Presentation on theme: "Development in L2 phonology: Let’s take a long look at the age issue"— Presentation transcript:
1 Development in L2 phonology: Let’s take a long look at the age issue Martha Young-Scholten
2 Fundamental issues in L2 Fundamental issues in L acquisition are in part problems about time; claims about development are best interpreted within a full longitudinal perspective where light can also be shed on causes and effects regarding various phenomena (Ortega & Iberri-Shea 2005:26;30).
3 Fundamental issues in L2 phonology ‘Traditional’ issuesThe role of L1 knowledgeThe contribution of universals/developmental processesThe learner’s age upon initial exposure(and peripheral issues such as aptitude, identity, anxiety)Emerging issuesInputThe relationship of phonological development to other components of language
4 Longitudinal studiesIn L2A, the aim is the tracking of L1 influence and universal processes during developmentLongitudinal studies allow observation of simultaneous development of phonology, morphology, syntax and the lexicon to look for causal relationshipsLongitudinal data on the development of phonology by child L1ers, child L2ers and adult L2ers provides a developmental perspective on age (and follows current trends in the study of the acquisition of morphosyntax)But few longitudinal studies of the phonological development of child L2 learners existEven fewer such studies exist on adult L2 learners.
5 The rest of the talk 1. A bit more background 2. The modern history of the study of L2 morphosyntax3. Development in phonology4. Development in L2 phonology5. Conclusion
6 1. A bit more backgroundFrom the mid-1980s (e.g. Clahsen & Muysken 1986) through the 1990s (e.g. Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1994) and up to now (e.g. Meisel 2003) L2 morphosyntax researchers have paid (roughly) equal attention tothe kind of knowledge acquired (mental representations)how this knowledge is acquired (its emergence, in stage-like development)If the same mechanisms are employed across the lifespanthere should be no fundamental differences in learner’s mental representations (e.g. no UG-violating grammars)there should be no differences in the developmental pathways taken (apart from L1 influence)Much of this debate revolves around the production of verbal morphology (non-finite vs. inflected forms) and the position in declarative and embedded clauses of these (main) verbs
7 Longitudinal studies of morphosyntax Typically developing L1 children (including sign language learners)Atypically developing L1 childrenSimultaneous bilingual childrenChild L2 learners (= the least number of studies)Adult L2 learnersStudies have typically been of only one of these populations; multi-age studies such as Snow & Hoefnagel-Höhle (1982) and more recently Unsworth (2005) – both coincidentally on L2 Dutch – still represent a small minority
8 Longitudinal studies of phonology Typically developing L1 childrenBilingual children (simultaneous)Atypically developing L1 childrenChild L2 learnersAdult L2 learnersIn 39 years, 17 longitudinal L2 phonology have been carried out, mostly on segmental phonology, and mostly on English (Gut 2009)L2 phonology models could be tested with such data (Best’s Perceptual Assimilation; Flege’s Speech Learning; Eckman’s Markedness/Structural Conformity; Major’s Ontogeny/Phylogeny; Archibald’s parameter resetting, Dziubalska-Kołaczyk’s Natural Phonology; Escudero & Boersma’s OT-based Functional Phonology)
9 IL phonology and age L2 phonology is natural (Eckman 1981) L2 adults’ phonologies are constrained by the same principles as younger learners’ phonologies (Young-Scholten 1996)Many (all?) current L2 phonology models assume access to innate language-specific/phonology-specific mechanisms across the lifespanE.g. Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolenksy 1993) assumes lifelong availability of a set of universal constraints; ranking differs across languagesNote: This puts L2 phonology at odds with L2 morphosyntax where debate regarding access to UG/use of same language-specific mechanisms across the lifespan is unrelenting (e.g. Bley-Vroman 2009).
10 IL phonology and ageTo examine the critical/sensitive period for L2 phonologyLook at end-state L2ers with differing ages of initial exposureInclude extralinguistic factors, e.g. length of residenceLess less attention has been paid to factors such as input quality (e.g. from non-native speakers), input type (orthographic exposure/literacy), identity, aptitude and motivation (this is changing; perhaps presumably peripheral factors are important)If there is a CP for L2 phonology, when does it end?Pre-15 and post-15 year olds constitute two separate populations (=the CP closes around age 15; Patkowski 1990)The CP closes earlier, starting at age 6 (Long 1990)
11 IL phonology and ageOn the one hand, we have plenty of evidence of use of the same mechanisms by younger and older learnersOn the other hand, we have plenty of evidence of non-convergence on the target language phonology by older L2 learnersThis paradox (if it is one) can best be resolved by more work in L2 phonology from a developmental perspective:Without longitudinal data ‘claims about acquisition within an OT model are weak’ (Hancin-Bhatt 2008:142).Errors (as we’ve known for awhile) aren’t the only measure of difficulty ‘rate of acquisition [...] is a more insightful measure of learning’ (Eckman 2008:101) – and best measured in a longitudinal study.
12 2. The modern history of the study of L2 morphosyntax Studies of L2 learners in a naturalistic acquisition context initially dominated research on L2 morphosyntax (e.g. the ZISA project of adult Italian, Portuguese and Spanish learners of German) and through the 1990s (ESF project on 8 NLs/5 TLs) and currently continue to do so in the study of the L2A of information structureStudying naturalistic learners removes one potentially crucial difference between older and younger L2 learners: instruction
13 L2 morphosyntaxNote: The sub-group of L2 syntax researchers currently approaching the UG access question by looking at poverty of the stimulus/PoS effects (where underlying structure is underdetermined by the input and not available from the L1), instructed L2 learners needn’t be excluded because PoS phenomena are not taught, becauseForms may not exist for teachers to focus on/correct when inaccurateLack of awareness by teachers of the latest generative analyses of syntax means that learners aren’t taught the underlying structure
14 Representative longitudinal studies of L2 morphosyntax by naturalistic (TL-immersed) adult learners (numerous such studies exist on L2 children, usually by PhD students)StudyL1 and L2SubjectsDurationCazden et al. 1970sL1 Spanish/L2 English2 children, 2 teenagers,2 adults10 mnthsZISA 1970s/80sL1 Spanish, Portuguese, Italian/L2 German12 adults2 yearsESF 1980s6 L1s/5 European L2s40 adults2 ½ yearsVYSA 1990sL1 English/L2 GermanThree teenagers1 year
15 What we know and don’t know Older learners demonstrate UG access, too (White 1989 and work since then on PoS effects up to the present)Learners’ ILs develop in stages where both younger and older learners display similar non-target patternsWhat we are unsure ofThe strength of influence of L1 knowledge (Schwartz & Sprouse 1996 vs. Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1996; to appear)The relationship between verbal morphology and syntaxThe source of non-target production in inflectional morphology
16 Debated: The interpretation of variable production of inflectional morphology During acquisition, there is tight coupling of morphology + syntax: acquisition of a given morpheme represents related syntactic structureVainikka & Young-Scholten (1994): this holds in L1 and L2 acquisitionHaznedar & Schwartz (1997): morphology + syntax are tightly coupled in L1 acquisition but neither in child nor L2 acquisitionMissing inflection is due to surface-level mapping problemsPrévost & White (2000): morphology + syntax are tightly coupled for L1 and L2 children, but not for L2 adultsGoad, White & Steele (2003): variable production of functional morphology is related to L1 transfer of prosodic licensing (past/agreement/plural suffixes in L1 Chinese/L2 English)Oldenkamp (2010): variable production (in L2 Dutch) involves interaction of morphology and prosodic structure
17 What is the role of phonology in the L2 acquisition of morphosyntax? How does the learner go from reception of a continous speech stream to construction of a mental grammar? This has been ‘one of the most under-researched and under-theorized aspects of second language acquisition’ (Carroll 2001:1)This is changing with experimental studies of the phonological realization of grammatical morphemes in L2 acquisition (Frenck-Mestre, Foucart, Carrasco & Herschensohn 2009; see also Arteaga, Herschensohn & Gess 2003 for pedagogical applications thereof)Hancin-Bhatt (2008:119): substantial empirical evidence for developmental effects in L2 phonology notwithstanding, there are still few theoretical analyses that provide an account ofhow these effects interact over time with each otherhow they interact with other components of language
19 3. Development in L1 phonology A time-line of studies Diary studiesLarge sample studiesLongitudinal samplingPreyer 1889Late 1920s-1950s: groups of between 72 (Fisher 1934) and 430 (Templin 1957) children from 1;6 to 8;0 on their articulation, vocabulary, sentence lengthBraine 1963: 3 childrenStern 1907,1924Miller & Ervin 1964: 5 childrenLeopoldBrown 1973: 3 childrenGrégoire 1937,1947Bloom childrenGvozdev 1949Others (usually one child) e.g. Velten 1943, Waterson 1971, Menn 1973, Smith 1973, Ingram 1974Zarębina 1965Shvachkin 1973 study of 19 Russian children’s perception of phonemic distinctions from0;10 to 1;6Solely on phonology: Smith (1973)…Fikkert (1994) ... Lleó & Prinz (1997)... Rose (2000)
20 4. Development in L2 phonology Morphosyntax researchers’ recruitment of phonology to address the intractable problem of variation in production (and more; see below)This points to the need to conduct studies along the lines of Snow & Hoefnagel-Höhle (but see below)Do we know as much about L2 phonological development as we do about morphosyntactic development?Do we know as much about L2 phonological development as we know about L1 phonological development?
21 Features investigated A time-line of longitudinal L2 phonology studiesStudyDescriptionFeatures investigatedDickerson 19741 yr: 5 Japanese students’ English/r/ and /l/Wode 1978½ yr: 4 German children’s Englishphonology; morphologyHecht & Mulford 19792/3 yr: 1 Icelandic child’s EnglishfricativesSnow&Hoefnagel-Höhle 19821 yr: 33 children’s, teenagers’, adults’ Dutchphonology, morphology,vocabulary, syntaxSato 19845/6 yr: 2 Vietnamese boys’ Englishsyllable structureRankin 19855 yrs: 32 Spanish university students’Englishsegmental perception,productionWinitz et al6 2/3 yrs: 1 Polish boy’s English .accentCarlisle 19984 yrs: 4 Spanish students’ EnglishAbrahamsson 20031 2/3 yrs: 1 Chinese adult learner’s SwedishEdwards 20065/6 yr: 2 Vietnamese adults’ EnglishDerwing et al2 yrs: 32 Mandarin, Ukrainian, Russianadults’ Englishfluency;comprehensibilityOldenkamp 20101 -2 yrs: 24 Turkish, Arabic, Chineseadults’ Dutchphonology;morphosyntax
22 Gut (2009): a corpus study that can provide a foundation for longitudinal, comparison data Large-sample synchronic corpus L2 German (n= 55) and L2 English (n=46) focusing on rhythm, stress and intonationGerman L2 learners’ initial exposure ranged from age three to 33 and included both instruction and immersionSample includes spontaneous speech, a reading passage, nonsense word reading and interview Qs on exposure, motivation, attitude, musical and acting abilityGut examined relationships between prosody, morphology and extra-linguistic factorsFindingsThe variation found is highly systematicAcquisition involves a set of mutually dependent factorsAge is no barrier to acquisition of phonology
23 Phonology and vocabulary In L1 acquisition, a vocabulary spurt coincides with acceleration of phonological development (Ingram 1976).This spurt may relate to variability in syllable structure simplification processes: typically developing L1 children delete rather than epenthesize, but early talkers exhibit considerable epenthesis along with their larger vocabulariesIn L2 acquisition epenthesis is the preferred syllable simplification strategy for older learners (Abrahamsson 2003; Weinberger 1987 )Is there a comparable vocabulary spurt in (naturalistic) second language acquisition that coincides with phonological development?
24 Do older L2 learners resemble atypical L1 children? One line of inquiry in L2 research on morphosyntax has involved asking whether L2 acquisition by older learners resembles that of atypically developing L1 children (most recently see Marinis to appear).In L2 phonology, the question is whether developmental processes resemble that of the atypically developing children discussed for example in Ingram (1976) who either exhibited prolonged use of typically developing children’s processes or who followed unique processes.
25 The role of phonology in triggering morphosyntactic development The VYSA longitudinal corpus LEARNEREXPOSURE to foreign languagesAGE at arrival in GermanyJoan1 month of Spanish;no German16Paul1 semester of French;17George1 year of French;15
26 Input and data collection in the VYSA study For the first four weeksFrom a German teacher and other American students during language + culture courseFrom learners’ initial host familyDuring 11 subsequent monthsFrom (native speaking) students in German secondary schoolsFrom host familiesData collection11 times (monthly), with individual learners in GermanyBroad and narrow morphosyntax and phonology tasks, including grammaticality judgment, comprehension and translationInformal conversation with the researcher about the learner’s unfolding exchange experience
27 Joan, Paul and George’s acquisition of German syntax, from 3 wks after arrival (file 1) to ca. 12 months later (file 11)Stage: highest syntactic projectionJoanPaulGeorge1i: VP (verb phrase) – no function words producedhead-initial : Der Mann trinken der Kaffee.11-21ii: VP switches to head-finalDie Madchen immer die Buch lesen.32: FP/TP emerges and is head-initialIch gegessen der Apfel.2-33-43: AgrP emerges and is head-initialIch wohnst there.55-644i: CP emerges and is head-initialIch habe gewunst, dass du hast gefragt.6-77-86-84ii: AgrP switches to head-finalWillst du es wirklich wissen, was wir gemacht haben?911never4iii: AgrP head-final throughout
28 Individual variationDespite being the youngest, George made the least progress in his acquisition of syntax: we attribute this to his conscious learning of inflectional morphology (cf. Felix 1985 on competing cognitive structures)George also made the least progress in acquiring final devoicing (see Young-Scholten 2004)While Joan was best at morphosyntax, she Joan did not make the most progress in final devoicing (due to more orthographic exposure? (see Young-Scholten 2002)How does this relate to the acquisition of morphosyntax?All (naturalistic) learners (subconsciously) scan the input for cues or triggers that reveal how a given language operates
29 consciously learned these two paradigms. Phonological and morphological triggers for the acquisition of syntactic structure in GermanProjectionTrigger in child GermanTrigger in adult L2 GermanVPStress patternL1 bootstrappingFP3rd sg. –tModalsTPParticiple affixes (ge/-t)Auxiliary haben ‘have’AgrPAgreement (2nd sg. –st)Copula sein ‘be’CPObject clitics (-s/-n)ComplementizersGeorgeconsciously learned these two paradigms.
30 Detecting triggersFor us, triggers are among the morphological (verbal) elements which start to become productive in a learner’s speech before s/he posits new functional projectionsThey are robust (but does this equate to salience?) in the inputLongitudinal data required for examining such causal effects: morphosyntactic and phonological dataThe VYSA have been orthographically transcribedThey have not yet been phonetically transcribed
31 When the data are phonetically transcribed, they can be donated to PHON PHON: MacWhinney & Rose’s CHILDES-inspired data management tools for contribution of data to PhonBank.PhonBank: overwhelmingly covers L1 phonologyWhat’s the ideal longitudinal L2A study for PhonBank?Ortega & Iberri-Shea (2005) emphasize the need to gain a sufficiently lengthy picture in order to observe developmentExpected time-scale for emergence of investigated phenomenon/a determines study length/session frequencyAlthough the boy in Winitz et al.’s study was tracked for 62/3 years, native production was attained after 1 year…Emergence varies: re-examine cross-sectional data, including the details of participants’ input quantity and quality
32 Data from longitudinal studies not on phonology Data collected for morphosyntactic analysis have been only orthographically transcribedPHON only requires phonetically transcribed data, so recordings needn’t be of quality required for acoustic analysisIf state-of-the-art recording equipment (including analogue) has been used to enable transcription of TL- and non-TL-like inflectional morphologyAnd the usual care has been taken when recordingAnd if storage of recordings has been careful --- and it has been for the VYSA data --- then such data can be phonetically transcribed and analyzed to shed light on phonological development from the initial state onwards and on the role of phonology in triggering morphosyntactic development.