Second-Language Speech: Structure and Process 9783110882933, 9783110141269

Citation preview

Second-Language Speech

W DE G

Studies on Language Acquisition 13

Editor

Peter Jordens

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Allan James and Jonathan Leather (Editors)

Second-Language Speech Structure and Process

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin - New York

1997

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

The series Studies on Language Acquisition was formerly published by Foris Publications, Holland.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Second-language speech : structure and process / Allan James and Jonathan Leather, editors. p. cm. — (Studies on language acquisition ; 13) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-014126-4 (cloth ; alk. paper) 1. Second language acquisition. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general — Phonology. I. James, Allan (Allan R.) II. Leather, Jonathan. III. Series. P118.2.S436 1996 418-dc20 96-43944 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Second language speech : structure and process / Allan James and Jonathan Leather (ed.). - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1997 (Studies on language acquisition ; 13) ISBN 3-11-014126-4 NE: James, Allan [Hrsg.]; GT

© Copyright 1996 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Disk conversion: Fotosatz-Service Köhler OHG. Printing: Gerike GmbH, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz &c Bauer, Berlin.

Contents

Jonathan Leather and Allan James Introduction

1

I Second-language speech: processes and strategies

9

James Emil Flege English vowel production by Dutch talkers: more evidence for the "similar" vs "new" distinction

11

Ocke Schwen Bohn and James Emil Flege Perception and production of a new vowel category by adult second language learners

53

Jonathan Leather Interrelation of perceptual and productive learning in the initial acquisition of second-language tone

75

Reiko Yamada, Yoh'ichi Tohkura and Noriko Kobayashi Effect of word familiarity on non-native phoneme perception: identification of English /r/, /!/ and /w/ by native speakers of Japanese

103

Robert McAllister Perceptual foreign accent: L2 users'comprehension ability

119

Una Cunningham-Andersson Native speaker reactions to non-native speech

133

VI

Contents

II Second-language speech: conditions and constraints

145

Roy C. Major L2 acquisition, LI loss, and the critical period hypothesis

147

Bj rn Hammarberg Conditions on transfer in phonology

161

Geoffrey S. Nathan On the non-acquisition of an English sound pattern

181

Martha Young-Scholten Interlanguage and postlexical transfer

187

Wolfgang Grosser On the acquisition of tonal and accentual features of English by Austrian learners

211

Wilfried Wieden Austrian learners' development of phonological representations for English

229

ΠΙ Second-language speech: structure and system

241

Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kotaczyk Phonological processes vs morphonological rules in LI and L2 acquisition

243

Rajendra Singh The device "phonological rule" and the acquisition of (inter)phonology

255

Steven H. Weinberger Minimal segments in second language phonology

263

Allan James A parameter-setting model for second-language phonological acquisition?

313

Contents

VII

Christiane Laeufer Towards a typology of bilingual phonological systems

325

List of contributors

343

Index .

345

Introduction Jonathan Leather - Allan James

Over the past decade, as political, social and demographic trends have brought the socio- and psycholinguistic dimensions of multiculturalism to the attention of a wider research community, the acquisition of secondlanguage (L2) speech has been a focus of growing interest - reflected in research anthologies (loup-Weinberger 1987; James-Leather 1987), monographs (e.g. Flege 1988; James 1988; Hammarberg 1988; Grosser 1989), and a first international symposium (see Leather-James 1990). This interest can in part be attributed to a greater concern in the language sciences with the total human capacity for language learning. Within a Universal Grammar perspective (e.g. Flynn-O'Neill 1988; White 1989) this is reflected in explorations of the continuity and consistency of acquisition between L2 and the native language (LI). Moreover, as Weinberger (1990) points out, where LI evidence is incomplete or absent, the data from L2 can provide a window on the LI grammar. Secondly, there has been greater attention in the speech sciences as a whole to cross-language perception and production as sources of data for the investigation of basic speech capacities (e.g. Williams 1979; Ladefoged 1983; Werker-Logan 1985). Thirdly, the acquisition of L2 has been found to provide a test-bed for phonological theories, which are no longer held to be proved on the evidence from LI alone (James 1989; Singh 1991). Finally, firmer theoretical foundations are now routinely sought for the decisions and designs of second-language pedagogy. The conceptual distinction between L2 learning and L2 teaching has only been generally acknowledged over the last twenty years or so (Leather 1983), and it is now recognized that the design of a programme for L2 speech training presupposes some model of L2 speech learning. Recent proposals like Major's Ontogeny Model (Major 1986) and Flege's Speech Learning Model (Flege 1990) provide frameworks upon which designs for training can be elaborated. Only two decades ago, most studies of the perception, production and acquisition of L2 sound systems were grounded in segmental phonology, with auditorily collected data interpreted in terms of "transfer" from LI, and learning progress accounted for in terms of the "conditioned response"

2

/. Leather - A. James

sequences of behaviourist psychology. The development, since then, of the study of second-language speech has been the result of: (i) the influence of the studies of Briere (1968) and Nemser (1971) pointing up the shortcomings of linear phonemics and behaviourist learning models; (ii) an extensive undermining by generative theory of the surface phonology in terms of which the study of L2 speech acquisition was previously pursued, with radically new analyses founded in representations and rules (e.g. James 1988); (iii) hierarchical modelling of speech processes to establish more direct links between language structure and motor programming (e.g. Kent 1976); (iii) developments in cognitive psychology emphasizing in speech the active, information-processing role of the talker and listener (e.g. Oden-Massaro 1978; Pisoni 1978); (iv) the provision by natural phonology of an integral framework for determining phonological processes in the acquisition of both LI and L2 (e.g. Major 1987); (v) the increased autonomy of L2 acquisition studies following widespread subscription to the theory of interlanguage, and the development of an "applied linguistics" with a theoretical agenda of its own (e.g. Spolsky 1990); (vi) electro-technological advances making practicable the analysis of much larger volumes of speech data, with extensive use of the techniques and methods of acoustic phonetics and experimental psychology for the investigation of speech ability in L2 as well as LI (e.g. Nearey-Hogan 1986). The study of second-language speech in the 1990s is a clearly interdisciplinary enterprise, with research reported in a wide range of scientific journals. Not only is more use now made of quantitative acoustic data, but of phonological theory as well. While SLA theory provides a constant impetus to research on acquisition modelling, the study of second-language speech is no longer principally motivated by, or geared to, the demands of the foreignlanguage classroom. The goal is to develop theoretical models which provide, as in any discipline, for the formulation of testable predictions. The papers in this collection are chosen to represent the main theoretical and methodological concerns of contemporary second-language speech research. Many of the chapters are revised versions of papers from the NEW SOUNDS 90 Symposium (Leather-James 1990). In its totality, the work presented here reflects a number of understandings which had broadly speaking no place in the models of earlier times:

Introduction

3

(i) the acquisition of second-language speech is sensitive to the circumstances under which L2 speaking and listening take place. The social environment of the learner, including interpersonal variables, must therefore be taken into account (Cunningham-Andersson, this volume); (ii) the acquisition of L2 speech is not fruitfully to be studied in isolation from a learner's total speech capability, and may have consequences for his or her LI (Mack 1989; Major, this volume); (iii) speech perception and production are not in any consistently simple mirror-image relationship in L2 acquisition any more than is the case, apparently, in an established LI (see e.g. Sheldon 1985; Bohn-Flege, this volume; Gordon-Meyer 1984); and the targets of L2 speech learning are often complex perceptual and productive correlates of phonological forms (Linell 1982); (iv) transfer from LI cannot provide a simple explanation of L2 speech structure (Grosser, this volume; Wieden, this volume; Wieden-Nemser 1991); (v) insights into L2 speech acquisition may be derived from the testing of theory - whether phonetic, phonological or psycholinguistic - on L2 speech data, and not only from the ad hoc analysis of sound events (e.g. Archibald 1990). The contributions to this volume elaborate crucial points in an overall account of second-language speech acquisition which we have outlined elsewhere (Leather-James 1991). The papers in Part I examine the processes and strategies which the L2 learner brings to bear upon L2 speech data, and his or her evaluation by native listeners. Flege in the first chapter raises the theoretically fundamental question of which sounds can be considered "new" for the L2 learner, and which similar to those of his or her LI. Flege argues from the evidence of "late" L2 learners' capacity to master "new" vowels that there is continuity between the acquisition of LI speech in infancy and the learning of L2 speech later in life. Bohn and Flege investigate the ability of adult L2 learners to perceive and produce a new vowel category, with results which suggest, again, that there is no "critical period" ending in adolescence after which the sounds of a second language can no longer be mastered. The data examined by Bohn and Flege indicate that perception and production abilities do not develop simply in parallel. In the studies reported by Leather, interrelation of learners' evolving perceptual and productive abilities appears to be flexible and geared to the exploitation of information available through either modality for the construction of new phonetic prototypes.

4

/. Leather - A. James

The paper by Yamada, Tohkura and Kobayashi is devoted to the interaction between listeners' ability to identify the sounds of L2 and their L2 vocabulary attainment, with evidence that when the learner has difficulty identifying phonemes from sensory input alone, higher-level linguistic knowledge contributes to his or her judgement. This interplay of "bottom-up" and "top-down" processing in L2 perception, and the learner's limited access to signal-independent or "top-down" information, is central also to McAllister's investigation of "perceptual foreign accent". The final paper in Part I, by Cunningham-Andersson, is concerned with the native's strategies for evaluating non-native speech, and in particular the possibility that the degree of foreign accent and supposed ethnic origin of the non-native may be more critical than the particular type of non-native pronunciation he or she expounds. Part II is devoted to the conditions and constraints upon acquisition. Major examines limitations on the structuring of a speaker's total phonological space and the influence of the acquisition of L2 speech on the sound system of LI, raising again the question of whether adults can maintain more than one phonological system to a native-like degree of proficiency. Hammarberg discusses the factors which condition the transfer of sound structure from LI, and which, as he shows, may interact in complex ways. In the chapter by Nathan, transfer is considered specifically in relation to stop typologies and markedness, while the focus in Young-Scholten's chapter is the conditioning of phonological rule transfer by syntactic factors. The empirical bases of the last two chapters in Part II are observational studies of L2 speech development in essentially the same learner community. Grosser investigates the acquisition of tone and sentence accent in L2 intonation, with attention to possible markedness constraints on tone types at early and subsequent stages of learning, and a comparison of conditioning by LI in the initial stages and after two years of learning. Wieden summarizes the findings of a large-scale study of L2 segmental development, examining the conditions under which forms transferred from LI are replaced by more target-like variants, and the extent to which stable representations for L2 sounds will suffice to ensure consistency in their production. The papers in Part III are concerned with the means by which structure and system in the learner's L2 speech development may best be modelled. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk examines the implications in the L2 context of Natural Phonology's distinction between, on the one hand, language-specific rules, and on the other hand phonetically motivated processes derived from universal process types. Singh's paper challenges the capacity of any phonological rules (in the established sense) to account for certain of the data provided

Introduction

5

by L2 learners. Weinberger shows the correctness of Underspecification Theory in explaining certain of the learner's "non-obvious" transfers from LI, while James evaluates the capacity of the theory of parameter-setting for modelling L2 phonological development. Laeufer's chapter, finally, examines how the typology proposed by Weinreich (1953) may be adapted to account for a range of data on the structures of bilingual stop consonant systems.

References Archibald J. 1990 "The acquisition of English metrical parameters by Polish speakers: quantity-sensitivity and adult access to UG", Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development. Briere E. 1968 A Psycholinguistic Study of Phonological Interference. The Hague: Mouton. FlegeJ.E. 1990 "The intelligibility of English vowels spoken by British and Dutch talkers", in: R. Kent (ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders: Theory, measurement and management. Philadelphia: Benjamins. FlegeJ.E. 1988 "The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds", in: H. Winitz (ed.), Human Communication and its Disorders. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 224-401. Flynn S. - W. O'Neil (eds.) 1988 Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Gordon P.C. - D.E. Meyer 1984 "Perceptual-motor processing of phonetic features in speech", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10: 153-178. Grosser W. 1989 Akzentuiering und Intonation im englischen Erwerb österreichischer Lerner. Salzburger Studien zur Anglistik und Amerikanistiek 9. Universität Salzburg. Hammarberg B. 1988 Studien zur Phonologie des Zweitspracherwerbs. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. loup G. - S. Weinberger (eds.) 1987 Interlanguage Phonology: The Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. James A. R. 1989 "Linguistic theory and second language phonological learning: a perspective and some proposals", Applied Linguistics 10:367-381.

6

/. Leather - A. James

James A. R. 1988 The acquisition of a second language phonology. Tübingen: Narr. James A. R. - J.H. Leather (eds.) 1987 Sound Patterns in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Foris. KentR.D. 1976 "Models of speech production", in: N.J. Lass (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Experimental Phonetics. New York: Academic Press, 79-104. Ladefoged P. 1983 "Cross-linguistic studies of speech production", in: P. Macneilage (ed.), The Production of Speech. New York: Springer. Leather J. H. 1983 "Second language pronunciation learning and teaching", Language Teaching 16:198-219. Leather J.H.-A.R.James (eds.) 1990 New Sounds 90: Proceedings of the 1990 Amsterdam Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech. University of Amsterdam Press. Leather J. H. - A. R. James 1991 "The acquisition of second language speech", Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13:305 - 41. Linell P. 1982 "The concept of phonological form and the activities of speech production and perception",Journal of Phonetics 10:3-72. Mack M. 1989 "Consonant and vowel perception and production: early EnglishFrench bilinguals and English monolinguals", Perception and Psychophysics 46:187-200. Major R. 1986 "The Ontogeny Model: Evidence from from L2 acquisition of Spanish r", Language Learning 36:453-504. Major R. 1987 "The natural phonology of second language acquisition", in: A. R. James -J.H. Leather (eds.), 207-224. Nearey T. M. - J.T. Hogan 1986 "Phonological contrast in experimental phonetics: relating distributions of production data to perceptual categorization curves", in: J. J. Ohala - J. Jaeger (eds.), Experimental Phonology. New York: Academic Press, 141-161. Nemser W. 1971 An Experimental Study of Phonological Interference in the English of Hungarians. The Hague: Mouton. Oden G.G. - D.W. Massaro 1978 "Integration of featural information in speech perception", Psychological Review 85 =172-191. PisoniD.B. 1978 "Speech perception", in: W. K. Estes (ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes, vol. 6. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 167-233.

Introduction Sheldon A. 1985

Singh R. 1991

7

"The relationship between production and perception the /r/-/l/ contrast in Korean adults learning English: a reply to Borden, Gerber and Milsark", Language Learning 35:107-113. "Interference and contemporary phonological theory", Language Learning 41:157-175.

Spolsky B. 1989 Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: OUP. Weinberger S. 1990 "Minimal segments,in L2 phonology", in: J.H. Leather - A.R. James (eds.), 137-179. Weinreich M. 1953 Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton. Werker J. - J. Logan 1985 "Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception", Perception and Psychophysics 37:35-44. White L. 1989 Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wieden W. - W. Nemser 1991 The pronunciation of English in Austria. Tübingen: Narr.

I Second-language speech: processes and strategies

English vowel productions by Dutch talkers: more evidence for the "similar" vs "new" distinction James Emil Flege

1 Introduction Most adults who learn a foreign language speak it with a discernible foreign accent (see e.g. Tahta-Wood-Loewenthal 1981; Flege 1988a). An issue that has motivated a great deal of second language (L2) research is whether foreign accent in adults is due to their having passed a sensitive period for speech learning. (See Snow 1988; Flege 1987b; and Johnson-Newport 1989, for recent discussions of this complex issue.) Speech learning requires the ability to establish central perceptual representations for a range of physically different phones ("sounds") which signal differences in meaning, and the development of motoric routines for outputting sounds in speech production. If a sensitive period for human speech learning exists then, by hypothesis, adults may be less able than young children to learn to pronounce and perceive an L2 (or do so at such a slow rate that it appears that their speech learning ability has diminished). The observation which has motivated much of my research is the following paradox: why should most sensorimotor skills increase through adolescence but those underlying speech learning decrease? (See e.g. PolitzerWeiss 1969; Olson-Samuels 1973; Smith 1977; Snow-Hoefnagel-Höhle 1982a; Ekstrand 1982.) An increasingly prevalent view in psycholinguistics is that speech and language processes are effected by distinct "modules". Even if one assumes that, say, one's ability to identify the notes in a tune and then to reproduce them by whistling is separate and distinct from the ability to reproduce L2 sounds, it is difficult to understand why a speech-language module should be especially vulnerable to the ravages of time. I think it more likely that the basic processes and mechanisms that guide successful speech learning during LI acquisition remain intact well into adulthood, but that foreign accent persists in the speech of many adults who learn an L2 because of factors that are independent of changes in basic speech learning abilities. Take, for example, the production of English stops by native speakers of French. Flege and Hillenbrand (1984) found that adult native French speakers of English produced English /t/ with voice onset time (VOT) values

12

James Emil Flege

that were shorter (and therefore French-like) than those produced by English monolinguals. Conversely, native English speakers produced French stops with VOT values that were longer (and therefore English-like) than French monolinguals'. There is indirect evidence to suggest that these subjects were able auditorily to detect the acoustic phonetic difference between French and English /t/s (Flege 1984; Flege-Hammond 1982). Direct support for this assertion is the finding that the L2 learners produced stops with appropriately different VOT values in their two languages. A sensitive period hypothesis might be used to account for the "compromise" VOT values seen in the speech of the native French and English L2 learners. There are, however, two problems with a sensitive period explanation. It provides no explanation for why the L2 learners examined by Flege and Hillenbrand (1984) only partially approximated the L2 English phonetic norm. Why should it be any easier to modify laryngeal timing to give the approximately 20-ms changes in VOT that were observed, than to learn a modification that would give the approximately 40-ms increase needed to achieve the phonetic norm of the L2? Moreover, a sensitive period hypothesis offers no insight into what specific speech learning mechanisms or processes are changed or attenuated as humans mature physiologically and develop cognitively. The speech production data now available make it appear likely that previous LI learning affects subsequent L2 learning through the intermediary of central cognitive-linguistic and phonetic structures more abstract than the sensorimotor level implied by a sensitive period hypothesis. A secondlanguage "Speech Learning Model" (henceforth SLM) incorporating this point of view has been developed (Flege 1980; 1981; 1987a; 1987b; 1988b; 1992). A complete description of the SLM falls outside the scope of this chapter, but it is important to note that most empirical support for the SLM to date [viz., 1990-JEF] has come from the study of consonant production. The purpose of the present chapter is therefore to present the results of a vowel production study that provided an additional test of the model. A hypothesis generated by the SLM is that the phonetic categories needed to produce and perceive L2 sounds can be added readily until the age of 5-6 years, when the phonetic system begins to stabilize. After that age, additional categories can be established for "new" but not for "similar" L2 sounds. Although both new and similar L2 sounds differ acoustically from sounds in the L2, there is thought to be a qualitative as well as a quantitative difference in the degree of phonetic dissimilarity between these two types of L2 sounds and sounds found in the LI. The distinction between new and similar sounds will be described further below. For now, suffice it to say that a new L2

English vowel production by Dutch talkers

13

sound is one that differs sufficiently from any sound in LI that it evades the effects of equivalence classification (a basic cognitive mechanism thought to shape both LI and L2 speech learning) whereas similar L2 sounds do not. The present study examined production of the English vowels /i/, /x/, Id, /u/, /I/, and l\l by 50 Dutch university students. A previous study (FlegeEefting 1987) showed that all 50 students had a detectable foreign accent even though many were majoring in English at a Dutch university and presumably had frequent access to native speakers of English. The Dutch students' success in learning English vowels was assessed primarily by determining how often each vowel was identified by native English-speaking listeners. The SLM leads to the prediction that the Dutch subjects would be more successful in learning new than similar English words.

1.1 Perceptual Limitations The prediction of differential success for new and similar vowels derives from limitations that are largely perceptual in nature. l It is generally assumed that L2 learners will identify certain sounds in the L2 with sounds from the LI even when detectable acoustic differences exist (see e.g. Weinreich 1953; Briere 1966; Wode 1977; 1978; also Best et al. 1988). Trubetzkoy (1932/1969) hypothesized that the phonology of LI causes L2 learners to filter out acoustic differences that are not phonemically relevant in LI (see also Borden- Gerber-Millsark 1983). Logan et al. (1989) observed that learning a nonnative contrast may be difficult because children's perceptual sensitivity to speech changes as the result of experience so that only those phonetic contrasts that "denote differences in meaning" will remain distinctive. An important issue is whether interlingual identification persists even after the L2 learner has gained thorough familiarity with the sound structure of the L2. If so, physically different L2 sounds are said to have been "equated". Equivalence classification is a basic cognitive mechanism which enables talkers, for example, to use the word chair correctly in identifying the many physical exemplars of this furniture type. Equivalence classification is also very important for speech learning because it permits listeners to make perceptual groupings of a wide variety of disparate phones with a common communicative function. The effects of equivalence classification are evident in prelinguistic infants (see e.g. Kühl 1979; Hillenbrand 1983, 1984) and permit children and adults to perceive constant phonetic categories in the face of variability found in the many physical exemplars which may instantiate a

14

James Emil Flege

category. A tenet of the SLM is that certain L2 sounds (viz., the new sounds) will eventually evade equivalence classification. Another is that the propensity for equivalence classification increases after about the age of 5-6 years. Children learning an LI are faced with the question of how best to classify sounds found in the ambient language. A large cognitive learning task awaits the child acquiring LI phonology, even after phonetic categories have been established and methods found for implementing them. Children must discern what are the phonemic categories of their LI (Ferguson 1986). Jusczyk (1989) notes that even after children have arrived at a "correct description" of the phonetic categories found in their LI, they still face an additional "mapping problem" that involves relating phonetic categories to the phonological categories of the LI, For native English children this involves, among other things, learning that [th] and [t] are context-sensitive allophones of the /t/ phoneme. The SLM predicts that older L2 learners will be less successful in learning similar L2 sounds than younger L2 learners because they equate similar L2 sounds with sounds in the LI. Although it is uncertain why young children should treat similar L2 sounds differently than older L2 learners, one potential basis for the hypothesized difference is that adults and older children may make greater use of higher-order syntactic and semantic information than young children. Auditory-acoustic processing of the speech signal might be terminated prematurely in adults and older children as the result of more rapid word recognition which is brought about by greater (or earlier) use of higherorder linguistic information in parallel with bottom-up phonetic information. Another possibility is that a difference between young and older L2 learners occurs because of the state of development of phonetic categories at the time L2 learning commences. As children encounter an increasingly wide range of phonetic category realizations, they may become better able to identify sounds in non-ideal listening conditions because the tolerance limits of the category expand. Although such a development should be regarded as highly adaptive as far as processing of the LI is concerned, it may make it harder to note purely phonetic differences between similar LI and L2 sounds. For example, a native Spanish 5-year-old may be better able than a native Spanish adult to note the acoustic difference between the [t] and [th] phones used to realize /t/ in Spanish and English. At the same time, the "prototype'Of each category may become better defined. This may make it easier for children, as they grow older, to detect distortions and to gauge degree of foreign accent (see Flege 1988a). Jusczyk (1985) suggests that variants in complementary distribution, such as word-initial [th] and word-final [t], will not be associated in a single

English vowel production by Dutch talkers

15

phonemic unit until children learn to read. This is consistent with the classic view of perceptual development which suggests that children become increasingly less reliant on sensory information as they develop cognitively and learn to ignore attributes of sensory stimuli that are irrelevant to classification (Gibson 1969). Learning to focus attention on just those aspects of sounds needed for phonemic contrasts also seems to characterize the perception of L2 sounds by adults. Lambert (1977) suggested that some L2 learners ("code users") are likely to perceive an L2 sound which differs auditorily from sounds in the LI in terms of LI categories, whereas others ("code formers") tend to develop new central representations. These terms were used to differentiate adult learners, and might be useful for accounting for why some adults profit more than others from auditory perceptual training on a novel phonetic contrast (see e.g. Flege 1989a; Flege-Wang, 1990). These terms might also serve to distinguish - in a general sense - adult from child learners. That is, adults may be generally more likely to equate L2 sounds with sounds from the LI even though their discriminatory abilities are no less keen than young children's. An increasing tendency to equate physically disparate sounds may facilitate speech perception. Jusczyk (1989) suggested that children may perform deeper and more abstract analyses of the acoustic signal as their lexicons expand to include an ever larger number of phonetically similar words. That is, the presence of phonetic near-neighbors may encourage young children to recognize the existence of new phonetic groupings of sounds that serve to differentiate meaning. With this comes the implication that the tendency to segment words into sounds may increase. Burnham (1986) found that children with good comprehension abilities for their age were more likely to identify sounds in accordance with the phonemic categories of their LI, and to ignore phonetic contrasts that were not phonemically relevant in LI, than were children with relatively poor comprehension abilities. A developmental increase in the tendency to equate similar L2 sounds with sounds in the LI might be encouraged by greater phonemic awareness, which seems to increase at about the time children learn to read (Liberman et al. 1974; Bradley-Bryant, 1983). Learning to read may further encourage a segmental level of analysis (Morais et al. 1979; Mann 1986; Kirtley et al. 1989; Bradley-Bryant 1983) which in turn may be related to a propensity for equivalence classification (Mann 1984; Brady-Shankweiler-Mann 1983). Mann (1984) concluded that good and poor readers differ in terms of how effectively they use phonetic representations to process speech.

16

James Emil Flege

It is important to note that the SLM differs from previous approaches in not regarding equivalence classification as a kind of auditory or phonological "filter" of subphonemic acoustic differences between LI and L2 sounds. By hypothesis, all audible acoustic differences between similar LI and L2 sounds may influence the phonetic system, even those that are not available perceptually. So, to return to the example cited above, native French adults who are highly experienced in English may produce English /t/ with compromise VOT values because they are unable to establish a long-lag stop category for English /t/ as the result of equivalence classification, not because they are unable to detect auditorily the acoustic differences between French and English stops. The SLM leads one to expect that their phonetic category prototype for /t / has changed because of the many English [th] they have identified as /t /.

1.2 The new vs similar distinction A useful method for characterizing the relationship between sounds in LI and L2 is to classify the L2 sounds as "new", "similar" or "identical". Such a three-way classification is implicit or explicit in much L2 research (see e.g. Briere 1966). For example, Delattre (1964,1969) noted that some sounds in an L2 differ "radically" from any sound in the LI and should be regarded as "new" from the standpoint of the L2 learner. Wode (1978, p. 114) noted that a major difference between child and adult learners of an L2 is "the state of development" of their phonological systems. In his view, both children and adults match phonic elements of the L2 to their LI "grid". As the L2 is processed, the acoustic input is "scanned" and phones falling within some "crucial similarity range" are judged to be equivalent to an element of LI, and therefore substituted by it. Other phones falling outside a crucial (but undefined) range are judged to be non-equivalent, and will undergo "other developments" than simple substitution, according to Wode. The SLM posits that the basis for a sensitive period is the increasing frequency of equivalence classification by older children and adults compared to young children. One might characterize LI learning by young children as a "bottom-up" process of learning, whereas L2 learning by older children and adults might better be characterized as a "top-down" process (Mack 1989). For young children acquiring an LI, all sounds are new. The number of phonetic categories they will establish depends on the number of sounds encountered in the LI. Older children and adults who are learning an L2, on the other hand, have already established a phonetic system suit-

English vowel production by Dutch talkers

17

able for distinguishing a large (and ever-growing) number of lexical items. The number of additional categories they establish will be limited by their previous phonetic learning via the mechanism of equivalence classification. No universally-accepted method now exists for differentially classifying L2 sounds as new or similar. In attempting to operationalize this distinction, the most important question to consider is: when does an acoustic difference between LI and L2 constitute a phonetically relevant difference? To determine this, the SLM now [i.e., when this chapter was written in 1990-JEF] employs three criteria for classification. A preliminary step is to consider the IPA symbols used to represent sounds of the LI and L2. This is followed by acoustic measurements and listeners' perceptual judgements of sounds in LI and L2. The SLM posits that interlingual identification occurs at a phonetic rather than phonemic level, so the procedures operate on sounds (that is, phonetically-relevant phone classes). An identical L2 sound is represented by the same IPA symbol used to represent a sound in the LI. When acoustic analyses are performed for representative native speakers, there is not a significant acoustic difference between the L2 sound and its counterpart in LI; and listeners cannot detect a difference between the LI and L2 sounds when a detailed perceptual analysis is performed. An identical L2 sound is usually produced authentically as the result of a process referred to as "positive transfer" (Weinreich 1953). Identical sounds have therefore received little attention, because most L2 speech errors involve similar and new sounds (James 1984).2 To be classified as either similar or new, some acoustic difference(s) between pairs of LI and L2 sounds must exist, and there must be evidence that the sounds are auditorily discriminable. A "phonetic symbol" criterion is used because, at present, no accepted metric exists for measuring the phonetic distance between sounds in two languages. An L2 sound that is similar to a sound in LI is represented by the same IPA symbol as the LI sound, even though statistical analyses reveal significant - and audible differences between the two.3 An L2 sound that is new differs acoustically and perceptually from the sound(s) in LI that most closely resemble(s) it. But, unlike a similar sound, it is represented by an IPA symbol that is not used for any LI sound. An example of a new sound from the standpoint of English is French /y/. This vowel sound differs acoustically and perceptually from the nearest possible vowels of English (/i/, /I/, /u/), and is represented by a symbol not used traditionally in describing the vowels of English. The phonetic symbol criterion is not, of course, without problems. Many phonetic transcription systems are now in use, and even seasoned researchers

18

James Emil Flege

who are using nominally the same system don't always agree. For example, the distinction between the vowels in the English word like beat and bit is sometimes represented as a distinction between I'll and /I/, and sometimes as one between /i:/ and /i/. The latter symbolization, which emphasizes the duration difference that accompanies the spectral distinction between this tense-lax vowel pair, seems to be favored by analysts whose LI makes important use of duration for phonemic distinctions.4 It thus appears necessary to supplement the phonetic symbol test with additional acoustic criteria. Bohn and Flege (1992) suggested that an L2 vowel should be considered new only if most of its realizations occupy a portion of the acoustic phonetic vowel space that is unoccupied by the realizations of any LI vowel. This implies that few of the vowels in an L2 will be new for learners whose LI has a large vowel inventory. Perceptual tests should also be used to differentiate new and similar vowels. Other behavioral measures of speech processing might also furnish a useful metric, as illustrated by Flege (1992).

2 Dutch vs English vowels The present study examined Dutch subjects' production of six English vowels which, from the standpoint of Dutch, included vowels that might be classified as "identical", "similar", or "new". Four of the vowels defined the corners of the vowel quadrilateral (/i, as, a, u/), one was a high front lax vowel (/I/), and the remaining vowel was a short, central vowel (/Λ/). Dutch is usually analyzed as having three diphthongs (/au/, /Ay/, /ei/) and 12 monophthongs, which Moulton (1962) divided into two classes based primarily on phonological considerations: short (/ο/, /α/, /ae/, /I/, Id) or long (/i/, /u/, /y/, /o/, /a/, /0/, Id). Duration measurements have shown, however, that except before /r/, three of the supposedly long vowels (/i/, /y/, /u/) are short (Nooteboom 1972; Nooteboom - Slis 1972). In addition Dutch has three long vowels that occur in foreign loan words (/o:/, /oe:/, /ε:/) and a schwa (/a/) in unstressed syllables. Figure 1 shows the acoustic relationship between the six English vowels examined in the present study and the 12 Dutch monophthongs that occur in stressed syllables. The ellipses for English /i/, /I/, /ae/, /Λ/, /α/, and /u/ represent 95 % confidence intervals drawn around the F!-F2 values for Dutch vowels. They are based on values reported for 50 adults male native speakers of Dutch by Pols et al. (1973).

English vowel production by Dutch talkers F2 frequency In Mels 1500 1000

2000

500

English III

19

200 300

400

English l\l

500

=f

Φ

600 | 700

5" £ w"

English Ixl English lot

800 900

Figure 1. Acoustic relationship between American English /i/, /I/, /u/, /a/, /a;/, /Λ / and Dutch vowels. The ellipses for the English vowels surround approximately 95 % of the F! and F2 values reported by Peterson-Barney (1952) for 33 male English speakers. The ellipses were drawn through four points located two standard deviations from the intersection of axes defining the two principal components of variation. The phonetic symbols represent the mean F] - F2 values reported by Pols, Tromp and Plomp (1973) for 12 monophthongal Dutch vowels spoken by 50 native Dutch men.

Figure 2 shows the relationship between the Pols et al. (1973) Dutch vowel data and the mean values reported by Holtse (1972) for English vowels as spoken by six male native speakers of British English (henceforth BE). The BE males were speakers of general Received Pronunciation.

2.1 An identical vowel English IM was classified here as identical. As seen in Figures 1 and 2, the mean values for Dutch III are very similar to those reported for the III of AE and BE. An ANOVA carried out by Disner (1983) showed that the Fj-F 3 values for Dutch 111 (Pols-Tromp-Plomp 1973) and AE III (PetersonBarney 1952) did not differ significantly. It appears that the /I/s of Dutch and

20

James Emil Flege F2 frequency in Mels 1500 1000

2000

500

E-i •

200 300

E-U

D-U

•

400 •n

E-,. V •

^ D-oe

E-U

500 ^ E-O

D-0

Λ

D-O

•

D-ε •

600 § o

E-O

3

700 D-Q

βοο 900

I Figure 2. Mean values for Dutch vowels (marked "D") reported for Dutch men by Pols-van der Kamp-Plomp (1969) and for English vowels (marked "E") reported for six British male speakers of RP by Holtse (1972).

BE do not differ auditorily. Collins-Mees (1984, p. 86) stated that Dutch III can "pass straight into (British) English without being modified" and should thus pose "no problem" for pronunciation.5

2.2 A new vowel English /a;/ was classified here as new because Dutch has no vowel phoneme realized phonetically as Ix/. As seen in Figure 1, the mean values for Dutch Id tokens fall within the upper portion of the space occupied by English /a;/. Figure 2 shows that BE Ixl is more distant from a Dutch vowel than any other BE vowel. Collins and Mees (1984) observed that both beginning and advanced Dutch learners substitute Dutch /ε/ for English Ixl (see also van Heuven 1986), but they did not quantify this observation. Perceptual data reported by Schouten (1975) are consistent with the belief that Dutch learners of English will eventually recognize that English /a;/ is a

English vowel production by Dutch talkers

21

new, non-Dutch vowel. Results were obtained from both advanced (3rd and 4th year) and beginning (1st year) Dutch students majoring in English at the University of Utrecht. The advanced students identified /x/ correctly more often than the beginning ones (93% vs 57% correct). Not surprisingly, the only consistent error was /ε/ (12 % of responses).

2.3 Similar vowels English /i/ was classified as similar because Dutch /i/ is lower in the acoustic space than either the /i/ of AE or BE. Disner (1983) found that the Fj-Fj values of Dutch /i/ and AE /i/ differed significantly. Consistent with this, Collins and Mees (1984) stated that Dutch learners typically substitute Dutch I'll for English I'll even though the Dutch vowel is "less fronted" than its English counterpart. English /u/ was classified as a similar vowel, but may pose more of a learning problem for Dutch L2 learners than English /i/. Dutch /u/ differs acoustically from English /u/ (Disner 1983) and has been described as intermediate to the /u/ and /U/ of English (van Heuven 1986). Dutch learners may at first substitute Dutch /u/ for English /u/. More advanced Dutch learners are said to substitute the vowel "sequence" /yu/ for English /u/ (Collins-Mees 1984), perhaps because /u/ is fronted so much in BE that some actually regard it as a front vowel (Bauer 1985). In a study by Scheuten (1975), Dutch students identified synthetic English /u/ tokens in only 60 % of instances; most misidentifications of /u/ were as /U/. English /Λ/ would be classified as a new vowel if the only criterion applied was a consideration of phonetic symbols, for Dutch has no vowel phoneme represented as l\l. However several considerations led to the classification of /Λ/ as similar. First, acoustic data suggest that English l\l occupies a portion of the acoustic phonetic vowel space that goes unused in Dutch. As seen in Figure 1, the mean values for Dutch Id fall within the area occupied by AE /Λ/; and the same appears to be true for BE vowels. As seen in Figure 2, the BE /Λ/ is spectrally close to the short Dutch vowel /a/, and even slightly closer to the long Dutch /a/.6 There is anecdotal evidence that as Dutch speakers become more experienced in their L2, they continue to identify English l\l with a vowel(s) of Dutch. Van Heuven (1986) indicated that Dutch L2 learners identify English /Λ/ with the Dutch /oe/; and Collins and Mees (1984) indicated that even though the mid-high front rounded Dutch vowel /ce/ and ΒΕ/Λ/ are "very different" from /Λ/, inexperienced Dutch learners of English substitute the Dutch

22

James Emil Flege

/ 0.10). Post-hoc tests (Newman-Keuls, alpha = 0.05) revealed that the Dutch talkers with moderate and mild foreign accents had higher correct identification rates for /a?/and /D/ than strongly accented Dutch talkers, but they did not differ from the native BE talkers. The results for the new vowel Ixl were predicted by the SLM, but not the results for the similar vowel/D/.18

6.2 British English listeners The misidentifications of vowels by the three British listeners are summarized in Table 2. The mean rate at which the BE listeners identified vowels spoken by native BE talkers and talkers in the three Dutch groups is shown in Figure 3 (bottom). The BE listeners were expected to be better able than the AE listeners to identify vowels spoken by their fellow countrymen, but the rate of correct identifications of vowels spoken by BE talkers, was actually lower for BE than AE listeners (86% versus 94% correct). This paradoxical finding may be the result of a methodological difference. Recall that the BE but not the AE listeners were unaware that the talkers had actually intended to produce just six vowels, not all 14 vowels shown on the response box. In support of this, Table 2 shows that the BE listeners used a wider range of response variants in identifying vowels than did the AE listeners. One response variant used by the BE but not the AE listeners in identifying /D/ (/a/) was /Λ/. In addition to hearing /A/-for-/ae/ substitutions, the BE listeners also heard Id-ter-lsel substitutions. And in addition to hearing /D/ (/o/)-for-/A/, the BE listeners also heard 1^1 for /Λ/. Importantly, the misidentifications of the native BE and AE listeners were generally similar. The BE listeners misheard /ae/ as /Λ/. They heard /Λ/ as either /D/ or /ae/, /u/ as /U/, and Μ as /Λ/.

English vowel production by Dutch talkers

33

Table 2. Mean rate of correct identifications for British English listeners B1-B3. The numbers indicate the percentage of times these listeners identified correctly the vowels in six English words as spoken by native speakers of British English (n = 8) and Dutch (n = 50). (See Table 1 legend.) British English Talkers hut l\l

mean

86 (au) 57 (Λ, ε) 75 (ε, a")

76 (au, χ) 85 (α) 72 (α, χ)

82 89 88

88 (Λ)

73(Λ,ε,3υ)

^7 Q /

hot Μ 73 (a«, Λ } 78 (Λ) 86 (Λ)

hat Ixl 80 (a", Λ) 60 (ε, Λ) 76 (ε, Λ)

hut l\l mean 55 (a", χ) 86 71 (ο,υ, χ] 88 85 62 (£Ε, D)

72 (Λ, ε)

63 (χ, a", D) 86

hit III

Bl B2 B3

85 95 93

82(e',er) 82 (υ, ο) 82 (Λ) 100 99 96 100 100 85 (Λ)

mean

91

94

hoot /u/

hat 1x1

heat l\l

94

hot M

Λ«

1 1\

/ ο (Q* 32« 3*-*)

86

Dutch Talkers heat I'll

Bl B2 B3

94 99 97

mean

97

hit III 83 (e1) 96 100

93

hoot /u/ 66 (u, o) 82 (υ, ο) 85 (υ)

78 (υ, ο) 79 (Λ)

It came as no surprise, given the difference in the number of response categories between the two listener groups, that the BE listeners also identified fewer vowels spoken by the Dutch talkers than did the AE listeners (80% vs 86%). As shown in Figure 3 (bottom), they identified the Dutch talkers' attempts at l\l and III most of the time (97% and 93% correct, respectively). The BE listeners identified the Dutch talkers' /u/s and /o/s less often (78%, 79%) than the Dutch talkers' high front vowels, and identified their Ixl and /Λ/ even more poorly (72%, 63 % correct). Between-group differences in intelligibility existed for all six vowels. Somewhat surprisingly, the /i/s produced by the Dutch subjects in all three groups were more intelligible than were the native BE talkers' /i/s. There was a small increase in the rate of correct III identifications as a function of accent. The rates for Dutch subjects with strong, moderate, and mild accent were 90%, 94%, and 96%, respectively. A similar pattern was evident for M (72%, 78%, and 86%), /«/ (50%, 84%, 82%) and /Λ/ (56%, 68%, 65%). For /u/, on the other hand, performance seemed to deteriorate slightly along with improvements in accent (82%, 77%, 74%).

34

James Emil Flege

As expected, the ANOVA yielded a significant Group χ Vowel interaction [F( 15,260)= 2.34, ρ = 0.004]. The simple main effect of Group was significant for /as/ [F(3,52) = 6.42, ρ < 0.001] but nonsignificant for all other vowels including /D/. Post-hoc tests revealed that the Dutch talkers with moderate and mild foreign accents had higher scores for Ixl than those with strong accents (p < 0.05). The moderately and mildly-accented Dutch talkers did not differ significantly from the native BE talkers. These results supported the prediction of the SLM for /x/. It is notable that, for the BE listeners, the Dutch subjects did not show a significant improvement in /D/ intelligibility. The variants that the BE and AE listeners gave in identifying the vowel in hot as spoken by mildly and strongly-accented Dutch talkers were tabulated in the hopes of deriving insight into why the AE listeners but not the BE listeners registered a significant improvement for /D/ (which was classified as a similar vowel). The AE listeners used fewer error variants, and applied those variants to fewer Dutch talkers in the Mild than Strong Foreign Accent group.19 Unlike the AE listeners, the BE listeners did not give fewer error variants for talkers in the Mild than Strong Foreign Accent groups, but they did show a decrease in the number of talkers to whom they applied the error variants that were used.

6.3 Individual talkers' production of the new vowel /ae/. The SLM generates the prediction that Late L2 Learners will produce a new L2 vowel authentically once they recognize it to be new. Figure 4 was prepared to show the correct identification rates for the /x/s spoken by 48 individual Dutch talkers because little is known at present concerning how long such recognition may take. Figure 4 (top) shows the rates obtained from the AE listeners; and Figure 4 (bottom) shows the rates obtained for the native BE listeners. Some talkers in all three Dutch subgroups produced the new vowel Isel well whereas others produced it poorly. The AE listeners seldom identified one native BE talker's /£e/s correctly, frequently hearing /au/ or /Λ/.20 The range of correct identifications for the remaining BE talkers was 78%-100% correct. All three subgroups of Dutch talkers showed a wide range for Ixl. Just three of the 16 strongly-accented Dutch talkers had intelligibility rates greater than 75% correct. Eleven moderately-accented and 12 mildly-accented Dutch talkers exceeded this rate. The range of percent correct scores for the native BE talkers was greater for the BE than AE listeners. The one native BE talker whose Ixl was poorly

English vowel production by Dutch talkers

Listeners = Americans

V o w e l = /χ/

100 α

80

t—I

60 QJ ίΟ Ο

a-s

40

0

|

Ο

8 8 8

8 0 0

§ Θ

20

η

0

ο

θ

Ι

80

9

8

60

0

°

40

_

0

α

8

Ι ο ο

0

0

0

Listeners = B r i t i s h

100

ο

g

0

Vowel = /«/
HIE /istrit/ E/frok/^HIE/firok/

On explaining the facts The observation that certain things about the sound pattern of a language can cause problems of the sort seen in examples (2) despite the fact that they are not describable in term of phonological rules presents both empirical and

The device "phonological rule" and the acquisition of (inter)phonology

257

conceptual problems for most contemporary theories of phonology. In this section, we shall review how that challenge is met by them. It is quite clear that Classical Generative Phonology (CGP) can offer no straightforward phonological account of facts of the sort presented in examples (2). All that it can do is to attribute the insertion of epenthetic vowels in unacceptable clusters to some derivative extensions of phonological rules without assigning them any status whatsoever within synchronic phonology. Whether these ill-understood derivative extensions will or can appeal to syllable and word-structure constraints is hard to say, for such constraints have no place or status in CGP. If they are allowed to appeal to these constraints, they must, within the CGP frame of reference, be seen as doubly unusual vis-ä-vis phonological rules (cf. Singh 1987). Given the fact that NGP gives a place to syllable and word-structure constraints, it fares a little better than CGP. But it must also regard whatever mechanisms one must postulate to account for the unacceptable-cluster facts as derivative extensions of its P-rules. The automaticity of NGP's P-rules satisfactorily accounts for the fact that P-rules are automatically extended to "alien" strings, but rules needed to render unacceptable alien clusters cannot always be motivated internally for the simple reason that such clusters may never even arise in complex forms, let alone exist, to be eliminated. The phonotactically acceptable transformation of such offenders must be seen as an ad hoc adaptive mechanism, though obviously related to internally motivated rules of epenthesis. The conceptual problem involved here, it should be obvious, has to do with the primary status accorded the construct called "P-rule". Lexical Phonology (LP) faces the same conceptual problem. There is no obvious way of making dynamically conceived automaticity, assured by morphologically blind post-lexical phonological rules, and phonotactically governed "static" automaticity fall out from some more general considerations or principles. The extent to which the latter is internally neither motivated nor motivatable is also the extent to which the interphonological distortions it is responsible for must be accounted for in terms of adaptive extensions of whatever is available in the grammar. NP, on the other hand, does not have to face this problem for it takes the position that processes apply everywhere they can. Nor does it have to postulate derivative extensions or ad hoc adaptive transformations of its basic mechanism, thereby rightly increasing what Donegan and Stampe refer to as our "yield of potatoes". Inasmuch as processes are extremely well-grounded and require no special dispensations or adaptive extensions, NP certainly pro-

258

Rajendra Singh

vides a more satisfying solution. The problem with it is precisely how to state them for particular grammars or phonologies (Cf. Rhodes 1988; Singh 1988b). NP, unfortunately, provides no formal mechanism for stating them, let alone for relativizing them to particular phonologies. Although I admire the dialectic view of Stampe according to which the synchronic phonology of a language is the imposition of language-particular limitations on universal processes and counterprocesses, the conclusion that the temporary resolution called synchronic phonology is chiefly a function of these language-particular limiting conditions seems inevitable as is the conclusion that the best way to express them may be as well-formedness conditions (WFCs). Stampe insists that, as Zwicky (1982) put it, these things are only products of the application of processes eliminating the offending combinations. I have argued that they are actually triggers that not only call upon a universal set of repair strategies to fix up violations but also guide them in doing so (cf. Singh 1990 a and 1990b). There is a sense in which Stampe is right, but my point is that language-particular limiting conditions must be coded in some way and he doesn't provide one despite explicit statements like "It is not the processes, but the constraints on the processes which must be acquired" (Donegan-Stampe 1979:147). He doesn't because he feels that these constraints are equally well-motivated in that they all bring speech closer to its phonological intention, but "phonological intention" is languageparticular. The motivation he speaks of is, in other words, language-internal. The problem with his view is further underlined by statements like "English speakers from an ancient date have had the process" apical stops become homo-organic to following (tauto-syllabic) stops, which seems to treat language-particular instantiations of universal processes as processes, but there can't be, and I am sure Stampe would be the first to agree, any such thing as a language-specific process. Moreover, as I argued in Singh 1987, Stampe does, in fact, use WFCs. Here are a couple of examples (DoneganStampe 1979: 134): (i) "After syllable-initial stops English admits everything from vowel through liquid" (ii) "In Old English /h/ did not precede obstruents" Stampe's account contains statements of the sort "English has a process introducing the vowel III between two sibilants". What the statement says can and should be broken down into three parts: (i) English has epenthesis, (ii) the epenthetic vowel in English is A/, and (iii) it is introduced between two sibilants. Notice that the first part is redundant. The fact that English has epenthesis follows trivially from the fact that English is a language. If Piggott and

The device "phonological rule" and the acquisition of (inter)phonology

259

Singh (1984) are right, we do not have to say that it is lit that is introduced between two sibilants because the empty node created through the prosodic adjustments proposed there will create a vowel. And that III is a vowel is, of course, unquestionably redundant. The upshot of all this is that all one has to say is that the epenthetic segment in English is III. In those dialects of English that introduce an epenthetic /r/ to fill hiatus, two such segments will have to be identified: III and /r/. But the prosodic readjustments will never permit the /r/ to be introduced between two sibilants. It won't do any good anyway in the case of the plural, for example, for zz is as bad a coda as zrz. The global requirement that the repair strategy must produce an acceptable string will automatically abort such an attempt. What is English about all this is, of course, the fact that sibilant+sibilant is not possible in a coda and that the second vowel in /roziz/ is not /e/, /u/, or anything other than what it is. Natural Phonologists must, to conclude, grant (i) the existence of a level more remote than the natural phonemic level and (ii) the existence of WFCs. NP may also have to abandon its belief that phonology is responsible for everything language owes to the fact that it is spoken. Whilst it is correct in treating global, governed alternations as manifestations of phonological processes, its somewhat opaque construal of non-automatic alternations as "rules" must also be given up in favour of a purely morphological treatment of them. These "rules" are rules but of morphology and not of phonology. It might also be useful to cite Rhodes' immanent critique in some detail: "In emphasizing the distinction between learned rules and innate processes natural phonologists have failed to re cognize the distinction between the universal form of a process and the constrained implementations of processes which actually govern alternations in individua languages. I will argue here that the universal forms of natural processes (NPs) are different from the languagespecific implementations (LSIs) that realize them in three ways: (1) in potential content; (2) in uniqueness,and (3) in status as process versus rule."

Notice that the contingencies of language-particular relativization of phonologies forces Rhodes to propose constructs that look not only like phonological rules but like variable rules: "As an example of the way in which NPs differ from LSIs in potential content, let us look at the leniting NP which gives rise to nasalized vowels. This process substitutes nasal vowels for oral vowels adjacent to nasal segments. Based largely on Schourup's work (1973), we characterize the universal form of this process as affecting low vowels before high vowels, unstressed vowels before stressed vowels, tautosyllabic vowels before vowels in adjacent syllables, etc. The formal representation of this process looks something like (1)

260

Rajendra Singh

(1) Nasalization (universal process) V —> [+nasal]% ( _ i [+nasal) [1+cont], Descriptions of NPs like that in (1) are formulated to account for crosslinguistic facts. To achieve this generality, such processes are seen as having available a number of operators not generally held to be necessary in the apparatus needed to describe the phonological substitutions synchronically active in individual languages. Those in question include hierarchically structured environments, notated [!Fj]; non-directional adjacency, notated with a %; and multiple independent dimensions of environments, here notated by multiple slashes and subscripts to specify correlations among segments. While LSIs do need access to hierarchies, all they need is a tolerance point which is often expressible in a single feature value. In the case of simple adjacency, no convincing case of a single LSI requiring adjacency is available. Similarly no case exists showing the need for multiple environments in a single LSI. So in contrast to the complexity of universal processes, most LSIs are straightforward. For example, the English LSI of (4) nasalizes vowels preceding tautosyllabic nasal segments. (2) English Nasalization (LSI) V -» [+nasal] /_

[+nasal] (C)$

Notice that his (2) looks suspiciously like a phonological rule. However, the rule-less account is, I believe, a simpler one. It is in fact an account which says that none is needed because segments have to be syllabified. Instead of considering mechanisms that would do this as derivate extensions of "rules" it actually sees "rules" as results of prosodic repair (cf. Singh 1985). Phonological repair, in other words, is blind to caste, creed, religion or origin. If such a view is accepted, there will be no need to defend the indefensible position that phonological theory is not responsible for facts of the sort I have examined here (cf. Singh 1995 for some further discussion).

References

Chomsky N. 1986 Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky N. - M. Halle 1960 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper Row.

The device "phonological rule" and the acquisition of (inter)phonology

261

Donegan P. - D. Stampe 1979 "The study of natural phonology", in: D.A. Dinnsen (ed.), Current Approaches to Phonological Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 126-173. Major R.C. 1987 "The natural phonology of second language acquisition", in: A. James - J. Leather (eds.), Sound Patterns in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Foris, 207-224. Moulton W. 1962 The Sounds of English and German. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Piggott G. - R. Singh 1985 "The phonology of epenthetic segments", Canadian Journal of Linguistics 30: 415-451. Postal P. 1976 Aspects of the Theory of Phonology. New York: Harper Row. Rumelhart D.E. - J.L. McClelland 1986 "On learning the past tenses of English verbs", in: McClelland Rumelhart - PDP Research Group, Parallel Distributed Processing. Cambridge MA: 216-271. Rhodes R. 1988 "Natural phonology: universal and language-particular", in: W. Dressier et al. (eds.), Discussion Papers from Phonologica 1988. Vienna: Vienna Institute of Linguistics. Schaerup L. 1973 The basis of articulation. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Working Papers in Linguistics. Singh R. 1985 "Prosodic adaptation in interphonology", Lingua 67:269-282. Singh R. 1986 "On finding a place for Trubetzkoy's brainchild", The Canadian Jounal of Linguistics 31:343-363. Singh R. 1987 "Well-formedness conditions and phonological theory", in: W. Dressler et al. (eds.), Phonologica 84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273-285. Singh R. 1988a "How to live with external evidence: a note on the challenge of interference", Canadian Journal of Linguistics 33:423-430. Singh R. 1988 b "Well-formedness conditions and natural phonology", in: W. Dressler et al. (eds.), Discussion Papers from Phonologica 1988. Institute of Linguistics, Vienna. Singh R. 1988c "In defence of external evidence", Canadian Journal of Linguistics 33:329-344.

262

Rajendra Singh

Singh R. 1990a Singh R. 1990b Singh R. 1991 Singh R. 1995

"Vers une theorie phonotactique generative", Revue Quebecoise de Linguistique 19:1-35. "On repair strategies and constraints", The Linguistic Review 6: 161-167. "Interference and contemporary phonological theory", Language Learning 41-.157-17 5.

"Rethinking the relationship between phonology and loan phonology", Folia Linguistica 29:395-405. Singh R. - A. Ford 1987 "Interphonology and phonological theory", in A. James - J. Leather (eds.), Sound Patterns in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Foris, 163-172. Sommerstein A. H. 1977 Modern Phonology. London: Edward Arnold. Stampe D. 1979 A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. New York: Garland. Stampe D. 1987 "On phonological representations", in: W. Dressler et al. (eds.), Phonologica 84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207-300. Zwicky A. 1982 Review of D. Dinnsen (ed.), Current Approaches to Phonological Theory (Bloomington: Indiana University Press). Language 50:73-89.

Minimal segments in second language phonology Steven H. Weinberger

1 Introduction One of the fundamental goals of theoretical linguistics is to make explicit the language learner's internalized grammar. To this end, the study of an interlanguage phonology - particularly a foreign accent - is a way to investigate and uncover a learner's internalized grammar. A foreign accent is merely a demonstration of phonological regularity in a speaker's native grammar as it interferes with the target grammar. This is essentially the implicit theoretical statement of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Often, these pronunciation errors result from the absence of a particular sound in the speaker's native language, and the learner must select the native language sound that most closely approximates the novel sound in the second language. But as Hyman (1970), Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979) and Kiparsky (1973) all point out, it is not always obvious just what criteria are used to determine the closest sound. For example, Kenstowicz and Kisseberth cite evidence that both French and Serbo-Croatian lack the non-strident interdental fricatives θ and o, and when native speakers of these languages produce English words with these problematic segments in them, /s/ and Izl are substituted by the French speakers while /t/ and /d/ are substituted by the Serbo-Croatian speakers. Kenstowicz and Kisseberth conclude that the phonological structures of these two languages must evidently treat dental fricatives and stops differently. I will refer to this type of error phenomenon as differential substitution. Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979), Kiparsky (1973) and Hyman (1970) were of course not the first to ascribe some theoretical relevance to a language learner's foreign accent. As early as 1939 Trubetzkoy proposed that the phonological system of a language was like "a sieve through which everything that is said passes. Only those phonic marks that are relevant for the identity of the phoneme remain in it" (1969, p. 51). Trubetzkoy believed that a foreign accent "does not at all depend on the inability of a particular foreigner to pronounce some sound, but rather on his incorrect evaluation of this sound. And such incorrect evaluation of sounds in a foreign language is conditioned by the differences between the phonological

264

Steven H. Weinberger

structure of the foreign language and the mother tongue of the speaker" (1969, p. 55). The intuitions that Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979) and Trubetzkoy (1969) point out constitute the implicit theoretical statement of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Based upon Fries (1945), Lado (1957) used a separate system approach to second language learning and attempted to formulate a predictive theory of foreign accent. Essentially, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) stipulates that if there are structural differences between a learner's native language and the target language, then a learner will experience some difficulty when producing these target language items. In North America at least, this (CAH) paradigm became the dominant research strategy in second language learning (theory) and especially in second language pedagogy. The CAH proposed to give language teachers some special insight into the language learning processes by predicting just where errors would occur, but in many cases it could not predict the particular forms that the errors would take. Therefore, because the CAH lacks any principled account of how different languages treat similar segments, it could not account for the differential substitution by correctly predicting that the French and Serbo-Croatian speakers above would substitute /s/ and /t/ for English /Θ/, respectively. Indeed, Urial Weinreich (1953/1968), in noting that the CAH was beneficial to teachers, believed that it was nevertheless inadequate in solving a similar differential substitution problem for French and Russian speakers: "The significance of this [CAH] approach for language teaching needs no pleading. But even for theoretical purposes, the many unsolved problems in this domain cry for structural solutions. For example, neither French nor Russian have /ο, Θ/ phonemes, but in contact with English, French speakers tend to render /d, Θ/ as [s, z], while Russian speakers generally pronounce [d, t]. In other words, the French perceive the continuance of /ο, Θ/ which distinguishes them from /d, t/ as most relevant, while the Russians consider the mellowness of Id, Θ/ which distinguishes them from /dz, ts/ as decisive. The reaction is so constant that it must be attributable to the phonemic system in contact, and the possibilities of structural explanation are most promising." (p. 20)

In this paper I will propose a solution to the enduring problem of differential substitution in L2 phonology using a principled approach to phonological underspecification. It will turn out that differential substitution is due to a type of "non-obvious transfer" and that all of the above intuitions are correct when made explicit with a model of theoretical phonology. A second goal of this paper is to demonstrate that language-external evidence from second language differential substitution can be used as a diagnostic for con-

Minimal segments in second language phonology

265

structing a maximally underspecified matrix for a subset of consonants in Russian and Japanese. In section 2, a classic case of non-obvious transfer will be reviewed, indicating that at some deeper level, transfer theory can indeed be instrumental in providing an explanation for L2 errors. In section 3 the fundamental problem of differential substitution will be re-introduced, followed by various earlier proposals for its solution in section 4. Section 5 will summarize current underspecification theory and point out a particular difficulty in maximally underspecifying certain consonants. In sections 6 and 7 I will show that external evidence plays a valuable role in disambiguating competing underspecified representations. I will utilize underspecification theory to solve the differential substitution problem in second language acquisition. From the L2 phonological analysis it will become clear that data from second language acquisition can be called upon to help formulate the most adequate matrices for native language segments. Finally, in section 8 I will suggest some correspondences between different languages whose speakers show similar substitution behavior.

2 Transfer in Second Language Phonology As mentioned above, some form of the CAH is reasonably successful in predicting the straightforward transfer of certain phonological rules from the native language to the target language. For example it could adequately predict that German speakers learning English will devoice all English wordfinal obstruents since German possesses a rule of terminal devoicing. We can observe other evidence of the transfer of phonological rules, as shown in (1): (1)

Polish nasal palatal assimilation +nas +cor -ant +son +ant -bk a. /cin+m+i/ cin+iji+i cin+ji+i ciji+ji+i b. lear[ji]ing u[jr]iversity

"active" rule(l) vowel deletion rule(l)

266

Steven H. Weinberger

In these examples from Rubach (1984), the post-cyclic rule of nasal palatal assimilation palatalizes nasals that precede high front vowels or other high front segments in Polish (shown in (la)). It also operates in these Polish speakers' L2 English phonology, shown in (Ib). But in many cases simple transfer theory in the CAH that only deals with the superficial characteristics of a language structure could not predict the particular forms that the errors would take. For example even segmental transfer, where L2 learners substitute a native language segment for a target language segment cannot be specifically accounted for. Take for instance the behavior of Arabic speakers when they are confronted with English /p/. Since Arabic lacks this segment, the CAH correctly predicts that they will experience some difficulty. But the specific manifestation of this difficulty cannot be accurately predicted. That is, the fact that Arabic speakers typically replace English /p/ with Arabic /b/ and not with Arabic /f/, is, under any form of the CAH, purely coincidental. Therefore, without supporting principles, a simplistic notion of segmental transfer is problematical within a CAH framework. The failure of the CAH can also be seen in more complex L2 phenomena. Consider the case of "non-obvious transfer" given in Broselow (1983) in (2) and (3): (2)

(3)

Iraqi Arabic speakers a. [ifloor] "floor" b. [ibleen] "plane" c. [tjilidrcn] "children" Egyptian Arabic speakers a. [filoor] "floor" b. [bilastik] "plastic" c. [tjilidren] "children"

In the a. and b. examples above, it is evident that English initial consonant clusters are problem areas for speakers of these two dialects. Broselow points out that since Iraqi Arabic has an optional rule that inserts /i/ before initial clusters in forms like those in (4), simple transfer can explain the data in (2). (4)

Iraqi Arabic qmaas -» Gneen —> tflaab -»

iqmaas iGneen iclaab

"cloth" "two" "dogs"

Minimal segments in second language phonology

267

But can the Egyptian Arabic data in (3) also be treated as a result of transfer? Broselow points to a rule of vowel epenthesis in Egyptian that is similar to the Iraqi rule in that it inserts /i/ before initial clusters of imperfect stems to form the imperative form in (5a) but not in (5b): (5)

Egyptian Arabic imperfects and imperatives a. yiktib "he writes" tiktib "she writes" iktib "write!" b. yikallim "he speaks" tikallim "she speaks" kallim "speak!"

If this rule of /i/ insertion for imparatives in Egyptian Arabic were indeed transferred to the second language, we would get forms just like the Iraqi productions in (2). Thus, as Broselow asserts, the Egyptian Arabic errors seem to pose a problem for the theory of transfer.1 According to Broselow, the solution to this problem can be gotten by examining consonant clusters composed of three members. Both Arabic dialects epenthesize /i/ to prohibit morphologically derived CCC clusters: (6)

(7)

Iraqi Arabic /kitab+1+a/ /kitab+t+1+a/

[kitabla] [kitabitla]

"he wrote to it/him" "I wrote to it/him"

Egyptian Arabic /katab+1+a/ /katab+t+1+u/

[katabla] [katabtilu]

"he wrote to it/him" "I wrote to it/him"

While this in fact accounts for the position of epenthesis in the forms of "children" in (2c) and (3c), it is not obvious that the rules responsible for the facts in (6) and (7) can handle the data for initial clusters. Based upon the syllable structure rules for each dialect of Arabic, Broselow concludes that syllabification rules in each dialect leave an unsyllabified consonant in nonfinal clusters. For Iraqi speakers, epenthesis occurs to the left of this left-over consonant, and in Egyptian, it occurs to the right as depicted in (8) and (9): (8)

Iraqi epenthesis σ

0->ΐ/

Ι CC

σ

σ

Λ /Ι\ (ki tab

σ

t

Λ la)

268

(9)

Steven H. Weinberger

Egyptian epenthesis σ σ

0-»i/C

Ι C

σ Λ /Ι\ (ka tab

σ Λ t lu)

Thus, by examining a deep regularity of Arabic sound structure, i.e., a theory of syllabification, Broselow is able to adequately account for the transfer of epenthesis in Iraqi and Egyptian Arabic in an obvious way.

3 The Problem of Differential Substitution Within the CAH, the notion of structural transfer can operate at many levels. We have seen above that individual segments appear to be transferred, segmental rules can be transferred (as in (1)), and even rules of syllabification can be carried over from a native language into the target language productions. In each of these examples, given a proper formulation of the problem, the type of error produced was clear-cut. In each case, some native language constraint is violated in the L2 and some "repair strategy" is taken to rectify the violation. For instance we can say that there is a language constraint in Arabic that prohibits the segment /p/ from occurring. In order to make an Arabic speaker's English productions conform to this native language constraint, a substitution process occurs. The segment /b/ is substituted presumably because no other segment from Arabic contains the requisite features, i.e., [+labial], [-continuant], [+obstruent], etc.2 Similarly, as the Polish rule of nasal palatal assimilation in (1) demonstrates, there is a constraint that prohibits /n/ from appearing before a high front vowel. The method of rectification in this case is to transfer the rule to the structural descriptions in the English L2 productions, and thus change the /n/ into /ji/. Violations of syllable structure motivate the Iraqi and Egyptian speaker to modify their English productions and insert epenthetic /i/s to break up impermissible consonant clusters. By examining underlying syllable structure rules and the mechanisms for rescuing unsyllabified consonants from each dialect, Broselow was able to make the specific transfer process clear-cut. In each of the above examples, we have to assume that the type of strategy adopted to rectify the violation is the theoretically optimal one - that it is motivated by some linguistic principle. For example, an analysis of the segmental inventory for Arabic coupled with some theory of distinctive feature weighing and matching might lead us to predict that only Arabic /b/ shares the proper features with English /p/. Arabic /f/ or III are not substituted for English /p/ because they do not share features of [continuant] or [coro-

Minimal segments in second language phonology

269

nal] respectively. In other words, the theory has to tell us why [voice] does not have the weight that [continuant] or [coronal] (or perhaps [labial]) has. The substitute /b/ will only be considered as an optimal choice for Arabic speakers if the features it shares with /p/ are relatively more significant. As we shall see below, a model of feature sharing which lacks a principled theory of feature weighing will not help us to solve the differential substitution problem where one L2 learner substitutes /s/ for English /Θ/, while an L2 learner from another native language background substitutes /t/ for English /Θ/. A few examples of the type of substitutions for English interdental fricatives are given in (10): (10) Differential Russian: Japanese: French: Dutch: Hungarian: Mandarin: Sinhalese: German:

substitution θ -> t ->d θ -> s -> z θ -> s 0->z ->s/ -> d/# θ —> t θ -» t/#__, θ->0 θ -> t ->d θ -»s -^z

(Weinreich 1968) (Kohmoto, 1965; Ritchie 1968) (Weinreich 1968) # (James 1984) (Altenberg-Vago 1983) # (Fonda 1984) (Michaels 1973) (James 1984)

The interesting fact about each of the native languages in (10) is that while their segmental inventories lack interdental fricatives, they all possess both /s/ and /t/. Why is it that some language backgrounds encourage the substitution of /s/, while other encourage /t/? The solution is apparently buried within the structure of each native language.

4 Earlier Proposals 4.1 Feature Counting Quite a few L2 researchers were aware of this problem of differential substitution and attempted to answer Weinreich's (1968) call for a structural solution. Nemser (1971) used a feature counting method to explain the tendency for Hungarian speakers to produce /t/ for English /Θ/. Nemser compared the number of features that English /Θ/ shares with the possible Hungarian substitutes.3 The distinctive feature matrix is shown in Table 1: Two points should be noted about the matrix in Table 1. One is that Nemser uses the old acoustic features [grave] and [compact] in his analysis.

270

Steven H. Weinberger

Table 1, Feature matrix for English /θ/ and Hungarian reflexes. English Q

Hungarian

f compact/non-compact grave/acute continuant/interrupted strident/mellow

+ -

-

+ + ( + ) (

+ + )

( ) = redundant. (Nemserl971,p.48).

While they could easily be changed to the more standard features [anterior] and [coronal], I have left them as they are because the argument is not affected. The second point concerns the redundant features for [strident] in Hungarian. We must assume that Nemser regards the "+" value of [strident] as fully predictable, based on the value of [continuant]. That is, in Hungarian, all obstruents that are [+continuant] are also [+strident]. But Nemser fails to consider redundancy of the opposite value for [strident]. All non-continuants (except perhaps the affricates] are certainly predictably [-strident]. Based upon the matrix in Table 1, Nemser formulates the numerical comparison in Table 2: Nemser makes certain assumptions concerning the interpretation of the shared features in Table 2. On the one hand, he assumes that distinctive features have a higher statues than redundant features. This assumption is not supported with any explanation. Yet on the other hand he considers all features within each class to have equal weights. Given this interpretation, the positive matches and negative mismatches given in Table 2 are ranked. The positive distinctive matches have the highest positive value, followed by the positive redundant matches. The negative distinctive mismatches have Table 2. Shared Features (with English Θ).

positive-distinctive positive-redundant negative-distinctive negative-redundant

3 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

3 0 0 1

Minimal segments in second language phonology

271

the highest negative value followed by negative redundant mismatches. Following this algorithm, it appears as if Hungarian /s/ more positively matches English /Θ/, and therefore is predicted to replace /Θ/ in the data. Unforunately, this makes the wrong prediction for Nemser's own subjects' production data (1971) as well as the data referred to in Altenberg and Vago (1983), where /t/ is the preferred segment. 4.2 Decision Trees Another proposal to solve the differential substitution problem is Ritchie (1968). According to the evidence that Ritchie cites, Russian speakers learning English typically substitute /t/ for /Θ/, and Japanese speakers substitute /s/ for English /Θ/, even though Russian and Japanese both have /t/ and /s/. Ritchie points out that articulatorily, Russian /t/ and Japanese /t/ are quite similar, as are Russian and Japanese /s/. Therefore, in this case at least, an explanation based upon articulatory grounds will not be sufficient. Ritchie begins with the intuition that not all features are equally central to a given phonological system, and bases his model on the early work of Halle (1959). Halle believed that the number of specified features should be kept at a minimum, and that imposing this condition on a phonological system is tantamount to requiring that the matrix be mappable into a (optimally simple) branching diagram. To illustrate this, suppose we have a set of four segments, A, B, C and D, that are specified by three features Fl, F2, and F3 as shown in (11):

(11) Fl F2 F3

A 0 + -

B + 0

C 0

D 0 + + (0 = redundant feature)

According to Halle, there must be at least one feature that has no zeros.4 It is this maximally distinctive feature that is specified as the first node. When two features are fully specified, either may be first in the hierarchy.5 The feature matrix in (11) is represented as a tree diagram in Figure 1 where left branches have "-" values and right branches have "+" values. Essentially, Ritchie sets out to construct feature decision trees like the one in Figure 1 for Japanese and Russian sound systems. Based upon how these two languages treat the features [strident] and [continuant], he constructs partial hierarchial decision trees like the ones shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, where the left branches are "-" and the right branches are "+".

272

Steven H. Weinberger

ABCD F2 BC Fl C

AD F3 ΒΑ

D

Figure l. Decision tree

, . s t . .. [cont]

Ass ...

... t [stri] i]

[s[stri]

A A Figure 2, Japanese decision tree

.st. [stri]

Ass ...

... t [cont]

t]

[ [+voice] radical underspecification i e a o u rules: + + [+low] -»[+back] + [ ] -»[-high] + + [ ]-»[-low] [ ] -» [-back] [ ] -> [+voice]

The hypothesis of full specification can be challenged on theoretical as well as empirical grounds. On formal grounds, we necessarily want to construct a grammar that is simple - one that has the least number of markings in the underlying representations. Archangeli (1984) makes this type of simplicity metric explicit by positing a Feature Minimization Principle to constrain the representation of feature matrices: (21) Feature Minimization Principle "A grammar is most highly valued when underlying representations include the minimal number of features necessary to make different the phonemes of the language." (p. 50) On empirical grounds also, some form of underspecification is necessary to account for missing features. For example, the idea that toneless morphemes exist in autosegmental phonology (Goldsmith, 1976) would be impossible to maintain without an implicit theory of underspecification. Likewise, the fact that certain segments act as if they are transparent to (dis)harmony phenomena could not be accounted for within any full specification framework. To illustrate this, consider Steriade's (1987) analysis of Latin liquid dissimilation.

(22) a. flor-alis sepulchr-alis litor-alis

"floral" "funereal" "of the shore"

282

Steven H. Weinberger

(22) b. nav-alis sol-aris milit-aris Lati-aris reticul-aris

"naval" "solar" "military" "of Latium" "of the net"

Based on the examples in (22b) we can say that the segment /!/ in the adjectival suffix /-alis/ becomes [r] when preceded by a stem containing an /!/. In the (a) examples on the other hand, there is no dissimilation when an /r/ is adjacent to the suffix. Steriade believes that the dissimilating feature in question here is [lateral]. Under this assumption, and given the data in (22), the Latin liquid dissimilation rule is a constraint on adjacent (+lateral] segments: *[+lateral] [+lateral]. As long as /r/ is specified [-lateral], there is no violation of the constraint, since, on the [lateral] tier, [-lateral] intervenes between the two [+ lateral] segments. This is shown in (23): (23)

[+lat] [-lat] [+lat]

I

I

I

l i t o r - a l i s -> litor-alis Notice that in the forms for "military" and "of Latium" another consonant intervenes between the [+lateral] segments. Dissimilation is not blocked in these cases because, according to Steriade, the intervening consonant is not specified for [lateral]. This feature is only distinctive for the liquids ([+consonantal, + sonorant, -nasal]), and therefore is only specified for such segments. The feature [lateral] is missing from all other segments in Latin. This absence of [lateral] in all other segments allows the [+lateral] segments to be adjacent, hence dissimilation. This is shown in (24): (24)

[+lat] [+lat] I I m i l i t - a l i s -> milit-aris

Within a full specification framework there would have to be some additional machinery to indicate that dissimilation is only blocked by /r/, since all segments except /!/ in Latin would be specified [-lateral]. It should be noted that the analysis Steriade sets up for the contrastive specification of [lateral] in Latin results in ternary feature marking. The liquids /!/ and /r/ are marked [+lateral] and [-lateral] respectively, while all other segments have a zero specification for [lateral]. We can in fact, avoid this type of ternary specification in underlying representations by marking /!/

Minimal segments in second language phonology

283

as [+lateral] and by writing a redundancy rule that will only apply to Id; [+ consonantal, +sonorant, -nasal] -> [-lateral]. All other segments will not be specified for the feature [lateral].9 If it is maintained that features are specified as alpha or zero in underlying form and if matrix construction abides by the Feature Minimization Principle in (21), we are led to the logical extreme of radical underspecification. Archangeli (1988) asserts that only radical underspecification allows a grammar to treat features rather than segments as primitives. It also focuses on a fundamental goal in generative grammar - the priority of computation over storage. Radical underspecification optimally promotes computation and eases the burden of storage for the language learner - a desirable situation. The controversy that remains is whether a partial or a radical underspecification hypothesis is to be preferred, both Steriade (1987) and Clements (1987) favor partial, or contrastive specification. And Clements suggest further that major class features such as [sonorant], and [consonantal] are fully specified. Radical underspecification does not allow such full specification in underlying representations. Moreover, Pulleyblank (1988) believes that such partial underspecification is not testable since there appears to be no principled way to decide which redundant features are to be specified. The following discussion will primarily focus upon the more extreme model of underspecification. This is not to say that radical underspecification is the optimal model for analyzing differential substitution. Rather, it will be a starting point for the analysis of differential substitution. Not only will we find that Pulleyblank's criticism of partial underspecification also applies to a radical underspecification model, but we will discover that this model will need to be weakened to account for the L2 phenomena.

5.3 Aspects of Radical Underspecification One of the fundamental claims of current underspecification theory is that the redundancy rules are not required to fill in unspecified features prior to the application of all phonological rules.10 This constraint on the application of redundancy rules is given in (25): (25)

redundancy rule ordering constraint (Archangeli - Pulleyblank, to appear) A default or complement rule assigning [aF], where "a" is "+" or "-", is automatically assigned to the first component in which reference is made to [aF].

284

Steven H. Weinberger

Basically, (25) requires that a zero feature will remain unspecified until some rule mentions a value for that feature.

5.3.1 Rule Markedness and Formal Simplicity The consequences of (25) allow for some interesting and revealing analyses. For instance, it can act to simplify phonological rules. Consider the types of rules and phenomena discussed by Archangeli (1984) and given in (26 a and b): (26)

marked vs. unmarked rules a. t -»s permit/permi[s]ive; remit/remi[s]ive b. t-»9 *permi[6]ive; *remi[6]ive

In English, while we have the rule t -» s to yield the alternations in (26 a), there is no such rule t —»θ. What is unusual here is that most formal analyses of English would consider rule (26) to be more marked than (26b). We can see this clearly if we start with a fully specified matrix in (27), and formulate the rules, based upon this matrix, in (28):

(27)

θ ant son cont stri

n

+ + +

(28) a. + ant -son -cont

+ cont + stri

+ ant -son -cont

[+cont]

If we utilize some feature counting simplicity metric, it is clear that t -> s is formally more complex than t -> θ. Yet, it is t -> s that is more common in the phonology of English. Therefore, any analysis that utilizes full specification cannot principally account for this incongruity11. Now consider the underspecified matrix for a subset of English anterior obstruents along with the requisite redundancy rules given in (29):

Minimal segments in second language phonology

285

(29) underspecified matrix with some redundancy rules: s t θ η ant + + + + son cont stri [-son] a. [+stri]/_ b. -son + cont c. [-stri] d. [-cont] Assuming that the Redundancy Rule Ordering Constraint, (25) is in effect, we may obtain the following representations for the rules in (30 a and b): (30)

a.

t->s + ant -son

b. t->0 + ant —> + cont -son -stri

[+ cont]

Now it appears that, based on feature counting, t -> s is formally simpler than t -»θ, because (30a) only needs to mention one feature, while (30b) must now include two features at the left of the arrow. Thus, unlike a full specification analysis, underspecification theory can relate formal simplicity with the existence/nonexistence of rules for English. 5.3.2 Segmental Asymmetries Underspecification theory can also account for certain kinds of asymmetric behavior in vowels. That is, it provides a principled analysis of why a particular vowel within a language may be the only one that undergoes certain rules. It formalizes the notion that all vowels are not created equal. Consider the redundantly specified five vowel system in (31): (31)

five-vowel systems i e a H + L + B + R -

o -

u +

+ +

+ +

286

Steven H. Weinberger

This is a common system in the world's languages: Spanish, Kannada and Pasiego12 are but three languages that have such inventories. In the following discussion we shall discover that the grammars of these three languages each contain one vowel that acts differently from all of its vowel-mates in the language. Furthermore, it will turn out that each language selects a different asymmetric vowel. I begin with an analyses of Spanish and Kannada, Each of these languages has a vowel epenthesis rule. But the choice of the epenthesized vowel is different for each language. Spanish typically inserts Id (Cressey, 1978), and Kannada inserts /u/ (Chandrashekar, 1986; Schiffman, 1979).13 Some representational forms are given in (32) and (33): (32)

Spanish epenthesis /escribir/ /inscribir/ /transcribir/

0->e/# s[+consj "to write" "to inscribe" "to transcribe" (Cressey 1978: 86)

(33)

Kannada epenthesis /heel/ -> [heelu] /maacj,/ -> [maaclu] /lean/ -> [kariiiu]14 /kaa+inda/ -> [kartiynda]

0 -> u/C # "tell" "do" "eye" "from the eye" (Chandrashekar 1986)

How can we structurally encode the fact that in Spanish, Id is treated differently from all other vowels, while in Kannada, /u/ is different from all the other vowels in its inventory? If phonological rules act upon fully specified matrices, then the epenthesis rules for Spanish and Kannada would roughly be of the forms in (34 a-b): (34)

a.

Spanish epenthesis 0 -> V

Γ-highl L-backJ b. Kannada epenthesis 0 -> V + highl + backj

(0 -»e)

(0 -» u)

Minimal segments in second language phonology

287

One possibility for radically underspecifying a matrix for a five-vowel system is shown in (35) and (36). For this Spanish system, the vowel Id is completely unspecified. (35)

(36)

Spanish: i H + L R

e

a

o

u +

+

+

+

Spanish redundancy rules: a. []-»[-high] b. []->[-low] c · [] -* [+back, -round]/ [+ low] d. [] -»[-round] e. []->[aback]/ -low a round

Notice that this matrix for Spanish is constructed to automatically advertise the asymmetric nature of the vowel /e/.15 The prediction that unspecified segments will be asymmetric follows naturally from radical underspecification. Within a full, or even a contrastive specification framework, predicting any asymmetry would be coincidental. Another result of this analysis is that epenthesis rules do not need to stipulate all of the features of the inserted vowel. Instead, the rule simply inserts a vowel slot, and the redundancy rules fill in all of the features later. The epenthesis rule, given in (37) is formally simpler than the rules in (34) insofar as it does not need to mention any features. The redundancy rules in (36) will automatically fill in the required feature specification. (37)

epenthesis 0 ->V

Unlike the universal marking convention theory discussed in section 4.3, Underspecification Theory implies that each language may have a unique formulation of a matrix to suit its own system. Accordingly, we can formulate the following underspecified matrix for Kannada vowels in (38) along with a set of redundancy rules in (39):

288

(38)

(39)

Steven H. Weinberger

Kannada (u - epenthesis) i e a o H L + B

u

Kannada redundancy rules: a. [] -»[-high]/ _ b. []->[+ high] c. [] -» [-low] d- [] -> [+back, -round]/ e.

[]-»[+ back] f. [] -> [a round]/

-low a back] Just as the phonological processes of Spanish and Kannada serve as diagnostics in the determination of minimally specified vowels, an analysis of height harmony in Pasiego leads Vago (1988) to posit /a/ as its default vowel. In Pasiego, if the stressed vowel of a word is high or mid, then all [-low] vowels of the word are also high or mid respectively. This is shown in (40): (40)

Pasiego height harmony "drink" "take" beber koxer bebere koxere bibi:s kuxi:s

infinitive 1 sg. future 2 pi. present indie. (Vago 1988)

The low vowel /a/ (both [+ATR] /a/ and [-ATR] /A/) is transparent with respect to height harmony. It does not alternate like the [-low] vowels do, and when it is the stressed vowel of a word, it does not trigger harmony. This is evident in the examples in (41a and b): (41)

a. legaterna IskAlAmbrUxU andibula b. sintäis ontärga

"lizard" "dog-rose" "jaw" "feel" 2 pi. pres. subjunc. "lard"

Minimal segments in second language phonology

289

In order to account for the transparent nature of /a/, it must somehow be excluded from the class of vowels that can carry the feature [high]. One possibility is to represent /a/ as [+ low]. Since /a/ is specified as [+ low], it cannot, by convention, also be specified [+high]. And since [-high] is not distinctive for [+low] vowels, /a/ does not associate with [-high] either.16 Vago's claim is that if /a/ were in fact specified for [+ low] or any other feature dominated by the dorsal node, there would be a violation of the Locality Condition insures that targets and triggers are adjacent on the tier that dominates the spreading feature. If /a/ was specified [+low], then a dorsal node would intervene between the trigger and target, as shown in (42): (42)

legaterna CVCVCVCCV skeleton ο ο

ο LI VH

ο dorsal node

Vago argues that /a/ is the minimally specified vowel in Pasiego, and as such, it is not specified for [high] or any other feature. Without any features, /a/ will not be associated with a dorsal node. Hence there will be no violation of the Locality Condition and /a/ will not block spreading. The underlying vowel system that Vago arrives at is given in (43) and (44): (43)

(44)

Pasiego vowels i e a o H + L B Pasiego redundancy rules a. [] -> [+back] b. [-back] -> [-low] c. []-^[+low] d. [+back, -low] -> [+round] e. [] -> [-round] f. []->[-high] g. []-»[+ATR]

u + -

To summarize, the analyses of the 5-vowel systems of Spanish, Kannada and Pasiego indicate that for each system, a different vowel exhibits asymmetric behavior. For Spanish and Kannada, the presence of epenthesis rules helped

290

Steven H. Weinberger

to determine the minimally specified vowels. In Pasiego, the vowel harmony system served a similar function in pinpointing the default vowel.17 5.3.3 Optimal Matrices in the Absence of Evidence In contrast to the situation described above in 5.3.2, consider the possibility that some language might have no corpus-internal rule to indicate which matrix is the optimal one. In the absence of such evidence, Underspecification Theory must either resort to some tenuous markedness claims or be forced to search for other forms of external evidence to choose the correct underspecified matrix. The next section will examine the second alternative. What if Spanish and Kannada did not have any epenthesis rule, or any other rule to help us decide which matrix to choose? Assuming that the Feature Minimization Principle (21) limited the matrix to three features, [high], [low] and [back], we would be forced to make some stipulation concerning the redundancy rules in (36a) and (39b). That is, we would have to specify that either [ ] -> [-back] or [ ] -»[+back] is the "unmarked" rule. Unfortunately, without any empirical motivation this amounts to an ad hoc solution. Another type of markedness solution to this ambiguous matrix problem can be demonstrated if we consider a fourvowel system like that shown in (45): (45)

Four-vowel system i e H + L B R -

(full specification) a u + + + + +

We can construct a minimally specified matrix for this type of four-vowel system by invoking the Feature Minimization Principle (21) along with two redundancy rules: (46)

a.

Four-vowel system (underspecification) i e a u H + + B -

Minimal segments in second language phonology

291

b. Redundancy rules Π -»[-high]

The matrix in (46) is in fact the one proposed by Archangeli (1984) for Latvian. This particular representation is chosen because it interacts with the rule of Latvian Vowel raising, whereby a -» u and e -> i in accusative singular environments. Because of the rule, the vowels /a/ and Id are unspecified for [high], and Latvian Vowel Raising is thus simplified to a feature insertion rule: [ ] —> [+high]/_]accsg , rather than a feature changing rule. Note that the most fully specified vowel in (46) is /i/. All things being equal, this vowel, in this system, is to be considered the most marked vowel. Consider the logical possibility that there is a language which possesses a four-vowel system but has no phonological rules that interact with the underspecified matrix. Under these circumstances there is no algorithm available to allow us to evaluate the representation in (46) with another maximally underspecified matrix in (47): (47)

a. Four-vowel system (underspecification) i e a u H B b. Redundancy rules []-»[+ high] [ ] - » [ + back]

Again, unless we ascribe some special ad hoc markedness value to the redundancy rules that assign the feature [high], we are left to appeal to some form of typological markedness for vowel inventories. So for example, languages with only three vowels typically have /i, a, u/. In a four-vowel system however, we cannot predict what the fourth vowel will be. Therefore we may assume that Id is the most marked vowel in a system like (47) since typologically, it is the "odd vowel out". Structurally then, it is represented in (47) as the maximally specified vowel. Needless to say this use of typological markedness will lead to indeterminacy once we begin considering larger inventories - even the five vowel systems depicted above. To summarize, it seems that without the relevant phonological rules, Underspecification Theory is unable to provide us with a mechanism to adequately choose among the various arbitrary underspecified representations.

292

Steven H. Weinberger

6 External Evidence and Underspecification In this section, I will demonstrate that some forms of corpus external evidence can provide the necessary motivation in formulating optimally underspecified matrices. Two types of evidence will be invoked: loan phonology and second language phonology. 6.1 Loan Phonology The way one grammar adopts items from another grammar provides us with a window from which to view phonological processes. We have seen (note 13) that when Kannada borrows words that end in consonants, the default vowel /u/ is appended to bring the word into conformity with the native grammar. A similar phenomenon occurs in Yoruba. Pulleyblank (1988) states that Yoruba has strict constraints on syllable structure. Yoruba allows no consonant clusters anywhere in a syllable, and further, no consonants are permitted in a rime. Therefore, in Yoruba, when foreign words are borrowed with consonant clusters, or with consonants in rime position, something must be done to repair the illicit syllable structure. According to Pulleyblank (1988), the most frequent syllable simplification strategy is vowel epenthesis. Some representative borrowed forms are shown in (48): (48)

Yoruba borrowed words direba "driver" silipaasi "slippers" biriki "brick" girämä "grammar" filipi "Phillip" fooki "fork"

As the data in (48) show, the vowel used to repair the borrowed words' syllable structure is /i/. And if the loan phonology rule is assumed to insert the minimally specified vowel, then the optimal representation for Yoruba vowels must be (49): (49)

Yoruba vowels (underspecified) i e a D H L + B + ATR

o

u

+

+

Minimal segments in second language phonology

293

Redundancy rules: [+low] —» [-high] [ ] - > [ + high] [ ] -> [-low] [+low] —> [+back] [ ] -> [-back] [+low]-»[-ATR]

This underspecified matrix is also the one that Pulleyblank posits for Yoruba to interact with some other rules in the languages. For example, it appears that I'll has certain asymmetric properties insofar as it is the only vowel that is optionally deleted in particular environments. This is shown in (50): (50)

Yoruba i-deletion iyetunde ~ iyarä ~ ibusun ~ ilekun ~

yetunde yärä busun lekün

(personal name) "room" "bed" "door"

Pulleyblank notes that all of the vowels that are deleted are mid-toned. Pulleyblank has argued elsewhere (1986) that in Yoruba mid-tone is the default tonal specification. That is, mid-toned vowels are underlyingly unspecified for tone. Given that the vowel l\l in Yoruba is unspecified for all other features, Pulleyblank concludes that this convergence of tonal underspecification and dorsal node underspecification results in the optional deletion of /i/. Both loan phonology evidence and language internal evidence in Yoruba point to a minimally specified vowel. This vowel's asymmetrical nature is demonstrated by the fact that it alone is not only inserted but deleted under certain conditions.

6.2 Second Language Phonology Given that minimally specified vowels are inserted to repair the syllable structure in borrowed words of a native language, it is not unwarranted to propose that a second language learner will do the same when confronted with impermissible consonant clusters in the target language. Recall Broselow's (1983) non-obvious transfer data from the Iraqi and Egyptian Arabic speakers given above in (2), (3) and (6), (7) (repeated here as (51), (52) and (53), (54) respectively):

294

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

Steven H. Weinberger

English Productions: a. [ifloor] b. [ibleen] c. [tfilidren] English Productions: a. [filoor] b. [bilastik] c. [tfilidren] Iraqi Arabic /kitab+1+a/ /kitab+t+1+a/ Egyptian Arabic /katab+1+a/ /katab+t+1+u/

Iraqi Arabic speakers "floor" "plane" "children" Egyptian Arabic speakers "floor" "plastic" "children" [kitabla] [kitabitla]

"he wrote to it/him" "I wrote to it/him"

[katabla] [katabtilu]

"he wrote to it/him" "I wrote to it/him"

It is clear from these data that these Arabic speakers are transferring a rule from their native language into their target productions of English: a rule of I'll epenthesis. We can interpret this phenomenon in a slightly different way, using notions derived from Underspecification Theory coupled with a L2 acquisition principle. From the asymmetric behavior of /i/ in Iraqi and Egyptian Arabic, we can infer that the minimally specified vowel in both of these dialects of Arabic is precisely /i/. In fact, there is further evidence, based upon vowel deletion phenomena, to support the claim that /i/ is the default vowel for Egyptian Arabic. According to Abdel-Massih (1975), only unstressed /i/ is deleted in the environment _ CV. This is demonstrated in the following forms: (55)

Egyptian Arabic i-deletion kätab "he wrote" kätabu "they wrote"

Jirib Jirbu

"he drank" "they drank"

Given that /i/ is the minimally specified vowel in Arabic, when these L2 learners encounter illicit consonant clusters in English, they simply apply the general strategy of vowel epenthesis to restructure the syllables. The rule of epenthesis is simplified roughly to the form -»V. There is no need to specify the features for the inserted vowel, since the redundancy rules for these Arabic dialects will fill them in at no cost. In essence then, what we see is not only a transfer of a strategy for syllable simplification, but also a transfer of method for determining the quality of the epenthesized vowel - transfer of Underspecification.

Minimal segments in second language phonology

295

We are now in a position to re-analyze some L2 epenthesis data from Eckman (1981) and Weinberger (1987). According to their data, Mandarin speakers typically insert a schwa to simplify target language syllable structure.18 This is shown in (56 a and b): (56)

Epenthesis in LI Mandarin a. "tag" [tiegs] b. "he's" [hiza] "tub" [tAba] (Eckman 1981)

speakers of English "draft" [drafts] "amidst" [Amidast] "and" [sends] (Weinberger 1987)

I believe that this choice of vowel quality reflects the status of this vowel in Mandarin. First of all, the vowel hi is often stressless and toneless in Mandarin. Indeed, the majority of structural and model particles (stressless and toneless verbal and nominal suffixes) contain the vowel hi. This cannot be said about any other vowel in Mandarin. A second point to be noted about hi is that it is the only vowel that is deleted in Mandarin phonology. There appear to be at least two separate vowel deletion rules in Mandarin that delete only hi. One rule, posited by Cheng (1973), and based upon distributional considerations, deletes hi when it follows a high vowel and precedes a nasal. The other rule reflects a fast-speech phenomenon that deletes final unstressed hi if and only if the remaining consonant is a nasal. The results of these rules are shown in (57) and (58) respectively. (57) (58)

/i9n/->[in] /iarj/ -> [irj] [ssma] [tsäma] [mams]

'reason' 'hero' [gam] "what" s [t am] "how" *[mam] "mother" - = high tone = rising tone = low tone

Finally, according to Cheng (1973), hi is the vowel that is inserted between a high front vowel and the retroflex noun suffix /r/: (59)

i+r y+r kü+r pha + r

-» —> -» ->

[iar] [yar] [kür] [phar]

"clothes" "rain" "drum" "rake"

296

Steven H. Weinberger

Even though the range of phenomena in Mandarin segmental phonology is limited, we can say that the vowel h/ acts in an asymmetrical fashion relative to the other vowels. The grammar of Mandarin has singled out this particular vowel to uniquely participate in deletion and epenthesis processes. I suggest that it is the default vowel in Mandarin, and as such, it is represented as the minimally specified vowel in the Mandarin system. Formally, the Mandarin situation is somewhat analogous to the one in Yoruba. Both epenthesis and deletion operations focus on the naked V-slot. Only naked V-slots are presumably not syllabified and thus are deleted. And due to simplicity criteria vowel epenthesis only inserts naked V-slots. All other vowel vestments are supplied later by redundancy rules. For Mandarin speakers, it is precisely this minimally specified vowel that is transferred into the L2 English. When the L2 syllable structure is simplified via epenthesis, no stipulations need to be made about the epenthesized vowel qualities. A single V node is inserted and the transferred Mandarin redundancy rules fill in all of the feature specifications to derive a hi.

7 The Solution to Differential Substitution We now return to the problem of differential substitution. The specific problem that I will address here is the substitution of /s/ for /Θ/ by Japanese learners of English (as reported by Ritchie (1968), and the substitution of/t/ for /Θ/ by Russian learners (as reported by Weinreich 1968; Lehiste (1988)). This subset of the differential substitution problem depicted above in (10) is chosen because of the similarities of the native Japanese and Russian consonant systems. To begin with, Russian and Japanese each have three voiceless [+coronal, + anterior] obstruents on the surface.19 These consonants, along with the English /Θ/, are shown specified in the representation in (60): (60)

Obstruents coronal anterior continuant strident

s + + + +

t + + -

t5 + + +

(Θ) + + + -

Furthermore, articulatorily, Russian /t/ and Japanese /t/ are quite similar, as are Russian and Japanese /s/. According to Jones and Ward (1969), Russian /s/ is an alveolar continuant, whereas Russian /t/ is an unaspirated denti-

Minimal segments in second language phonology

297

alveolar stop. Block (1970) and Yoshiko et al. (1979) categorize the Japanese /s/ as an alveolar and /t/ as an unaspirated dental stop. Because of the similarity between Russian and Japanese /s/s and /t/s, an explanation for this differential substitution based upon articulatory grounds will not be sufficient. The answer to this problem must lie in the Japanese and Russian languagespecific representations for this subset of obstruents. We have seen that for vowels at least, Underspecification Theory allows different underlying underspecified matrices for different languages. This language-specific notion can certainly be applied to consonant systems as well. But the segmental phonologies of Japanese and Russian do not contain the requisite rules to direct us in the construction of an optimal underspecified matrix for consonants. I propose that the differential substitution phenomenon can guide us in this formulation. Recall that in a loan phonology or in a second language phonology the language learner must adapt the target language structures into his or her native language system. If particular structures of the target language violate native language constraints, some repair strategy must be employed to make the target item conform to the native system. We have seen the effects of such repair strategies from the syllable structure violations that the Arabic system imposes on learners of English in the examples in (51) and (52). In addition to the syllable structure constraints there can also be segment structure constraints. The lack of a problematic (marked) segment like /Θ/ in the segmental inventories of Japanese and Russian is to be considered a native language constraint. Therefore, when Japanese or Russian learners of English encounter /Θ/, they must use some strategy to rectify this violation in their L2 phonology. One repair strategy would be to delete the problematic segment altogether, and never allow it to be phonetically realized as a consonant. But this type of deletion strategy is not the one chosen by L2 learners, since we never find occurrences like the ones in (61): (61)

thing thought thank

-> -» —>

*ing20 * ought *ank

Rather, what we do find are the substitutions like those depicted in (62): (62) thing thought thank them

-> -> —> -»

Japanese [s]ing [s]ought [s]ank [z]em

Russian [tjing [t]ought [tjank [d]em

298

Steven H. Weinberger

Obviously, L2 learners are not deleting all of the features of the problematic segment, since we do not find, for instance, sonorant substitutions for /Θ/. These learners are retaining certain aspects of /Θ/, specifically, its obstruent characteristic and its voice feature. All other features, such as [continuant] are, ex hypothesi, specified differently for the Japanese and Russian speakers. This situation can be formally represented if we construct languagespecific underspecified matrices for the three shared [+ anterior, + coronal] obstruents from (60). Consider the following preliminary underspecified matrices and redundancy rules for Japanese and Russian: (63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

Japanese obstruents (subset) s t ts21 continuant strident Japanese redundancy rules a. [ ] -> [+ ant] b. [ ] -> [+cor] c. []->[+cont] d. [a cont] -> [a stri] Russian obstruents (subset) s t ts continuant + strident + Russian redundancy rules a. [ ] -> [+ant] b. []->[+cor] c. [ ] -> [-cont] d. [a cont] -> [a stri]

In the representation in (63) through (66), the different treatments of the feature for [continuant] and [strident] result in a different [+coronal, + anterior] obstruent being minimally specified in Japanese and Russian. For Japanese, the most underspecified segment is /s/, while for Russian it is III. But we can further streamline the representations in (63) and (65). Notice that the feature [strident] acts to distinguish /tV from /t/ in these matrices. Normally, [strident] functions to distinguish noisy continuants from less noisy continuants. In the terms of Stevens, Keyser and Kawasaki (1986), stridency enhances continuancy. Therefore, [strident] should be totally redundant for [-continuant] segments, and should only be specified when a language has both noisy and less noisy continuants at the same point of arti-

Minimal segments in second language phonology

299

culation (such as English /Θ/ and /s/). Since neither Japanese nor Russian maintain this distinction, we should invoke the Feature Minimization Principle (21) and dispense with [strident]. Instead, the affricates can be distinguished from stops (and fricatives) by appealing to the internal geometry of an affricate. The affricates in Japanese and Russian can be represented as branching segments with a [-continuant] feature on the left and a [+continuant] feature on the right:

[-cont]

[+cont]

Figure 5. Affricate structure

Following this analysis, I will represent this special structure of affricates with a "v" in the [continuant] row. This does not entail any violation of binarity. Using the "v" notation does not lead to ternary power since no values are given. It is merely a device to mark the special branching structure of affricates. We can now reformulate the matrices and redundancy rules for Japanese and Russian from (63)-(66): (67)

Japanese obstruents (subset) s t t5 continuant v

(68)

Japanese redundancy rules a. [][]-»[-cont][] \/ W b. [ ] -> [+cont]

(69)

Russian obstruents (subset) s t continuant +

(70)

ts v

Russian redundancy rules a. [ ] [ ] - > [][+cont] W W b. [ ] -» [-cont]

Now we can expand this analysis and apply these same redundancy rules to all of the Japanese and Russian obstruents. These matrices and redundancy rules are shown in (71) through (74):

300

(71)

(72)

(73)

(74)

Steven H. Weinberger

Japanese voiceless obstruents P t k s o n _ _ _ v o i _ _ _ ant cor cont Japanese Redundancy rules: a. [ ] -> [+ant] b. [ ] -> [+cor] c. [ ] [ ] - > [][-cont] W \ / d. [ ]-> [+cont] Russian voiceless obstruents p t k s s o n _ _ _ v o i _ _ _ ant cor cont

s _ _

j _ _

+

J _ _ -

' _ _ +

ts _ _

tf _ _ -

v

v

f

t _ _

v

h _ _ -

r _ _ v

f _ _ +

x _ _ +

Russian Redundancy rules: a. [ ] -> [+ant] b. []-*[+cor] c. [ ] [ ] - > [][+cont] \/ \ / d. [ ] -> [-cont]

Two points deserve mentioning here. One is that [strident] plays no role in this analysis of differential substitution. This is in contrast to the claims of Nemser and Ritchie in sections 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. In the analysis proposed here, the grammar of each speaker's language uses the single feature [continuant] as the pivotal feature. This requires less new information for the L2 learner. The second point is that since the features [sonorant] and [voice] are required to be present at this underlying level of analysis (to prevent the substitution of nasals and to account for the fact that then -» [z/d]en, not *[s/t]en), a radically underspecified matrix is unobtainable.

Minimal segments in second language phonology

301

7.1 Feature Pruning Just as Arabic language learners repair syllable structure violations be inserting the most minimally specified vowel, I claim that these Japanese and Russian learners also rectify their segment structure constraint by replacing /Θ/ with their respective minimally specified obstruent. But we must be careful not to overextend this analogy. There are in fact, some formal differences between the Arabic vowel epenthesis and differential substitution. In the vowel epenthesis situation, a single V slot is simply inserted, subsequently allowing the redundancy rules to fill in all of its features. In the differential substitution case, an entire C slot is not inserted. Rather, a slot remains to insure that a consonant replaces the problematic /Θ/. Furthermore, in order to guarantee that the replacing consonant has the proper [-sonorant] and [voice] features, these features will be left intact to be matched with a minimally specified consonant. Accordingly, we can posit a L2 phonology rule of Feature Pruning to account for the proper substitution of the problematic /Θ/: (75)

Feature Pruning

(Θ) C

I

-son "Ι -voi + cor + ant + cont -stri

->

C

I

Γ-son" I -voi

It must be stipulated that Feature Pruning only applies when the configuration of features on the left side of the arrow is absent in the native language inventory. This rule acts to delete all features except the ones shown on the right side of the arrow. What remains is essentially an underspecified voiceless obstruent. For Japanese speakers, the redundancy rules in (72) yield the proper substitution of/s/, and the rules in (74) for Russian account for the /t/ substitution. Feature Pruning may be shown to interact with the hierarchical representation of features. Based on the behavior of distinctive features, Clements (1985) proposes that distinctive features are organized into hierarchical tiers, and do not form unordered bundles. The features [coronal] and [anterior] turn out to be sisters dominated by the Place Node. The Place Node in turn is dominated by the Supralaryngeal Node, and so on up to the CV tier. I

302

Steven H. Weinberger

CV tier: root node laryngeal tier

[sonorant]

[spread] [constricted]

ι

[voiced]

[nasal]

-

supralaryngeal tier manner tier [strident]

-^

[continuant]23 place tier [anterior] [coronal] [distributed] figure 6. Feature hierarchy for θ

adopt the hierarchy given in Clements (1985), but rather than their being dominated by the manner tier I will locate [sonorant] and [nasal] further up on the hierarchy.22 In the representation given in Figure 6 [sonorant] and [nasal] are immediately dominated by the root node. With this representation of hierarchical feature organization we can arboreally demonstrate the results of Feature Pruning (75). After Feature Pruning we obtain a minimal structure like that shown in Figure 7: Notice that everything is pruned below the Supralaryngeal tier. The Laryngeal tier and the feature [sonorant], because they are immediately

CV tier:

C

root node

o^

laryngeal tier

ο

[voiced] [-sonorant] Figure 7. Pruned Tree

Minimal segments in second language phonology

303

dominated by the root node, escape the pruning shears.24 Based on this observation, Feature Pruning (75) can be reformulated:

(76) C

I

-»

C

I

ο root I ο supralaryngeal

ο

(condition: supralaryngeal node dominates the features for /Θ/) All missing features will be automatically supplied by the redundancy rules in (72) and (74). By convention, the dominating nodes (i.e. supralaryngeal, place, manner, etc.) will be realized only after the features that they dominate are inserted. Notice that this argument would predict that /d/ and /t/ should be the default obstruents in native Russian phonology. The fact is, there is some Russian native language evidence that suggests that /d/ and /t/ are the default obstruents. Recall that in Yoruba, in Mandarin and in Egyptian Arabic it is the minimally specified vowel that is deleted. This deletion evidence is used to support the notion that certain segments have asymmetrical properties. The same can be said of Russian /d/ and /t/. According to Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979), only /t/ and /d/ are deleted when followed by the past tense suffix 1. This is shown in (77): (77)

Russian d/t deletion 1 sg. pres. fem. past grebu grebla nesu nesla peku pekla metu mela kradu krala

neuter past greblo neslo peklo melo kralo

gloss "row" "carry" "bake" "sweep" "steal"

If the redundancy rules for Russian in (74) are correct, and if [sonorant] is in fact immediately dominated by the root nodes (as in Figure 6), then the proper representation of /d/ and /t/ is equivalent to the pruned tree in Figure 7. Therefore, I propose that in Russian at least, deletion of the dental stops results from the lack of a supralaryngeal node. To summarize, evidence based on L2 substitution has provided a window from which to gain access to the phonological systems of Japanese and Rus-

304

Steven H. Weinberger

sian. The matrices and redundancy rules that are constructed, directly reflect the behavior of an L2 phonology through the operation of the L2-specific Feature Pruning. It is true that in these cases, direct corroboration from the native language is obscured by the paucity of relevant native language phonological rules. But because any evidence available to the linguist (including L2 performance) is in principle sufficient for the formulation of phonological representations, we are led to accept this L2-motivated formulation. Therefore, until contrary evidence arises, /s/ is to be considered the default obstruent in Japanese, and /t/ is the default obstruent in Russian. They both act asymmetrically in relation to their respective obstruent-mates.

8 Differential Substitution in Other Languages Although it is not the aim of this paper to extensively analyze all the substitution phenomena listed in (10), some correspondences and speculations can nevertheless be attempted. Japanese speakers are not the only L2 learners who substitute /s/ for English /ΘΛ Both German speakers and French speakers make the same substitutions. Bases on this performance, and in the absence of any other evidence, we can propose that German and French segmental matrices and redundancy rules reflect this preference for /s/. Therefore German, French and Japanese are related to the extent that they all share some similar redundancy rules - particularly the rule: [ ] -> [+cont]. Likewise, because Hungarian and Sinhalese speakers substitute /t/ for /Θ/, their grammars should have the same redundancy rule that Russian has for [continuant]: [ ] -> [-cont]. The positional variation that the Dutch speakers and the Mandarin speakers exhibit presents us with a more subtle problem. Both Dutch and Mandarin substitute /t/ or Idl for interdental fricatives in word-initial position. We can therefore assume that they each contain a Russian-like redundancy rule for [continuant].25 In word-final position however, the situation becomes more problematic. Dutch speakers substitute /s/ wordfinally and Mandarin speakers substitute HI. Apparently a L2 constraint on syllable structure is influencing the redundancy rules. On most proposed sonority hierarchies, like the one given in (78) from Selkirk (1984), fricatives are closer to vowels than are stops: (78)

sonority hierarchy least sonorous < > most sonorous stops-fricatives-nasals-liquids-glides-vowels

Minimal segments in second language phonology

305

Therefore, a syllable of the form CV fricative is more like a CV syllable than is a CVCSTOP syllable. L2 learners' productions have been known to revert back to a CV syllable type when they are confronted with marked structures, (see Tarone 1980). For these learners, the redundancy rule [ ] -»[-cont] is being compromised by another rule that is sensitive to syllable position: []-»[+cont]] w This works reasonably well for the Dutch speakers, who have /d/ and /s/ alternations, but for the Mandarin speakers' alternation of /d/ and /f/, we must incorporate an additional change in [coronal]. No doubt more research is necessary to resolve these lingering variation problems.

9 Conclusion The phenomenon of differential substitution has been a puzzle that has resisted a principled analysis for over thirty years. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis without any enrichment from linguistic theory remains too weak to predict the correct substitutions. None of the earlier proposals adequately account for this phenomenon either. They fail on empirical grounds or have had their theoretical linguistic foundations shattered. I have outlined the theory of underspecification and have shown that while it is fundamentally correct insofar as it simplifies the task of the first language learner, it has the problem of generating ambiguous matrices. That is, without native language evidence, multiple underspecified formulations are logically possible. In this paper, I have fashioned a double-edged proposal. On one side I have shown that corpus-external evidence such as data from L2 acquisition provides us with the much needed algorithm to disambiguate logically possible matrices. In the absence of native language evidence, L2 data serves as a portal to the otherwise obscured native language grammar. Data from L2 acquisition is to be considered as valuable as data from native language alternations. On the other side I have argued that Underspecification Theory provides the proper analysis of differential substitution. Throughout this model, I have implicitly utilized notions from some of the earlier proposals, such as markedness and feature matching. But unlike all of the previous analyses, I have endeavored to make explicit the mechanisms involved in differential substitution. Characterizing an L2 phonology is not a simple process of over-transfer, and the problem of differential substitution testifies to this. The model that I have described here has certain implications for L2 phonology. It treats the

306

Steven H. Weinberger

acquisition of a new phonology as a minimal learning process insofar as the learner, when confronted with a problematic segment, is only required to notice a minimal amount of information. In the case of the problematic /Θ/, the learner only learns the features located above the supralaryngeal node, i.e., [-sonorant] and [voice]. All other features result, at no learning cost, from a subtle form of abstract transfer. Notes 1. It is possible that the rule that inserts /i/ before initial clusters is specific to imperative forms, and therefore should be considered a lexical rule. According to Rubach (1984), lexical rules are not necessarily transferable. 2. The reason why certain features are considered "requisite" will be discussed in section 6 below. 3. Nemser's data actually show that /t/, /s/, and HI were all substituted for /Θ/. Results from perception tests indicate that Itl is the favored reflex. For production tests, /t/ was significantly favored. 4. It will be shown below that underspecification theory cannot allow three different specifications for a feature: "0", "+", and "-" violate the binary principle. Additionally, one of the issues in underspecification theory is whether both values of any feature are present in underlying representations. If in fact it turns out that no feature is fully specified, then no feature can be placed at the apex of the decision tree. 5. Stanley (1967, pp. 407-409) provides a set of convincing arguments that questions the theoretical validity of the decision trees. 6. This same type of decision tree model is adopted by Michaels (1973) to explain the Sinhalese /t/ substitutions for English /Θ/, as well as the /t/ substitutions for /t/. But in order for the hierarchical tree for Sinhalese to correctly predict these substitutions, Michaels must invoke an ad hoc feature [dental]. 7. See Hooper (1976) for a discussion of weak and strong segment positions. 8. See Halle (1957) for arguments in favor of binary representations for distinctive features. 9. Another redundancy rule will apply later to fill in the [-lateral] feature to all remaining segments. As we shall see later, the Redundancy Rule Ordering Constraint will insure that kl receives its specification for [lateral] before the Latin dissimilation constraint * [+ lateral] [+ lateral] takes effect. 10. This is in contrast to the earlier requirement that Chomsky and Halle's (1968) marking conventions possessed, whereby all features were filled in before any phonological rules applied. 11. Presumably there would be no incongruity in languages like Greek or Catalan, where we do find alternations between /t/ and /Θ/. 12. Pasiego is a dialect of Montanes Spanish, spoken in areas of north-central Spain. Surface vowel qualities also include four [-ATR] vowels, but because they are morphologically derived, Vago (1988) only considers the five [+ATR] vowels as underlying.

Minimal segments in second language phonology

307

13. Schiffman (1979) notes that while most noun and verb stems in Kannada end in a consonant, all words must end in a vowel. This also holds for loanwords, e. g. [bassu] 'bus'; [bukku] 'book'. 14. A rule of gemination applies here also. 15. There is further evidence that suggests that the vowel Id has asymmetric properties in Spanish. For example, Cressey (1978) notes that Id is inserted when diphthongs are derived from stressed /o/ and Id: [poder]-[puedo] 'to be able'; [beneficio]-[bien] 'benefit'. Cressey also considers Id to be the default vowel ending for noun and adjective stems that do not already end in one of the overt traditional gender vowels (/o/ or /a/). Finally, Cressey posits a rule that deletes final Id when it is preceded by a voiced coronal consonant. This only applies to words that have, on the surface, l-d as part of the plural ending /s/: /mercede/ -» [merced] 'gift' but /mercede+s/ -> [mercedes] 'gifts'. 16. Nevertheless, /a/ will receive its [-high] specification by some late redundancy rule. 17. There is also some evidence of epenthesis (prothesis) in Pasiego that further suggests the correctness of an analysis that chooses /a/ as the default vowel. Penny (1969, p. 90) presents forms that have an epenthetic /a/. 18. This vowel may actually be realized as [y]. Weisse (1989) provides independent evidence that [γ] is actually the minimally specified vowel in Mandarin Chinese. 19. Here I will ignore the palatalized series of consonants in Russian. They do not affect the discussion that follows. 20. Since Japanese has an additional syllable structure constraint that limits codas to sonorants, I will only be dealing with onset positions here. 21. The consonant M in Japanese usually occurs in front of the vowel /u/, and hence it can be analyzed as an allophone of/t/. But, as noted in 4.2., there are Japanese forms where Μ occurs before vowels other than /u/: [t^a] 'father'; [tso] 'feast' (Vance, 1987). For the purposes of this analysis, /tJ7 and the other Japanese affricate /tV (for which there is also evidence of phoneme status) will be considered as underlying. 22. Sagey (1986) also places the features [sonorant] and [nasal] high on the hierarchy, but for her, they are immediately dominated by the supralaryngeal tier. 23. There are of course, alternate analyses for feature organization. For instance, Davis (1989) places [continuant] high up on the tree, immediately dominated by the root node. 24. If some form of feature pruning also applies to the Arabic substitutions of/b/ for English /p/ (see section 2), then some special condition must stipulate that for Arabic, the laryngeal tier is not yet specified. A language specific redundancy rule such as [+labial, -continuant] -»[+voice] will fill in the laryngeal tier. 25. Incidentally, the grammar of Dutch treats /d/ differently from all other consonants. It contains a rule that deletes only the consonant /d/ in certain intervocalic positions. See Zonneveld (1978).

308

Steven H. Weinberger

References Abdel-Massih, E. 1975 An Introduction to Egyptian Arabic. Ann Arbor: The Center for Near East and North African Studies, University of Michigan. Altenberg, E. - R. Vago 1983 "Theoretical implications of an error analysis of second language phonology production", Language Learning 33:427-448. Archangeli, D. 1984 Underspecification in Yalwemani Phonology and Morphology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT. Archangeli, D. 1988 "Aspects of underspecification theory", Paper presented at North West Linguistics Club, University of British Columbia. Archangeli, D. - D. Pulleyblank 1987 "Maximal and minimal rules: effects of tier scansion", in: J. McDonough - B. Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings ofNELS 17. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Archangeli, D. - D. Pulleyblank (to appear) The content and structure of phonological representations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Berger, M. 1951 The American English pronunciation of Russian immigrants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University. Bloch, B. 1970 "Phonemics", in: R. Miller (ed.), Bernard Bloch on Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press. Broselow, E. 1983 "Non-obvious transfer: on predicting epenthesis errors", in: S. Gass L. Selinker (eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Chandrashekar, S. 1986 Lexical morphology and phonology of Kannada. MA thesis, University of Ottawa. Cheng, C. 1973 A Synchronic Phonology of Mandarin Chinese. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. - M. Halle 1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Clements, G.N. 1980 Vowel Harmony in Nonlinear Generative Phonology: An Autosegmental Model. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Clements, G.N. 1985 "The geometry of distinctive features", Phonology Yearbook 2:223-250. Clements, G.N. 1987 "Toward a substantive theory of feature specification", Paper presented atNELSlS.

Minimal segments in second language phonology

309

Cressey, W. 1978 Spanish Phonology and Morphology: A Generative View. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Davis, S. 1989 "The location of the feature [continuant] in feature geometry", Lingua 78:1-22. Eckman, F. 1981 On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning 31:195-216. Fonda, C. 1984 "An analysis of pronunciation mistakes and second language strategy in the case of Italian and mandarin speaking learners of English", in: M. P. R. van den Broecke - A. Cohen (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Dordrecht: Foris. Fries, C. 1945 Teaching and learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Goldsmith, J. 1976 Autosegmental Phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Halle, M. 1957 "In defence of the number two", in: E. Pulgram (ed.), Studies Presented to Joshua Whatmough. The Hague: Mouton. Halle, M. 1959 The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton. Hooper, J. 1976 An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Hyman, L. 1970 "The role of borrowing in the justification of grammars", Studies in African Linguistics 1:1-48. James, A. 1984 "Phonic transfer: the structural bases of interlingual assessments", in: M.P.R. van den Broecke - A. Cohen (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Dordrecht: Foris. Jones, D. - D. Ward 1969 The Phonetics of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenstowicz, M. - C. Kisseberth 1979 Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Kiparsky, P. 1973 "Phonological representations", in: O. Fujimura (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo: TEC Company. Kiparsky, P. 1982 "Lexical morphology and phonology", in: The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin. Kohmoto, S. 1965 Applied English Phonology. Tokyo: Tanaka Press.

310

Steven H. Weinberger

Lado, R. 1957 Lehiste, I. 1988 Lovins, J. 1974

Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lectures on Language Contact. Cambridge ΜΑ: ΜΓΓ Press.

"Why loan phonology is natural phonology", in: A. Br ck - R. Fox M. LaGaly (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago: CLS. McCawley, J. 1968 The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton. Michaels, D. 1973 "Sinhalese sound replacements and feature hierarchies", Linguistics 107:14-22. Michaels, D. 19 74 " Sound replacements and phonological systems ", Linguistics 126:69-81. Nemser, W. 1971 An Experimental Study of Phonological Interference in the English of Hungarians. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Penny, R. 1969 El Habla Pasiega. London: Tamesis Books Limited. Pulleyblank, D. 1986 Tone in Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pulleyblank, D. 1988 "Vocalic underspecification in Yoruba", Linguistic Inquiry 19:233-270. Ritchie, W. 1968 "On the explanation of phonic interference", Language Learning 18: 183-197. Rubach, J. 1984 "Rule typology and phonological interference", in: Stig Eliasson (ed.), Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Phonology. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag. Sagey, E. 1986 The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Unpublished dissertation, MIT. Schiffman, H. 1979 A Reference Grammar of Spoken Kannada. Final Report, U.S. Dept. of Health Education and Welfare Office of Education. Selkirk, E. 1984 "On the major class features and syllabic theory", in: M. Aronoff R. Oehrle (eds.), Language sound structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Stanley, R. 1967 "Redundancy rules in phonology", Language 43:393-436. Steriade, D. 1987 "Redundant Features", in: A. Bosch - B. Need - E. Schiller (eds.), Papers from the 23rd Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Part II. Chicago: CLS.

Minimal segments in second language phonology

311

Stevens, K. - S. Keyser - H. Kawasaki 1986 "Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features", in: J. Perkell - D. Klatt (eds.), Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tarone, E. 1980 "Some influences on the syllable structure of interlanguage phonology", IRAL 18:139-152. Trubetzkoy, N. 1969/1939 Principles of Phonology. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Vago, R. 1988 "Underspecification in the height harmony system of Pasiego", Phonology 5.2. Vance, T. 1987 An Introduction to Japanese Phonology. Albany: SUNY Press. Weinberger, S. 1987 "The influence of linguistic context on syllable simplification", in: G. loup - S. Weinberger (eds.), Interlanguage Phonology. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Weinreich, U. 1968 Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton. Weisse, R. 1989 "Underspecification and the description of Chinese vowels", Paper presented at the Tianjin Conference on Phonetics and Phonology, June 1989. Wenk, B. 1979 "Articulatory setting and de-fossilization", Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 4:202-20. Yoshiko, R - E. Nakano - C. Seton 1979 Japanese Pronunciation Guide. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. Zonneveld, W. 1978 A Formal Theory of Exceptions in Generative Phonology. Lisse: Peter DeRidder.

A parameter-setting model for second-language phonological acquisition? Allan James

1.1 There has been much reassessment in recent years of the relationship between second language acquisition (SLA) and linguistic theory, most of the discussion centring around the role of universal grammar (UG) and its associated "principles and parameters" theories in the classroom learning of foreign languages. For example, Cook (1988) and White (1989) offer good general discussion of this, and Eubank (1991) provides a conflicting viewpoint. Most of the debate has concentrated on syntax, in which opinions vary wildly from the "no UG in SLA" position to one in which UG is assigned a central role in the learner's second language (L2) acquisition. While there seems to be some general agreement as to the role of UG in SLA as a general language learning faculty and as constituting a general set of well-formedness conditions on the interlanguage (IL) grammars constructed by L2 learners, views differ as to the extent to which particular principles and parameters are present in shaping SLA and whether these are accessed via the L2 itself or solely by way of the LI involved. Clahsen- Muysken (1989) argue, for example, against the presence of UG principles and parameters in SLA, while Flynn (1988) and Felix (1987) claim the opposite. These researchers show with evidence from grammaticality and comprehension tests performed with French and German learners of English that the learners must have had access to the UG principles of subjacency and the Empty Category Principle. Concerning the role of parametersetting, this has been used to account for first language (LI) influence in L2 acquisition with, for example, preposition-stranding (van Buren-Sharwood Smith 1985), Principle Branching Direction (Flynn 1984) and pro-drop (White 1985; Hilles 1986). However, considering that phonological structure is as much part of a UG as syntax is, what of principles and parameters in phonology?

1.2 Up until recently (Archibald 1993; Young-Scholten 1993) there has been relatively little discussion on the role of principles and parameters in the sound

314

Allan James

domain of linguistic structure and equally little word on UG in L2 phonological acquisition. One obvious reason might be that systems of principles and parameters of sound systems simply have not been developed to the degree of explanatory potential that has occurred with syntax. While a general syntactic principle such as x-theory has been shown to be equally applicable to phonology (as in the hierarchical prosodic representations proposed by, e.g., Nespor-Vogel 1986 and James 1986), other principles such as structuredependency and projection have still to be explored in depth for their relevance to sound structure. However, metrical phonology, almost by definition implicitly recognizes the presence of a projection principle in incorporating lexical stress patterns in higher-level prosodic structures (see, e.g., Hayes 1981; Prince 1983; Selkirk 1984; Giegerich 1985). Of the few specifically phonological principles proposed, the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) has received a good deal of attention in the literature on autosegmental phonology (see, e.g. McCarthy 1986; Odden 1988; Yip 1988). Stated in its simplest form as "Adjacent identical elements are prohibited" (Goldsmith 1976), the OCP ensures the well-formedness of featural groupings on various tiers of an autosegmental representation such that two consecutive identical "segmental" specifications are blocked on the same tier. However, the OCP and other related principles such as "association lines must not cross" in inter-tier autosegmental representations are in the first instance locality requirements on phonological rules and not necessarily principles of a UG as such. Indeed, with the current concern in nonlinear phonology on problems of representation, it is perhaps not surprising that the development of UG principles in phonology has been side-tracked, as it were, with issues of surface well-formedness to the exclusion of attention to underlying general constraints on phonological organization. Or is it simply that the essence of autonomous phonological organization is the arrangement of lexical form in prosodically alternating prosodic/metrical substance and no more? Concerning phonological parameters, a number have been proposed in both autosegmental and metrical theory. In the former, Clements and Sezer (1982), for example, in a discussion of Turkish vowel harmony propose the following (1982:217): "a. The class of P-segments (melody units) which constitute the autosegmentallyrepresented harmony features; b. The class of P-bearing units (melody-bearing units) defined as the class of units to which P-segments are associated under the universal Well-formedness Conditions; c. The (possibly null) class of opaque segments, defined as those which are underlyingly associated with a P-segment;

A parameter-setting model for second language phonological acquisition ?

315

d. The (possibly null) class of transparent segments which must be formally excluded from the class of P-bearing units; e. The domain within which the Well-formedness Conditions initially apply."

Here parameters (b) and (e) are set independently, i.e. form part of UG, with (b) representing the class of vowels and (e) the phonological word. (a), (c) and (d) have to be set per language, where, e.g., (a) - P-segments are drawn from the universal set of vowel features. In other words, a core phonological grammar will contain vowel units and words as universal elements of representation, whereas the "segments" under (a), (c) and (d) are language-specific (peripheral?) representational derivatives of these. It will be clear from the formulation of these autosegmental parameters, however, that it is the representational well-formedness/"correctness" of the elements proposed that is at issue and not the kind of generalizable "grammatical" phenomena captured under the syntactic parameters mentioned above. A set of parameters for metrical phonology has been proposed by Dresher-Kaye (1990). They are (1990: 143): PI: P2a: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P7 P8a: P8: P9: P10:

The word-tree is strong on the [Left/Right] There are feet [No/Yes] Feet are [Binary/Unbounded] Feet are built from the [Left/Right] Feet are strong on the [Left/Right] Feet are quantity sensitive (QS) [Yes/No] Feet are QS to the [Rime/Nucleus] A strong branch of a foot must itself branch [No/Yes] There is an extrametrical syllable [No/Yes] It is extrametrical on the [Left/Right] A weak foot is defooted in clash [No/Yes] Feet are noniterative [No/Yes]

The assumption is that a child will set the parameter values appropriate to the language he is acquiring. For example, setting PI [Left] gives fixed initial stress as in Hungarian, setting PI [Right] gives fixed final stress as in French, etc. Fixed second stress is the result of setting PI [Left], P8a as [Yes] and P8 as [Left]. In the same paper the authors go on to interpret metrical parameter-setting within what they term a "deterministic learning system", which, amongst other components, includes a scanning mechanism for parameter cues. In other words, in this model parameters are set on the basis of substantive cues to representational well-formedness present in the input available to the acquirer. They mediate the construction of metrical representa-

316

Allan James

tion, and as such constitute local restrictions on the realization of the substantive universale word, foot, etc.

1.3 But what of the relevance of phonological principles and parameter theories for second language acquisition? The reluctance noticed by most researchers in L2 phonology to embrace such theories for acquisitional research may not be hard to explain. Firstly perhaps, as may be deduced from the above, the extant principles and parameters proposed in non-linear phonology are highly restricted in scope and amount to relatively local conditions on particular surface representations in a typological way. For example, as things stand concerning principles, that of headship is one which - trivially? appears to govern the well-formedness of interphonologies. Evidence for L2 phonologies showing a prosodic head structure, i.e. a hierarchical governing relationship between a dominant phonological element (word, syllable) and its dependent units (syllable, CV/segment structures) at various levels, has been provided by Vogel (1991) for Italian/English and James (1986; 1988) for Dutch/English. Secondly, concerning just parameters, the interpretation of their value for explaining SLA is crucially dependent on what processing status we give them in foreign language learning, and this inevitably leads us to the developmental as opposed to logical status of a UG theory of principles and parameters for acquisition and with it the whole status of linguistic description as an explanation of language behaviour in a particular domain. These issues will be returned to further below.

2.1 Mention has been made of the essentially typological well-formedness function of such phonological principles as have been proposed in the literature, and indeed one may wonder to what extent such principles can offer new insights on structural constraints on developing L2 phonologies. After all, there already exists a body of material that shows that general typological characteristics of, e.g., syllable and consonant cluster structure constrain the solutions L2 learners arrive at in producing target language (TL) phonotactics. Eckman (1987) shows that Cantonese, Japanese and Korean learners of English reduce syllable-final clusters in a way consonant with Greenberg's

A parameter-setting model for second language phonological acquisition ?

317

(1978) implicational hierarchy of bi- and tri-segment syllable codes. Tropf (1983, 1987) shows that in general Spanish learners of German acquire syllable structure in the order most to least sonorant segment (i.e. syllable nucleus to syllable periphery). And another well-established research paradigm in L2 phonological acquisition research has investigated the extent to which LI and L2 structural constraints on syllable shape interact with attested universal preferences. Thus studies by, e.g., Tarone (1980), Sato (1984) and Flege-Davidian (1985) of different LI speakers learning English conclude by and large that LI structural influence outweighs any universal preference for an open CV structure in the language being acquired. More recently this type of research has been reinterpreted in terms of assessing the influence of LI and L2 "parameter" settings of a particular structural principle in the light of a universally determined unmarked/marked setting of the same principle. Thus Broselow-Finer (1991), for example, look at the production of English syllable onsets /pr/, /pj/, /br/ and /b]7 by Korean and Japanese learners. Employing Selkirk's (1984) Minimal Sonority Distance principle, they find that although the cluster types /br/ and /bj/ (i.e. the more marked set, since the sonority values of /b/ vs kl and l\l are closer than those of /p/ vs kl and /j/) were more difficult to produce, the learners did not show a strong tendency to revert to cluster types even less marked than those in their own LI phonology. Perhaps paradoxically, it seems that parametrization of structural principles rather than a theory of parameter-setting itself is seen as providing the more productive avenue of investigation within UG theory for acquisition research. However, this development inevitably begs the old question of the processing reality of such contrastive-typological analyses in the acquisition dimension itself. Of course, to the extent that non-linear theory comes up with more sophisticated structural principles than previous phonological theories (or theories of phonological universale), this itself may lead to new insights in the regularities of acquiring new phonological systems. The processing problem, however, remains. Research on LI acquisition is, as usual, a step ahead of L2 research in assigning structural procedures - here the parametrization of principles - a developmental interpretation. Martohardjono (1989) employs Clements' (1990) Sonority Cycle Principle to "explain" the well-attested sequences of syllable structure development, i.e. CV before VC before V.VC, etc. And returning to the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP), Goad (1989) and Ingram (1990) operationalize the working of this principle as a structural trigger by ordering gemination, deletion and epenthesis in the child's acquisition of English plural allomorphy (i.e. /z/ vs /s/ vs Az/). Goad, e.g., argues

318

Allan James

that the OCP triggers the acquisition of the /iz/ allomorph at the point in acquisition at which the child, having initially interpreted the OCP as an "unmarked" passive constraint leading to gemination and deletion forms (e.g. /rauzz/ and /rauz/ for English roses), realizes via positive evidence that in English the OCP is an active "marked" constraint which "repairs" /rauzz/ and /rauz/ to /rauz iz/. An autosegmental representation of gemination and deletion may be given as in Figure 1:

gemination skeletal tier

χ

melodic/segmental tier

r

skeletal tier

χ

melodic/segmental tier

r

m

deletion au

Figure 1. Autosegmental representation of gemination and deletion

For the L2 acquisition of English allomorphy, Singh (1987,1991) argues that learners will "solve" such potential phonotactic problems in the TL by applying the same "repair strategies" to maintain well-formedness in the L2 as operate in the LI. However, crucial to the proposed ordering by Goad and Ingram is a particular autosegmental representation/derivation of the case in question. This kind of development in the research, I believe, calls for a certain caution. On general grounds there is a danger of a simple equation of phonological processes with learner processing strategies - this in the absence of as in, for example, Natural Phonology anything like a behaviourally motivated structural teleology of phonological processes. On more specific grounds, as far as L2 phonological acquisition is concerned, we risk falling yet again into the contrastive analysis ontological trap by substituting "principle" for "tertium comparationis", "markedness" for "universal typological preference" and assuming the comparison of LI and L2 values for a particular structural point stands for any kind of learner linguistic processing in acquisition.

A parameter-setting model for second language phonological acquisition ?

319

2.2

Returning to a theory of parameter-setting as such, the processing problem emerges even more clearly. The setting of the kind of metrical branching parameters in acquisition as proposed by Dresher - Kaye (1990), as they argue themselves, is dependent on the existence of a learning theory which they attempt to formulate in terms of deterministic parsing systems. However, it is worthwhile pointing out that the few parameter-learning systems thus far proposed for phonology exclusively address the construction of well-formed (metrical) representations and do not, e.g., offer any deductive algorithms for "triggering" the required sets of linked parameters as proposed in research on syntax acquisition (LI or L2). Of course it may be argued that the interpretive status of phonological structure as opposed to "generative" status of syntax demands this. It may simply be the case that knowledge of phonological structure in general involves the ability to construct lower level elements (e.g. feet) from higher level ones (words) according to a minimal system of binary or [yes/no] choices. As Dresher - Kaye observe, with phonology "the data is relatively undifferentiated when compared with the input data relevant to the setting of syntactic parameters" (1990:145). However, if this is so, then establishing the parameter values in phonological acquisition crucially depends on determining the aspects of the data that are relevant to a particular parameter, and for this one needs a theory of evidence types (arguably in existence - see, e. g., Ingram's (1990) discussion of direct and indirect positive and negative evidence in the context of phonological learnability) as well as an interpretive theory of learning. While we may be close to formulating the former, we are nowhere near formulating the latter. Again we must address the processing issue. One doubts the value of Dresher - Kaye's learning theory for SLA for the simple reason that the cues present in the evidence essential to the correct functioning of the parser are not necessarily interpreted in a TL way. Concerning their parameter PI above, e.g., "The word-tree is strong on the [Left/Right]", the English learner of French might assume that right-branching word-trees as in combien, monsieur, alors, etc. (i.e. with a prominent final syllable) are purely word-level metrical phenomena with no implication that other levels of metrical representation are right-branching as well (at, e.g., foot level). These false assumptions derive obviously from the influence of the LI, which metrically allows different branching directions at different levels of representation (e.g., right-branching at intonational phrase level, left-branching at word/foot level). Here one might adduce the kind of LI vs

320

Allan James

L2 markedness relationships in parameter-setting values as discussed above with regard to syllable onset structure to argue for likely preferences in the learner's interpretation of the L2 structure, but in the absence of an interpretive theory of how the learner's parameters settings are contingent on a) projection relations between different levels of phonological representation, and b) the substantive nature of the cues provided to structure in the data available, we are no way near any explanatory account of learner processing in this domain. Such a theory is still a long way off (even?) for LI phonological acquisition.

Although parsing solutions to the acquisition problem are primarily addressed to the logical rather than developmental problem of acquisition, by dint of the fact that they are incremental in nature, they implicitly are open to a developmental interpretation. However, taking the view (argued in James 1988) that the development of a second language over time includes the acquisition or emergence of an L2 phonological grammar, which is itself subject to well-formedness principles of UG, and that the former as an instance of L2 performance is mediated to the latter as L2 competence via a general problem-solving or learning processing component, in our present state of knowledge I would argue that we are better served by an a-incremental model of learner processing based on the kind of general problem-solving, hypothesis-testing conception of second language learning as developed over the past decade or so in mainstream L2/IL research (see, e.g. Gass - Selinker 1983; Kellerman - Sharwood Smith 1986). I have shown in previous work (James 1987; 1988) that the internal ordering of the phonological grammar itself in terms of a central lexical representation to more "peripheral" prosodic and rhythmic representations provides in itself the incremental dimension of L2 acquisition. A linguistic theory of L2 phonological development can only be structurally predictive to the extent that it can draw on independently motivated ordering principles of phonological structure itself and interpret them incrementally in an acquisition dimension. The influence of structural properties of the LI or other grammars must remain the result of essentially ad hoc and for the present, unprincipled, attempts by the learner to solve a particular representational problem in the L2 sound structure.

A parameter-setting model for second language phonological acquisition ?

321

References Broselow, E. - D. Finer 1991 "Parameter setting and transfer in second language phonology and syntax", Second Language Research 7:35-59. Buren, P. van - M. Sharwood Smith 1985 "The acquisition of preposition-stranding by second language learners and parametric variation", Second Language Research 1:18-46. Clahsen, H. - P. Muysken 1989 "The UG paradox in L2 acquisition", Second Language Research 5:1-29. Clements, G. 1990 "The role of the Sonority Cycle in core syllabification", in: John J. Ohala (ed.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. Clements, G. - E. Sezer 1982 "Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish", in: H. van der Hülst N. Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part II. Dordrecht: Foris, 213-255. Cook, V. 1988 Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Dresher, B.-J. Kaye 1990 "A computational learning model for metrical phonology", Cognition 34:137-195. Eckman, F. 1987 "The reduction of word-final consonant clusters in interlanguage", in: A. James -J. Leather (eds.), Sound Patterns in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Foris, 143-162. Eubank, L. (ed.) 1991 Point Counterpoint. Universal Grammar in the Second Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Felix, S. 1987 Cognition and Language Growth. Dordrecht: Foris. Flege, J. - R. Davidian 1985 "Transfer and developmental processes in adult foreign language speech production", Applied Psycholinguistics 5:323-347. Flynn, S. 1984 "A Universal in L2 acquisition based on a PBD typology", in: F. Eckman et al. (eds.), Universals of Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 75-87. Flynn, S. 1988 "Nature of development in L2 learning and implications for theories of language acquisition in general", in: S. Flynn - W. O'Neil, Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel, 7689. Gass, S. - L. Selinker (eds.) 1983 Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

322

Allan James

Goad, H. 1989

"The function of the Obligatory Contour Principle in English: evidence from child language", Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 28:115 -122. Goldsmith, J. 1976 "An overview of autosegmental phonology", Linguistic Analysis 2:23-68. Greenberg, J. 1978 "Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters", in: J. Greenberg et al. (eds.), Universals of Human Language, Volume 2, Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 243-279. Hayes, B. 1981 A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club. Hilles, S. 1986 "Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter", Second Language Research 2:15-33. Ingram, D. 1990 "Learnability in phonological theory and language acquisition", ms., University of British Columbia. James, A. 1986 Suprasegmental Phonology and Segmental Form. Tübingen: Niemeyer. James, A. 1987 "Prosodic structure in phonological acquisition", Second Language Research 3,118-140. James, A. 1988 The Acquisition of a Second Language Phonology. Tübingen: Narr. Kellerman, E. - M. Sharwood Smith (eds.), 1986 Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Martohardjono, G. 1989 "The sonority cycle in the acquisition of phonology", Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 28: 131 -139. McCarthy, J. 1986 "OCP effects: gemination and antigemination", Linguistic Inquiry 17: 207-263. Nespor, M. -1. Vogel 1986 Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Odden, D. 1988 "Antigemination and the OCP", Linguistic Inquiry 19:451-476. Prince, A. 1983 "Relating to the grid", Linguistic Inquiry 14:91-100. Sato,C. 1984 "Phonological processes in second language acquisition: another look at interlanguage syllable structure", Language Learning 34:43-157. Selkirk, E. 1984 Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

A parameter-setting model for second language phonological acquisition ? Singh, R. 1991

323

"Interference and contemporary phonological theory", Language Learning 41:157'-175. Singh, R. - A. Ford 1987 "Interphonology and phonological theory", in: A. James - J. Leather (eds.), Sound Patterns in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Foris, 163-172. Tarone, E. 1980 "Some influences on the syllable structure of interlanguage phonology", International Review of Applied Linguistics 18:139-152. Tropf, H. 1983 Variation in der Phonologic des ungesteuerten Zweitspracherwerbs. Unpublished dissertation, University of Heidelberg. Tropf, H. 1987 "Sonority as a variability factor in second language phonology", in: A. James - J. Leather (eds.), Sound Patterns in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Foris, 173-191. Vogel, I. 1991 "Prosodic phonology: second language acquisition data as evidence in theoretical phonology", in: T. Huebner - C. Ferguson (eds.), Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theories. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 47-65. White, L. 1985 "The 'pro-drop' parameter in adult second language acquisition", Language Learning 35:47-62. White, L. 1989 universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Yip, M. 1988 "The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: a loss of identity", Linguistic Inquiry 19:65-100. Young-Scholten, M. 1993 The Acquisition of Prosodic Structure in a Second Language. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Towards a typology of bilingual phonological systems Christiane Laeufer

1 Introduction 1.1 Weinreich's (1953) Typology

Bilingual linguistic systems were first examined in the 1940s in discussions on the treatment of loanwords in phonological analysis. The crucial question was whether to treat loans as integral parts of the so-called 'core' phonological system or to assign them a peripheral status, separate from the native stock (Swadesh 1941; Bloch 1950; Fries-Pike 1949). In early studies on bilingualism, also, the crucial question was whether bilinguals develop separate, coexistent, linguistic systems for their languages or whether they have a single all-encompassing, merged system (Swadesh 1941; Weinreich 1953:8; Erwin-Osgood 1954). Weinreich (1953:9-10) distinguished between three basic types of bilingual linguistic systems illustrated in Figure 1. Coexistent systems are said to result typically from the simultaneous acquisition of the two languages in different contexts (e.g. at home and outside the home). One of the languages is typically the first language and the other is acquired as a second language. A merged system is said to result when both of the languages are

coexistent systems

'BOOK1

'KNIGA'

merged system

super-subordinate systems

'BOOK1 = 'KNIGA1

'BOOK' /buk/

/buk/

/kniga/

/buk/

/kniga/

/kniga/

Figure 1. Possible relationships between semantic units and their phonological representations in English-Russian bilingual speakers (Weinreich 1953). Capitals refer to the content plane, lower case to the expression plane.

326

Christiane Laeufer

coexistent systems

merged system

super-subordinate systems

/P/L1,L2

/P/Ll

/P/L2

[p]

[Ph]

[Pi

[Phl

[p]U

Figure 2. Weinreich's (1953) typology adapted to the phonological and phonetic levels. /P/ stands for a compound phonological representation; LI refers to the native, or first, language; and L2, to the second language (or second LI), [p] represents a short-lag, voiceless unaspirated stop; and [ph], a long-lag, voiceless aspirated stop.

acquired simultaneously as first languages in the same context. What will be called super-subordinate systems are said to result typically from second language learning in a formal setting. This model can be adapted to the phonological and phonetic levels for two languages differing in the realization of voiceless stops, as shown in Figure 2. Coexistent systems are those of individuals who have functionally independent systems, at both the phonological and phonetic levels. Merged systems are those of individuals who have a single system at the phonological level, but a two-member system at the phonetic level. The third category, super-subordinate systems, applies to individuals who have a strongly dominant LI system at both levels and who use that system to encode a second (subordinate) language.

1.2 Keating's (1984) speech production model Following other studies on second language (L2) acquisition at the phonetic level (e.g. Flege-Eefting 1987a; 1987b), the typology is recast here in accordance with Keating's (1984) model of speech production. According to Keating, in order to implement their phonological stop categories, languages mostly select among three basic universal phonetic categories. As shown in Figure 3, these categories basically correspond to different ranges of values along the continuum of Voice Onset Time or VOT. Originally proposed by Lisker and Abramson (1964) to phonetically relate voicing (in /b, d, g/) to aspiration (in /p, t, k/), VOT is defined as the time between the point of release of a stop and the onset of voicing for the

Towards a typology of bilingual phonological systems lead

0

{b} English:

'

___

French:

short-lag {p}

long-lag '

{^}

|__|

{b}

'

{p}

327

VOT

__|

'

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the Voice Onset Time (VOT) continuum, indicating the point of release (0) and the three VOT ranges corresponding to the prevoiced, voiceless unaspirated, and voiceless aspirated phonetic categories. The VOT ranges for English and French stops are shown. English {p} implements voiceless realizations of /b/ and unaspirated realizations of /p/.

following vowel. Stops can be articulated with so-called lead ({b}), short-lag ({p}) or long-lag VOT ({ph}). In stops with lead VOT, voicing starts before the release (as in English and French voiced /b, d, g/). In those with short-lag VOT, it starts at or shortly after the point of release (as in English voiceless /b,d, g/ and French unaspirated /p, t, k/). In stops with long-lag VOT, it starts some time after release (as in English aspirated /p, t, k/). Besides specifying the modal range of VOT values of a stop, the phonetic categories also specify its general articulatory and acoustic characteristics. They thus correspond to a level of representation similar to the systematic phonetic level in generative models of phonological analysis. So-called phonetic realization rules provide sensorimotor phonetic detail, such as exactly how long after release voicing starts, for instance, in English as

French lead VOT:

English

{b}

short-lag VOT: (P)

long-lag VOT:

{ph}

Figure 4. The principle of Polarization (Keating 1984), as it applies to the stops of French and to English dialects implementing /b/ as partially to totally voiceless {p}. Due to dissimilation from {b}, French {p} reaches longer lag values than English {p}, which dissimilates from {ph}.

328

Christiane Laeufer

opposed to German long-lag voiceless stops (i. e. the exact amount of aspiration). These rules implement principles that are partly language-specific and partly universal. One such universal principle is illustrated in Figure 4. It is the so-called polarization principle, reminiscent of Liljencrants and Lindblom's (1972) principle of perceptual dispersion, and according to which languages strive to keep maximally distinct the phonetic contrast between their phonologically voiced and voiceless stops. Thus, in a language like French which contrasts lead and short-lag stops, the latter tend to have somewhat longer VOT values than in a language like English which contrasts (mostly) short- and long-lag stops. In the former, they dissimilate or "polarize away" from stops with voicing lead ({b}), and in the latter, from stops with long lag ({ph}).

1.3 Resulting typology and predictions The diagrams in Figure 5 illustrate Weinreich's typology in the framework of Keating's model. In coexistent systems, the stops of each of the languages are associated with a particular phonetic implementation. For example, the stops of LI (the native language) are implemented as unaspirated, and those of L2 as aspirated phonetic stops categories. These in turn are output by language-specific sensorimotor realization rules. A bilingual with coexistent systems would thus have two separate series of voiceless stops at all three levels, with minimal cross-linguistic interference. Ideally he would realize both series of stops with native fluency, as schematized under I. In reality, there will no doubt be periods where one of the two languages is slightly dominant, resulting in some loss of fluency in the other, less used, language (represented in II by the parentheses around superscript H). Type IV in Figure 5 represents a system predicted not to occur: separate phonetic categories, but identical outputs for both languages. In a merged system, there is one compound phonological series of voiceless stops, associated with different phonetic implementations for the two languages (type I). In Keating's speech production model, which includes two levels below the phonological, there is also the possibility of merging at the level of phonetic representation (PR), as shown under II ({P}); and of merging at all three levels, as in type III. The common characteristic of the three types of merged systems (indicated by the arrows in I and II) is the presence of bi-directional cross-linguistic influence of increasing strength from I to III. In III it is so strong as to result in virtually complete overlap (i. e. identical LI and L2 realizations).

Towards a typology of bilingual phonological systems coexistent systems

I.

UR:

/P/Ll

/p/,L2

PR:

{p}u

{ph! L2

1

PReal: II.

UR:

PR:

[Pkl

[P ]L2

/P/Ll 1

/P/L2 1

{plu

{Ph)u

1

PReal:

III. l/R:

H

[P]L1

merged system

PReal:

super-subordinate systems

'L1,L2

(Plu

I

I

[(P)] L I ~[P

(H

>]L2

| [P(H']L2

/Ρ/Ι.1Λ2

/P/Ll I

I

PR:

329

{P}L,,L2

1.L2

{p)L, I [pki

I

PReal: IV. UR: PR:

PReal: Figure 5. Typology of bilingual language systems for native speakers of an LI with short-lag and an L2 (or second LI) with long-lag phonetic categories. UR represents the underlying representation (phonemic level); PR, the phonetic representation (phonetic level); and PReal, the level of phonetic realization (motoric level), [p] and [pH] stand for short and long-lag stops within, respectively, the LI and L2 phonetic norms. Round bracketing indicates that the LI or L2 phonetic norm is not reached; "