1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. The Mental Lexicon
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The current study investigates two lexical explanations for variation in L2 production: approximate (‘fuzzy’) representations vs dual URs. The focus is on Quebec francophone (QF) production of English /θ ð/ and /h/, which a reading-aloud task shows to be highly variable. Variation is problematic for the assumption that, due to perceptual illusions, URs are inaccurate. How is accurate output generated from inaccurate URs? Approximate representations employ diacritics rather than distinctive features. Arguably, these representations do not consistently generate accurate output. Under dual URs, lexical entries contain both inaccurate URs due to initial misperceptions and accurate URs generated when learners become capable of perceiving L2 phonemes. These URs compete for selection, leading to variation. Perception findings from oddball and semantic incongruity tasks provide conflicting support for the explanations: perception is variable, as predicted under approximate representations; but typical L2→L1 substitutions are harder to detect than atypical L1→L2 substitutions, an asymmetry expected under dual URs. To resolve the contradiction, we reinterpret the latter findings as revealing an implicit strategy of corrective adjustment acquired through experience with L2 errors. While we conclude that the L2 lexicon employs approximate representations, an enduring enigma concerns the considerably higher rates of hypercorrect [h] than [θ ð].

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22002.joh
2022-12-08
2024-12-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ml.22002.joh
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anttila, A.
    (1997) Deriving variation from grammar: A study of Finnish genitives. InF. Hinskens, R. Van Hout, & L. Wetzels (Eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory (pp.935–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.146.04ant
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.146.04ant [Google Scholar]
  2. (2002) Variation and phonological theory. InJ. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), Handbook of language variation and change (pp.206–43). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Best, C. T.
    (1994) The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. InJ. C. Goodman & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words (pp.167–224). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Boersma, P.
    (1997) How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. In: Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences 21. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 43–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bohn, O.-S.
    (1995) Cross language speech perception in adults: First language transfer doesn’t tell it all. InW. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp.279–304). Timonium, MD: York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bradley, T. G.
    (2006) Spanish rhotics and Dominican hypercorrect /s/. Probus, 18(1), 1–33. 10.1515/PROBUS.2006.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2006.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T.
    (2008) Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 1061, 707–729. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brannen, K.
    (2011) The perception and production of interdental fricatives in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
  9. Broselow, E., Chen, S.-I., & Wang, C.
    (1998) The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 201, 261–280. 10.1017/S0272263198002071
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198002071 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, C.
    (1998) The role of the L1 grammar in the acquisition of L2 segmental structure. Second Language Research, 14(2), 136–193. 10.1191/026765898669508401
     https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898669508401 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, J.
    (2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cardoso, W.
    (2007) The variable development of English word-final stops by Brazilian Portuguese speakers: A stochastic optimality theoretic account. Language Variation and Change, 191, 219–48. 10.1017/S0954394507000142
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394507000142 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2011) The development of coda perception in second language phonology: A variationist perspective. Second Language Research, 27(4), 433–465. 10.1177/0267658311413540
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658311413540 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cedergren, H. J., & Sankoff, D.
    (1974) Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50(2), 333–55. 10.2307/412441
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412441 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chalmers, D. J.
    (1996) The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Clarke, C. M.
    (2002) Perceptual adjustment to foreign-accented English with short term exposure. In the proceedings of the7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 2002), 253–256. 10.21437/ICSLP.2002‑128
     https://doi.org/10.21437/ICSLP.2002-128 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cutler, A., Weber, A., & Otake, T.
    (2006) Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second-language listening. Journal of Phonetics, 341, 269–84. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Darcy, I., Daidone, D., & Kojima, C.
    (2013) Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners. The Mental Lexicon, 8(3), 372–420. 10.1075/ml.8.3.06dar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.3.06dar [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis, M. H., Johnsrude, I. S., Hervais-Adelman, A., Taylor, K., & McGettigan, C.
    (2005) Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: Evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 134(2), 222–241. 10.1037/0096‑3445.134.2.222
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.2.222 [Google Scholar]
  20. Davis, S.
    (2011) Geminates. InM. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume E., & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, Volume 2 (pp.837–859). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0037
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0037 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dickerson, L. J.
    (1975) The learner’s interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly, 9(4), 401–408. 10.2307/3585624
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3585624 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dupoux, E., Kakehi, K., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C., & Mehler, J.
    (1999) Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 251, 1568–1578.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Escudero, P., & Boersma, P.
    (2004) Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(4), 551–585. 10.1017/S0272263104040021
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104040021 [Google Scholar]
  24. Escudero, P., Hayes-Harb, R., & Mitterer, H.
    (2008) Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36(2), 345–360. 10.1016/j.wocn.2007.11.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2007.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Flege, J. E.
    (1995) Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. InW. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp.229–273). Timonium, MD: York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gass, S., & Varonis, E.
    (1984) The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 341, 65–89. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1984.tb00996.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00996.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Guy, G. R.
    (2007) Lexical exceptions in variable phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 13(2), 109–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Janda, R. D., & Auger, J.
    (1992) Quantitative evidence, qualitative hypercorrection, sociolinguistic variables – and French speakers’ ‘eadhaches with English h/Ø. Language & Communication, 12(3/4), 195–236. 10.1016/0271‑5309(92)90015‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(92)90015-2 [Google Scholar]
  29. John, P.
    (2006) Variable h-epenthesis in the interlanguage of francophone ESL learners. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Concordia University.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. John, P., & Cardoso, W.
    (2009) Francophone ESL learners’ difficulties with English /h/. InM. A. Watkins, A. S. Rauber, & B. O. Baptista (Eds.), Recent research in second language phonetics/phonology: Perception and production (pp.118–140). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2017) Medial coda and final stops in Brazilian Portuguese-English contact. InYavaş, M., Kehoe, M. & Cardoso, W. (Eds.), Romance-Germanic bilingual phonology (pp.181–199). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P.
    (2008) Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness of L2 speech: the role of listener experience and semantic context. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 64(3), 459–489. 10.3138/cmlr.64.3.459
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.459 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kroch, A.
    (1989) Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 11, 199–244. 10.1017/S0954394500000168
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000168 [Google Scholar]
  34. LaCharité, D., & Prévost, P.
    (1999) The role of L1 and of teaching in the acquisition of English sounds by francophones. InA. Greenhill, H. Littlefield, & C. Taro (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.373–385). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mah, J.
    (2011) Segmental representations in interlanguage grammars: the case of francophones and English /h/. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
  36. Mah, J., Goad, H., & Steinhauer, K.
    (2016) Using event-related brain potentials to assess perceptibility: the case of French speakers and English [h]. Frontiers in Psychology, 71, 1–14. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01469
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01469 [Google Scholar]
  37. Maye, J., Aslin, R. N., & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (2008) The Weckud Wetch of the Wast: Lexical adaptation to a novel accent. Cognitive Science, 321, 543–562. 10.1080/03640210802035357
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802035357 [Google Scholar]
  38. Melnik, G. A., & Pepercamp, S.
    (2019) Perceptual deletion and asymmetric lexical access in second language learners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 145(13). 10.1121/1.5085648
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5085648 [Google Scholar]
  39. Preston, D. R.
    (1989) Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Ross, S.
    (1994) The ins and outs of paragoge and apocope in Japanese-English interphonology. Second Language Research, 10(1), 1–24. 10.1177/026765839401000101
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839401000101 [Google Scholar]
  41. Strange, W., & Shafer, V. L.
    (2008) Speech perception in second language learners. InJ. G. Hansen-Edwards & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp.153–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.36.09str
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.36.09str [Google Scholar]
  42. Trofimovich, P., Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N.
    (2007) A dynamic look at L2 phonological learning: Seeking processing explanations for implicational phenomena. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 291, 407–448. 10.1017/S027226310707026X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310707026X [Google Scholar]
  43. Trofimovich, P., & John, P.
    (2011) When three equals tree: Examining the nature of phonological entries in L2 lexicons of Quebec speakers of English. InP. Trofimovich & K. McDonough (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp.105–129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.30.09tro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.30.09tro [Google Scholar]
  44. Trude, A. M., Tremblay, A., & Brown-Schmidt, S.
    (2013) Limitations on adaptation to foreign accents. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 349–367. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  45. Weber, A., & Cutler, A.
    (2004) Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 501, 1–25. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00105‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00105-0 [Google Scholar]
  46. White, E. J., Titone, D., Genesee, F., & Steinhauer, K.
    (2015) Phonological processing in late second language learners: The effects of proficiency and task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Winford, D.
    (1978) Phonological hypercorrection in the process of decreolization – the case of Trinidadian English. Journal of Linguistics, 14(2), 277–291. 10.1017/S0022226700005909
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700005909 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22002.joh
Loading
On the lexical source of variable L2 phoneme production
The Mental Lexicon 17, 239 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.22002.joh
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22002.joh
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22002.joh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): asymmetric lexical access; dual URs; fuzzy representations; hypercorrection; L2 perception/production; variation

Most Cited

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