ChapterPDF Available

The phonetics of second language learning and bilingualism

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This chapter provides an overview of major theories and findings in the field of second language (L2) phonetics and phonology. Four main conceptual frameworks are discussed and compared: the Perceptual Assimilation Model-L2, the Native Language Magnet Theory, the Automatic Selective Perception Model, and the Speech Learning Model. These frameworks differ in terms of their empirical focus, including the type of learner (e.g., beginner vs. advanced) and target modality (e.g., perception vs. production), and in terms of their theoretical assumptions, such as the basic unit or window of analysis that is relevant (e.g., articulatory gestures, position-specific allophones). Despite the divergences among these theories, three recurring themes emerge from the literature reviewed. First, the learning of a target L2 structure (segment, prosodic pattern, etc.) is influenced by phonetic and/or phonological similarity to structures in the native language (L1). In particular, L1-L2 similarity exists at multiple levels and does not necessarily benefit L2 outcomes. Second, the role played by certain factors, such as acoustic phonetic similarity between close L1 and L2 sounds, changes over the course of learning, such that advanced learners may differ from novice learners with respect to the effect of a specific variable on observed L2 behavior. Third, the connection between L2 perception and production (insofar as the two are hypothesized to be linked) differs significantly from the perception-production links observed in L1 acquisition. In service of elucidating the predictive differences among these theories, this contribution discusses studies that have investigated L2 perception and/or production primarily at a segmental level. In addition to summarizing the areas in which there is broad consensus, the chapter points out a number of questions which remain a source of debate in the field today.
Content may be subject to copyright.
427
Introduction
+RZDUHVSHHFKVRXQGVDQGSDWWHUQVPDVWHUHGLQDVHFRQGODQJXDJH/HVSHFLDOO\ZKHQ
WKH/LVOHDUQHGODWHULQOLIH"7KLVTXHVWLRQLVDWWKHKHDUWRIUHVHDUFKLQ/VSHHFKOHDUQLQJ
DQLQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\ ¿HOG DWWKH QH[XV RISKRQHWLFV SKRQRORJ\FRJQLWLYHSV\FKRORJ\/
acquisition, and applied linguistics. The broad goal of L2 speech research is to understand
the mechanisms and processes underlying L2 speech development, with a view toward
applications in language learning and language pedagogy. This chapter provides an over-
YLHZ RI WKH PDMRU WKHRULHV DQG ¿QGLQJV LQ WKH ¿HOG RI / VSHHFK OHDUQLQJ )RU UHDVRQV
RI VSDFH WKH GLVFXVVLRQ IRFXVHV SULPDULO\ RQ IRXU PDLQ FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUNV DPRQJ
WKHPRVWGHWDLOHGDQGZLGHO\WHVWHGLQWKH¿HOGWKH3HUFHSWXDO$VVLPLODWLRQ0RGHO±/
WKH1DWLYH/DQJXDJH0DJQHW7KHRU\WKH$XWRPDWLF6HOHFWLYH3HUFHSWLRQ0RGHO DQG WKH
6SHHFK/HDUQLQJ 0RGHO 7KHVHIUDPHZRUNV GLIIHU LQWHUPV RI HPSLULFDOIRFXV LQFOXGLQJ
WKHW\SHRI OHDUQHU HJEHJLQQHUYV DGYDQFHG DQG WDUJHWPRGDOLW\HJSHUFHSWLRQ YV
SURGXFWLRQDQG LQ WHUPVRIWKHRUHWLFDODVVXPSWLRQVVXFKDVWKHEDVLF XQLWRUZLQGRZRI
DQDO\VLVWKDWLVUHOHYDQWHJDUWLFXODWRU\JHVWXUHVSRVLWLRQVSHFL¿FDOORSKRQHV
To evaluate the predictive differences among these theories, this chapter discusses a number
of empirical studies that have investigated L2 speech primarily at a segmental level. However,
it should be pointed out that research on L2 speech learning addresses many different aspects
RI VSHHFK LQFOXGLQJ RYHUDOO DFFHQW HJ <HQL.RPVKLDQ )OHJH DQG /LX  VHJPHQW
VHTXHQFHVLHSKRQRWDFWLFV'XSRX[+LURVH.DNHKL3DOOLHUDQG0HKOHU$OWHQEHUJ
D'DYLGVRQ+DOOpDQG%HVWDQGKLJKHUOHYHOSURVRGLFVWUXFWXUHHJZRUG
ERXQGDULHV DQG FURVVZRUG VDQGKL SKHQRPHQD $OWHQEHUJ E =VLJD  6FKZDUW]
)XUWKHUEHFDXVHRWKHUUHFHQWSXEOLFDWLRQVLQ/SKRQHWLFVDQGSKRQRORJ\DOUHDG\SUR-
YLGHH[WHQVLYH UHYLHZVRIHPSLULFDO¿QGLQJVLQWKLV DUHDHJ(FNPDQ%URVHORZ DQG
.DQJ&RODQWRQL6WHHOH DQG (VFXGHUR  6LPRQHW  'DYLGVRQ %RKQ
WKHFXUUHQWFRQWULEXWLRQLVRULHQWHGLQVWHDGWRZDUGSUHVHQWLQJDV\QWKHVLVRIWKHRUHWLFDO
approaches to the study of L2 speech. Thus, although several empirical studies are covered in
a fair amount of detail, we will concentrate primarily on exploring the points of convergence
and divergence, as well as the complementarities, among theories of L2 speech.
15
The phonetics of second
language learning and
bilingualism
Charles B. Chang
Charles B. Chang
428
Despite the ways in which theories of L2 speech differ from one another, three recurring
themes emerge from the L2 speech literature. First, the learning of a target L2 structure
VHJPHQWIHDWXUH SKRQRWDFWLFFRQVWUDLQWSURVRGLFSDWWHUQHWFLV LQÀXHQFHGE\SKRQHWLF
DQGRUSKRQRORJLFDOVLPLODULW\WRVWUXFWXUHVLQWKHQDWLYHODQJXDJH/,QSDUWLFXODU//
VLPLODULW\H[LVWVDW PXOWLSOH OHYHOVDQGGRHVQRWQHFHVVDULO\EHQH¿W/RXWFRPHV 6HFRQG
the role played by certain factors, such as acoustic-phonetic similarity between close L1
and L2 sounds, changes over the course of learning, such that advanced learners may differ
from novice learners with respect to the effect of a given variable on observed L2 behavior.
7KLUGWKHFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQ/SHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQLQVRIDUDVWKHWZRDUHK\SRWK-
HVL]HGWR EH OLQNHGGLIIHUVVLJQL¿FDQWO\IURP WKHSHUFHSWLRQSURGXFWLRQOLQNVREVHUYHGLQ
L1 acquisition. Each of these themes is addressed in more detail in the rest of the chapter.
$VDQLQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\DUHDRILQTXLU\/VSHHFKUHVHDUFKLVLQWULQVLFDOO\OLQNHGQRWRQO\
to experimental advances in phonetics and laboratory phonology, but also to theoretical
YLHZVRIWKHSURFHVVDQGRXWFRPHVRI/DFTXLVLWLRQ&UXFLDOO\WKHYLHZRI/DFTXLVLWLRQ
DGRSWHGLQWKLV FKDSWHU LV RQHWKDWLGHQWL¿HVWKH VWDUW RI /DFTXLVLWLRQZLWKWKH RQVHW RI
bilingualism. That is, the chapter considers L2 learners both as acquirers of a new language
and as individuals with two languages, for two reasons. First, many individuals exposed
WRDQ/ZLOOHYHQWXDOO\ EHFRPH SUR¿FLHQW ELOLQJXDOV DQGWKHUHLVQRFOHDUGLYLGLQJ OLQH
EHWZHHQ³/ OHDUQHU´DQG ³ELOLQJXDO´6HFRQG JLYHQWKDW WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH ZRUOG FDQ
EHGHVFULEHGDV ELOLQJXDO RU PXOWLOLQJXDO 7XFNHUELOLQJXDOLVPUDWKHUWKDQPRQR-
lingualism, may be the most appropriate point of departure for considering interlanguage
phenomena in L2 learning. As such, this chapter situates the study of L2 speech within the
long tradition of bilingualism research on bidirectional cross-linguistic interactions. Under
WKLVYLHZLWEHQH¿WV / VSHHFKUHVHDUFK WRFRQVLGHU QRW RQO\/ RXWFRPHV EXW DOVR WKH
PDQQHULQZKLFKOHDUQHUV¶GHYHORSLQJ/NQRZOHGJHPD\LQÀXHQFHWKHLUNQRZOHGJHDQG
XVHRIWKH/HJ&RRN7KXVLWVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDWDOWKRXJKQRWFRYHUHGKHUHLQ
GHWDLOWKHEXUJHRQLQJOLWHUDWXUHRQ/SKRQHWLFDQGSKRQRORJLFDOFKDQJHLQ/OHDUQHUVIRU
UHYLHZVVHH&HODWDLQSUHVV&KDQJLQSUHVVGH/HHXZLQSUHVVLVUHOHYDQWWRWKHVWXG\
of L2 speech because it can provide unique insights into learners’ observed trajectory of L2
development.
In the rest of this chapter, we review the principles of the four selected conceptual frame-
ZRUNVIRUWKHVWXG\RI/VSHHFKDQGGLVFXVVWZRWRSLFVWKDWUHPDLQDUHDVRIDFWLYHUHVHDUFK
LQ/SKRQHWLFOHDUQLQJDQGELOLQJXDOLVPDWKHUROHRIWKH/±LQSDUWLFXODUWKHW\SHDQG
GHJUHHRIVLPLODULW\EHWZHHQ WKH / DQG/±LQ / SKRQHWLF GHYHORSPHQWDQGEOLQNV
between L2 perception and L2 production.
Theoretical frameworks
7KHWKHRUHWLFDOUHYLHZ¿UVWH[DPLQHVIUDPHZRUNVIRFXVLQJRQ/SHUFHSWLRQDQGWKHQSUR-
FHHGVWRWKHPDLQIUDPHZRUNDGGUHVVLQJ/SURGXFWLRQ:HEHJLQZLWKDUJXDEO\WKHPRVW
widely tested theory of nonnative and L2 speech perception, the Perceptual Assimilation
0RGHO±/
The Perceptual Assimilation Model – L2
2QH RI WKH PRVW LQÀXHQWLDO WKHRULHV RI / VSHHFK SHUFHSWLRQ WKH 3HUFHSWXDO $VVLPLOD-
WLRQ0RGHO ± /3$0/ZDV SURSRVHG E\%HVW DQG 7\OHU H[SDQGLQJ XSRQ DQ
earlier theory of nonnative speech perception focused on naive listeners, the Perceptual
Second language learning and bilingualism
429
$VVLPLODWLRQ0RGHO3$0%HVW3$0/H[SDQGVXSRQ 3$0E\ LQFRUSRUDWLQJ D
UROHIRUWKHDGGLWLRQDONQRZOHGJHWKDW/OHDUQHUVEXWQRWQDLYHPRQROLQJXDOVKDYHDERXW
WKHWDUJHWODQJXDJHHJSKRQRORJLFDONQRZOHGJH+RZHYHUWKH WZR PRGHOV DUH VLPLODU
LQ WKHLU DVVXPSWLRQ RI DUWLFXODWRU\ JHVWXUHV DV WKH EDVLF SKRQHWLF XQLW D YLHZ IROORZLQJ
from the direct realist approach to speech perception; for further discussion, see Best, 1995,
SS±LQWKHLUIRFXVRQSHUFHSWLRQDQGLQWKHLUDFFRXQWRI/SHUFHSWXDOSDWWHUQVLQ
terms of SHUFHSWXDODVVLPLODWLRQV to L1 sounds.
7KHFRUHORJLFRI3$0/LVWKDWVRXQGVRIDQ/DUHGLIIHUHQWLDOO\GLVFULPLQDEOHDFFRUG-
LQJWRKRZWKH\DUHSHUFHSWXDOO\DVVLPLODWHGWRLHLQWHUSUHWHGLQWHUPVRI/VRXQGV7KH
theory sets out a typology of diverse ways in which two L2 sounds x and y can be assimi-
lated to L1 sounds, which lead to different degrees of success discriminating x and yVHH
Table 15.1,QWKHFDVHRI7ZR&DWHJRU\7&DVVLPLODWLRQx and y are assimilated to two
different L1 sound categories and, given that there is no pressure from the L1 toward per-
FHSWXDOFRQÀDWLRQRIx and y, L2 learners are able to discriminate them with a high degree of
DFFXUDF\2QWKHRWKHUKDQGLQ6LQJOH&DWHJRU\6&DVVLPLODWLRQx and y are assimilated
WRWKHVDPH/VRXQGFDWHJRU\HDFKZLWKDVLPLODUO\KLJKJRRGQHVVRI¿WLHx and y are
ERWKSKRQHWLFDOO\ FORVH WRWKH/DWWUDFWRULQWKLVFDVHWKHUH LVVWURQJSUHVVXUHIURPWKH
/WRZDUGSHUFHSWXDOFRQÀDWLRQRIx and y, and consequently L2 learners discriminate them
SRRUO\)LQDOO\LQ&DWHJRU\*RRGQHVV&*DVVLPLODWLRQx and y are assimilated to the same
/VRXQGFDWHJRU\EXWZLWKGLIIHUHQWGHJUHHVRI¿WLHx and y are unequally close to the
/DWWUDFWRU OHDGLQJ WRGLVFULPLQDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH WKDWLV LQWHUPHGLDWH EHWZHHQWKH7&
DQG6&FDVHVUDQJLQJIURPIDLUWRJRRG)RUH[DPSOHIRU/(QJOLVKOLVWHQHUVWKH=XOX
FRQWUDVWVEHWZHHQODWHUDOIULFDWLYHVܾDQG݀ELODELDOVWRSVEDQGܦDQGYHODUVWRSVNh/
DQGN¶ ZHUH SUHGLFWHGUHVSHFWLYHO\WRXQGHUJR7& DVVLPLODWLRQ WRD YRLFHOHVV (QJOLVK
IULFDWLYHVXFK DV ݕDQG D YRLFHG (QJOLVKIULFDWLYH VXFK DVݤ &* DVVLPLODWLRQERWK WR
(QJOLVKE ZLWKGLIIHUHQW GHJUHHV RI¿W DQG 6& DVVLPLODWLRQ ERWK WR (QJOLVKN ZLWK
VLPLODUGHJUHHVRI¿WDQGLQGHHG(QJOLVKOLVWHQHUV¶GLVFULPLQDWLRQRIWKHVHFRQWUDVWVZDV
UHVSHFWLYHO\JRRGVRPHZKDWOHVVJRRGDQGSRRU%HVW0F5REHUWVDQG*RRGHOO
,QDGGLWLRQ WR WKH7&6&DQG&* W\SHV RISHUFHSWXDODVVLPLODWLRQZKLFKDOOLQYROYH
both members of the L2 sound contrast being assimilated to L1 sounds, it is possible for
one or both members of an L2 contrast not to be assimilated to L1 sounds. In Uncatego-
UL]HG&DWHJRUL]HG8&DVVLPLODWLRQ RQO\ RQH RIWKH/ VRXQGV LV LGHQWL¿HGZLWKDQ/
VRXQGZKLOHWKHRWKHULVSHUFHLYHGDVXQOLNHDQ\/VRXQG%HFDXVHKHUHWKH/FRQWUDVW
UHGXFHVWRDQRSSRVLWLRQEHWZHHQ/OLNHDQGQRQ/OLNHVRXQGV/OHDUQHUVDUHDEOHWR
GLVFULPLQDWHWKHVRXQGVZHOOHJ7KDLEDFNXQURXQGHGYRZHOV݁DQGܶIRU/(QJOLVK
OLVWHQHUV7\OHU%HVW)DEHUDQG/HYLWW+RZHYHULQ8QFDWHJRUL]HG8QFDWHJRUL]HG
Table 15.1 7\SHVRISHUFHSWXDOQRQDVVLPLODWLRQSRVLWHGLQ3$0/ 7&7ZR&DWHJRU\&* &DWHJRU\
*RRGQHVV6&6LQJOH&DWHJRU\8&8QFDWHJRUL]HG&DWHJRUL]HG888QFDWHJRUL]HG8QFDWHJRUL]HG
1$1RQ$VVLPLODEOH$FFXUDF\VFDOH SRRU IDLU JRRG H[FHOOHQW
TC CG SC 8& 88 1$
/VRXQGVSHUFHLYHGDVVSHHFK" yes yes yes yes yes no
/VRXQGVERWKDVVLPLODWHGWR/" yes yes yes no no no
'LIIHUHQFHLQJRRGQHVVRI¿WWR/" no yes no yes í í
'LVFULPLQDWLRQDFFXUDF\±VFDOH 4± 14± ±
Charles B. Chang
430
88DVVLPLODWLRQQHLWKHURIWKH/VRXQGVLVSHUFHLYHGDVVLPLODUWRDQ/VRXQG,QWKLV
FDVHWKHUHIRUHWKHUHLVQRSRVVLELOLW\RIXVLQJDIUDPHZRUNRI³/OLNH´YV³QRQ/OLNH´
and discrimination accuracy ranges from poor to intermediate, depending on the degree to
ZKLFKWKHPHPEHUVRIWKHFRQWUDVWSDUWLDOO\UHVHPEOHWKHVDPH/VRXQGRUGLIIHUHQW/
sounds.
)LQDOO\LWLVSRVVLEOHIRU/VRXQGVQRW RQO\ WR UHVLVW LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ ZLWK DQ /VRXQG
EXWDOVR WREH SHUFHLYHGDV QRQOLQJXLVWLF,Q WKH UDUH 1RQ$VVLPLODEOH 1$ FDVH RI /
sounds, the L2 sounds are so divergent from any member of the L1 sound inventory that
they are effectively treated as non-speech. In this case, discrimination of the L2 contrast
PD\EHQH¿W IURP DQRQVSHHFKPRGHRIDXGLWRU\SURFHVVLQJWKDWKDV QRWEHHQZDUSHGE\
OLQJXLVWLFFDWHJRULHVVHHQH[WVHFWLRQ7KH1DWLYH/DQJXDJH0DJQHW7KHRU\7KLVSRVVLELO-
LW\ZDVHOHJDQWO\GHPRQVWUDWHG LQ D VHULHV RI VWXGLHV RQ QRQQDWLYHFOLFNSHUFHSWLRQ%HVW
0F5REHUWVDQG6LWKROH%HVW7UDLOO&DUWHU+DUULVRQDQG)DEHU&RQWUDU\WR
WKHK\SRWKHVLVWKDWQRQQDWLYHFOLFNVZRXOGEHPRVWHDVLO\GLVFULPLQDWHGE\VSHDNHUVDOUHDG\
IDPLOLDUZLWKFOLFNVIURPWKHLU / VSHDNHUV ZLWK / FOLFNV WHQGHGWRGRUHODWLYHO\SRRUO\
RQQRQQDWLYHFOLFNGLVFULPLQDWLRQE\FRQWUDVW/(QJOLVKVSHDNHUVZKRKDGQRH[SHULHQFH
ZLWKFOLFNV SHUIRUPHG UHODWLYHO\ ZHOO 7KH H[SODQDWLRQIRU WKLVUHVXOW OLHV LQWKH IDFW WKDW
FOLFNODQJXDJHVSHDNHUVDUHVXEMHFWDWOHDVWVRPHRIWKHWLPHWR6&DVVLPLODWLRQGXHWR/
FOLFNFDWHJRULHVWKDWVHUYHDVSHUFHSWXDODWWUDFWRUVIRUQRQQDWLYHFOLFNV1RQFOLFNODQJXDJH
VSHDNHUVVXFKDV/(QJOLVKVSHDNHUVKRZHYHUDUHXQHQFXPEHUHGE\/FOLFNFDWHJRULHV
DQGIXUWKHUPRUHKDYHQRWKLQJLQWKHLU/LQYHQWRU\WKDWUHPRWHO\UHVHPEOHVFOLFNVDXGLWR-
ULO\7KHUHIRUHWKH\DUHIUHHWRGLVFULPLQDWHWKHQRQQDWLYHFOLFNFRQWUDVWVSXUHO\LQWHUPVRI
their acoustic characteristics.
$VIRUWKHEDVLVRISHUFHSWXDODVVLPLODWLRQRI/VRXQGVWR/VRXQGV3$0/SRVLWV
that L2-to-L1 mapping may occur due to cross-linguistic similarity at a gestural level
DVZHOODV DW D SKRQRORJLFDOOHYHO,QGHHGIRU / OHDUQHUV DVRSSRVHGWRQRQOHDUQHUV
DEVWUDFWSKRQRORJLFDO NQRZOHGJH RI WKH/ LV OLNHO\WR SOD\ DQ LPSRUWDQWUROH LQ HVWDE-
lishing equivalences between L1 and L2 sounds; we will return to this topic later in the
FKDSWHU%URDGO\VSHDNLQJKRZHYHUWKHEDVLVIRUSHUFHSWXDODVVLPLODWLRQFDQEHYLHZHGDV
proximity between L2 sounds and L1 attractors. In the next section, we introduce a theory
ZKLFKOLNH 3$0/IRUPDOL]HVWKHUROHRI/ DWWUDFWRUVLQVSHHFKSHUFHSWLRQEXWZLWK
respect to the internal structure of L1 phonological categories and the acoustic perceptual
space.
The Native Language Magnet Theory
Developed originally to account for L1 perceptual development in infants, Kuhl’s Native
/DQJXDJH0DJQHW1/07KHRU\KDVEHHQDSSOLHGWRWKHVWXG\RI/VSHHFKDVZHOO.XKO
DQG,YHUVRQ(OOLV,QSDUWLFXODUWKH UHYLVHG DQG H[SDQGHG 1DWLYH /DQJXDJH
0DJQHW7KHRU\ 1/0H HQXPHUDWHV D QXPEHU RIEDVLFSULQFLSOHVVHYHUDORIZKLFKKHOS
DFFRXQWIRUDVSHFWV RI /SHUFHSWLRQ.XKO HW DO)LUVW WKH /OHDUQHUSURJUHVVHV
IURPSHUFHLYLQJVSHHFKLQDXQLYHUVDOPDQQHULHQRWVSHFLDOL]HGIRUWKH/WRSHUFHLYLQJ
LWLQDQ/VSHFL¿FPDQQHUDWUDQVLWLRQWKDWLVGULYHQERWKE\WKHGHWHFWLRQRIGLVWULEXWLRQDO
patterns in the ambient L1 input and by the enhanced acoustic properties of infant-directed
speech. Second, exposure to the L1 leads to a neural commitment to L1 speech patterns,
ZKLFKELDVHVIXWXUHVSHHFKOHDUQLQJFIWKH³VHOHFWLYHSHUFHSWLRQURXWLQH´RIWKH$XWRPDWLF
6HOHFWLYH 3HUFHSWLRQ 0RGHO GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ 7KLUG / SKRQHWLF OHDUQLQJ
LVLQÀXHQFHG E\VRFLDOLQWHUDFWLRQ)RXUWK/DFTXLVLWLRQ LQYROYHVIRUPLQJOLQNVEHWZHHQ
Second language learning and bilingualism
431
VSHHFKSHUFHSWLRQDQGVSHHFK SURGXFWLRQ LH SHUFHSWLRQSURGXFWLRQ OLQNV DUHGHYHORSHG
WKURXJKH[SHULHQFHUDWKHUWKDQEHLQJLQQDWH1 Fifth, early perceptual abilities for, as well as
neural responses to, native and nonnative sound contrasts are predictors of L1 development.
,QSDUWLFXODUEHWWHUSHUFHSWXDODELOLWLHVHJEHWWHUGLVFULPLQDWLRQSHUIRUPDQFHIRUWKH/
predict faster L1 development, whereas better perceptual abilities for nonnative speech pre-
dict slower L1 development.
7KH¿UVWDQGVHFRQGRIWKHSUHFHGLQJSULQFLSOHVUHODWHWRWZRFRUHFRQFHSWVUHOHYDQWIRU
the study of L2 speech: SHUFHSWXDOZDUSLQJ and the SHUFHSWXDOPDJQHW. Perceptual warping
refers to the way in which the acoustic perceptual space related to a given type of speech
VRXQGHJDPXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO IRUPDQW VSDFH LQ WKH FDVHRIYRZHOVLVWUDQVIRUPHGZLWK
WKH DFFXPXODWLRQ RI OLQJXLVWLF LH / H[SHULHQFH ZKLOH D SHUFHSWXDO PDJQHW LV D VSH-
FL¿FSDUWRIWKDWPRGL¿HGSHUFHSWXDOVSDFH±QDPHO\WKHSURWRW\SHRIDFRQWUDVWLYHVRXQG
category. L1 learners develop such prototypes for speech sounds early in life during their
distributional analysis of L1 input, and these prototypes act as attractors for newly per-
FHLYHGVSHHFKWRNHQVOHDGLQJWRWKHREVHUYDWLRQRIDVRFDOOHG³SHUFHSWXDOPDJQHWHIIHFW´LQ
KXPDQVRQO\.XKO7KHSHUFHSWXDOPDJQHWHIIHFWGHVFULEHVHVVHQWLDOO\WKHVDPHW\SH
RISKHQRPHQRQDVSHUFHSWXDODVVLPLODWLRQDVLQ3$0/H[FHSWWKDWWKHSHUFHSWXDOPDJ-
net effect does not refer to cross-linguistic assimilation per se; rather, the idea is that, once
there are phonological categories in place, listeners are biased to perceive incoming speech
input in terms of these categories as opposed to objectively, without reference to categories.
7KLVHIIHFWWKXVXQGHUOLHVERWKWKH³FDWHJRULFDOSHUFHSWLRQ´RI/VSHHFK/LEHUPDQ+DU-
ULV+RIIPDQDQG*ULI¿WKDVZHOODVWKHSHUFHSWXDODVVLPLODWLRQRI/VRXQGVWR/
categories.
&UXFLDOO\KRZHYHUWKHVWUHQJWKRIWKHSHUFHSWXDOPDJQHWHIIHFWGLIIHUVDFFRUGLQJWRSUR[-
LPLW\WRDFDWHJRU\SURWRW\SHLHWKHPDJQHW7KDWLVWRVD\DVSHHFKWRNHQUHJDUGOHVVRI
LWVVRXUFHODQJXDJHLVPRUHOLNHO\WREHSHUFHLYHGLQWHUPVRIDQ/FDWHJRU\WKHFORVHULWLV
WRWKHFDWHJRU\SURWRW\SH7KLVSDWWHUQUHODWHVEDFNWRWKHQRWLRQRISHUFHSWXDOZDUSLQJZLWK
L1 experience and the development of prototypes, the acoustic perceptual space becomes
³ZDUSHG´ZLWKWKHUHVXOWWKDWDJLYHQSKRQHWLFGLVWDQFHLVSHUFHLYHGDVVPDOOHUZKHQFORVH
to a prototype than when far from a prototype. The reason for this phenomenon is the nature
RI D SURWRW\SH¶V ³JUDYLWDWLRQDO SXOO´ ZKLFK GLPLQLVKHV LQ VWUHQJWKDV RQH PRYHV IXUWKHU
away from the prototype.
Applied to L2 speech perception, the perceptual warping involved in L1 development
SURYLGHVDFRQYHUJLQJ\HWVOLJKWO\GLIIHUHQWDFFRXQWIRUPDQ\RIWKHVDPH¿QGLQJVDV3$0
/ VXFK DV WKH ORZHU GLVFULPLQDELOLW\ RI 6& FRQWUDVWV FRPSDUHG WR &* FRQWUDVWV UHFDOO
IURPSUHYLRXVGLVFXVVLRQWKH=XOXFRQWUDVWVNhN¶DQGEܦUHVSHFWLYHO\6&DQG&*IRU
/(QJOLVKOLVWHQHUV,QWKHFDVHRIDQ6&FRQWUDVWDQGD&*FRQWUDVWZKRVHPHPEHUVDUH
HTXDOO\IDUDSDUWSKRQHWLFDOO\WKH6&FRQWUDVWE\YLUWXHRIWKHIDFWWKDWERWKPHPEHUVDUH
E\GH¿QLWLRQYHU\FORVHWRWKH/FDWHJRU\WRZKLFKWKH\DUHDVVLPLODWHGZLOOQHFHVVDULO\
EHFORVHURYHUDOOWRWKH/FDWHJRU\SURWRW\SHWKDQWKH&*FRQWUDVW7KHUHIRUHWKHSKRQHWLF
GLVWDQFHUHSUHVHQWHGLQWKH6&FRQWUDVWZLOOEHKDUGHUWRSHUFHLYHWKDQWKHHTXDOSKRQHWLF
GLVWDQFHUHSUHVHQWHGLQWKH&*FRQWUDVWEHFDXVHWKHIRUPHULVPRUHVWURQJO\SXOOHGLQWRWKH
L1 category.
,QVKRUWWKH1/0HYLHZRI/GHYHORSPHQWLQWHUPVRISURWRW\SHIRUPDWLRQDQGSHU-
ceptual warping formalizes crucial outcomes of L1 experience that have consequences for
L2 perception. In the next section, we review a theory of L2 perception which is similar to
1/0LQWHUPVRIIRUPDOL]LQJRXWFRPHVRI/H[SHULHQFHDQGDGGLWLRQDOO\GUDZVDQH[SOLFLW
OLQNWR/SHUFHSWLRQ
Charles B. Chang
432
The Automatic Selective Perception Model
/LNH 1/0 WKH $XWRPDWLF 6HOHFWLYH 3HUFHSWLRQ $63 0RGHO RI / VSHHFK SHUFHSWLRQ
6WUDQJH  XQGHUVWDQGV / ELDVHV LQ / SHUFHSWLRQ DV WKH RXWFRPH RI D SURFHVV RI
perceptual specialization for the L1. According to ASP, perceptual specialization involves
establishing VHOHFWLYH SHUFHSWLRQ URXWLQHV 635V WKDW DOORZ SHUFHSWLRQ WR EH WDUJHWHG
DXWRPDWLFDQGUREXVWLQDGYHUVH FRQGLWLRQV&RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH1/0YLHZRI SHUFHSWXDO
specialization for the L1 as a central component of L1 perceptual ability, ASP views the
GHYHORSPHQWRI/DSSURSULDWH635VDVFULWLFDOWREHFRPLQJDVNLOOHG/OLVWHQHU+RZHYHU
these L1 SPRs also lead to L1 interference in perception of an L2, because the L2 will often
require learners to attend to different properties of the speech signal than the ones relevant
in their L1, and/or to integrate these cues differently.
&UXFLDOO\LQ$63FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH6/0DQGWKHRULHVRI/SKRQRORJLFDOGHYHORSPHQW
VXFKDVWKH3URFHVVLQJ5LFK,QIRUPDWLRQIURP0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO,QWHUDFWLYH5HSUHVHQWDWLRQV
IUDPHZRUN:HUNHUDQG&XUWLQWKHXQVSHFLDOL]HGLHODQJXDJHJHQHUDOSURFHVVLQJ
DELOLWLHVHYLGHQWLQFKLOGKRRGUHPDLQDYDLODEOHWKURXJKRXWOLIHDQGWKHUHIRUHLQDGXOWKRRG
DVZHOO+RZHYHUZKHQWKHFRJQLWLYHGHPDQGVRI D ODQJXDJH WDVNDUHKLJKHJLQSUR-
FHVVLQJDV\QWDFWLFDOO\FRPSOH[/XWWHUDQFH/OHDUQHUV¶DFFHVVWRWKHVHDELOLWLHVPD\EH
EORFNHGUHVXOWLQJLQDGHIDXOWWRDXWRPDWL]HG/635V7KXVWKHHIIHFWRIWDVNGHPDQGVRQ
processing L2 speech is a core consideration of ASP, which distinguishes this theory from
1/0
$QRWKHU DVSHFW RI $63 WKDW GLVWLQJXLVKHV LW IURP 1/0 LV WKH H[SOLFLW OLQN LW GUDZV
EHWZHHQVWDJH RI /DFTXLVLWLRQ DQG PDQQHURI / SHUFHSWXDOSURFHVVLQJ$63LGHQWL¿HV
/ H[SHULHQFH DV D IDFWRU LQÀXHQFLQJ / SHUFHSWLRQ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK VWXGLHV VXJJHVWLQJ
WKDWDGYDQFHG/OHDUQHUVWHQGWRSHUFHLYHWKH/VLJQL¿FDQWO\GLIIHUHQWO\IURPQRYLFH/
OHDUQHUV±QDPHO\LQDPRUH³SKRQRORJL]HG´PDQQHU7KLVSURFHVVRISKRQRORJL]DWLRQZDV
DSSDUHQW IRU H[DPSOH LQ /HY\ DQG 6WUDQJH¶V VWXG\ RI H[SHULHQFHG DQG LQH[SHUL-
HQFHG/OLVWHQHUVRI)UHQFKERWKIURPDQ/(QJOLVKEDFNJURXQG7KHVH/OLVWHQHUVZHUH
tested on discrimination of several French vowel contrasts, including front rounded vowels
WKDWGRQRWRFFXULQ (QJOLVK \ ° DQGYRZHOVRFFXUULQJLQERWKELODELDO DQG DOYHRODU
contexts. Results showed two systematic disparities between the experienced and inexpe-
rienced groups. First, with the exception of /u/-/y/, the experienced listeners outperformed
the inexperienced listeners overall on most of the vowel contrasts. Second, there was a
VLJQL¿FDQWFRQWH[WHIIHFWIRULQH[SHULHQFHGOLVWHQHUVEXWQRWIRUH[SHULHQFHGOLVWHQHUVLQH[-
perienced listeners performed differently on certain vowel contrasts across coarticulatory
FRQWH[WVHJKLJKHUHUURUUDWHRQX\LQDQDOYHRODUFRQWH[WWKDQLQDELODELDOFRQWH[W
7KHVH¿QGLQJV DUH FRQVLVWHQWZLWK WKH YLHZWKDW / VSHHFKOHDUQLQJ LQYROYHV GHYHORSLQJ
GLVWLQFWUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVIRUQHZ/VRXQGVHJ\DQG°IRU/(QJOLVKVSHDNHUVDVZHOO
as familiarity with rule-governed coarticulatory patterns in the L2, which allows learners
to abstract over phonemically non-contrastive coarticulatory variation, such as the vowel
fronting effect associated with alveolars.
)LQGLQJVLQVWXGLHVVXFKDV/HY\DQG6WUDQJHFRQYHUJHZLWKWKHUHVXOWVRIPDQ\
RWKHUVWXGLHVHJ%UDGORZ3LVRQL$NDKDQH<DPDGDDQG7RKNXUD:DQJ6SHQFH
-RQJPDQDQG6HUHQR$R\DPD)OHJH*XLRQ$NDKDQH<DPDGDDQG<DPDGD
7DMLPD.DWR5RWKZHOO$NDKDQH<DPDGDDQG0XQKDOOLQVXJJHVWLQJWKDW/H[SH-
ULHQFHJHQHUDOO\KHOSVWKH/OHDUQHUWREHFRPHPRUHVNLOOHGDWSHUFHLYLQJWKH/WKRXJK
VHH+ROOLGD\IRUDQLQWHUHVWLQJFRXQWHUH[DPSOHIURP/0DQGDULQOHDUQHUVRI.RUHDQ
This positive correlation between L2 experience and L2 perceptual performance can be
Second language learning and bilingualism
433
DWWULEXWHGWRWZREHQH¿FLDODQGUHODWHGRXWFRPHVRI/VSHHFKOHDUQLQJDGHYHORSPHQW
of mental representations for the contrastive sounds of the L2, particularly those which do
QRWRFFXULQWKH/DQGEGHYHORSPHQWRI635VIRUWKH/%RWKRIWKHVHGHYHORSPHQWV
DOORZ/SHUFHSWLRQWR EH PRUH WDUJHWHG DXWRPDWLF DQGUREXVWUHVXOWLQJLQDVLJQL¿FDQW
advantage for experienced L2 listeners compared to naive or inexperienced listeners.
Thus, ASP accounts for L1 biases in L2 perception, as well as for L2 perceptual learning
over time, in terms of the same fundamental construct: SPRs, which direct a listener’s atten-
tion to a proper subset of the numerous acoustic properties that a listener could potentially
DWWHQGWRLQ WKH VSHHFK VLJQDO$63GLIIHUVIURP3$0/DQG1/0 LQ IRFXVLQJ PRUHRQ
cue weighting than on cross-linguistic mapping or category prototypes; this focus helps to
account for perceptual variation observed among L2 learners with similar L1 phonological
FRQVWUDLQWVVHHHJ&KDQJ+RZHYHUDOOWKUHHRIWKHVHWKHRULHVDUHVLPLODULQWKDW
they are theories of L2 perception, not theories of L2 production. Next, we discuss a theory
of L2 speech that addresses aspects of both perception and production.
The Speech Learning Model
8QOLNHWKHWKHRULHVGLVFXVVHGDERYH )OHJH¶V6SHHFK/HDUQLQJ 0RGHO
6/0LVDWKHRU\RIERWK/SHUFHSWLRQDQG/SURGXFWLRQ,WVDFFRXQWRI/VSHHFKFRQ-
VLVWVRI VL[ PDLQWHQHWV WKH ¿UVWWKUHH EHLQJ WKDWD ODQJXDJH OHDUQHUV PDLQWDLQFRQWLQX-
RXV DFFHVV WR WKH VDPH EDVLF OHDUQLQJ PHFKDQLVPV RYHU WKH OLIHVSDQ LH DGXOW OHDUQHUV
DUHQRW IXQGDPHQWDOO\GLIIHUHQWIURPFKLOG OHDUQHUV LQWKLVUHVSHFWE/ DQG/VRXQGV
H[LVWLQ D³FRPPRQSKRQRORJLFDOVSDFH´)OHJH SDQGOHDUQHUV DUHJHQHUDOO\
PRWLYDWHGWRPDLQWDLQFURVVOLQJXLVWLFFRQWUDVW EHWZHHQ WKHP DQG FWKHUHLVDWHQGHQF\
for HTXLYDOHQFH FODVVL¿FDWLRQ of L2 sounds with close L1 counterparts. This mechanism
RIHTXLYDOHQFHFODVVL¿FDWLRQLVQRWVSHFL¿FWR / OHDUQLQJ EXW UDWKHU LV XVHG LQ WKH / WR
abstract appropriately over phonetic variability in L1 speech. The inappropriate operation
RIHTXLYDOHQFHFODVVL¿FDWLRQLQ/VSHHFKOHDUQLQJKRZHYHUPD\UHVXOWLQSUREOHPVZLWK
perception and/or production of target L2 sounds.
$IRXUWKDQGFHQWUDO FODLPRIWKH6/0LVWKDW /VRXQGVDUHGLIIHUHQWLDOO\GLI¿FXOWWR
OHDUQGHSHQGLQJRQWKHLUSKRQHWLFSUR[LPLW\WR/VRXQGVVHHFigure 15.1,QSDUWLFXODU
WKH6/0SRVLWVWKUHHW\SHVRI/VRXQGV±identical, new, and similar±ZKLFKIRUPDKLHUDU-
FK\RIOHDUQLQJGLI¿FXOW\DVIROORZVIURPOHDVWWRPRVWGLI¿FXOWLGHQWLFDOQHZVLPLODU
,GHQWLFDOVRXQGVDUHWKHOHDVWGLI¿FXOWWROHDUQEHFDXVHLQDOOUHOHYDQWDVSHFWVWKH\DUHH[DFWO\
the same as their closest L1 sound; therefore, straight transfer of the L1 sound to the L2 will
result in high accuracy with the L2 sound immediately. New sounds, by contrast, are more
GLI¿FXOWWROHDUQEHFDXVHDOWKRXJKWKH\UHVLVWHTXLYDOHQFHFODVVL¿FDWLRQZLWK/VRXQGVGXH
to a high degree of disparity along one or more dimensions, this cross-linguistic disparity
DOVRUHTXLUHVVRPHQRYHODVSHFWVRIWKH/VRXQGWREHOHDUQHGWR DSSUR[LPDWHWDUJHWOLNH
performance. These novel aspects, however, are hypothesized to be learnable in the long
WHUP2QWKHRWKHUKDQGVLPLODUVRXQGVDUHWKHPRVWGLI¿FXOWWROHDUQEHFDXVHWKH\DUHFORVH
HQRXJKWR/VRXQGVWRXQGHUJRHTXLYDOHQFHFODVVL¿FDWLRQZLWKWKHP\HWIDUHQRXJKIURP
/VRXQGVWKDWVLPSOHWUDQVIHURIWKH/VRXQGVLVQRWVXI¿FLHQWIRUWDUJHWOLNHSHUIRUPDQFH
In other words, similar sounds exist in an intermediate space of cross-linguistic similarity
DVVKRZQLQFigure 15.1ZKLFKLQWURGXFHVWKHSRVVLELOLW\RILQDSSURSULDWHLQÀXHQFHIURP
properties of close L1 sounds.
7KHQDWXUHRI/LQÀXHQFHIRUWKHWKUHHW\SHVRI/VRXQGVLVFDSWXUHGLQWKH¿IWKWHQHW
RIWKH6/0/VRXQGVPD\HLWKHUDSSUR[LPDWHLHDVVLPLODWHSURSHUWLHVRIRUGLVVLPLODWH
Charles B. Chang
434
IURP/VRXQGV,QSDUWLFXODUZKHQDQ/VRXQGXQGHUJRHVHTXLYDOHQFHFODVVL¿FDWLRQZLWK
DFORVH / VRXQGDV LQWKH FDVH RILGHQWLFDO DQG VLPLODUVRXQGV WKH / DQG /VRXQGV
EHFRPH³GLDSKRQHV´VRXQGVWKDWDUHSHUFHSWXDOO\OLQNHG in the mind of the L2 learner. In
WKHFDVHRIDVLPLODU/VRXQGWKLVSHUFHSWXDOOLQNDJHLHSDUWLDORUWRWDOFRUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ
RIWKH/VRXQGZLWKWKH/VRXQGHYHQWXDOO\OHDGVWRWKH/DQG/VRXQGVDSSUR[LPDWLQJ
HDFKRWKHULQSURGXFWLRQHJ:LOOLDPV0DMRU2QWKHRWKHUKDQGZKHQDQ/
VRXQGDYRLGVHTXLYDOHQFHFODVVL¿FDWLRQZLWK/VRXQGVDVLQWKHFDVHRIQHZVRXQGVWKH
L2 sound is represented distinctly from L1 sounds. This distinct representation allows the
/VRXQGWREHSURGXFHGHYHQWXDOO\LQDWDUJHWOLNHPDQQHUHJ:LOOLDPV$QWRQLRX
%HVW 7\OHU DQG .URRV  $OWHUQDWLYHO\ KRZHYHU / VRXQGV UHSUHVHQWHG GLVWLQFWO\
from the closest L1 categories may dissimilate from them so as to maximize cross-linguistic
contrast within the shared L1-L2 phonological space; such dissimilation may also result
LQ/VRXQGVGLYHUJLQJIURPQDWLYHPRQROLQJXDOQRUPV)RUH[DPSOHZKHUHDVHDUO\ /
.RUHDQ/(QJOLVKELOLQJXDOVZHUHIRXQGWRSURGXFHQDWLYHOLNHYRLFHRQVHWWLPH927LQ
WKHLU/YRLFHOHVVVWRSV.DQJDQG*XLRQDQHDUO\/)UHQFK/(QJOLVKELOLQJXDO
SURGXFHG/927VWKDWZHUHORQJHUWKDQQDWLYHLHSDVWWKH(QJOLVKPRQROLQJXDOQRUP
LQDQDSSDUHQWDWWHPSWWRGLIIHUHQWLDWHWKH/VWRSVIURPWKH/VWRSV0DFN
Although assimilation and dissimilation result in opposite directions of movement rela-
tive to an L1 sound, crucially they may affect sounds of both the L1 and the L2, in line with
WKHVL[WKWHQHW RI WKH 6/0FURVVOLQJXLVWLFLQÀXHQFH&/, LV LQ SULQFLSOHELGLUHFWLRQDO
7KXV&/,LVQRWOLPLWHGWR/VRXQGVLQÀXHQFLQJ/VRXQGVLH³IRUZDUGWUDQVIHU´EXW
PD\DOVRUHVXOWLQ/VRXQGVLQÀXHQFLQJ/VRXQGVLH³EDFNZDUGWUDQVIHU´%LGLUHFWLRQ-
DOLW\RI&/,DWWKHSKRQHWLFOHYHOZDVVKRZQLQDVHPLQDOVWXG\RI(QJOLVK)UHQFKELOLQJXDOV
/(QJOLVKODWH OHDUQHUV RI)UHQFKDQG / )UHQFKODWHOHDUQHUV RI (QJOLVK)OHJH
This study focused on two acoustic properties of learners’ speech in both the L1 and the
/WKH927RIWFDQRQLFDOO\VKRUWODJLQ)UHQFKEXWORQJODJLQ(QJOLVKDQGWKHVHFRQG
IRUPDQWF2IUHTXHQF\RIXFDQRQLFDOO\ORZLQ)UHQFKEXWKLJKLQ(QJOLVKDVZHOODV\
a vowel phoneme that occurs only in French. Results provided evidence for bidirectional
&/,2QWKHRQHKDQGPDQ\EXWQRWDOO/(QJOLVKOHDUQHUVRI)UHQFKSURGXFHG)UHQFKW
ZLWKWRRORQJ927VLHDV(QJOLVKLQÀXHQFHGDQG(QJOLVKWZLWKWRRVKRUW927VLH
DV)UHQFKLQÀXHQFHGDVLPLODUSDWWHUQZDVIRXQGZLWKWKH927VRI/)UHQFKOHDUQHUVRI
English. As for F2, both L1 English learners of French and L1 French learners of English
produced French /u/ with too-high F2YDOXHVLHDV(QJOLVKLQÀXHQFHGDOWKRXJKRQO\WKH
L1 French learners of English also produced English /u/ with too-low F2 values. Notably,
WKH/(QJOLVKOHDUQHUVDGGLWLRQDOO\PDQDJHGWRSURGXFHWKH)UHQFK\ZLWKQDWLYHOLNHF2
YDOXHV7KXVRYHUDOOWKHSDWWHUQRIUHVXOWVLQWKLVVWXG\ZDVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH6/0LQWZR
PDLQUHVSHFWVDVKRZLQJDGLVSDULW\EHWZHHQ³VLPLODU´VRXQGVHJ(QJOLVKDQG)UHQFK
WZKLFKHYLQFH&/,GXHWRHTXLYDOHQFHFODVVL¿FDWLRQDQG³QHZ´VRXQGVHJ)UHQFK\
IRU/(QJOLVKOHDUQHUVZKLFKDYRLG&/,DQGEVKRZLQJELGLUHFWLRQDO&/,
Figure 15.1 Continuum of similarity of L2 sounds to L1 sounds. NEW sounds are the least
similar to L1 sounds; IDENTICAL sounds, the most similar; and SIMILAR sounds, intermediate
in similarity.
Second language learning and bilingualism
435
7ZRDVSHFWVRIWKH6/0WKDWGLVWLQJXLVKLWIURPRWKHULQÀXHQWLDOWKHRUHWLFDOIUDPHZRUNV
IRU / VSHHFK UHVHDUFK DUH LWV H[SOLFLW DSSOLFDWLRQ WR SURGXFWLRQ DV RSSRVHG WR D IRFXV
RQSHUFHSWLRQ DQG LWVSUHGLFWLRQ RI ELGLUHFWLRQDO &/, DVRSSRVHG WR XQLGLUHFWLRQDO&/,
VSHFL¿FDOO\ / LQÀXHQFH RQ WKH / 7KHVH DVSHFWV RI WKH IUDPHZRUN PDNH LW HVSHFLDOO\
DSSURSULDWHIRUVWXGLHVRI/SURGXFWLRQDVLQ)OHJHDQGVWXGLHVRI/FKDQJHLQ/
OHDUQHUVERWKLQSURGXFWLRQHJ0DMRU&KDQJEGH/HHXZ
6FKPLGDQG0HQQHQ'PLWULHYD-RQJPDQDQG6HUHQRDQGSHUFHSWLRQHJ
7LFHDQG:RRGOH\$KQ&KDQJ'H.H\VHUDQG/HH(OOLV
Summary and synthesis
,QVKRUWZKLOHWKHWKHRULHVGLVFXVVHGDWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKLVFKDSWHURIWHQPDNHFRQYHUJHQW
predictions in regard to L2 phonetic development, they differ in a number of ways. The
SULPDU\GLPHQVLRQVRI GLIIHUHQFHDPRQJWKHVHWKHRUHWLFDOIUDPHZRUNVDUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ
Table 15.2 LQFOXGLQJ WKH / H[SHULHQFH RU SUR¿FLHQF\ OHYHO RI WKH OHDUQHU GHVFULEHG E\
WKHWKHRU\WKHEDVLFXQLWRIDQDO\VLVWKH/GRPDLQVFRYHUHGDQGWKHIRXQGDWLRQRIWKH
WKHRU\¶VH[SODQDWLRQRI&/,LQHLWKHUGLUHFWLRQ/WR//WR/
$VGLVFXVVHGDERYH&/,DWWKHSKRQHWLFOHYHOKDVEHHQRIVSHFLDOFRQFHUQLQWKHVWXG\RI
/VSHHFKDQGELOLQJXDOLVPVSDZQLQJDZHDOWKRI ¿QGLQJVRQ//SKRQHWLFLQWHUDFWLRQ
LQ/OHDUQHUVRIYDULRXVEDFNJURXQGVIRUIXUWKHUUHYLHZVVHH0DFNDQG.DUWXVKLQD
)UDXHQIHOGHUDQG*ROHVWDQL$SDUWIURPVKRZLQJ/LQÀXHQFHLQWKHLU/SURGXFWLRQ
HJ3RUWDQG0LWOHE*DVVOHDUQHUVPD\SURGXFHQHLWKHUWKH/QRUWKH/
DVQDWLYHOLNH)OHJHDQG(HIWLQJEWKH\PD\DOVR VKRZOLWWOHWRQRSKRQHWLFGLIIHU-
HQWLDWLRQEHWZHHQWKHWZRODQJXDJHVHJ:LOOLDPV0DMRUOHDGLQJWR³FRP-
SURPLVH´YDOXHVEHWZHHQ/DQG/QRUPVHJ)OHJH2QWKHRWKHUKDQGOHDUQHUV¶
SURGXFWLRQRIWKH/DVZHOODVRIWKH/PD\DOVREHQDWLYHOLNHHJ)RNHV%RQGDQG
6WHLQEHUJ0DFNDQGHVSHFLDOO\IRU HDUO\ELOLQJXDOVFORVHDSSUR[LPDWLRQRI
PRQROLQJXDOQRUPVIRUERWKODQJXDJHVLVFOHDUO\SRVVLEOHHJ&DUDPD]]D<HQL.RPVKLDQ
=XULI DQG &DUERQH  :LOOLDPV  )OHJH DQG (HIWLQJ D .DQJ DQG *XLRQ
$QWRQLRXHWDO$OORIWKHWKHRULHVGLVFXVVHGLQWKLVFKDSWHUDGGUHVV&/,LQWKH
7DEOH &RPSDULVRQRIVHOHFWHGIUDPHZRUNVIRU/VSHHFKUHVHDUFK3$0/3HUFHSWXDO$VVLPL-
ODWLRQ0RGHO/6/06SHHFK/HDUQLQJ0RGHO1/01DWLYH/DQJXDJH0DJQHW7KHRU\$63$XWR-
PDWLF6HOHFWLYH3HUFHSWLRQ0RGHO&/,FURVVOLQJXLVWLFLQÀXHQFH1$QRWDSSOLFDEOH
3$0/ 1/0 ASP SLM
Learner level novice to
advanced
advanced novice to
advanced
advanced
Basic unit articulatory
gesture
phonological
category
auditory cue SRVLWLRQVSHFL¿F
allophone
$ERXWSHUFHSWLRQ" yes yes yes yes
$ERXWSURGXFWLRQ" no no no yes
$FFRXQWRI/ĺ
/&/,"
perceptual
assimilation
perceptual
warping
perceptual
attunement
L1-L2
diaphones
$FFRXQWRI/ĸ
/&/,"
NA NA NA L1-L2
diaphones
Charles B. Chang
436
/WR/GLUHFWLRQEXWQRWQHFHVVDULO\LQWKH/WR/GLUHFWLRQ,QWKLVUHJDUGWKH6/0LV
XQLTXHLQSURYLGLQJDQDFFRXQWRIELGLUHFWLRQDO&/,
To close this section, it is worth noting that the diversity of L1 and L2 outcomes in L2
learners has been approached analytically in additional ways, including systems typology
DQG FRPSXWDWLRQDO PRGHOLQJ ,Q UHJDUG WR W\SRORJ\ /DHXIHU  SUHVHQWV DQ DWWHPSW
to schematize the different possible bilingual phonological systems, which each lead to a
VSHFL¿FSDWWHUQRI/DQG/VSHHFKSURGXFWLRQ&RPELQLQJDVSHFWVRIWKH ELOLQJXDOOH[L-
FDOFRQFHSWXDOPRGHORI:HLQUHLFK ZLWK WKHWULSDUWLWHVSHHFKSURGXFWLRQ PRGHO RI
.HDWLQJ/DHXIHUGLVWLQJXLVKHVDPRQJWKUHHW\SHVRIELOLQJXDOSKRQRORJLFDOV\VWHP
FRH[LVWHQW PHUJHG DQG VXSHUVXERUGLQDWH LQ WHUPV RI WKH FRQÀDWLRQ RI WKH / DQG /
DWYDULRXVOHYHOV RI UHSUHVHQWDWLRQIRUIXUWKHU GLVFXVVLRQ VHH&KDQJD SS ±
,Q UHJDUG WR PRGHOLQJ 7RELQ 1DP DQG )RZOHU  SURYLGH DQ H[DPSOH RI D IRUPDO
computational account of shifts in bilingual speech through variation in the ambient lan-
JXDJHHQYLURQPHQW7KLVFRPSXWDWLRQDODFFRXQWDVVXPHVDG\QDPLFDOV\VWHPVIUDPHZRUN
LQFUHDVLQJO\FRPPRQLQUHVHDUFKRQODQJXDJH GHYHORSPHQWDQGFKDQJHVHHHJGH%RW
/RZLHDQG9HUVSRRUGH/HHXZ0HQQHQDQG6FREELHDQGLVDOVRFRQVLVWHQW
with exemplar approaches to phonology and L2 acquisition incorporating a role for episodic
PHPRU\-RKQVRQ3LHUUHKXPEHUW+D]DQ
The role of L1-L2 similarity
Although the theories of L2 speech discussed in this chapter differ in a number of ways,
ZKDWWKH\KDYHLQFRPPRQLVWKHDFNQRZOHGJPHQWDQGLQFRUSRUDWLRQRIDUROHIRUWKH/LQ
L2 development. Whether described as perceptual assimilation to the L1, equivalence clas-
VL¿FDWLRQZLWKWKH/RUVLPSO\WUDQVIHURIDQ/FDWHJRU\VSDFHRU/VHOHFWLYHSHUFHSWLRQ
URXWLQHVDVSHFWVRIWKH/DUHWDNHQWRH[HUWDSRZHUIXOLQÀXHQFHRQ/VSHHFK7KH6/0
DQG3$0/LQSDUWLFXODUDUHEDVHGRQFURVVOLQJXLVWLFPDSSLQJRI/VRXQGVWR/VRXQGV
which raises the question of how L2 learners identify the L1 correspondents of L2 sounds.
In other words, assuming that the main criterion for establishing L1-L2 correspondence is
OLQJXLVWLFVLPLODULW\KRZGR/OHDUQHUVPDNHMXGJPHQWVRIVLPLODULW\EHWZHHQ/DQG/
VRXQGV"
At the heart of this question is a crucial feature of L2 learners that distinguishes them
IURPQDLYHOLVWHQHUVDEVWUDFWNQRZOHGJHRIWKHWDUJHWODQJXDJH$VDFNQRZOHGJHGLQ3$0
/XQOLNHQDLYHOLVWHQHUVZKRE\GH¿QLWLRQDUHQRWIDPLOLDUZLWKWKH//OHDUQHUVPD\
KDYHDFRQVLGHUDEOHDPRXQWRIKLJKHUOHYHONQRZOHGJHRIWKH/LQFOXGLQJNQRZOHGJHRI
the phonemic inventory, phonotactic constraints, allophonic alternations, and/or the ortho-
JUDSKLFV\VWHPXVHGWRYLVXDOO\UHSUHVHQWWKHVRXQGVRIWKHODQJXDJHFI3ROND
%HVWDQG7\OHU%RRPHUVKLQH+DOO+XPHDQG-RKQVRQ'DYLGVRQ&RQ-
sequently, there are several sources of information about L2 sounds that L2 learners may
WDNHLQWRDFFRXQWLQIRUPLQJDMXGJPHQWRI//VLPLODULW\WKDWJREH\RQGWKHUDZSKRQHWLF
GDWDDYDLODEOHWRERWK/OHDUQHUVDQGQDLYHOLVWHQHUVZKLFKLVJHQHUDOO\WDNHQWREHJHVWXUDO
LQ3$0/DQGDFRXVWLFLQWKH6/0
For L2 learners, the availability of multiple sources of information about L2 sounds
LQWURGXFHV WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI FRQÀLFW EHWZHHQ WKRVH VRXUFHV &KDQJ  7R WDNH RQH
H[DPSOHSRLQWHGRXWE\&KDQJ<DR+D\QHVDQG5KRGHVZKLFKSDUDOOHOVWKHVLWXD-
WLRQLQ)OHJHKLJKURXQGHGYRZHOVLQ0DQGDULQ&KLQHVHLH\DQGXUHVHPEOH
$PHULFDQ(QJOLVKYRZHOVDWWZROHYHOVD DQ DFRXVWLF OHYHO HJ F2 frequency, formant
WUDMHFWRULHVDQGEDSKRQHPLFOHYHOHJEHLQJDKLJKEDFNURXQGHGYRZHOX,QWHUPV
Second language learning and bilingualism
437
of acoustic proximity in F1îF2VSDFH0DQGDULQ\LVFORVHUWR(QJOLVKXWKDQLV0DQGDULQ
XGXHWRWKHIDFWWKDW$PHULFDQ(QJOLVKXWHQGVWREHUHODWLYHO\IURQWDQGLQFHUWDLQ
GLDOHFWVVXFKDV6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLDQ(QJOLVKSKRQHWLFDOO\XQURXQGHGDVZHOO+DJLZDUD
/DGHIRJHG2+RZHYHULQWHUPVRISKRQHPLFFRUUHVSRQGHQFH0DQGDULQXLV
WKHFORVHUPDWFKWR(QJOLVKXEHFDXVH0DQGDULQXDQGQRW\LVDKLJKEDFNURXQGHG
YRZHOOLNH(QJOLVKXWKLVLVUHÀHFWHGIRUH[DPSOHLQVLPLODUSKRQRWDFWLFSDWWHUQLQJLQWKH
WZRODQJXDJHVHJQRQRFFXUUHQFHRIRQVHW&ZX
7KXVLQWKH FDVH RI / (QJOLVKOHDUQHUVRI 0DQGDULQ SURGXFWLRQ RI WKH/0DQGDULQ
YRZHOV\ DQGXFRXOGEHLQÀXHQFHGE\WKHSURSHUWLHVRI(QJOLVKXLQDWOHDVW WZRGLI-
IHUHQWZD\VGHSHQGLQJRQZKHWKHUDFRXVWLFRUSKRQHPLFFRQVLGHUDWLRQVWDNHSUHFHGHQFHLQ
FURVVOLQJXLVWLFPDSSLQJ)LUVW0DQGDULQ\FRXOGEHPDSSHGWR(QJOLVKXZLWK0DQGD-
ULQXDYRLGLQJHTXLYDOHQFHFODVVL¿FDWLRQZLWKDQ(QJOLVKYRZHOWKLVZRXOGOHDGWRWRRORZ
F2YDOXHVIRU0DQGDULQ\DV(QJOLVKXLVFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\DORZHUF2WKDQ0DQGDULQ\
DQGWDUJHWOLNHSURGXFWLRQRI0DQGDULQXD ³QHZ´ VRXQG LQ 6/0WHUPV$OWHUQDWLYHO\
0DQGDULQXFRXOGEHPDSSHGWR(QJOLVKXZLWK0DQGDULQ\DYRLGLQJHTXLYDOHQFHFODV-
VL¿FDWLRQZLWKDQ(QJOLVKYRZHOWKLVZRXOGOHDGWRWRRKLJKF2YDOXHVIRU0DQGDULQXDV
English /u/ is characterized by a higher F2WKDQ0DQGDULQXDQGDWDUJHWOLNHSURGXFWLRQ
RI0DQGDULQ\:KDW&KDQJHWDOIRXQGZDVWKHODWWHUUHODWLYHO\H[SHULHQFHG/
(QJOLVKOHDUQHUVRI0DQGDULQSURGXFHG0DQGDULQXZLWKF2 values that were higher than
WKRVHRI/0DQGDULQVSHDNHUVEXW0DQGDULQ\ZLWKF2YDOXHVQRWVLJQL¿FDQWO\GLIIHUHQW
IURPWKRVHRI / 0DQGDULQ VSHDNHUVUHSOLFDWLQJWKHSDWWHUQ UHSRUWHG LQ )OHJHIRU
advanced L1 English learners of French.
7RJHWKHUZLWKDUDQJHRIRWKHUUHVXOWVIURP/SHUFHSWLRQ3RONDDQG%RKQ6WUDQJH
/HY\DQG/HKQKROI  ORDQZRUG DGDSWDWLRQ .DQJ&KDQJD DQG
SKRQHWLF GULIW &KDQJ E  ¿QGLQJV VXFK DV LQ )OHJH  DQG &KDQJ HW DO
FRQWULEXWHWRDSLFWXUHLQZKLFKFURVVOLQJXLVWLFPDSSLQJLHUHODWLQJDQ/VRXQG
WRDQ/VRXQGRIWHQIROORZVWKHSKRQHPLFURXWHRYHUWKHDFRXVWLFURXWH7RWDNHRQHRWKHU
example from loanword adaptation, high lax vowels in English loanwords are adapted by
French-English bilinguals not with the acoustically closest mid vowels of French, but with
WKHSKRQHPLFDOO\SDUDOOHODQGDFRXVWLFDOO\PRUHGLVWDQWKLJKYRZHOVRI)UHQFK/D&KDULWp
DQG3DUDGLV7KHIDFWWKDWWKLVKDSSHQVZLWKERWKRIWKH(QJOLVKYRZHOVDWLVVXHܼ
DQGݜQRWMXVWZLWKRQHRUWKHRWKHUVXJJHVWVWKDWFURVVOLQJXLVWLFPDSSLQJRQDSKRQHPLF
basis is systematic rather than idiosyncratic. Thus, at least for advanced L2 learners, there
PD\EHDSULYLOHJHGVWDWXVRIDEVWUDFWKLJKHUOHYHOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXW/DQG/VRXQGVLQ
PDNLQJMXGJPHQWVRIFURVVOLQJXLVWLFVLPLODULW\+RZHYHUWKHVSHFL¿FG\QDPLFVRILQWHUDF-
tion between phonetic and phonological types of cross-linguistic similarity, the manner in
ZKLFKWKHVHG\QDPLFVPD\FKDQJHRYHU WKH FRXUVH RI / OHDUQLQJ DQG WKH LQÀXHQFH RID
FKDQJLQJFRQVWUXFWRISHUFHLYHGGLVVLPLODULW\LQVKDSLQJ/RXWFRPHVFI$R\DPDHWDO
UHPDLQRSHQTXHVWLRQV
Linking L2 perception and L2 production
$OWKRXJKWKHRULHV RI/ VSHHFKVXFK DVWKH 6/0 DUH RIWHQ FRQFHUQHG ZLWK IXQGDPHQWDO
similarities between child and adult learners, there are some important differences between
L1 learning and L2 learning of a target language, and one area in which such differences are
REVHUYHGLVWKHOLQNEHWZHHQSHUFHSWLRQ DQGSURGXFWLRQ$FFRUGLQJWR1/0HSHUFHSWLRQ
DQGSURGXFWLRQDUHFORVHO\OLQNHGLQ/DFTXLVLWLRQDQGWKHVHOLQNVDUHXQGHUVWRRGWRIRUP
during L1 acquisition, due in part to the articulatory-auditory loop associated with an infant
Charles B. Chang
438
hearing the consequences of her own vocalizations. Further, the timing of perception and
production milestones in L1 development, which typically shows children reliably perceiv-
ing speech sounds well before they can produce them, suggests that perception generally
SUHFHGHVSURGXFWLRQ ZKHQLWFRPHVWRWKH/DOWKRXJKJLYHQWKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHGUROHRI
production in perceptual development, this should be regarded as a gross view of percep-
WLRQSURGXFWLRQRUGHULQJLQ/GHYHORSPHQW
In L2 speech learning, the relationship between perception and production is less clear
WKDQLQ/GHYHORSPHQW2QHERG\RI¿QGLQJVWKDWEHDUVRQWKLVLVVXHFRPHVIURPUHVHDUFK
RQSKRQHWLF WUDLQLQJ±LQSDUWLFXODUWUDQVIHURIWUDLQLQJJDLQV IURPWKHWUDLQHGPRGDOLW\
to the untrained modality. In brief, although some studies report perception-production
FRUUHODWLRQVDQGRUFDUU\RYHURIWUDLQLQJJDLQVDFURVVPRGDOLWLHVHJ&DWIRUGDQG3LVRQL
/HDWKHU:DQJ-RQJPDQDQG6HUHQR.DUWXVKLQD+HUYDLV$GHOPDQ
)UDXHQIHOGHUDQG*ROHVWDQLPXFKRIWKLVOLWHUDWXUHHYLQFHVOLWWOHWRQRUHODWLRQVKLS
between perception and production for L2 speech. For example, Kartushina and Frauen-
IHOGHUWHVWHGDVDPSOHRI/6SDQLVKOHDUQHUVRI)UHQFKRQWKHLUSHUFHSWLRQDQG
production of French front mid vowel contrasts and found no correlation between learn-
HUV¶SHUIRUPDQFHLQSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQVHHDOVR3HSHUNDPSDQG%RXFKRQ
2IFRXUVHIDLOXUHWR¿QGDVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQL¿FDQWFRUUHODWLRQEHWZHHQWKHWZRPRGDOLWLHV
does not constitute evidence that there is no relationship between them; however, when
FRUUHODWLRQVKDYHEHHQIRXQGDFURVVPRGDOLWLHVWKHHIIHFWVL]HKDVRIWHQEHHQVPDOO%UD-
GORZHW DO$NDKDQH<DPDGD 0F'HUPRWW$GDFKL .DZDKDUDDQG 3UXLWW
)OHJH0DF.D\DQG0HDGRU)XUWKHUPRUH/SURGXFWLRQDFFXUDF\GRHVQRWVHHP
WRGHSHQGRQKLJK/SHUFHSWXDODELOLW\6KHOGRQDQG6WUDQJH7KHVH¿QGLQJVVXJ-
gest that transfer of perceptual learning to production, and vice versa, may be complicated
E\DYDULHW\RILQWHUYHQLQJIDFWRUVIRUUHFHQWUHYLHZVVHH.DUWXVKLQD.DUWXVKLQD
HWDO
The complex relationship between L2 developments in perception and production invites
WKHTXHVWLRQRIZKHWKHU/RXWFRPHVPLJKWJHQHUDOO\EHQH¿WIURPWUDLQLQJLQYROYLQJPRUH
WKDQ RQH PRGDOLW\ VHH &KDSWHU  WKLV YROXPH GLVFXVVLQJ PXOWLFKDQQHO WUDLQLQJ RI WKH
/,I/ WUDLQLQJ LQ RQHPRGDOLW\WHQGVWRLPSURYHPDLQO\WKHWUDLQHGPRGDOLW\ DQG QRW
necessarily the untrained modality, could L2 speech development be enhanced or acceler-
DWHGZLWKPXOWLPRGDOWUDLQLQJLQYROYLQJPRUHWKDQRQHVWLPXOXVFKDQQHOHJDXGLWRU\DQG
DUWLFXODWRU\DXGLWRU\DQGYLVXDO"7KHORJLFRI³PRUHLVEHWWHU´ZRXOGSUHGLFW\HVDQGVRPH
¿QGLQJVVKRZDVLJQL¿FDQWEHQH¿WRIYLVXDOIHHGEDFNRQOHDUQHUV¶SURGXFWLRQFRPELQHGZLWK
DXGLWRU\H[SRVXUHWRDQDWLYHPRGHOHJ.DUWXVKLQD+RZHYHUWZRUHFHQWVWXGLHV
suggest that multimodal L2 engagement does not necessarily improve L2 outcomes, and
in certain cases can actually be detrimental to L2 speech development. In one study of L1
(QJOLVKVSHDNHUVEHLQJWUDLQHGRQ0DQGDULQWRQHV*RGIURLG/LQDQG5\XVHYHUDO
types of multimodal perceptual training were systematically compared to each other, includ-
LQJWKUHH³VLQJOHFXH´W\SHVRIWUDLQLQJ LQYROYLQJH[SRVXUHWRRQO\RQHYLVXDOFXHDORQJ-
VLGHDXGLWRU\VWLPXOLQXPEHUSLWFKFRQWRXURUFRORUDQGWZR³GXDOFXH´W\SHVRIWUDLQLQJ
LQYROYLQJ H[SRVXUH WR WZR YLVXDO FXHV FRORU DQG QXPEHU RU FRORU DQG SLWFK FRQWRXU
Although test results showed perceptual gains with all training types, single-cue exposure
WRQXPEHUVRUSLWFKFRQWRXUVZDVPRUHEHQH¿FLDOWKDQVLQJOHFXHH[SRVXUHWRFRORUVZKLOH
QHLWKHUGXDOFXH H[SRVXUHZDVPRUHEHQH¿FLDOWKDQ VLQJOHFXHH[SRVXUH,QDQRWKHU VWXG\
RI/6SDQLVKOHDUQHUVRI%DVTXH%DHVH%HUNDQG6DPXHOERWKLQH[SHULHQFHGDQG
H[SHULHQFHGOHDUQHUVZHUH WUDLQHG RQ /%DVTXHVRXQGVLQWZRFRQGLWLRQVDSHUFHSWLRQ
RQO\DQGESHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQZKHUHDQRUDOUHSHWLWLRQWDVNZDVLQWHUOHDYHGZLWK
Second language learning and bilingualism
439
DXGLWRU\H[SRVXUHDQGSHUFHSWXDOMXGJPHQWV5HVXOWVVKRZHGDGHWULPHQWDOHIIHFWRISUR-
GXFLQJVSHHFKGXULQJWKHSHUFHSWXDOWUDLQLQJZKLFKZDVPLWLJDWHGEXWQRWHOLPLQDWHGE\
SUHYLRXVH[SHULHQFHZLWKWKH/VHHDOVR/HDFKDQG6DPXHO%DHVH%HUNIRU
VLPLODU¿QGLQJV
:K\ZRXOG PXOWLPRGDO / H[SRVXUH QRWQHFHVVDULO\ IDFLOLWDWH / OHDUQLQJ RXWFRPHV"
7KHUHDUHDWOHDVWWKUHHSRVVLEOHDQGQRWPXWXDOO\H[FOXVLYHH[SODQDWLRQV%DHVH%HUNDQG
6DPXHO  DOOXGH WR WKH UROH RI FRJQLWLYH RYHUORDG LQ WKLV W\SH RI PXOWLPRGDO VHW-
WLQJVHHHJYDQ0HUULsQERHUDQG6ZHOOHUZKLOH*RGIURLGHWDODGGLWLRQ-
ally consider the potentially detrimental effect of extraneous processing of redundant or
irrelevant information. Either or both of these factors may be responsible for the observed
LQWHUIHUHQFHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKYDU\LQJWDVNLUUHOHYDQWSKRQHWLFIHDWXUHVLQ/VSHHFKWUDLQLQJ
$QWRQLRXDQG:RQJ*RGIURLGHWDOKRZHYHUDUHFDUHIXOWRSRLQWRXWWKDW
performance in their dual-cue condition was never worse than in the single-cue condition,
which is not entirely consistent with an account of their results in terms of cognitive load
RU H[WUDQHRXV SURFHVVLQJ &RQVHTXHQWO\ WKH\ H[SODLQ WKH ODFN RI EHQH¿W DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK
adding a second cue in terms of an implementation issue: given the way in which color was
LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKH VWLPXOL SDUWLFLSDQWV PD\KDYHSHUFHSWXDOO\EDFNJURXQGHG WKH FRORU
FXHVXFKWKDW³FRORUPLJKW KDYH SOD\HG D PRUHSHULSKHUDOUROHWKDQLQWHQGHG´ *RGIURLG
HWDOS
7KXV WKH ¿QGLQJV RI / VSHHFK UHVHDUFK SUHVHQW D PL[HG SLFWXUH UHJDUGLQJ WKH UHOD-
WLRQVKLSRISHUFHSWLRQDQG SURGXFWLRQ LQ / GHYHORSPHQW2QWKHRQH KDQG VWXGLHV VXFK
DV%UDGORZ HW DO  DQG%DHVH%HUN DQG 6DPXHO ZKLFK VKRZIDFLOLWDWLRQ RU
interference across modalities, provide evidence that perception and production processes
must draw on mental representations that are at least partly shared between the two modali-
WLHV2QWKHRWKHUKDQGVWXGLHVVXFKDV .DUWXVKLQDDQG)UDXHQIHOGHUZKLFKIDLOWR
¿QGDFORVHFRUUHODWLRQEHWZHHQSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQSHUIRUPDQFHLQDQ/VXJJHVW
some degree of dissociation between perception and production representations as well.
The degree to which L2 perception and L2 production processes overlap, the nature of this
overlap, and the manner in which the perception-production relationship differs between L1
and L2 learning remain some of the basic questions in research on L2 speech learning and
phonetic development more generally.
Concluding remarks
7KLVFKDSWHUKDVDWWHPSWHGWRV\QWKHVL]HFRUHLQVLJKWVDQGFODLPVRILQÀXHQWLDOWKHRULHVLQ
WKH ¿HOG RI / VSHHFK OHDUQLQJ 7KH IRXU VHOHFWHG IUDPHZRUNV GLVFXVVHG KHUH 3$0/
1/0$636/0 DUH VRPH RI WKH PRVW GHWDLOHG DQG ZLGHO\ WHVWHG WKHRULHV LQ WKH ¿HOG
+RZHYHU LW VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW RWKHU IUDPHZRUNV VXFK DV (FNPDQ¶V 0DUNHGQHVV 'LI-
IHUHQWLDO+\SRWKHVLVDQG 6WUXFWXUDO &RQIRUPLW\+\SRWKHVLV(FNPDQ   
%URZQ¶VIHDWXUDOPRGHO RI/SHUFHSWLRQ%URZQ WKH2QWRJHQ\3K\ORJHQ\ 0RGHO
0DMRU  WKH 6HFRQG /DQJXDJH /LQJXLVWLF 3HUFHSWLRQ 0RGHO (VFXGHUR  YDQ
/HXVVHQDQG(VFXGHURDQGDGGLWLRQDO2SWLPDOLW\7KHRUHWLFDSSURDFKHVFI+DQFLQ
%KDWWDOVRDGGUHVVDVSHFWVRI/VSHHFKOHDUQLQJZLWKGLIIHUHQWHPSKDVHV VXFKDV
WKHUROHRIODQJXDJHXQLYHUVDO IDFWRUV 0DUNHGQHVV 'LIIHUHQWLDO+\SRWKHVLVDQGGHYHORS-
PHQWDO FKDQJHV RYHU WKH FRXUVH RI OHDUQLQJ 2QWRJHQ\ 3K\ORJHQ\ 0RGHO )XUWKHUPRUH
WKHEXUJHRQLQJ¿HOGRI/SURVRG\KDVOHGWRQHZGHYHORSPHQWVDQGWKHRULHVIRFXVLQJRQ
VXSUDVHJPHQWDOIHDWXUHVRIWKH/VXFKDVUK\WKPDQGLQWRQDWLRQHJ/LDQG3RVW
0HQQHQDQGGH/HHXZ0HQQHQ
Charles B. Chang
440
In closing, although the focus of this chapter has been phonetic development in typical
late-onset L2 learners, it is worth drawing the reader’s attention to some related areas of
research activity that, for reasons of space, have not been given extensive discussion here.
)LUVW&/,LVEHLQJXQGHUVWRRGLQQHZZD\VQRWMXVWLQWHUPV RI ³QHJDWLYH´ RU ³SRVLWLYH´
WUDQVIHUIURPWKH//DGR*RWR2GOLQ&XWOHUEXWDOVRLQWHUPV
RIQDWLYHODQJXDJHWUDQVIHUEHQH¿WVIRU/OHDUQLQJ%RKQDQG%HVW&KDQJDQG0LVK-
OHU&KDQJ0RUHRYHUWKHYDULDEOHVRIDJHDQGSUR¿OHRIDFTXLVLWLRQKDYHORQJ
spurred, and continue to spur, research on differences between early and late L2 learners
<HQL.RPVKLDQHWDO*XLRQ.DQJ DQG *XLRQ2KHWDODQG
EHWZHHQW\SLFDO/OHDUQHUVDQG KHULWDJHVSHDNHUVRU/UHOHDUQHUV.QLJKWO\-XQ2K
DQG$X&KDQJ&KDQJDQG<DR$GGLWLRQDOZRUNKDVEHHQH[DPLQLQJ
the effect of other properties of the individual learner, such as language aptitude and basic
perceptual ability, in order to better understand the wide range in L2 outcomes observed
DFURVV OHDUQHUV RI WKH VDPH / EDFNJURXQG HJ &KDQJ E 3HUUDFKLRQH /HH +D
DQG:RQJ%RZOHV&KDQJDQG.DUX]LV,QSXWDQGOLQJXLVWLFIDFWRUVVXFKDV
WDONHUYDULDELOLW\ DQG SKRQRORJLFDOFRQWH[WDUHDOVREHLQJLQYHVWLJDWHGDV FRQWULEXWRUV WR
YDULDWLRQLQ/RXWFRPHVHJ%UDGORZHWDO.LQJVWRQ3HUUDFKLRQHHWDO
&KDQJDQG%RZOHV
In light of transnational migration and multilingualism across the world, these and other
lines of inquiry are poised to shape practices and policy affecting the linguistic lives of many
SHRSOH)RUH[DPSOHUHVHDUFKH[DPLQLQJWKHOLQJXLVWLFNQRZOHGJHRIKHULWDJHVSHDNHUVLQ
relation to late L2 learners is helping to inform language course design so as to better serve
WKHXQLTXHQHHGVRIKHULWDJHODQJXDJHOHDUQHUV6WXGLHVRIWKLUGODQJXDJH/OHDUQHUVDUH
LQYHVWLJDWLQJ ZKDW IDFWRUV LQÀXHQFH VSHHFK OHDUQLQJ LQ PXOWLOLQJXDO VLWXDWLRQV *DOODUGR
GHO3XHUWRKRZ/OHDUQLQJUHVHPEOHVDQGGLIIHUVIURP/OHDUQLQJ2QLVKL
:UHPEHODQGKRZ/OHDUQLQJPD\LQÀXHQFHWKHSKRQRORJLFDOUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDQG
SURFHVVHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKSUHYLRXVO\OHDUQHGODQJXDJHV&DEUHOOL$PDURLQOLQHZLWK
WKHPXOWLFRPSHWHQFHYLHZRIODQJXDJH GHYHORSPHQWRYHUWKHOLIHVSDQ&RRN
)LQDOO\LWZRXOGEHUHPLVVQRWWRPHQWLRQWKHZRUNRIVFKRODUVZKRDUHFRQQHFWLQJ
/VSHHFKUHVHDUFKWR/LQVWUXFWLRQDOSUDFWLFHVDQGVWUDWHJLHVVHHHJ0RUDDQG/HYNLQD
)DUIURPGHFOLQLQJUHVHDUFKLQ/VSHHFKOHDUQLQJLVWKULYLQJ:HFDQORRNIRUZDUG
to many new discoveries in the years to come, with practically relevant implications we
cannot yet imagine.
Notes
 7KLVFRQWUDVWVZLWKWKHGLUHFWUHDOLVWYLHZRI3$0/ZKLFKDVVXPHVWKDWSHUFHSWLRQSURGXFWLRQ
OLQNV GR QRW KDYH WR EH OHDUQHG 8QGHU WKLV YLHZERWK SHUFHSWLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ DUH EDVHG LQ
articulatory gestures, so “no translation is needed between perception and production because they
DUHLQIRUPDWLRQDOO\FRPSDWLEOH´%HVWS
 7KDQNVWR *HRIIUH\ 6FKZDUW] IRU SRLQWLQJ RXW WKDW GLIIHUHQW RXWFRPHV IRUDFRXVWLF SUR[LPLW\
FRXOGUHVXOWIURPH[DPLQLQJDOWHUQDWLYHPHWULFVRIYRZHOTXDOLW\HJGLVWDQFHVEHWZHHQDGMD-
cent formants such as F2 and F3FI 6\UGDO DQG *RSDO RQ WKHUROH RI IRUPDQW FRQYHU-
JHQFHV LQ YRZHO SHUFHSWLRQ ,Q WKH FDVH RI PHDVXULQJ YRZHO IURQWQHVVEDFNQHVV LQ WHUPV RI
F3íF2UDWKHU WKDQ F2 WKLVPHWULF ZKHQ DSSOLHG WRWKH SURGXFWLRQ GDWD IURPWKH VSHDNHUV LQ
&KDQJHW DO  LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWKWKHYLHZ WKDW QDWLYH (QJOLVKXM)í)  %DUN
LVSKRQHWLFDOO\FORVHUWRQDWLYH0DQGDULQ\M)í)  %DUNWKDQWRQDWLYH0DQGDULQX
M)í) %DUN
Second language learning and bilingualism
441
References
$KQ6&KDQJ&%'H.H\VHU5DQG/HH(OOLV6$JHHIIHFWVLQ¿UVWODQJXDJHDWWULWLRQ
Speech perception by Korean-English bilinguals. Language Learning, ±
$NDKDQH<DPDGD50F'HUPRWW($GDFKL7.DZDKDUD+DQG3UXLWW-6&RPSXWHU
EDVHG VHFRQG ODQJXDJH SURGXFWLRQ WUDLQLQJ E\ XVLQJ VSHFWURJUDSKLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG +00
based speech recognition scores. In 3URFHHGLQJVRI WKH WK ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &RQIHUHQFHRQ6SRNHQ
/DQJXDJH3URFHVVLQJ,&6/3SDSHU6\GQH\$XVWUDOLD,QWHUQDWLRQDO6SHHFK&RP-
munication Association.
$OWHQEHUJ(3D7KHMXGJPHQWSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQRIFRQVRQDQWFOXVWHUVLQDVHFRQG
language. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO5HYLHZRI$SSOLHG/LQJXLVWLFVLQ/DQJXDJH7HDFKLQJ, ±
$OWHQEHUJ(3E7KHSHUFHSWLRQRIZRUGERXQGDULHVLQDVHFRQGODQJXDJHSecond Language
Research, ±
$QWRQLRX0%HVW&77\OHU0'DQG.URRV&/DQJXDJHFRQWH[WHOLFLWVQDWLYHOLNHVWRS
voicing in early bilinguals’ productions in both L1 and L2. -RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, 38±
$QWRQLRX0DQG:RQJ3&09DU\LQJLUUHOHYDQWSKRQHWLFIHDWXUHVKLQGHUVOHDUQLQJRIWKH
feature being trained. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, ±
$R\DPD.)OHJH-(*XLRQ6*$NDKDQH<DPDGD5DQG<DPDGD73HUFHLYHGSKR-
netic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. -RXUQDO
of Phonetics, ±
%DHVH%HUN007KHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQZKHQOHDUQLQJQRYHO
SKRQRORJLFDOFDWHJRULHV. Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern University.
%DHVH%HUN00DQG6DPXHO$*/LVWHQHUVEHZDUH6SHHFKSURGXFWLRQPD\EHEDGIRU
learning speech sounds. -RXUQDORI0HPRU\DQG/DQJXDJH, ±
%HVW&77KHHPHUJHQFHRIQDWLYHODQJXDJHSKRQRORJLFDOLQÀXHQFHVLQLQIDQWV$SHUFHSWXDO
DVVLPLODWLRQ PRGHO ,Q - & *RRGPDQ DQG + & 1XVEDXP (GV 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI VSHHFK
SHUFHSWLRQ7KHWUDQVLWLRQ IURPVSHHFKVRXQGVWR VSRNHQZRUGVSS± &DPEULGJH0$
0,73UHVV
%HVW&7$GLUHFW UHDOLVWYLHZ RI FURVVODQJXDJH VSHHFK SHUFHSWLRQ,Q:6WUDQJH (G
6SHHFK SHUFHSWLRQ DQG OLQJXLVWLF H[SHULHQFH ,VVXHV LQ FURVVODQJXDJH UHVHDUFK SS ±
%DOWLPRUH0'<RUN3UHVV
%HVW&70F5REHUWV*:DQG*RRGHOO('LVFULPLQDWLRQRIQRQQDWLYHFRQVRQDQWFRQ-
trasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. 7KH-RXUQDO
of the Acoustical Society of America, ±
%HVW&70F5REHUWV*:DQG6LWKROH10([DPLQDWLRQRISHUFHSWXDOUHRUJDQL]DWLRQ
IRUQRQQDWLYHVSHHFKFRQWUDVWV=XOXFOLFNGLVFULPLQDWLRQE\(QJOLVKVSHDNLQJDGXOWVDQGLQIDQWV
-RXUQDORI([SHULPHQWDO3V\FKRORJ\+XPDQ3HUFHSWLRQDQG3HUIRUPDQFH, ±
%HVW&77UDLOO$&DUWHU$+DUULVRQ.'DQG)DEHU$;y}FOLFNSHUFHSWLRQE\(QJ-
OLVK,VL]XOXDQG6HVRWKROLVWHQHUV,Q0-6ROp'5HFDVHQVDQG-5RPHUR(GVProceedings
RIWKH WK LQWHUQDWLRQDOFRQJUHVVRI SKRQHWLFVFLHQFHVSS± %DUFHORQD 6SDLQ&DXVDO
Productions.
%HVW&7DQG7\OHU0'1RQQDWLYHDQGVHFRQGODQJXDJHVSHHFKSHUFHSWLRQ&RPPRQDOL-
WLHVDQGFRPSOHPHQWDULWLHV,Q26%RKQDQG0-0XQUR(GV/DQJXDJHH[SHULHQFHLQVHFRQG
ODQJXDJHVSHHFKOHDUQLQJ ,Q KRQRU RI-DPHV(PLO)OHJHSS±$PVWHUGDP7KH 1HWKHU-
lands: John Benjamins Publishing.
%RKQ26&URVVODQJXDJHDQGVHFRQGODQJXDJHVSHHFKSHUFHSWLRQ,Q(0)HUQiQGH]DQG
+6&DLUQV(GV7KHKDQGERRNRISV\FKROLQJXLVWLFVSS±+RERNHQ1--RKQ:LOH\
Sons.
%RKQ26DQG%HVW&71DWLYHODQJXDJHSKRQHWLFDQGSKRQRORJLFDOLQÀXHQFHVRQSHUFHS-
WLRQRI$PHULFDQ (QJOLVKDSSUR[LPDQWVE\ 'DQLVK DQG *HUPDQOLVWHQHUV-RXUQDO RI 3KRQHWLFV,
±
Charles B. Chang
442
%RRPHUVKLQH$ +DOO .& +XPH ( DQG-RKQVRQ .  7KH LPSDFWRIDOORSKRQ\ YHUVXV
FRQWUDVWRQVSHHFKSHUFHSWLRQ,Q3$YHU\('UHVKHUDQG.5LFH(GV&RQWUDVWLQSKRQRORJ\
SS±%HUOLQ*HUPDQ\0RXWRQGH*UX\WHU
%RZOHV$5&KDQJ&%DQG.DUX]LV933LWFKDELOLW\DVDQDSWLWXGHIRUWRQHOHDUQLQJ
Language Learning, 66±
%UDGORZ$53LVRQL'%$NDKDQH<DPDGD5DQG7RKNXUD<7UDLQLQJ-DSDQHVHOLVWHQ-
ers to identify English /r/ and /l/, IV: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. The
-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, ±
%URVHORZ(DQG.DQJ<3KRQRORJ\DQGVSHHFK,Q-+HUVFKHQVRKQDQG0<RXQJ6FKROWHQ
(GV 7KH &DPEULGJH KDQGERRN RI VHFRQG ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ SS ± &DPEULGJH
&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
%URZQ&  7KH LQWHUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ VSHHFK SHUFHSWLRQDQG SKRQRORJLFDO DFTXLVLWLRQIURP
LQIDQWWRDGXOW,Q-$UFKLEDOG(G6HFRQGODQJXDJHDFTXLVLWLRQDQGOLQJXLVWLFWKHRU\SS±
0DOGHQ0$%ODFNZHOO3XEOLVKHUV
&DEUHOOL$PDUR-7HVWLQJWKHSKRQRORJLFDOSHUPHDELOLW\K\SRWKHVLV/SKRQRORJLFDOHIIHFWV
on L1 versus L2 systems. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI%LOLQJXDOLVP, ±
&DUDPD]]D$<HQL.RPVKLDQ*+=XULI(%DQG&DUERQH(7KHDFTXLVLWLRQRIDQHZ
phonological contrast: The case of stop consonants in French-English bilinguals. 7KH-RXUQDORI
the Acoustical Society of America, ±
&DWIRUG-&DQG3LVRQL'%$XGLWRU\YV$UWLFXODWRU\WUDLQLQJLQH[RWLFVRXQGVThe Mod-
HUQ/DQJXDJH-RXUQDO, ±
&HODWD&LQSUHVV3KRQRORJLFDO/DWWULWLRQ,Q066FKPLGDQG%.|SNH(GVThe Oxford
handbook of language attrition2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
&KDQJ& %(QJOLVKORDQZRUG DGDSWDWLRQLQ%XUPHVH -RXUQDORIWKH6RXWKHDVW$VLDQ/LQ-
guistics Society, 1±
&KDQJ&%D)LUVWODQJXDJHSKRQHWLFGULIWGXULQJVHFRQGODQJXDJHDFTXLVLWLRQ. Ph.D. thesis,
8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD%HUNHOH\&$
&KDQJ & % E 7KH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI ODU\QJHDO FRQWUDVW LQ .RUHDQ DV D VHFRQG ODQJXDJH
Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 13±
&KDQJ&%6\VWHPLFGULIWRI/YRZHOVLQQRYLFH/OHDUQHUV,Q:6/HHDQG(=HH(GV
3URFHHGLQJVRIWKHWK LQWHUQDWLRQDOFRQJUHVVRISKRQHWLFVFLHQFHVSS ±+RQJ.RQJ
&KLQD&LW\8QLYHUVLW\RI+RQJ.RQJ
&KDQJ&%D3KRQHWLFVYV3KRQRORJ\LQORDQZRUGDGDSWDWLRQ5HYLVLWLQJWKHUROHRIWKHELOLQ-
JXDO,Q6%HUVRQ$%UDWNLHYLFK'%UXKQ$&DPSEHOO5(VFDPLOOD$*LRYLQH/1HZEROG
03HUH]03LTXHUDV%UXQHWDQG55KRPLHX[(GV3URFHHGLQJVRIWKHWKDQQXDOPHHWLQJ
RI WKH %HUNHOH\ /LQJXLVWLFV 6RFLHW\ *HQHUDO VHVVLRQ DQG SDUDVHVVLRQ RQ LQIRUPDWLRQ VWUXFWXUH
SS±%HUNHOH\&$%HUNHOH\/LQJXLVWLFV6RFLHW\
&KDQJ&%E5DSLGDQGPXOWLIDFHWHGHIIHFWVRIVHFRQGODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJRQ¿UVWODQJXDJH
speech production. -RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, ±
&KDQJ&%$QRYHOW\HIIHFWLQSKRQHWLFGULIWRIWKHQDWLYHODQJXDJH-RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV,
±
&KDQJ & %  'HWHUPLQLQJ FURVVOLQJXLVWLF SKRQRORJLFDO VLPLODULW\ EHWZHHQ VHJPHQWV 7KH
SULPDF\RI DEVWUDFW DVSHFWVRI VLPLODULW\,Q ( 5DLP\ DQG& ( &DLUQV(GV The segment in
SKRQHWLFVDQGSKRQRORJ\SS±&KLFKHVWHU-RKQ:LOH\6RQV
&KDQJ&%%LOLQJXDOSHUFHSWXDOEHQH¿WVRIH[SHULHQFHZLWKDKHULWDJHODQJXDJHBilingual-
ism: Language and Cognition, ±
&KDQJ & %  3HUFHSWXDO DWWHQWLRQ DV WKH ORFXV RI WUDQVIHU WR QRQQDWLYH VSHHFK SHUFHSWLRQ
-RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, 68±
&KDQJ&%LQSUHVV3KRQHWLFGULIW,Q066FKPLGDQG%.|SNH(GVThe Oxford handbook of
language attrition2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
&KDQJ& %DQG%RZOHV$5 &RQWH[WHIIHFWVRQVHFRQGODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJ RIWRQDOFRQ-
trasts. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, 138±
Second language learning and bilingualism
443
&KDQJ&%DQG0LVKOHU$(YLGHQFHIRUODQJXDJHWUDQVIHUOHDGLQJWRDSHUFHSWXDODGYDQ-
tage for non-native listeners. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, ±
&KDQJ&%DQG<DR<7RZDUGDQXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIKHULWDJHSURVRG\$FRXVWLFDQGSHUFHS-
WXDOSURSHUWLHVRIWRQHSURGXFHGE\KHULWDJHQDWLYHDQGVHFRQG ODQJXDJHVSHDNHUVRI0DQGDULQ
+HULWDJH/DQJXDJH-RXUQDO, 13±
&KDQJ&%<DR<+D\QHV()DQG5KRGHV53URGXFWLRQRISKRQHWLFDQGSKRQRORJL-
FDOFRQWUDVWE\KHULWDJHVSHDNHUVRI0DQGDULQ7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD,
±
&RODQWRQL / 6WHHOH - DQG (VFXGHUR 3  6HFRQG ODQJXDJH VSHHFK 7KHRU\ DQG SUDFWLFH.
&DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
&RRN9-  7KH SRYHUW\RIWKHVWLPXOXV DUJXPHQW DQG PXOWLFRPSHWHQFH Second Language
Research, ±
&RRN9-(YLGHQFHIRUPXOWLFRPSHWHQFHLanguage Learning, ±
&RRN9 - 7KHFKDQJLQJ /LQWKH/ XVHU¶VPLQG,Q 9 &RRN(GEffects of the second
ODQJXDJHRQWKH¿UVWSS±&OHYHGRQ0XOWLOLQJXDO0DWWHUV
&XWOHU$/LVWHQLQJWRDVHFRQGODQJXDJHWKURXJKWKHHDUVRID¿UVW,QWHUSUHWLQJ, 5±
'DYLGVRQ/3KRQRORJ\SKRQHWLFVRUIUHTXHQF\,QÀXHQFHVRQWKHSURGXFWLRQRIQRQQDWLYH
sequences. -RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, ±
'DYLGVRQ/3KRQHWLFSKRQHPLFDQGSKRQRORJLFDOIDFWRUVLQFURVVODQJXDJHGLVFULPLQDWLRQ
of phonotactic contrasts. -RXUQDO RI ([SHULPHQWDO 3V\FKRORJ\ +XPDQ 3HUFHSWLRQ DQG 3HUIRU-
mance, ±
'DYLGVRQ/&URVVODQJXDJHVSHHFKSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQ,Q0$URQRII(GOxford
ELEOLRJUDSKLHVLQOLQJXLVWLFV2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
GH%RW./RZLH:DQG9HUVSRRU0$G\QDPLFV\VWHPVWKHRU\DSSURDFKWRVHFRQGODQ-
guage acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, ±
GH/HHXZ(LQSUHVV3KRQHWLF/DWWULWLRQ,Q066FKPLGDQG%.|SNH(GVThe Oxford hand-
book of language attrition2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
GH/HHXZ(0HQQHQ,DQG6FREELH-0'\QDPLFV\VWHPVPDWXUDWLRQDOFRQVWUDLQWVDQG
L1 phonetic attrition. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI%LOLQJXDOLVP, ±
GH/HHXZ(6FKPLG06DQG0HQQHQ,7KHHIIHFWVRIFRQWDFWRQQDWLYHODQJXDJHSURQXQ-
ciation in an L2 migrant setting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13±
'PLWULHYD2-RQJPDQ$ DQG 6HUHQR -  3KRQRORJLFDO QHXWUDOL]DWLRQ E\ QDWLYHDQGQRQ
QDWLYHVSHDNHUV7KHFDVHRI5XVVLDQ¿QDOGHYRLFLQJ-RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, 38±
'XSRX[(+LURVH<.DNHKL.3DOOLHU&DQG0HKOHU-(SHQWKHWLFYRZHOVLQ-DSDQHVH
$SHUFHSWXDOLOOXVLRQ"-RXUQDORI([SHULPHQWDO3V\FKRORJ\+XPDQ3HUFHSWLRQDQG3HUIRUPDQFH,
±
(FNPDQ)50DUNHGQHVVDQGWKHFRQWUDVWLYHDQDO\VLVK\SRWKHVLVLanguage Learning, 
±
(FNPDQ)57KHVWUXFWXUDOFRQIRUPLW\K\SRWKHVLVDQGWKHDFTXLVLWLRQRIFRQVRQDQWFOXVWHUV
in the interlanguage of ESL learners. 6WXGLHVLQ6HFRQG/DQJXDJH$FTXLVLWLRQ, 13±
(FNPDQ ) 5  7\SRORJLFDO PDUNHGQHVV DQG VHFRQG ODQJXDJH SKRQRORJ\ ,Q - * +DQVHQ
(GZDUGVDQG 0 / =DPSLQL(GV 3KRQRORJ\ DQG VHFRQG ODQJXDJHDFTXLVLWLRQ SS ±
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
(FNPDQ)56HFRQGODQJXDJHSKRQRORJ\,Q60*DVVDQG$0DFNH\(GVThe Rout-
OHGJHKDQGERRNRIVHFRQGODQJXDJHDFTXLVLWLRQSS±1HZ<RUN1<5RXWOHGJH
(OOLV1 &6HOHFWLYHDWWHQWLRQ DQGWUDQVIHUSKHQRPHQDLQ /DFTXLVLWLRQ&RQWLQJHQF\FXH
FRPSHWLWLRQ VDOLHQFH LQWHUIHUHQFH RYHUVKDGRZLQJ EORFNLQJ DQG SHUFHSWXDO OHDUQLQJ $SSOLHG
Linguistics, ±
(VFXGHUR 3  /LQJXLVWLF SHUFHSWLRQ RI ³VLPLODU´ / VRXQGV ,Q 3 %RHUVPD DQG 6 +DPDQQ
(GV3KRQRORJ\LQSHUFHSWLRQSS±%HUOLQ*HUPDQ\0RXWRQGH*UX\WHU
)OHJH-(7KHSURGXFWLRQRI³QHZ´DQG³VLPLODU´SKRQHVLQDIRUHLJQODQJXDJH(YLGHQFHIRU
WKHHIIHFWRIHTXLYDOHQFHFODVVL¿FDWLRQ-RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, 15±
Charles B. Chang
444
)OHJH-(6HFRQGODQJXDJHVSHHFKOHDUQLQJ7KHRU\¿QGLQJVDQGSUREOHPV,Q:6WUDQJH
(G6SHHFK SHUFHSWLRQDQGOLQJXLVWLFH[SHULHQFH ,VVXHV LQ FURVVODQJXDJHUHVHDUFKSS ±
%DOWLPRUH0'<RUN3UHVV
)OHJH-((QJOLVKYRZHOSURGXFWLRQVE\'XWFKWDONHUV0RUHHYLGHQFHIRUWKH³VLPLODU´YV
³QHZ´GLVWLQFWLRQ,Q$-DPHVDQG-/HDWKHU(GV6HFRQGODQJXDJHVSHHFK6WUXFWXUHDQGSUR-
cessSS±%HUOLQ*HUPDQ\0RXWRQGH*UX\WHU
)OHJH-(,QWHUDFWLRQVEHWZHHQWKHQDWLYHDQGVHFRQGODQJXDJHSKRQHWLFV\VWHPV,Q3%XU-
PHLVWHU73LVNHDQG$ 5RKGH (GV $QLQWHJUDWHGYLHZRIODQJXDJHGHYHORSPHQW3DSHUVLQ
honor of Henning WodeSS±7ULHU*HUPDQ\:LVVHQVFKDIWOLFKHU9HUODJ
)OHJH - ( DQG (HIWLQJ : D &URVVODQJXDJH VZLWFKLQJ LQ VWRS FRQVRQDQW SHUFHSWLRQ DQG
SURGXFWLRQE\'XWFKVSHDNHUVRI(QJOLVK6SHHFK&RPPXQLFDWLRQ, 6±
)OHJH-(DQG (HIWLQJ:E3URGXFWLRQ DQGSHUFHSWLRQRI(QJOLVKVWRSV E\QDWLYH6SDQLVK
VSHDNHUV-RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, 15±
)OHJH- (0DF.D\,5$DQG0HDGRU'1DWLYH ,WDOLDQVSHDNHUV¶SHUFHSWLRQDQGSUR-
duction of English vowels. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, ±
)RNHV-%RQG=6DQG6WHLQEHUJ0$FTXLVLWLRQRIWKH(QJOLVKYRLFLQJFRQWUDVWE\$UDE
children. /DQJXDJHDQG6SHHFK, ±
*DOODUGRGHO3XHUWR),V/SKRQRORJLFDOFRPSHWHQFHDIIHFWHGE\WKHOHDUQHU¶VOHYHORIELOLQ-
JXDOLVP",QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI0XOWLOLQJXDOLVP, ±
*DVV6'HYHORSPHQWRIVSHHFKSHUFHSWLRQDQGVSHHFKSURGXFWLRQLQDGXOWVHFRQGODQJXDJH
learners. $SSOLHG3V\FKROLQJXLVWLFV, 5±
*RGIURLG$/LQ&+DQG5\X&+HDULQJDQGVHHLQJWRQHWKURXJKFRORU$QHI¿FDF\VWXG\
RIZHEEDVHGPXOWLPRGDO&KLQHVHWRQHSHUFHSWLRQWUDLQLQJLanguage Learning, ±
*RWR+$XGLWRU\SHUFHSWLRQE\QRUPDO-DSDQHVHDGXOWVRIWKHVRXQGV³/´DQG³5´1HXURSV\-
chologia, ±
*XLRQ6*7KHYRZHOV\VWHPVRI4XLFKXD6SDQLVKELOLQJXDOV$JHRIDFTXLVLWLRQHIIHFWVRQ
WKHPXWXDOLQÀXHQFHRIWKH¿UVWDQGVHFRQGODQJXDJHVPhonetica, ±
+DJLZDUD5'LDOHFWYDULDWLRQDQGIRUPDQWIUHTXHQF\7KH$PHULFDQ(QJOLVK YRZHOVUHYLV-
ited. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, ±
+DOOp3$DQG%HVW&7'HQWDOWRYHODUSHUFHSWXDODVVLPLODWLRQ$FURVVOLQJXLVWLFVWXG\RI
WKHSHUFHSWLRQRIGHQWDOVWRSOFOXVWHUV7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, 
±
+DQFLQ%KDWW%6HFRQGODQJXDJHSKRQRORJ\LQRSWLPDOLW\WKHRU\,Q-*+DQVHQ(GZDUGV
DQG0/=DPSLQL(GV3KRQRORJ\DQGVHFRQGODQJXDJHDFTXLVLWLRQSS±$PVWHU-
dam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
+D]DQ96HFRQGODQJXDJHDFTXLVLWLRQDQG H[HPSODUWKHRU\,Q-7URXYDLQDQG:-%DUU\
(GV 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH WK LQWHUQDWLRQDO FRQJUHVV RI SKRQHWLF VFLHQFHV SS ± 'XG-
ZHLOHU*HUPDQ\3LUURW
+ROOLGD\--6HFRQGODQJXDJHH[SHULHQFHFDQKLQGHUWKHGLVFULPLQDWLRQRIQRQQDWLYHSKRQR-
logical contrasts. Phonetica, ±
-RKQVRQ .  6SHHFK SHUFHSWLRQ ZLWKRXW VSHDNHU QRUPDOL]DWLRQ $Q H[HPSODUPRGHO ,Q .
-RKQVRQDQG- :0XOOHQQL[(GV7DONHU YDULDELOLW\ LQ VSHHFKSURFHVVLQJSS ± 6DQ
'LHJR&$$FDGHPLF3UHVV
.DQJ.+DQG*XLRQ6*3KRQRORJLFDOV\VWHPVLQELOLQJXDOV$JHRIOHDUQLQJHIIHFWVRQ
the stop consonant systems of Korean-English bilinguals. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI
America,  ±
.DQJ<,QWHUODQJXDJHVHJPHQWDO PDSSLQJDVHYLGHQFHIRU WKHQDWXUHRIOH[LFDO UHSUHVHQWD-
tion. /DQJXDJHDQG/LQJXLVWLFV&RPSDVV, ±
.DUWXVKLQD16HFRQGODQJXDJHSKRQRORJLFDODFTXLVLWLRQLQDGXOWV. Ph.D. thesis, University
RI*HQHYD
.DUWXVKLQD1DQG)UDXHQIHOGHU8+2QWKHHIIHFWVRI/SHUFHSWLRQDQGRILQGLYLGXDOGLI-
ferences in L1 production on L2 pronunciation. Frontiers in Psychology, 5
Second language learning and bilingualism
445
.DUWXVKLQD1 )UDXHQIHOGHU8+ DQG*ROHVWDQL1 +RZ DQGZKHQGRHVWKH VHFRQG ODQ-
JXDJHLQÀXHQFHWKHSURGXFWLRQRIQDWLYHVSHHFKVRXQGV$OLWHUDWXUHUHYLHZLanguage Learning,
666±
.DUWXVKLQD1+HUYDLV$GHOPDQ$ )UDXHQIHOGHU8 +DQG*ROHVWDQL 1  7KH HIIHFW RI
SKRQHWLF SURGXFWLRQ WUDLQLQJ ZLWK YLVXDO IHHGEDFN RQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ RI IRUHLJQ
speech sounds. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, 138±
.HDWLQJ3$3KRQHWLFDQGSKRQRORJLFDOUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIVWRSFRQVRQDQWYRLFLQJLanguage,
±
.LQJVWRQ-/HDUQLQJIRUHLJQYRZHOV/DQJXDJHDQG6SHHFK, ±±
.QLJKWO\/0-XQ6$2K-6DQG$X7.3URGXFWLRQEHQH¿WVRIFKLOGKRRGRYHUKHDU-
ing. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, ±
.XKO3.+XPDQDGXOWVDQGKXPDQLQIDQWVVKRZD³SHUFHSWXDOPDJQHWHIIHFW´IRUWKHSURWR-
W\SHVRIVSHHFKFDWHJRULHVPRQNH\VGRQRW3HUFHSWLRQDQG3V\FKRSK\VLFV, ±
.XKO3.&RQER\%7&RIIH\&RULQD63DGGHQ'5LYHUD*D[LROD0DQG1HOVRQ7
Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded
1/0H3KLORVRSKLFDO7UDQVDFWLRQVRIWKH5R\DO6RFLHW\%, 363±
.XKO 3 . DQG ,YHUVRQ 3 /LQJXLVWLF H[SHULHQFH DQG WKH ³3HUFHSWXDO 0DJQHW (IIHFW´ ,Q
:6WUDQJH(G6SHHFKSHUFHSWLRQDQGOLQJXLVWLFH[SHULHQFH,VVXHVLQFURVVODQJXDJHUHVHDUFK
SS±%DOWLPRUH0'<RUN3UHVV
/D&KDULWp'DQG3DUDGLV&&DWHJRU\SUHVHUYDWLRQDQGSUR[LPLW\YHUVXVSKRQHWLFDSSUR[L-
mation in loanword adaptation. /LQJXLVWLF,QTXLU\, 36±
/DGHIRJHG3$PHULFDQ(QJOLVK,Q7KH,QWHUQDWLRQDO3KRQHWLF$VVRFLDWLRQ(GHandbook
RIWKHLQWHUQDWLRQDOSKRQHWLFDVVRFLDWLRQ$JXLGHWRWKHXVHRIWKHLQWHUQDWLRQDOSKRQHWLFDOSKDEHW
SS±&DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
/DGR5 /LQJXLVWLFV DFURVVFXOWXUHV$SSOLHGOLQJXLVWLFVIRUODQJXDJHWHDFKHUV. Ann Arbor,
0,8QLYHUVLW\RI0LFKLJDQ3UHVV
/DHXIHU&7RZDUGVDW\SRORJ\RIELOLQJXDOSKRQRORJLFDOV\VWHPV,Q$-DPHVDQG-/HDWKHU
(GV6HFRQGODQJXDJHVSHHFK6WUXFWXUHDQGSURFHVVSS±%HUOLQ*HUPDQ\0RXWRQ
GH*UX\WHU
/HDFK/DQG6DPXHO$*/H[LFDOFRQ¿JXUDWLRQDQGOH[LFDOHQJDJHPHQW:KHQDGXOWVOHDUQ
new words. Cognitive Psychology, 55±
/HDWKHU -  ,QWHUUHODWLRQ RI SHUFHSWXDO DQG SURGXFWLYH OHDUQLQJ LQ WKH LQLWLDO DFTXLVLWLRQ RI
VHFRQGODQJXDJHWRQH,Q$-DPHVDQG-/HDWKHU(GV6HFRQGODQJXDJHVSHHFK6WUXFWXUHDQG
SURFHVVSS±%HUOLQ*HUPDQ\0RXWRQGH*UX\WHU
/HY\(6DQG6WUDQJH:3HUFHSWLRQRI)UHQFKYRZHOVE\$PHULFDQ(QJOLVKDGXOWVZLWKDQG
without French language experience. -RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, 36±
/L$DQG3RVW%/DFTXLVLWLRQRISURVRGLFSURSHUWLHVRIVSHHFKUK\WKP(YLGHQFHIURP/
0DQGDULQDQG*HUPDQOHDUQHUVRI(QJOLVK6WXGLHVLQ6HFRQG/DQJXDJH$FTXLVLWLRQ, 36±
/LEHUPDQ$ 0+DUULV . 6+RIIPDQ + 6 DQG *ULI¿WK % &  7KH GLVFULPLQDWLRQRI
speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. -RXUQDORI([SHULPHQWDO3V\FKRORJ\, 
±
0DFN0&RQVRQDQWDQGYRZHOSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQ(DUO\(QJOLVK)UHQFKELOLQJXDOV
and English monolinguals. 3HUFHSWLRQDQG3V\FKRSK\VLFV, ±
0DFN03KRQHWLFWUDQVIHULQ D )UHQFK(QJOLVK ELOLQJXDO FKLOG ,Q 3+ 1HOGH (G Lan-
JXDJHDWWLWXGHVDQGODQJXDJHFRQÀLFWSS±%RQQ*HUPDQ\'PPOHU
0DFN0 7KH SKRQHWLF V\VWHPV RIELOLQJXDOV,Q07 %DQLFK DQG 0 0DFN (GV Mind,
EUDLQDQGODQJXDJH0XOWLGLVFLSOLQDU\SHUVSHFWLYHVSS ±0DKZDK1-/DZUHQFH(UO-
baum Press.
0DMRU5&/RVLQJ(QJOLVKDVD¿UVWODQJXDJH7KH0RGHUQ/DQJXDJH-RXUQDO, ±
0DMRU5 &/DFTXLVLWLRQ/ORVVDQGWKHFULWLFDOSHULRG K\SRWKHVLV ,Q$-DPHVDQG-
/HDWKHU(GV6HFRQGODQJXDJHVSHHFK6WUXFWXUHDQGSURFHVVSS±%HUOLQ*HUPDQ\
0RXWRQGH*UX\WHU
Charles B. Chang
446
0DMRU5 &  )RUHLJQ DFFHQW 7KH RQWRJHQ\ DQG SK\ORJHQ\ RI VHFRQGODQJXDJHSKRQRORJ\.
0DKZDK1-/DZUHQFH(UOEDXP$VVRFLDWHV
0HQQHQ,%H\RQGVHJPHQWV7RZDUGVD/LQWRQDWLRQOHDUQLQJWKHRU\,Q('HODLV5RXV-
VDULH0$YDQ]LDQG6+HUPHQW(GV3URVRG\DQGODQJXDJHLQFRQWDFW/DFTXLVLWLRQDWWULWLRQ
and languages in multilingual situationsSS±%HUOLQ*HUPDQ\6SULQJHU9HUODJ
0HQQHQ,DQGGH/HHXZ(%H\RQGVHJPHQWV3URVRG\LQ6/$Studies in Second Language
$FTXLVLWLRQ, 36±
0RUD-&DQG/HYNLQD07DVNEDVHGSURQXQFLDWLRQWHDFKLQJDQGUHVHDUFK.H\LVVXHVDQG
future directions. 6WXGLHVLQ6HFRQG/DQJXDJH$FTXLVLWLRQ, ±
2GOLQ 7  /DQJXDJH WUDQVIHU &URVVOLQJXLVWLF LQÀXHQFH LQ ODQJXDJH OHDUQLQJ &DPEULGJH
&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
2K*(*XLRQ$QGHUVRQ6$R\DPD.)OHJH-($NDKDQH<DPDGD5DQG<DPDGD7
A one-year longitudinal study of English and Japanese vowel production by Japanese adults and
FKLOGUHQLQDQ(QJOLVKVSHDNLQJVHWWLQJ-RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, ±
2QLVKL+ &URVVOLQJXLVWLFLQÀXHQFH LQWKLUGODQJXDJHSHUFHSWLRQ/ DQG/SHUFHSWLRQRI
-DSDQHVHFRQWUDVWV. Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona.
3HSHUNDPS6DQG%RXFKRQ&7KHUHODWLRQEHWZHHQSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQLQ/SKR-
nological processing. In 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH WK LQWHUQDWLRQDO FRQIHUHQFH RQ VSRNHQ ODQJXDJH
SURFHVVLQJ,QWHUVSHHFKSS±)ORUHQFH ,WDO\,QWHUQDWLRQDO6SHHFK&RPPXQLFD-
tion Association.
3HUUDFKLRQH7./HH-+D/<<DQG:RQJ3&0 /HDUQLQJDQRYHOSKRQRORJLFDO
contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. The
-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, ±
3LHUUHKXPEHUW-([HPSODUG\QDPLFV:RUGIUHTXHQF\OHQLWLRQDQGFRQWUDVW,Q-%\EHHDQG
3+RSSHU(GV)UHTXHQF\HIIHFWVDQGWKHHPHUJHQFHRIOH[LFDOVWUXFWXUHSS±$PVWHU-
dam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
3ROND/&URVVODQJXDJHVSHHFKSHUFHSWLRQLQDGXOWV3KRQHPLFSKRQHWLFDQGDFRXVWLFFRQWUL-
butions. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, ±
3ROND/&KDUDFWHUL]LQJWKHLQÀXHQFHRIQDWLYHODQJXDJHH[SHULHQFHRQDGXOWVSHHFKSHUFHS-
tion. 3HUFHSWLRQDQG3V\FKRSK\VLFV, ±
3ROND / DQG %RKQ 2 6  $ FURVVODQJXDJH FRPSDULVRQ RI YRZHO SHUFHSWLRQ LQ (QJOLVK
OHDUQLQJDQG*HUPDQOHDUQLQJLQIDQWV7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, 
±
3RUW5)DQG0LWOHE)06HJPHQWDOIHDWXUHVDQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQLQDFTXLVLWLRQRI(QJOLVK
E\$UDELFVSHDNHUV-RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, 11±
6FKZDUW]*:RUGERXQGDULHVLQ/VSHHFK(YLGHQFHIURP3ROLVKOHDUQHUVRI(QJOLVKSec-
ond Language Research, ±
6KHOGRQ$DQG6WUDQJH:7KHDFTXLVLWLRQRIUDQGO E\ -DSDQHVH OHDUQHUV RI(QJOLVK
Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. $SSOLHG3V\FKROLQJXLVWLFV, 3
±
6LPRQHW 0  7KH SKRQHWLFV DQG SKRQRORJ\ RI ELOLQJXDOLVP ,Q Oxford handbooks online
SS±2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
6WUDQJH :  $XWRPDWLF 6HOHFWLYH 3HUFHSWLRQ $63 RI ¿UVW DQG VHFRQG ODQJXDJH VSHHFK
$ZRUNLQJPRGHO-RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, ±
6WUDQJH: /HY\(DQG/HKQKROI5 -U3HUFHSWXDODVVLPLODWLRQRI)UHQFK DQG *HUPDQ
vowels by American English monolinguals: Acoustic similarity does not predict perceptual simi-
larity. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, 11 5
6\UGDO$.DQG *RSDO+6$SHUFHSWXDOPRGHORIYRZHOUHFRJQLWLRQEDVHGRQWKHDXGL-
tory representation of American English vowels. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD,
±
Second language learning and bilingualism
447
7DMLPD..DWR+5RWKZHOO$$NDKDQH<DPDGD5DQG0XQKDOO.*7UDLQLQJ(QJOLVK
listeners to perceive phonemic length contrasts in Japanese. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\
of America, ±
7LFH 0 DQG :RRGOH\ 0  3DJXHWWHV DQG EDVWULHV 1RYLFH )UHQFK OHDUQHUV VKRZ VKLIWV LQ
native phoneme boundaries. 8&%HUNHOH\3KRQRORJ\/DE$QQXDO5HSRUW±
7RELQ6-1DP+DQG)RZOHU&$3KRQHWLFGULIWLQ6SDQLVK(QJOLVKELOLQJXDOV([SHUL-
ment and a self-organizing model. -RXUQDORI3KRQHWLFV, 65±
7XFNHU*5$JOREDOSHUVSHFWLYHRQELOLQJXDOLVPDQGELOLQJXDOHGXFDWLRQ,Q-($ODWLVDQG
$+7DQ(GV /DQJXDJH LQ RXUWLPH%LOLQJXDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG RI¿FLDO (QJOLVK(ERQLFVDQG
VWDQGDUG(QJOLVKLPPLJUDWLRQDQGWKH8Q]LQLWLDWLYHSS±:DVKLQJWRQ'&*HRUJHWRZQ
University Press.
7\OHU0'%HVW&7)DEHU$DQG/HYLWW$*3HUFHSWXDODVVLPLODWLRQDQGGLVFULPLQD-
tion of non-native vowel contrasts. Phonetica, ±
YDQ/HXVVHQ-:DQG(VFXGHUR3/HDUQLQJWRSHUFHLYHDQGUHFRJQL]HDVHFRQGODQJXDJH
The L2LP model revised. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1000.
YDQ0HUULsQERHU--*DQG6ZHOOHU-&RJQLWLYHORDGWKHRU\DQGFRPSOH[OHDUQLQJ5HFHQW
developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, ±
:DQJ<-RQJPDQ$DQG6HUHQR-$$FRXVWLFDQGSHUFHSWXDOHYDOXDWLRQRI0DQGDULQWRQH
productions before and after perceptual training. 7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD,
113±
:DQJ < 6SHQFH 0 0 -RQJPDQ $ DQG 6HUHQR - $ 7UDLQLQJ $PHULFDQ OLVWHQHUV WR
SHUFHLYH0DQGDULQWRQHV7KH-RXUQDORIWKH$FRXVWLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD, ±
:HLQUHLFK 8 /DQJXDJHVLQFRQWDFW )LQGLQJVDQGSUREOHPV. The Hague, The Netherlands:
0RXWRQGH*UX\WHU
:HUNHU-)DQG&XUWLQ635,0,5$GHYHORSPHQWDOIUDPHZRUNRILQIDQWVSHHFKSURFHVV-
ing. /DQJXDJH/HDUQLQJDQG'HYHORSPHQW, 1±
:LOOLDPV/7KHSHUFHSWLRQRIVWRSFRQVRQDQWYRLFLQJE\6SDQLVK(QJOLVKELOLQJXDOV3HUFHS-
WLRQDQG3V\FKRSK\VLFV, ±
:LOOLDPV/7KHPRGL¿FDWLRQRIVSHHFKSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQLQVHFRQGODQJXDJHOHDUQ-
ing. 3HUFHSWLRQDQG3V\FKRSK\VLFV, ±
:UHPEHO0927SDWWHUQVLQWKHDFTXLVLWLRQRIWKLUGODQJXDJHSKRQRORJ\Concordia Work-
LQJ3DSHUVLQ$SSOLHG/LQJXLVWLFV, 5±
<HQL.RPVKLDQ * + )OHJH - ( DQG /LX 6  3URQXQFLDWLRQ SUR¿FLHQF\ LQ WKH ¿UVW DQG
second languages of Korean-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3
±
=VLJD(([WHUQDO VDQGKL LQ D VHFRQGODQJXDJH7KH SKRQHWLFV DQG SKRQRORJ\ RIREVWUXHQW
nasalization in Korean and Korean-accented English. Language, ±
... Equivalence classification between sounds develops because, as per SLM postulates, both L1 and L2 sounds exist in the same mental space of adult learners. It is already known in the literature that equivalence classification between L1 and L2 sounds does not allow the formation of a new phonetic category for an L2 sound and leads to negative transfer (Chang, 2019;Leeuw, Tusha, & Schmid, 2018). Thus, we infer from these results that Western Balochi learners of English consider English-voiced stops identical to their L1-voiced stops and develop a kind of equivalence classification between the L2 and the corresponding L1 sounds, which blocks their learning. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study focuses on two experiments conducted with Eastern and Western Balochi speakers. In Eastern Balochi, voiceless stops have aspirated features, but in Western Balochi, they are unaspirated. Eighty-four native speakers of both dialects of Balochi participated in this study. Participants of the first experiment produced words of their L1 in a picture naming task, and those of the second experiment read words in English. VOTs of the L1 and L2 voiced stops elicited from recordings of the productions. Results show that speakers of Western Balochi transfer their L1 negative VOTs to L2 English-voiced stops. However, Eastern Balochi speakers produce English-voiced stops with VOTs, significantly different from their L1 VOTs. Though they could not produce English-voiced stops with native-like accuracy, they produced English stops with significantly longer pre-voicing duration than their L1-voiced stops. Therefore, the study concludes that speakers of those languages with stops with negative VOT ranges face more difficulty acquiring L2 voiced stops of short-lag positive VOTs than those learners whose L1 does not have such stops. The speech learning model is used in this study to analyze all results.
... The essence of this idea has been reflected in non-native speech learning theories/models, including the 'Native Language Magnet model' (NLM; Kuhl, 1991Kuhl, , 1992Kuhl and Iverson, 1995), the 'Perceptual Assimilation Model' (PAM; Best, 1994;Best and Tyler, 2007;Best et al., 2019;Li et al., 2021), and the 'Speech Learning Model' (SLM; Flege, 1988Flege, , 1992Flege, , 1995Flege et al., 2003;Flege and Bohn, 2021), etc. The central idea of these theories is that the perceptual and production space of L2 segments can be altered by the L1 phonetic categories of the learners, so the learning outcomes are not always desirable (Chang, 2019). Among others, two theoretical frameworks, namely the Speech Learning Model (SLM) and the Perceptual Assimilation Model-L2 (PAM-L2), relate non-native segment learning to learners' L1 phonetic inventory by incorporating multiple factors like L2 experience, L2 production and perception, L2 phonetic categories, etc., that are critical to the learning outcome. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study examines how the concept of L1-L2 dissimilarity should be addressed from a two-way perspective in L2 segment learning, and how it relates to the learning outcomes. We achieved this by investigating the productions of the post-alveolar fricatives /ʃ, ʒ/ by Mandarin and Mandarin/Wu speakers, which were subsequently assessed by native English listeners. In the first experiment, we analyzed the spectral moments of /ʃ, ʒ/ produced by Mandarin monolingual and Mandarin/Wu bilingual speakers to find out how the two groups of speakers pronounced the target segments. In the second experiment, native English listeners were tasked with rating the accentedness of the Mandarin- and Mandarin/Wu-accented /ʃ, ʒ/. Results showed native English listeners scored Mandarin/Wu-accented /ʃ/ as having no accent and Mandarin-accented /ʒ/ as having a heavy accent, indicating that English natives perceived the ‘native vs. nonnative’ segment dissimilarity differently from Chinese learners of English, and that the L1-L2 dissimilarity perceived from both sides may work together in defining the L2 segment learning outcomes.
... 10 Notably, the L1-L2 disparities in intoxication effects at a global level stand in contrast to the findings of acoustic studies of bilingual speech, which often provide evidence of similarities-and, by implication, interconnections-between the L1 and L2, including in aspects of prosody. [11][12][13][14] Findings showing crosslinguistic influence related to pitch control have been reported for f 0 alignment in L1 Dutch-L2 Greek and L1 German-L2 English speakers, 15,16 f 0 range for L1 Welsh-L2 English speakers (albeit mostly for males), 17 and f 0 level for L1 English-L2 Korean speakers, [18][19][20] consistent with the view that there is a crosslinguistically "shared control mechanism for f 0 modulation." 18 Few studies, however, have examined f 0 variability crosslinguistically, much less in conditions that undermine articulatory control, such as intoxication. ...
Article
Full-text available
Alcohol intoxication is known to affect pitch variability in non-tonal languages. In this study, intoxication's effects on pitch were examined in tonal and non-tonal language speakers, in both their native language (L1; German, Korean, Mandarin) and nonnative language (L2; English). Intoxication significantly increased pitch variability in the German group (in L1 and L2), but not in the Korean or Mandarin groups (in L1 or L2), although there were individual differences. These results support the view that pitch control is related to the functional load of pitch and is an aspect of speech production that can be advantageously transferred across languages, overriding the expected effects of alcohol. // Copyright 2022 by the authors. This article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License. The following article appeared in JASA Express Letters (vol. 2, iss. 6) and may be found at https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0011572.
... Moreover, it remains unclear up to date how to define a new category and also, if and when a new category might undergo a dissimilation process. Concerning the judgment of similarity between L1 and L2 sounds, Chang (2019) states that "abstract knowledge of the target language" is the "crucial feature of L2 learners that distinguishes them from naïve listeners" (p.436). That is, L2 learners make use of several sources of information about L2 sounds, ...
Thesis
Full-text available
According to the Speech Learning Model the phonetic-phonological systems of bilingual speakers are subjected to bidirectional cross-language mappings. Similar sounds in first language (L1) and second language (L2) approach each other, resulting in one composite L1-L2 category. Previous studies mostly investigated unidirectional influences, and rarely considered the relation to perceived accentedness or individual differences. Moreover, these studies involved English, Dutch, some Romance, or Asiatic languages, with a focus on plosive consonants or vowels. The present study investigated bidirectional influences in L1 and L2 lateral productions by 14 L1-Bosnian-L2-German speakers who migrated as adults to Vienna during the Bosnian war. Ten monolingual L1-Bosnian speakers and 12 monolingual L1-German speakers served as control groups. Whilst Bosnian features a palatal and a velarized lateral phoneme, German features only one alveolar lateral phoneme, which is more similar to the velarized than to the palatal L1-lateral. The present study was designed to approach bidirectional influences from a broad perspective: both group effects and individual differences in production were analyzed acoustically (by measuring F2-F1 in bark) and by means of accent rating studies. Qualitative interviews were conducted to support the interpretation of individual differences. Results showed a dissimilation of the palatal lateral, without conspicuous individual differences. Concerning the similar L1 and L2 laterals, however, bidirectional assimilation was observed, to different degrees at the individual level. All women restructured their L1-L2 lateral system, with the largest deviances from monolingual Bosnian laterals, and the smallest deviances from monolingual German laterals. Men did not show assimilation of L1-laterals, and only three out of seven produced a separate L2 category. Those speakers who produced nativelike L2-laterals used separate categories, whereas others either used one composite or separate L1-L2 categories. Moreover, results showed a relation between lateral production and perceived accentedness. However, speakers with better L2-ratings even received worse L1-ratings than revealed by L1-production data. Bilinguals were rated as more accented than monolinguals, independently of gender, with a larger interspeaker difference in females. Qualitative analyses suggested that the strongest individual differences in production and rating result from extreme language experiences, as well as from quantity/quality of language use. The present study thus supports some of the main predictions by the Speech Learning Model, insofar as bidirectional assimilation is found for similar sounds, whereas dissimilation is found for the more different L1 sound. However, with regard to new category formation, the results do not provide evidence for a link between L2 input quantity or L2 proficiency and category formation. Overall, the present study provides further evidence for the inevitable interaction (although not necessarily bidirectional) of phonetic-phonological systems in late bilingual speakers. The findings contribute to the view that the phonetic-phonological system remains malleable across lifetime. This is specifically suggested by strong L1 attrition and by target-like L2 productions of some of the speakers.
... As underlined by Chang (2019b), all discussed models address CLI mainly as the influence of L1 on L2, but not necessarily as the influence of L2 on L1, except for the SLM and SLM-r. SLM and SLM-r consider the influence of L2 on L1 due to their claim that L1 and L2 phonetic categories exist in a common phonetic space of the speaker. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
An increasing number of studies has already investigated phonetic first language attrition and cross-linguistic influence in the L1 speech of late bilinguals. Nevertheless, none of these studies has yet to examine phonetic first language attrition and cross-linguistic influence in the L1 speech of late Czech-French bilinguals. This thesis aims to fill this gap. The main hypothesis predicting that phonetic cross-linguistic influence will occur in L1 speech of late Czech-French bilinguals was tested in two studies by comparing the L1 speech production in a reading aloud task and semi-spontaneous speech of late Czech-French bilinguals with that of Czech monolinguals. The first study investigated if the L1 speech of 14 late Czech-French bilinguals may be perceived as less typically Czech sounding compared to that of 11 Czech monolinguals by Czech monolingual listeners. The second study compared the acoustic properties of 17 late Czech-French bilinguals’ vowels, /r/, /ɦ/, /x/ with those of 17 Czech monoling uals. The properties of non-conclusive intonation patterns and the use of final schwa was also compared. The tested hypothesis was predominantly confirmed . The results of the perception experiment showed that the bilinguals’ semi-spontaneous speech was perceived as significantly less typically Czech sounding compared to that of the monolinguals by the Czech monolinguals listeners. The results of the acoustic analyses suggest that phonetic cross-linguistic influence occurred in several of the bilinguals’ vowels, their /r/, /ɦ/, /x/, non-conclusive intonation patterns and use of final schwa. Interestingly, a certain number of our results suggests that dissimilation and assimilation effects may coexist in the same L1 phoneme of a late bilingual.
Article
Although crosslinguistic similarity is a crucial concept for many disciplines in the speech sciences, there is no clear consensus as to the most appropriate method to measure it. This paper assessed the perceived similarity between English and Catalan vowels by means of an overt direct task evaluating perceptual similarity. The extent to which perceptual similarity is reciprocal is also explored by comparing perceptual judgements obtained by speakers of the two languages involved. Twenty-seven native Catalan speakers and 27 native English speakers rated the perceived dissimilarity between two aurally presented vowel stimuli. Trials included native–non-native pairs as well as native-native pairs to serve as baseline data. Some native–non-native pairs were perceived to be as similar as same-category native pairs, illustrating cases of very high crosslinguistic perceptual similarity. Further, in terms of reciprocity, the results showed a bidirectionality in similarity relationships that point to some cases of near-identical or shared categories and also illustrate the role of language-specific cue weighting in determining perceptual similarity. Finally, a comparison with the outcome of a previous study [Cebrian (2021). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 149(4), 2671–2685], involving the same participants and languages but exploring ecphoric similarity, shows a generally high degree of agreement and a close relationship between the two types of similarity.
Article
Two acoustic studies of voice onset time (VOT) in sibilant–stop (ST) consonant clusters, produced by first language (L1) speakers of Polish, are presented. In the first, a baseline study of L1 Polish comparing ST clusters with initial singleton stops, a small degree of VOT shortening after /s/ was found for /p/, but not /t/. The second study compared ST productions by L1 Polish speakers of second language (L2) English across two levels of proficiency, speaking in both L1 and L2. Rather than shortening post-/s/ VOT, as is common in L1 English, speakers from both proficiency groups exhibited longer VOT in their L2 than in their L1. These results are consistent with the claim that Polish learners of English mistakenly apply the long VOT of L2 English singleton fortis stops in the post-/s/ position. A phonological interpretation of the results within the Onset Prominence framework is provided.
Article
This article revisits Lee and Mok (2018) and examines how the Cantonese learners in the study produced second language (L2) Japanese short vs. long consonants which are absent in their first language (L1). Specifically, our goal is to find out whether these learners were substituting real geminates (i.e. long consonants) with the improvised strategy of an unreleased stop coda + homorganic initial consonant sequence (like in the phrase cat tail), which would not have been detectable with the durational ratios in the original study. We analysed the mean intensity of the words sassa, sesse, and sosso, to investigate whether the learners were producing a [t̚]+/s/ cluster, presumably drawn from their L1. The results showed that the beginner group were indeed using this strategy, whereas the advanced learners were largely producing a genuinely geminated /s/ akin to the native speakers. The use of this transitional strategy was also speech-rate dependent, with more cases of /t/-insertion in slower speech for both learner groups. We conclude that (1) although having L1 false geminates does not enable beginners to readily acquire genuine L2 geminates, the latter can be learned after enough exposure, and (2) during this transition, Cantonese learners can draw on L1 phonotactic knowledge to improvise creative and effective strategies to attain L2 durational targets.
Chapter
This chapter proposes a new explanatory framework for the acquisition of phonology and provides support for it with evidence from phonotactics and morphonotactics. Several models have been proposed to account for bilingual acquisition of speech; however, an optimal explanatory framework that would account for the complexity of the acquisition process is still lacking. We offer a new theory, called the Natural Growth Theory of Acquisition (NGTA), which is informed by natural phonology and complexity theory. NGTA assumes a gradual dynamic emergence of Ln phonology, shaped by input from the first language (L1) and other languages (Ls), and influenced by typology, universals, and context. It considers the universal, typological, and language-specific aspects of the growth. General assumptions of NGTA as well as induction from speech data let us formulate a catalogue of hypotheses concerning the acquisition of clusters. The hypotheses are corroborated by findings from four studies and explained by means of the linguistic and extralinguistic variables considered by NGTA.KeywordsBi(multi)lingual phonological acquisitionTheory of acquisitionPhonotacticsMorphonotactics
Article
This chapter provides an overview of research on heritage language (HL) sound systems, with a focus on areas of convergence and divergence among heritage speakers (HSs), native speakers (NSs) who continue to be dominant in the language, and second language learners (L2ers) who acquired the language later in life. Drawing on data from a wide range of HLs, the chapter addresses both phonetic (articulatory, acoustic, perceptual) and phonological (phonemic, distributional, phonotactic) aspects of the HL sound system, as well as that of the majority language, in light of theories of bilingual speech and variables previously studied as predictors of HSs’ linguistic behavior. Despite the diversity of results reviewed, several recurring themes emerge, including intermediate patterning between NSs and L2ers, a higher level of performance in perception than production, and individual variability. In particular, the depth and the accessibility of HSs’ knowledge of the HL sound system show considerable variation related to structural linguistic factors, demographic and sociolinguistic factors, input and usage-based factors, and methodological factors. In addition to summarizing the areas in which there is an emerging consensus, the chapter points out a number of remaining questions that pave the way for future research on HL sound systems.
Chapter
Full-text available
The aim of our research is to understand how speech learning changes over the life span and to explain why "earlier is better" as far as learning to pronounce a second language (L2) is concerned. An assumption we make is that the phonetic systems used in the production and perception of vowels and consonants remain adaptiive over the life span, and that phonetic systems reorganize in response to sounds encountered in an L2 through the addition of new phonetic categories, or through the modification of old ones. The chapter is organized in the following way. Several general hypotheses concerning the cause of foreign accent in L2 speech production are summarized in the introductory section. In the next section, a model of L2 speech learning that aims to account for age-related changes in L2 pronunciation is presented. The next three sections present summaries of empirical research dealing with the production and perception of L2 vowels, word-initial consonants, and word-final consonants. The final section discusses questions of general theoretical interest, with special attention to a featural (as opposed to a segmental) level of analysis. Although nonsegmental (i.e., prosodic) dimensions are an important source of foreign accent, the present chapter focuses on phoneme-sized units of speech. Although many different languages are learned as an L2, the focus is on the acquisition of English.
Article
Full-text available
One's native language (L1) is known to influence the development of a nonnative language (L2) at multiple levels, but the nature of L1 transfer to L2 perception remains unclear. This study explored the hypothesis that transfer effects in perception come from L1-specific processing strategies, which direct attention to phonetic cues according to their estimated relative functional load (RFL). Using target languages that were either familiar (English) or unfamiliar (Korean), perception of unreleased final stops was tested in L1 English listeners and four groups of L2 English learners whose L1s differ in stop phonotactics and the estimated RFL of a crucial cue to unreleased stops (i.e., vowel-to-consonant formant transitions). Results were, overall, consistent with the hypothesis, with L1 Japanese listeners showing the poorest perception, followed by L1 Mandarin, Russian, English, and Korean listeners. Two exceptions occurred with Russian listeners, who under-performed Mandarin listeners in identification of English stops and outperformed English listeners in identification of Korean stops. Taken together, these findings support a cue-centric view of transfer based on perceptual attention over a direct phonotactic view based on structural conformity. However, transfer interacts with prior L2 knowledge, which may result in significantly different perceptual consequences for a familiar and an unfamiliar L2.
Article
Full-text available
This study investigated how bilinguals’ perception of their first language (L1) differs according to age of reduced contact with L1 after immersion in a second language (L2). Twenty-one L1 Korean-L2 English bilinguals in the United States, ranging in age of reduced contact from 3 to 15 years, and 17 control participants in Korea were tested perceptually on three L1 contrasts differing in similarity to L2 contrasts. Compared to control participants, bilinguals were less accurate on L1-specific contrasts, and their accuracy was significantly correlated with age of reduced contact, an effect most pronounced for the contrast most dissimilar to L2. These findings suggest that the earlier bilinguals are extensively exposed to L2, the less likely they are to perceive L1 sounds accurately. However, this relationship is modulated by crosslinguistic similarity, and a turning point in L2 acquisition and L1 attrition of phonology appears to occur at around age 12.
Chapter
These linguistics articles were commissioned by an editorial board as part of our former online-only review article series. We are offering them here as a freely available collection.
Article
This article synthesizes the conclusions of the empirical studies in this special issue and outlines key questions in future research. The research reported in this volume has identified several fundamental issues in pronunciation-focused task design that are discussed in detail and on which suggestions for further research are outlined. One crucial issue is how attention to pronunciation resulting in language-related episodes effectively leads to robust gains in accuracy. Another important aspect discussed is the need to adapt task design features to the phonological domain under focus and how to incorporate systematic patterns of first language interference into the task structure. Finally, we propose that future research in task-based pronunciation teaching and second language phonetics and phonology should systematically examine learner factors known to affect task performance and task features established in the research domains of lexical and grammatical development.