Table Of ContentPhonology and Second Language Acquisition
Studies in Bilingualism (SiBil)
The focus of this series is on psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects
of bilingualism. This entails topics such as childhood bilingualism,
psychological models of bilingual language users, language contact and
bilingualism, maintenance and shift of minority languages, and socio-
political aspects of bilingualism.
Editors
Kees de Bot Dalila Ayoun
University of Groningen University of Arizona
Editorial Board
Michael Clyne Georges Luedi
University of Melbourne University of Basel
Kathryn A. Davis Christina Bratt Paulston
University of Hawaii at Manoa University of Pittsburgh
Joshua A. Fishman Suzanne Romaine
Yeshiva University Merton College, Oxford
Francois Grosjean Merrill Swain
Université de Neuchâtel Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Thom Huebner G. Richard Tucker
San José State University Carnegie Mellon University
Wolfgang Klein
Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik
Volume 36
Phonology and Second Language Acquisition
Edited by Jette G. Hansen Edwards and Mary L. Zampini
Phonology and
Second Language Acquisition
Edited by
Jette G. Hansen Edwards
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Mary L. Zampini
Le Moyne College
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Phonology and second language acquisition / edited by Jette G. Hansen Edwards, Mary
L. Zampini.
p. cm. (Studies in Bilingualism, issn 0928-1533 ; v. 36)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Second language acquisition. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general--Phonology. I.
Edwards, Jette G. Hansen. II. Zampini, Mary L.
P118.2.P52 2008
418--dc22 2007046500
isbn 978 90 272 4147 4 (Hb; alk. paper)
© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
JB[v.20020404] Prn:6/02/2008;8:01 F:SIB36CO.tex / p.1(47-116)
Table of contents
Introduction 1
JetteG.HansenEdwardsandMaryL.Zampini
PartI
TheoreticalissuesandframeworksinL2phonology
Preface 15
chapter1
Phonologicalacquisitioninafirstlanguage 19
DianeK.Ohala
chapter2
Exploringtheroleofageintheacquisitionofasecond
languagephonology 41
GeorgetteIoup
chapter3
Transferinsecondlanguagephonology:Areview 63
RoyC.Major
chapter4
Typologicalmarkednessandsecondlanguagephonology 95
FredR.Eckman
chapter5
Secondlanguagephonologyinoptimalitytheory 117
BarbaraHancin-Bhatt
PartII
Secondlanguagespeechperceptionandproduction
Preface 149
JB[v.20020404] Prn:6/02/2008;8:01 F:SIB36CO.tex / p.2(116-178)
Tableofcontents
chapter6
Speechperceptioninsecondlanguagelearners:There-education
ofselectiveperception 153
WinifredStrangeandValerieL.Shafer
chapter7
Foreignaccentandspeechintelligibility 193
MurrayJ.Munro
chapter8
L2speechproductionresearch:Findings,issues,andadvances 219
MaryL.Zampini
chapter9
SocialfactorsandvariationinproductioninL2phonology 251
JetteG.HansenEdwards
PartIII
Technology,training,andcurriculum
Preface 283
chapter10
Trainingnon-nativelanguagesoundpatterns:Lessonsfromtraining
JapaneseadultsontheEnglish/p/–/l/contrast 287
AnnR.Bradlow
chapter11
Ultrasoundimagingapplicationsinsecondlanguageacquisition 309
BryanGick,BarbaraBernhardt,PenelopeBacsfalvi,andIanWilson
chapter12
Technologiesforprosodyincontext:PastandfutureofL2research
andpractice 323
DorothyM.Chun,DebraM.Hardison,andMarthaC.Pennington
chapter13
Curriculumissuesinteachingpronunciationtosecondlanguagelearners 347
TraceyM.Derwing
Authorindex 371
Subjectindex 377
JB[v.20020404] Prn:30/01/2008;8:13 F:SIB36IN.tex / p.1(45-120)
Introduction
JetteG.HansenEdwardsandMaryL.Zampini
Overview
Thepastthreedecadeshavewitnessedaresurgenceandgrowthin interestinre-
searchontheacquisitionofasecondlanguage(L2)soundsystem,alongwithan
ever-expandingandchangingrepertoireoftechniquesandmodelsforstudyingL2
speech.Majorresearchfindingshaveshownthatpredictingareasofdifficultyand
explainingL2phonologicalacquisitionismuchmorecomplexthanastraightfor-
ward contrastive analysisof the first language (L1) and the second (Lado 1957).
Research has also shown that there are numerous factors that affect the relative
levelofeaseordifficultyinL2phonologicalacquisition,aswellastherelativeac-
curacy(or“nativeness”)ofL2speech,thatgofarbeyondageneralconsideration
ofthelearner’sageattheonsetofacquisition.Inaddition,technologicaladvances
have changed the ways in which researchers collect their data and conduct their
analyses as well as develop pedagogical applications, especially in recent years.
These advancesrangefromthe emergenceof fasterandmore powerfulcomput-
ers,alongwithinexpensive,andevenfree,softwarefordetailedspeechanalysis,to
thegrowthandavailabilityofmoresophisticatedandsafertechniquesfortheex-
aminationofneurophysiologicaspectsofspeech.Despitetheseadvances,however,
therehavebeenveryfewworksthathaveprovidedabroadandthoroughoverview
of the field of L2 phonology. This book attempts to fill that gap by providing a
comprehensivediscussionofstate-of-the-artresearchinL2phonology.Itcontains
13chapterswrittenbyexpertsinthefield,eachdevotedtoaparticularissuethat
iscrucial to ourunderstandingof the waylearnersacquire, learn,anduse an L2
soundsystem.Inaddition,itspansboththeoryandapplicationinL2phonology.
Manyofthechaptersdevotedtoresearchalsoaddresstheimplicationsofthefind-
ingsforappliedlinguisticsandtheteachingofpronunciation,whileotherchapters
aremorecentrallydevotedtoissuesrelatedtotrainingandteaching.
ThestudyoftheacquisitionandteachingofL2phonologyisvast,notonlyin
thebreadthofthefoci–fromL1 transfertothe useofultrasoundequipmentin
training–butalsointhedepthofworkineachareaoffocusand,therefore,itis
JB[v.20020404] Prn:30/01/2008;8:13 F:SIB36IN.tex / p.2(120-165)
JetteG.HansenEdwardsandMaryL.Zampini
impossible to address everythingin one volume.However,this volumeattempts
toprovideabroad,butrich,overviewofkeyapproachesandadvancesinthisfield.
Assuch,thevolumetoucheson,ifnotdirectlyaddresses,significanttheoriesand
modelsin L2phonologyin specific, as well as theoriesandmodels in linguistics
andsecondlanguageacquisition (SLA) in general,since manyofthe majorcon-
structs in L2 phonology reflect theories and research in linguistics and SLA at a
givenpointintime.Inordertoprovideaframeworkfortheconceptsdiscussedin
thisvolume,abriefoverviewofmajorconstructsinL2phonologyisgivenbelow.
MajorconstructsinL2phonology
The construct of transfer – the effect of previously learned languages on subse-
quently learned languages – has held a major role in theory construction and
pedagogical developments in L2 phonology since work first began being docu-
mented in this area in the 1950s (e.g., Lado 1957; Weinreich 1953). Since that
time,transferhasbeenconsideredtobeadominantinfluence,bothpositivelyand
negatively,intheacquisitionofanL2,specificallyintheareaofphonology.While
otherdomainsofSLAresearchsuchasmorphology,syntax,andpragmaticshave
alsofocusedontransfer,itiswithinthedomainofL2phonologythattransferhas
beenmostheavilyresearched,duetotherecognitionthatitiswithin thisareaof
acquisitionthattransferismostprevalent.
The constructoftransferhasundoubtedlyexistedlongbeforeitbegan tobe
documented in the linguistics and SLA literature. This was not done with great
consistency,however,untiltheworkofFries(1945),Weinreich(1953),andLado
(1957), which led to the development of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
(CAH).TheCAHfocusedonerrorproduction,specificallytheirexplanationand
prediction,andgrewoutofstructurallinguisticsandbehaviorism.Initsmostba-
sic form, the CAH predicted that those aspects (or features) of the L2 that were
similartotheL1wouldbeeasytoacquire,whilethoseaspectsthatweredifferent
in the two languages would be difficult to acquire. From a pedagogical stand-
point,therefore,the goalof contrastiveanalysiswastocomparelanguagesbased
ontheirfeatures(andinparticular,contrastivefeaturesforphonetics),andteach
thoseL2featureswhichweredifferentfromtheL1inaseriesofdrill-basedactiv-
itiesaimed atcreating ‘good’ habits (e.g., correct pronunciation)andgettingrid
of ‘bad’ habits (e.g.,incorrect pronunciation); this was doneunderthe method-
ological‘leg’ofbehaviorism,theAudiolingualMethod(ALM).Structuralismand
behaviorism,andconsequentlytheCAHandALM,begantodeclineinpopularity
inlinguisticsandSLAinthelate1950s.ThiswasdueinparttoChomsky’s(1957)
groundbreakingworkshiftingthefocusfrombehavioristtocognitiveapproaches
inlinguistics,aswellaslackofempiricalsupportforthetenetsoftheCAH.Nev-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:30/01/2008;8:13 F:SIB36IN.tex / p.3(165-214)
Introduction
ertheless, contrastive analysis still holds some sway in L2 phonology theory and
pedagogy.To give just one example,many L2 pronunciation texts and pedagog-
ical guides, such as Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other
Problems(2001,Swan&Smith, CambridgeUniversityPress),featurediscussions
of differencesin the L1 and L2 in order to aid the L2 teacher in diagnosing and
correctinglearners’errors.
Eckman’s(1977) MarkednessDifferentialHypothesis (MDH), while bearing
thenameof‘markedness’(anequallyimportantconstructtobediscussedbelow)
isinfactareformulationoftheCAHthatincorporatesthenotionoftypological
markedness. In this reformulation, predictions of difficulty are still based on a
contrastiveanalysisoftheL1andtheL2butwiththeadditionalcriterionthatitis
thelevelofmarkednessofdifferentsoundsthatcreateslearningdifficulty,notthe
differencesin andofthemselves.Therefore,unlikethe CAH, which predictsthat
different L2 sounds will be difficult to learn, the MDH postulates that different
soundsareonlydifficulttolearniftheyaretypologicallymarked;iftypologically
unmarked,thesesoundsshouldnotcreatelearningdifficulty.TheMDHhasbeen
testedinnumerousresearchstudies,whichareoutlinedindetailchapter4ofthis
volume,tomostlypositiveresults.
Transfer has also played a dominant role in other theories specific to L2
phonology.SeveralinfluentialL2speechperceptiontheories,suchasFlege’s(1995)
Speech Learning Model andBest’s (1995) PerceptualAssimilation Model,are all
basedonthe premisethatthe L1 shapeshowthe learnerperceivesthe L2. Inthe
lattermodel,itispostulatedthatL2soundsareassimilatedintoL1phonological
categories based on similarities and that sounds in the L2 will be difficult based
ontheirlevelofperceivedsimilarity–orlackthereof–fromtheL1.Flege’smodel
also posits that the acquisition processbegins with L1 perceptual categories, but
states that these categories may change as a result of more L2 experience. Ad-
ditionally, L2 sounds may be perceived as being new, similar, or identical to L1
sounds, andthe degreeof similarity ordissimilarity determineswhether newL2
categories can be established and/or whether equivalenceclassifications between
theL1andL2soundsmaybemade.Bothofthesetheorieshavehadamajorim-
pact in L2 phonology; they are discussed in more detail throughout the volume
and particularly in the chapter on L2 speech perception (Chapter 6) by Strange
andShafer.
The Ontogeny Model (OM) (1987a) and the Ontogeny Phylogeny Model
(OPM) (Major 2001) also consider transfer as a major factor in L2 phonology
acquisition. The OM posits that transfer is initially the major influence in L2
phonology,butthatthiseffectdecreasesovertimeasdevelopmentalprocessesin-
crease.IntheOPM,amorerecentversionoftheOM,transferisstillviewedasa
dominanteffectintheinitialstagesofacquisition;however,theeffectsoftransfer
are greateron unmarkedL2 featuresthan those that are marked. As in the OM,
