1887
image of Prosodic effects on L2 grammars
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis (PTH), which accounts for certain difficulties that learners experience with L2 morphosyntax. We focus on inflection and articles, which have often been accounted for through defective syntactic representations or problems with the interface between morphology and syntax (inflection) and between semantics or discourse/pragmatics and syntax (articles). We argue that some problems in these domains reflect transfer of L1 prosodic constraints: certain forms cannot be prosodically represented as target-like and hence are omitted or mispronounced. We trace how the PTH has developed over time, from its initial instantiation as involving permanent L1 transfer, to currently, where L1 representations are seen as adaptable to the needs of the L2, and new representations can in fact be acquired. We provide an overview of work conducted in this framework and discuss how the theory has been extended beyond production to encompass comprehension and processing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.19043.goa
2019-10-08
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, K.
    (2004, May). Variability in the perception of past tense -ed by L2 learners of English. Paper presented atSUNY/CUNY/NYU 5, Stony Brook, NY.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, G., Chang, H., Kim, N., & Daly, E.
    (submitted). Prosodic transfer across constructions and domains in L2 inflectional morphology.
  3. Bayley, R.
    (1996) Competing constraints on variation in the speech of adult Chinese learners of English. InR. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp.97–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/sibil.10.05bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.10.05bay [Google Scholar]
  4. Borer, H. & Rohrbacher, B.
    (1997) Features and projections: Arguments for the full competence hypothesis. InE. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), BUCLD 21: Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.24–35). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruhn de Garavito, J.
    (1986) EI muchacha tiene tres balon: Number and gender in the Spanish of a group of francophone learners (Master’s thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada).
  6. Buckley, M.
    (2005) Prosodic constraints and the syntax-phonology interface: The phonology of object clitics in L2 French. InA. Brugos, M. R. Clark-Cotton, & S. Ha (Eds.), BUCLD 29: Proceedings of the 29th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.122–133). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cabrelli Amaro, J., Campos Dintrans, G., & Rothman, J.
    (2018) The role of L1 phonology in L2 morphological production: L2 English past tense production by L1 Spanish, Mandarin, and Japanese speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 503–527. 10.1017/S0272263117000122
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000122 [Google Scholar]
  8. Charette, M.
    (1991) Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554339
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554339 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M.
    (1968) The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dekydtspotter, L., Donaldson, B., Edmonds, A. C., Liljestrand Fultz, A., & Petrush, R. A.
    (2008) Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 453–480. 10.1017/S0272263108080728
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080728 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dell, F.
    (1984) L’accentuation dans les phrases en français. InDell, F., Hirst, D., & Vergnaud, J.-R. (Eds.), Forme sonore du langage (pp.65–122). Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Demuth, K.
    (2014) Prosodic licensing and the development of phonological and morphological representations. InA. Farris-Trimble & J. Barlow (Eds.), Perspectives on phonological theory and development: In honor of Daniel A. Dinnsen (pp.11–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/lald.56.04dem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.56.04dem [Google Scholar]
  13. Duanmu, S.
    (2000) The phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dulay, H., & Burt, M.
    (1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1974.tb00234.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D.
    (2005) Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 130–143. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  16. Erguvanli, E. E.
    (1984) The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Feldscher, C., & Durvasula, K.
    (2017) Excrescent stops in American English. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 2, 20, 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gerken, L.
    (1996) Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. Language, 72, 683–712. 10.2307/416099
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416099 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gerken, L., & McIntosh, B.
    (1993) The interplay of function morphemes and prosody in early language. Developmental Psychology, 29, 448–457. 10.1037/0012‑1649.29.3.448
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.3.448 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goad, H., Guzzo, N. B., & White, L.
    (submitted). Parsing ambiguous relative clauses in L2 English: Learner sensitivity to prosodic cues.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goad, H., & White, L.
    (2004) Ultimate attainment of L2 inflection: Effects of L1 prosodic structure. InS. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace, & M. Ota (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 4 (pp.119–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: A prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 22, 243–268. 10.1191/0267658306sr268oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr268oa [Google Scholar]
  23. (2008) Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A nativist approach. Lingua, 118, 577–594. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2009) Prosodic transfer and the representation of determiners in Turkish-English interlanguage. InN. Snape, Y.-K. I. Leung, & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Representational deficits in SLA: Studies in honor of Roger Hawkins (pp.1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/lald.47.04goa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.47.04goa [Google Scholar]
  25. Goad, H., White, L., & Bruhn de Garavito, J.
    (2011) Prosodic transfer at different levels of structure: The L2 acquisition of Spanish plurals. InN. Danis, K. Mesh, & H. Sung (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development: Online Proceedings Supplement.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Goad, H., White, L., Garcia, G. D., Guzzo, N. B., Mortazavinia, M., Smeets, L., & Su, J.
    (2018, September). Pronoun interpretation in L2 Italian: prosodic effects revisited. Paper presented atGenerative Approaches to Language Acquisition – North America (GALANA) 8, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goad, H., White, L., & Steele, J.
    (2003) Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1-constrained prosodic representations?Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 48, 243–263.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Grimshaw, J., & Rosen, S. T.
    (1990) Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 187–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hawkins, R.
    (2000) Persistent selective fossilisation in second language acquisition and the optimal design of the language faculty. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 34, 75–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hawkins, R., & Franceschina, F.
    (2004) Explaining the acquisition and non-acquisition of determiner-noun gender concord in French and Spanish. InP. Prévost & J. Paradis (Eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts (pp.175–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/lald.32.10haw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.32.10haw [Google Scholar]
  31. Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S.
    (2003) Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. InR. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (Eds.), The interface between syntax and lexicon in second language acquisition (pp.21–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/lald.30.03haw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.30.03haw [Google Scholar]
  32. Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. D.
    (1997) Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition?InE. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.257–268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Herschensohn, J., & Gess, R.
    (2018) Acquisition of L2 French object pronouns by advanced anglophone learners. Languages, 3(2),15. 10.3390/languages3020015
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages3020015 [Google Scholar]
  34. Huebner, T.
    (1985) System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35, 141–163. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1985.tb01022.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01022.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Ionin, T., Baek, S., Kim, E., Ko, H., & Wexler, K.
    (2012) That’s not so different from the: Definite and demonstrative descriptions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 28, 69–101. 10.1177/0267658311432200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658311432200 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K.
    (2004) Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12, 3–69. 10.1207/s15327817la1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jun, S.-A., & Fougeron, C.
    (2000) A phonological model of French intonation. InA. Botinis (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modelling and technology (pp.209–242). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4317‑2_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4317-2_10 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kabak, B., & Vogel, I.
    (2001) The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology, 18, 315–360. 10.1017/S0952675701004201
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675701004201 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kaye, J.
    (1990) ‘Coda’ licensing. Phonology, 7, 301–330. 10.1017/S0952675700001214
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700001214 [Google Scholar]
  40. Klassen, J.
    (2015) Second language acquisition of focus prosody in English and Spanish (Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada).
  41. Klein, E., Stoyneshka, I., Adams, K., Rose, T., Pugash, Y., & Solt, S.
    (2004) Past tense affixation in L2 English: The effects of lexical aspect and perceptual salience. InA. Brugos, L. Micciulla & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development: Online Supplement.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kornfilt, J.
    (1997) Turkish. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lamontagne, J., & Goad, H.
    (submitted). Weight and prominence in French: An examination of corpus data from a Laurentian variety.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lardiere, D.
    (1998) Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–26. 10.1191/026765898674105303
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898674105303 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2000) Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. InJ. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp.102–129). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2003) Second language knowledge of [±past] vs. [±finite]. InJ. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002): L2 Links (pp.176–189). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2007) Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lieberman, M.
    (2013, January). The importance of comprehension to a rounded view of second language acquisition. Paper presented at theDepartment of Linguistics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lyons, C.
    (1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  50. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A.
    (1995) Prosodic morphology. InJ. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp.318–366). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nespor, M., & Vogel, I.
    (1986) Prosodic phonology. Foris: Dordrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Öztürk, B.
    (2005) Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/la.77
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.77 [Google Scholar]
  53. Paradis, C., & Deshaies, D.
    (1990) Rules of stress assignment in Québec French: Evidence from perceptual data. Language Variation and Change, 2, 135–154. 10.1017/S0954394500000314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000314 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pierce, L., & Ionin, T.
    (2011) Perception of articles in L2 English. InL. Plonsky & M. Schierloh (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum (pp.121–128). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Plag, I., Homann, J., & Kunter, G.
    (2017) Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics, 53, 181–216. 10.1017/S0022226715000183
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226715000183 [Google Scholar]
  56. Prévost, A.-E., Goad, H., & Steinhauer, K.
    (2011) Prosodic transfer: An event-related potentials approach. InM. Wrembel, M. Kul, & K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (Eds.), Achievements and perspectives in SLA of speech, VolII (pp.217–225). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Prévost, P., & White, L.
    (2000) Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133. 10.1191/026765800677556046
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765800677556046 [Google Scholar]
  58. Pugach, Y., Stoyneshka, I., Solt, S., & Klein, E.
    (2004, May). L2 perception and production of the English past: The role of L1 and L2 phonology. Paper presented atSUNY/CUNY/NYU 5, Stony Brook, NY.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Robertson, D.
    (2000) Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research, 16, 135–172. 10.1191/026765800672262975
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765800672262975 [Google Scholar]
  60. Scullen, M. E.
    (1997) French prosodic morphology: A unified account. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R.
    (1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12: 40–72. 10.1177/026765839601200103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200103 [Google Scholar]
  62. Selkirk, E. O.
    (1980) The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 563–605.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (1996) The prosodic structure of function words. InJ. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp.187–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Shadle, C. H.
    (2012) The acoustics and aerodynamics of fricatives. InA. Cohn, & M. K. Fougeron (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology (pp.511–526). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Skrzypek, D.
    (2009) The formation of the definite article in the Nordic languages. Lingua Posnaniensis, 51, 65–76. 10.2478/v10122‑009‑0005‑y
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10122-009-0005-y [Google Scholar]
  66. Snape, N., & Kupisch, T.
    (2010) Ultimate attainment of second language articles: A case study of an endstate second language Turkish-English speaker. Second Language Research, 26, 527–548. 10.1177/0267658310377102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310377102 [Google Scholar]
  67. Solt, S., Pugach, Y., Klein, E., Adams, K., Stoyneshka, I., & Rose, T.
    (2004) L2 perception and production of the English regular past: Evidence of phonological effects. InA. Brugos, L. Micciulla, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.553–564). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sorace, A.
    (2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33. 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  69. Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A.
    (1999) Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 191–196. 10.1038/5757
    https://doi.org/10.1038/5757 [Google Scholar]
  70. Thibault, L., & Ouellet, M.
    (1996) Tonal distinctions between emphatic stress and pretonic lengthening in Quebec French. International Conference on Spoken Language Processing-1996, 2, 638–641.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Trenkic, D.
    (2007) Variability in L2 article production – beyond the representational deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research, 23, 289–327. 10.1177/0267658307077643
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307077643 [Google Scholar]
  72. Tsimpli, I. M., & Mastropaviou, M.
    (2007) Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. InJ. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp.143–183). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Ueyama, M.
    (2000) Prosodic transfer: An acoustic study of L2 English vs. L2 Japanese (Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles).
  74. Underhill, R.
    (1976) Turkish grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J.
    (2010) Second language processing and parsing: The issues. InB. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp.3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/lald.53.01van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.53.01van [Google Scholar]
  76. White, L.
    (2003) Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 129–141. 10.1017/S1366728903001081
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001081 [Google Scholar]
  77. (2008) Some puzzling features of L2 features. InJ. Liceras, H. Goodluck, & H. Zobl (Eds.), The role of features in second language acquisition (pp.300–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. (2009) Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. InW. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp.49–68). Leeds, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. White, L., Goad, H., Su, J., Smeets, L., Mortazavinia, M., Garcia, G. D., & Guzzo, N. B.
    (2017) Prosodic effects on pronoun interpretation in Italian. InM. LaMendola & J. Scott (Eds.), BUCLD 41: Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.744–752). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Wright, R.
    (2004) A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. InB. Hayes, R. Kirchner, & D. Steriade (Eds.), Phonetically based phonology (pp.34–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486401.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486401.002 [Google Scholar]
  81. Zec, D.
    (2005) Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology, 22, 77–112. 10.1017/S0952675705000448
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675705000448 [Google Scholar]
  82. Zubizaretta, M. L., & Nava, E.
    (2011) Encoding discourse-based meaning: Prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua, 121, 652–669. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.013 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.19043.goa
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.19043.goa
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: substitution; omission; prosodic transfer; articles; inflection
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error