Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-bcq64 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-26T00:20:49.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FROM PHONEMIC DIFFERENCES TO CONSTRAINT RANKINGS: Research on Second Language Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2004

Fred R. Eckman
Fred R. Eckman
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article surveys the development of second language (L2) phonology over the last 40–50 years. Research in this area has grown from analyzing learners' errors in terms of Contrastive Analysis to proposals explaining L2 sound patterns in terms of constraints on interlanguage grammar. Although native language transfer has endured as one source of learner constraints, researchers have, over the years, shown the necessity of phonological universals in explaining L2 phonologies. More recently, L2 phonologists have provided insightful analyses through constraint-based grammars within the framework of Optimality Theory.I would like to thank two anonymous SSLA reviewers for their many helpful comments and suggestions on this manuscript. As always, neither of these people is responsible for any misstatements, misrepresentations, or other errors.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 513 - 549
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Development and recoverability of L2 codas: A longitudinal study of Chinese-Swedish interphonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 313–349.Google Scholar
Adjemian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning, 26, 297–320.Google Scholar
Altenberg, E., & Vago, R. (1983). Theoretical implications of an error analysis of second language phonology production. Language Learning, 33, 427–447.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1987). The markedness differential hypothesis and syllable structure difficulty. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 279–291). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42, 529–555.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1988). Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology, 5, 183–207.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. (1993a). Language learnability and L2 phonology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Archibald, J. (1993b). The learnability of English metrical parameters by Spanish speakers. IRAL, 31, 129–141.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. (1993c). Metrical phonology and L2 stress. In F. R. Eckman (Ed.), Confluence: Linguistics, L2 acquisition, and speech pathology (pp. 37–48). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Archibald, J. (1995). The acquisition of stress. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Phonological acquisition and phonological theory (pp. 81–109). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Archibald, J. (1997). The acquisition of second language phrasal stress. In S. J. Hannahs & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition (pp. 263–289). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Archibald, J. (1998a). Second language phonology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Archibald, J. (1998b). Second language phonology, phonetics, and typology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 189–211.Google Scholar
Avery, P., & Rice, K. (1989). Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology, 6, 179–200.Google Scholar
Baptista, B. O. (1989). English stress rules and native speakers. Language and Speech, 27, 217–233.Google Scholar
Battistella, E. (1990). Markedness: The evaluative superstructure of language. Albany: The State University of New York Press.
Beebe, L. (1980). Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 433–447.Google Scholar
Benson, B. (1988). Universal preference for the open syllable as an independent process in interlanguage phonology. Language Learning, 38, 221–242.Google Scholar
Best, C. (1993). Emergence of language-specific constraints in perception of non-native speech: A window on early phonological development. In B. de Boysson-Bardies (Ed.), Developmental neurocognition: Speech and face processing in the first year of life (pp. 289–304). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Best, C. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influence in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In H. Nussbaum, J. Goodman, & C. Howard (Eds.), The transition from speech to spoken words: The development of speech perception (pp. 167–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Best, C. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171–204). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Blevins, J. (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 206–244). Oxford: Blackwell.
Briere, E. (1966). An experimentally defined hierarchy of difficulties of learning phonological categories. Language, 42, 768–796.Google Scholar
Broselow, E. (1983). Non-obvious transfer: On predicting epenthesis errors. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 269–280). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Broselow, E., Chen, S., & Wang, C. (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 261–280.Google Scholar
Broselow, E., & Finer, D. (1991). Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research, 7, 35–59.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (1998). The role of the L1 grammar in the acquisition of segmental structure. Second Language Research, 14, 139–193.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 4–63). Oxford: Blackwell.
Carlisle, R. S. (1991). The influence of environment on vowel epenthesis in Spanish/English interphonology. Applied Linguistics, 12, 76–95.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. S. (1997). The modification of onsets in a markedness relationship: Testing the Interlanguage Structural Conformity Hypothesis. Language Learning, 47, 327–361.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. S. (1998). The acquisition of onsets in a markedness relationship: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 245–260.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook, 2, 223–250.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. IRAL, 9, 149–159.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. (1975). The learner's interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 401–407.Google Scholar
Dickerson, W. (1976). The psycholinguistic unity of language learning and language change. Language Learning, 26, 215–231.Google Scholar
Dickerson, W. (1977). Language variation in applied linguistics. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 43–66.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1972). Goofing, an indicator of children's second language strategies. Language Learning, 22, 234–252.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–258.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 129–136.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1981a). On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 18–30.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1981b). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31, 195–216.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1984). Universals, typologies, and interlanguages. In W. E. Rutherford (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Eckman, F. R. (1991). The Structural Conformity Hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 23–41.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1996). A functional-typological approach to second language acquisition theory. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 195–211). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Eckman, F., & Iverson, G. (1994). Pronunciation difficulties in ESL: Coda consonants in English interlanguage. In M. Yavas (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 251–266). San Diego, CA: Singular.
Edge, B. (1991). The production of word-final voiced obstruents in English by speakers of Japanese and Cantonese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 377–393.Google Scholar
Fikkert, P. (1994). On the acquisition of prosodic structure. Leiden, The Netherlands: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.
Flege, J. E. (1980). Phonetic approximation in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 117–134.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1981). The phonological basis of foreign accent: A hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 443–455.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1986). Effects of equivalence classification on the production of foreign language speech sounds. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 9–40). Dordrecht: Foris.
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987). Cross-language switching in stop consonant perception and production by Dutch speakers of English. Speech Communication, 6, 185–202.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adults' acquisition of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 527–552.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter setting model of L2 acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “l” and “r.” Neuropsychologia, 9, 317–323.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1976). Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.
Greenberg, J. (1978). Some generalization concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In J. Greenberg, C. Ferguson, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language: Vol. 2. Phonology (pp. 243–279). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gregg, K. (1990). The variable competence model of second language acquisition and why it isn't. Applied Linguistics, 11, 364–383.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., Houlihan, K., & Sanders, G. (1986). Markedness distribution in phonology and syntax. In F. R. Eckman, E. Moravcsik, & J. Wirth (Eds.), Markedness (pp. 107–138). New York: Plenum.
Hammerly, H. (1982). Contrastive phonology and error analysis. IRAL, 20, 17–32.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1994). Segment transfer: A consequence of a dynamic system. Second Language Research, 10, 241–269.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, B. (2000). Optimality in second language phonology: Codas in Thai ESL. Second Language Research, 16, 201–232.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, B., & Bhatt, R. (1997). Optimal L2 syllables: Interaction of transfer and developmental effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 331–378.Google Scholar
Hansen, J. (2001). Linguistic constraints on the acquisition of English syllable codas by native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 22, 338–365.Google Scholar
Hansen, J. (2004). Developmental sequences in the acquisition of English L2 syllable codas: A preliminary study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 85–124.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. (1955). Manual of phonology. Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press.
Hodne, B. (1985). Yet another look an interlanguage phonology: The modification of English syllable structure by native speakers of Polish. Language Learning, 35, 405–422.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1976). Phonological disabilities in children. New York: Elsevier.
Ioup, G. (1984). Is there a structural foreign accent? A comparison of syntactic and phonological errors in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 34, 1–18.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1941). Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton.
James, A. (1986). Suprasegmental phonology and segmental form. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Johannsson, F. (1973). Immigrant Swedish phonology: A study in multiple contact analysis. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.
Kahn, D. (1980). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. New York: Garland.
Kohler, K. (1971). On the adequacy of phonological theories for contrastive studies. In G. Nickel (Ed.), Papers in contrastive linguistics (pp. 83–88). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45, 715–752.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (2001). Vowels and consonants: An introduction to the sounds of languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Leather, J. (1987). F0 pattern inference in the perceptual acquisition of second language tone. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 59–80). Dordrecht: Foris.
Lin, Y.-H. (2001). Syllable simplification strategies: A stylistic perspective. Language Learning, 51, 681–718.Google Scholar
Lombardi, L. (2003). Second language data and constraints on manner: Explaining substitutions for the English interdentals. Second Language Research, 19, 225–250.Google Scholar
MacKay, I. R. A., Flege, J. E., Piske, T., & Schirru, C. (2001). Category restructuring during second language speech acquisition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 516–528.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sound. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mairs, J. L. (1989). Stress assignment in interlanguage phonology: An analysis of the stress system of Spanish speakers learning English. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 260–283). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Major, R. C. (1986). The ontogeny model: Evidence from L2 acquisition of Spanish r. Language Learning, 36, 453–504.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (1987). A model for interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology (pp. 101–124). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Major, R. C. (1994). Chronological and stylistic aspects of second language acquisition of consonant clusters. Language Learning, 44, 655–680.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (1997). Further evidence for the Similarity Differential Rate Hypothesis. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), New sounds 97: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech (pp. 215–222). Klagenfurt, Austria: University of Klagenfurt.
Major, R. C. (2001). Foreign accent. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Major, R. C., & Faudree, M. (1996). Markedness universals and the acquisition of voicing contrasts in Korean speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 69–90.Google Scholar
Major, R. C., & Kim, E. (1996). The similarity differential rate hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 465–496.Google Scholar
McAllister, R., Flege, J. E., & Piske, T. (2002). The influence of L1 on the acquisition of Swedish quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English, and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 229–258.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Menyuk, P. (1977). Language and maturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Moravcsik, E., & Wirth, J. (1986). Markedness: An overview. In F. R. Eckman, E. Moravcsik, & J. Wirth (Eds.), Markedness (pp. 1–11). New York: Plenum.
Moulton, W. G. (1962). The sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nemser, W. (1971a). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. IRAL, 9, 115–123.Google Scholar
Nemser, W. (1971b). An experimental study of phonological interference in the English of Hungarians. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Oller, J., & Ziahosseiny, S. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors. Language Learning, 20, 183–189.Google Scholar
Osburne, A. G. (1996). Final consonant cluster reduction in English L2 speech. Applied Linguistics, 17, 164–181.Google Scholar
Pater, J. (1997). Metrical parameter setting in second language acquisition. In S. J. Hannahs & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition (pp. 235–261). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in a generative grammar (Tech. Rep. No. 2). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
Redard, F. (1973). Contrastive phonemics: Notes and exercises. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Centre Linguistique, Université de Neuchâtel.
Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English language teaching, 25, 204–219.Google Scholar
Riney, T. & Flege, J. E. (1998). Changes over time in global foreign accent and liquid identifiability and accuracy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 213–243.Google Scholar
Riney, T., & Takagi, N. (1999). Global foreign accent and voice onset time in Japanese EFL learners. Language Learning, 49, 275–302.Google Scholar
Rintell, E. (1984). But how did you FEEL about that? The learner's perception of emotion in speech. Applied Linguistics, 5, 255–264.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. (1968). On the explanation of phonic interference. Language Learning, 18, 183–197.Google Scholar
Rochet, B. L. (1995). Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 379–410). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Sagey, E. (1986). The representation of features in non-linear phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Sato, C. (1984). Phonological processes in second language acquisition: Another look at interlanguage syllable structure. Language Learning, 34, 43–57.Google Scholar
Sato, C. (1985). Task variation in interlanguage phonology. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 181–196). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Saunders, N. (1987). Morphophonemic variation in clusters in Japanese English. Language Learning, 37, 247–272.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1977). Sociolinguistic variation and language transfer in phonology. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 12, 79–95.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 209–231.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1982). The syllable. In H. Van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations: Part 2 (pp. 337–384). Dordrecht: Foris.
Sheldon, A., & Strange, W. (1982). The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 243–261.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: A case study. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stampe, D. (1979). A dissertation in natural phonology. New York: Garland.
Stockman, I. J., & Pluut, E. (1992). Segmental composition as a factor in the syllabification errors of second language speakers. Language Learning, 42, 21–45.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R., & Bowen, J. (1965). The sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Strange, W. (1992). Learning non-native phoneme contrasts: Interactions among subject, stimulus, and task variables. In E. Tohkura, E. Vatikiotis-Bateson, & Y. Sagisaka (Eds.), Speech perception, production, and linguistic structure (pp. 197–219). Tokyo: Ohmsha.
Suter, R. (1976). Predictors of pronunciation accuracy in second language learning. Language Learning, 26, 233–253.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1976). Some influences on interlanguage phonology. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 8, 87–111.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1978). The phonology of interlanguage. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 15–33). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Tarone, E. (1980). Some influences on the syllable structure of interlanguage phonology. IRAL, 18, 139–152.Google Scholar
Tomaszyk, J. (1980). On accented speech: The Polish of Polish Americans. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 12, 121–137.Google Scholar
Tropf, H. (1987). Sonority as a variability factor in second language phonology. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 173–191). Dordrecht: Foris.
Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Principles of phonology. Paris: Klincksieck.
Weinberger, S. (1987). The influence of linguistic context on syllable simplification. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 401–417). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition: The question of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 261–286.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Linguistic universals, markedness, and learnability: Comparing two different approaches. Second Language Research, 5, 127–140.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1976). Developmental sequences in naturalistic second language acquisition. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 11, 1–13.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1978). The beginning of non-school room L2 phonological acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Learning, 16, 109–125.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1983a). Contrastive analysis and language learning. In H. Wode (Ed.), Papers on language acquisition, language learning, and language teaching (pp. 202–212). Heidelberg, Germany: Groos.
Wode, H. (1983b). Phonology in L2 acquisition. In H. Wode (Ed.), Papers on language acquisition, language learning, and language teaching (pp. 175–187). Heidelberg, Germany: Groos.
Yavas, M. (1994). Final stop devoicing in interlanguage. In M. Yavas (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 267–282). San Diego, CA: Singular.
Young-Scholten, M. (1985). Interference reconsidered: The role of similarity in second language acquisition. Selecta, 14, 6–12.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M., & Archibald, J. (2000). Second language syllable structure. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 64–101). Oxford: Blackwell.
Zampini, M. (1997). L2 Spanish spirantization, prosodic domains, and interlanguage rules. In S. J. Hannahs & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition (pp. 263–289). Amsterdam: Benjamins.