemaru, K., & Kapatsinski, V.
(2019) Mechanisms in cue reweighting. Cognition 189, 76–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B.
(1984) The phonetic and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In M. Aronoff & R. T. Oehrle (Eds.), Language sound structure (pp. 318–328). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hestvik, A., Scharinger, M., Shafr, V., & Lahiri, A.
(2022) Phonological representations and mismatch negativity asymmetries. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hestvik, A., & Durvasula, K.
(2016) Neurobiological evidence for voicing underspecification in English. Brain and Language, 152, 28–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, L. L., & Lotto, A. J.
(2006) Cue weighting in auditory categorization: Implications for first and second language acquisition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 3059–3071. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
John, P., & Frasnelli, J.
(2023) On the lexical source of variable L2 phoneme production. The Mental Lexicon, 17(2), 239–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E., & Grüter, T.
(2021) Prediction in second language processing and learning. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, V.
(2012) Voicing and voice assimilation in Russian stops (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa. DOI logo
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A.
(1964) A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word, 20(3), 384–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandal, S., Best, C., Shaw, J., & Cutler, A.
(2020) Bilingual phonology in dichotic perception: A case study of Malayalam and English voicing. Glossa, 5(1), 1–17. 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
Natvig, D.
(2020) Rhotic underspecification: Deriving variability and arbitrariness through phonological representations. Glossa , 5(1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford, W.
(2015) Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence form Algonquian vowel systems. Language, 91, 308–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçelik, Ö.
(2016) The prosodic acquisition path hypothesis: towards explaining variability in L2 acquisition of phonology. Glossa, 1(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Purnell, T., Raimy, E., & Salmons, J.
(2019) Old English vowels: Diachrony, privativity, and phonological representations. Language, 95(4), 447–473. 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), 1099–1114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringen, C., & Kulikov, V.
(2012) Voicing in Russian stops: Cross-linguistic implications. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 20(2), 269–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schluter, K., Politzer-Ahles, S., Al Kaabi, M., & Almeida, D.
(2017) Laryngeal features are phonetically abstract: Mismatch negativity evidence from Arabic, English, and Russian. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 746. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strange, W., Weber, A., Levy, E., Shafiro, V., Hisagi, M., & Nishi, K.
(2007) Acoustic variability within and across German, French, and American English vowels: Phonetic contact effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(2), 1111–1129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., Broersma, M., & Coughlin, C.
(2018) The functional weight of a prosodic cue in the native language predicts the learning of speech segmentation in a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(3), 640–652. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. C.
(1984) The pronunciation of Canadian French. University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M.
(2021) Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research, 37(3), 397–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, R.
(2000) The phonology of German. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wu, J.
(2021) A contrastive hierarchy analysis of the Mandarin vowel system. In A. Hernández & C. Plyley (Eds.), Proceedings of the CLA Annual conference. [URL]
Yang, Y., Chen, X., & Xiao, Q.
(2022) Cross-similarity in L2 speech learning: Evidence from the acquisition of Russian stop contrasts by Mandarin speakers. Second Language Research, 38, 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar