Introducing SLA of phonology research: a historical perspective

1. Introducing SLA of phonology research: a historical perspective SLA and contrastive linguistics

2. THE PAST: FOUNDATIONS • The 20th century contrastive studies, known under the name of Contrastive Analysis, originated out of the need to improve the methods of language teaching and learning. Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

3. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis strong version (Lado 1957): possibility to predict all errors as a result of transfer from L1(NL) to L2(TL): • similar elements were assumed to be easy • different elements - to be difficult weak version (Wardhaugh 1970): comparison of L1 and L2 not enough to predict all errors; they can be explained after the fact Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

4. moderate views • Gradually, more moderate views replaced the strong language acquisition hypothesis. • Transfer lost its all-solving status and came to coexist with the dominant notion interlanguage (Selinker 1969, 1972), independent of NL and TL. Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

5. extreme Creative Construction Hypothesis (Dulay and Burt 1974) the monitor model by Krashen (e.g. 1981):a distinction between acquisition and learning moderate Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman 1977, 1981): difficult areas are those that are different from L1 and relatively more marked than L1 Interlanguage Hypothesis Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

6. transfer acc. to Gass (1988:387) The notion of language transfer involves the use of native language (or other language) information in the acquisition of a second (or additional) language. A broader definition of this sort allows for observed phenomena such as: • delayed rule restructuring • transfer of typological organization • different paths of acquisition • avoidance • overproduction of certain elements • additional attention paid to the target language resulting in more rapid learning • differential effects of socially prestigious forms. Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

7. Weinreich (1953)Languages in Contact • interference: “those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language” • bilingualism:“the practice of alternately using two languages” • later: only native-like use of both languages (e.g. Bloomfield) vs. any use of an L2 (e.g. Haugen) Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

8. Lado (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures • CA - Contrastive Analysis • transfer: “individuals tend to transfer the forms and the meanings, and the distribution of the forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture” • differences between the two languages more important - they cause 'negative transfer‘; similarities - 'positive transfer' Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

9. behaviourist view of language learning • Bloomfield (1933), Skinner (1957) • grammatical structure as ”system of habits” (Lado 1957) • habits acquired through exposure and practice • stimulus-response Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

10. mentalist view of language learning (Chomsky et al.) • Chomsky (1959) – review of Skinner’s (1957) Verbal Behaviour • the independent grammars assumption - children have a system of their own, they are not defective speakers • LADLanguage Acquisition Device – children construct linguistic competence by ‘evaluation measure’ (‘hypothesis-testing’ in acquisition research) Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

11. independent grammars in L2 • approximative system (Nemser 1971) • interlanguage (Selinker 1972) • phonology of interlanguage (Tarone 1978) • the methodology of Error Analysis (Corder 1971): • error (of competence) vs. mistake (of performance) • paradox in Selinker & Corder: the object of description is learner’s knowledge of language (competence) whereas the research method is the analysis of his/her performance Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

12. important: • multi-competence should be treated as a norm: it’s normal for the majority of people to use another language Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

13. SLA of speech • Abramson & Lisker 1970: cross-lg differences in the discrimination ability of VOT (responsible for voicing & aspiration contrasts in initial stops), which agreed with Motor Theory (Liberman et al 1967): perception accomplished via production • the categorical perception (CP) paradigm (tests of discrimination & identification of consonants to discover those lg-specific patterns) • so, the opinion in the 1970s: discrimination of voicing & place contrasts in Cs in L2 determined by the phonemic significance of the stimuli in L1 Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

14. SLA of speech cont. • BUT 2 to 6-month-old infants COULD discriminate such contrasts independent of their exposure to the language in which they occurred • THUS loss in discrimination ability (age; progress in L1) • adults Japanese learners of English could produce /r/ & /l/, but not perceive the contrast: production preceded & exceeded perception in L2 learning • training to improve perception was unsuccessful - support for the strong Critical Period Hypothesis(Lenneberg 1967): from 2 years to puberty • the above conclusions were premature→ detailed studies demonstrated that… Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

15. perceptual difficulty in L2 is relative • as to voicing, place, context, experience with L2, but also different acoustic cues used by L2 learners than by natives for the same contrasts (e.g. for /r-l/ contrast native speakers use F3, while Japanese learners use temporal differences and F2) • native lg patterns of phonetic perception are formed in the first year of life (works by Werker et al., Polka) • no consistent answer as to children b-n 2 & 13: whether they have any advantage over adolescents & adults in the perception of non-native contrasts (Flege et al. vs. Werker & others) Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

16. perception vs. production • perception causal for production: e.g. Portuguese speakers assimilated Fr. /y/ to their /i/ category while English speakers - to their /u/ category • however, prod & perc may proceed independently (in Japanese learners of English perc lagged behind prod) • "earlier is better" to learn production; no convincing evidence for perc (comment: adults have heard incomparably more signals than children) Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

17. perceptual training of L2 contrasts • in the 1980-90s it was demonstrated that short-term intensive training improves perc; voicing easier than place; but longer training even more • importance of context, e.g. vd/vless <th> contrast trained in CV context improved Fr. speakers' perc of natural CV stimuli, but there was NO TRANSFER to VCV or VC contexts: "subjects learn to differentiate position-specific allophones of phonetic categories, rather than context-free phoneme categories" Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

18. THE PRESENT • both children & adults have some perc difficulties; they are not due to a loss of sensory capabilities, but reflect perceptual attunement • sensitive period > critical period • since non-native contrasts are not equally difficult, contrastive analysis of phoneme inventories cannot accurately predict perceptual problems of L2 learners Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

19. THE PRESENT cont. • selective perceptual patterns are modified in adults (& children) through immersion or conversational instruction; some perc difficulties may persist even after production mastered, so perc & prod may be uncorrelated in more experienced learners • short-term training emphasizing equivalence classification transfers to novel talkers and stimuli, but whether it generalizes to all phonotactic contexts - has not been demonstrated Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

20. Extended References • Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan. • Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2002. Conscious competence of performance as a key to teaching English. In Waniek-Klimczak, E. and Melia, P.J. (eds.) Accents and Speech in English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 97-106. • Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2003. How learners ‘repair’ second language phonology and whether they may become native speakers. In Waniek-Klimczak, Ewa and Włodzimierz Sobkowiak (eds.). Dydaktyka fonetyki języka obcego. Neofilologia, tom V. Płock: Zeszyty Naukowe PWSZ w Płocku. • Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2003. Speech is in the ear of the listener: Some remarks on the acquisition of second language sounds. In Hales, Kimberli and Angela Terveen (main editors), Aurélie Capron, Marion Correnoz and Théo Garneau, under the direction of Marie-Christine Garneau (eds.). Selected Papers from the Sixth College-wide Conference for Students in Languages, Linguistics and Literature 2002. Honolulu: College of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature. University of Hawai`i at Mānoa. 81-92. Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

21. Extended References cont. • Eckman, Fred R. 1977. Markedness and the contrstive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27. 315-330. • Eckman, Fred R. 1981. On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. SSLA 4. 18-30. • Eckman, Fred R. 1991. The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. . SSLA 13. 23-41. • Eckman, Fred R. and Gregory K. Iverson. 1993. Sonority and markedness among onset clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Second Language Research 9,3. 234-252. • Fisiak, J. (1993) Contrastive linguistics and foreign/second language acquisition. In Seeber, H.U. and W. Göbel (eds.) Anglistentag 1992 Stuttgart. Proceedings. vol.XIV. Max Niemeyer Verlag. 315-326. • Flege, James Emil. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (ed.). Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Timonium, MD: York Press. • Flege, James Emil. 1999. The relation between L2 production and perception. ICPhS99, San Francisco. 1273- 1276. • Jassem, Wiktor. 2003. Polish. JIPA 33, 1. 103-108. • Leather, J. and A.R. James. 1991. The acquisition of second language speech. SSLA 13. 305-341. Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk

22. Extended References cont. • Major, Roy C. 2001. Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and Philogeny of Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. • Proceedings of the 14th 1999 and 15th 2003 ICPhS (on CDRoms). • Shockey, Linda. 2002. Sound Patterns of Spoken English. Oxford: Blackwell. • Sobkowiak, W. 1996. English Phonetics for Poles. Poznań: Bene Nati. • Strange, Winifred. 1996. Phonetics of Second-Language Acquisition: Past, Present, Future. 13th ICPhS, 4: 76-83. • Strange, Winifred. 1999. Levels of abstraction in characterizing cross-language phonetic similarity. ICPhS99, San Francisco. 2513-2519. • Tarone, Elaine E. 1978. The phonology of interlanguage. In Richards, J. (ed.). Understanding second and foreigh language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 15-33. • Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1970. The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quaterly 4. 123-130. • Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton. Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk