Cover not available
Part of
Multilingual Acquisition and Learning: An ecosystemic view to diversity
Edited by Elena Babatsouli
[Studies in Bilingualism 67] 2024
► pp. 426–449

Chapter 16
A revised Natural Growth Theory of Acquisition

Evidence from L3 phonology

| Adam Mickiewicz University
| Adam Mickiewicz University
Different theories have been put forward to model bilingual acquisition, yet only few assume a multilingual perspective. In this chapter, the authors aim to briefly overview relevant theoretical approaches to L2/L3 acquisition and offer a revised version of a new framework, which can account for the complexity of the acquisition process. In this theory, the authors want to modify and extend the explanatory potential offered by classic natural phonology with the epistemological support from complex systems and with inductive support from the data. The assumptions of the Natural Growth Theory of Acquisition are further developed based on principled explanations and inductive data-driven accounts. In this contribution, selected data from studies on third language phonology (L3 phonology) are reinterpreted for this purpose.
Keywords: Natural Growth Theory of Acquisition, L3 phonology, perception, VOT, metaphonological awareness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overview of models of L2/L3 acquisition
  • 3.Natural Growth Theory of Acquisition: A revised proposal
    • 3.1Epistemological background
    • 3.2NGTA: Principled explanations
    • 3.3Revised NGTA
  • 4.NGTA – inductive data-driven account from L3 phonology
    • 4.1Study design
    • 4.2Results
    • 4.3Discussion
      • 4.3.1Study 1
      • 4.3.2Study 2
      • 4.3.3Study 3
  • 5.Conclusions and future research
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.67.16dzi
References (53)
References
Angelowa, T., & Pompino-Marschall, B. (1985). Zur akustischen Struktur initialer Plosiv-Vokal-Silben im Deutschen und Bulgarischen. Forschungsberichte des Instituts für Phonetik und sprachliche Kommunikation der Universität München, 21, 83–96.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. (2022). Phonological parsing via an integrated I-language: The emergence of property-by-property transfer effects in L3 phonology. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 13(6), 743 – 766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2008). Multilingualism as a new linguistic dispensation. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2012). The L2 status factor and the declarative/procedural distinction. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn, & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 61–78). John Benjamins. 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. 171–204). York Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenick, D. (2010). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.2.15). Retrieved on 16 December 2023 from [URL]Google Scholar
Burkette, A., & Kretzschmar, Jr, W. A. (2018). Exploring linguistic science: Language use, complexity, and interaction. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., Yeni-Komshian, G., Zurif, E., & Carbone, E. (1973). The acquisition of a new phonological contrast: The case of stop consonants in French-English bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 421–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson’s pronunciation of English (8th ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donegan, P. J., & Stampe, D. (2009). Hypotheses of natural phonology. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(1), 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. (2009). The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1984). Explaining natural phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 1, 29–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). "Scenario" as a concept for the functional explanation of language change. In J. Gvozdanovic (Ed.), Language change and functional explanations (pp. 109–142). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., & Spina, R. (2001). Sources of markedness in language structures. Folia Linguistica Historica, 22(1–2), 103–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (2009). NP extension: B&B phonotactics. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(1), 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Modern natural phonology and phonetics. In E. Cyran, H. Kardela, & B. Szymanek (Eds.), Sound, structure and sense. Studies in memory of Edmund Gussmann (pp. 199–210). Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., & Wrembel, M. (2022). Natural Growth Theory of Acquisition (NGTA): Evidence from (mor)phonotactics. In Sardegna, V. andA. Jarosz (Eds): Theoretical and Practical Developments in English Speech Assessment, Research and Training, (pp. 281–298). Springer.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.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. 233–272). 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 (pp. pp. 3–83). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The Cumulative-Enhancement Model for Language Acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in L1, L2 and L3 acquisition of relative clauses. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech. a corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen Edwards, J. H., & Zampini, M. (Eds.). (2008). Phonology and second language acquisition. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic perspective. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jassem, W. (2003). Polish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33, 103–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Keating, P., Mikoś, M., & Ganong III, W. (1981). A cross-language study of range of VOT in the perception of stop consonant voicing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 1260–1271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohler, K. (1999). German. In C. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of the International Phonetic Association (pp. 87–89), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kopečková, R., Marecka, M., Wrembel, M., & Gut, U. (2016). Interactions between three phonological subsystems of young multilinguals: The influence of language status. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(4), 426–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar Jr., W. A. (2015). Language and complex systems. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar Jr., W. A., & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (2023). Complex natural systems for language. In E. H. Jahr (Ed.), Special issue of Roczniki Humanistyczne, 71(6sp), 65–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F. (2020). Bilingualism as a lens to the mind, the brain, and society. A plenary ppt presentation at Bilingualism Matters Research Symposium, 22 September 2020.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bogulski, C. A., & Valdes-Kroff, J. (2012). Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 229–262). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., & Iverson, P. (1995). Linguistic experience and the "perceptual magnet effect.". In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 121–154). York Press.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops. Word, 20, 384–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1997). Phonetic universals. In W. J. Hardcastle & J. Laver (Eds.), Handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 619–639). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Piske, T., MacKay, I. R. A., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2. A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 191–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. (1996). Some thoughts on ”normalization” in speech perception. In K. Johnson & J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Połczyńska, M., & Bookheimer, S. (2021). General principles governing the amount of neuroanatomical overlap between languages in bilinguals. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 130, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle 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
Rubin, E. (1915). Synsoplevede Figurer. Glydendalske Boghandel.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2017). The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 651–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2020). L1 attrition in a wider perspective. Second Language Research, 36(2), 203–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic representation. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google 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
Wrembel, M. (2012). Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition; the case of L3 English. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn, & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 281–309). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Metalinguistic awareness in third language phonological acquisition. In K. Roehr & G. A. Gánem-Gutiérrez (Eds.) The metalinguistic dimension in instructed second language learning (pp. 119–143). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2015). In search of a new perspective: Cross-linguistic influence in the acquisition of third language phonology. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Wrembel, M., & Cabrelli Amaro, J. (Eds.) (2018). Advances in the investigation of L3 phonological acquisition. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar