questions for the week. questions can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Questions for the Week
![Page 2: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Questions
Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does universal markedness play a role? Language-independent phonetic factors?
![Page 3: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Questions, continued
Why are some foreign structures mastered more quickly than other (equally new) structures?
Japanese: chiimu ‘team’ shiifuudo ‘seafood’
shiitibanku ‘Citibank’never: *siichibanku
![Page 4: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Questions, continued
What determines how illegal structures are modified?
‘Christmas’
Japanese: kurisumasu
Hawaiian: kalikimaki
Maori: kirihimete
Samoan: kilisimasi
![Page 5: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Questions, continued
How much of foreign language modification is a result of misperception? Of misproduction? And how can we tell?
![Page 6: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
For example…
Does a Japanese speaker who pronounces ‘Christmas’ as [kurisumasu] actually HEAR the English pronunciation as [kurisumasu]?
English Japanese
[krɪsməs] = [kurisumasu] ?
![Page 7: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Grammar
Acoustic Form
|| perception (e.g.,Boersma 1998, V Pater 2004)
Phonological Representation => UR =>
|| production
V
Phonetic Representation
![Page 8: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
(1) Modification= Misproduction (e.g., Paradis and LaCharité 1997)
Adapters correctly identify FL phonemes, map to UR.
Production grammar repairs underlying representations to conform to native language constraints.
![Page 9: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Problems with claim that all modification = misproduction
Modification may be influenced by subphonemic information.
e.g., Kang 2003: Vowels in Korean loans may be inserted even after legal stop codas. Likelihood of insertion is related to likelihood of the release of that stop in the English source.
![Page 10: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
(2) Modification=Misperception (e.g., Peperkamp & Dupoux 2003)
Japanese listeners hear [ebzo] as [ebuzo].
Cf. Dupoux et al. 1999, Dehaene-Lambertz et al. 2000, Jacquemot et al. 2003 for experimental support.
![Page 11: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Not a lexical effect: Dupoux et al. 2001
Lexical decision task:
nonword stimulireal words
sokdo sokudo ‘speed’
mikdo mikado ‘emperor’
Sokdo classified as real words, mikdo as nonwords
![Page 12: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Problems with claim that all adaptation = misperception
Some perception is accurate (e.g. Berent et al. syllable-counting experiments)
Still must explain direction of misperception: why kurisumasu and not kilihimete, etc.?
![Page 13: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
(3) Modification = misproduction, but guided by phonetic similarity
P-map Hypothesis (Steriade 2001, etc.): Learners perceive FL phonological forms accurately, but the production grammar contains constraints that enforce phonetic similarity between UR and PR.
![Page 14: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Problem with claim that adaptation = production + perceptual similarity
Even after adding perceptual similarity constraints to the production grammar, we are left with a residue of cases that must be analyzed as misperception (inaccurate mapping from foreign acoustic form to adapter’s UR).
![Page 15: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
(4) Dual-level model(e.g., Silverman 1992, Yip 2002, 2006)
Listeners misperceive less salient features (partially inaccurate mapping to UR).
Listeners accurately perceive more salient features, but production grammar may still make changes in mapping from UR to PR.
![Page 16: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Problem with Dual-Level Model of adaptation
Lack of clear criteria for deciding whether a particular modification pattern is a function of
Misperception Misproduction
![Page 17: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Questions, continued
If foreign forms are misperceived, at what level of processing does this misperception occur?
![Page 18: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Questions, continued
To what extent is perception determined by early language experience?
Is there a ‘neural commitment’ to L1 contrasts?
![Page 19: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Questions, continued
Can formal theories of grammar shed light on foreign language production patterns?
![Page 20: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
One Potential Criterion for perception vs. production: Learnability
OT aims to define What is a possible grammar (set of ranked
constraints).
What is a learnable grammar (rankings can be derived from input data, using an error-driven algorithm).
![Page 21: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Modification patterns that cannot be described in terms of learnable production grammar rankings must be a function of
Misperception, or Other factors (frequency, timeline of
exposure to FL, etc.).
![Page 22: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Today
Models of Acquisition: First Language and Foreign Languages
![Page 23: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
To build a phonological grammar, children must learn…
What is linguistically significant in the target language (possible contrasts).
What is legal in the target language (possible structures, phonotactics).
Morphemes and allomorphs (alternations).
![Page 24: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Stages of Acquisition (e.g., Hayes 2004)
Birth to 6 months: can distinguish all possible phoneme contrasts.
6-8 months: begin to form sound categories (perceptual magnet effects).
8-10 months: begin to form a lexicon; begin to learn phoneme categories of ambient language.
Older: begin to learn morphological processes, alternations.
![Page 25: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Perception vs. Production: Common Assumptions
Children generally perceive L1 accurately.
Many of children’s simplifications of adult forms are due to misproduction rather than misperception.
![Page 26: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Example: One Argument for Accurate Perception
Gnanadesikan (2004): Productions by G, 27-33 months
![Page 27: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Simplification of onset clusters
G Adult
a. s-stop
gaj skaj ‘sky’
bɪw spɪl ‘spill’
dɔ star ‘star’
b. s-sonorant
so sno ‘snow’
sip slip ‘sleep’
![Page 28: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
s-obstruent > obstruent (‘sky’ > [gaj]) s-sonorant > s (‘snow’ > [so])
Onset C of lowest sonority is maintained.
![Page 29: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Clusters containing labial [r] or [w]
G Adult
a. pi tri ‘tree’
b. bɪk drɪŋk ‘drink’
c. paj kraj ‘cry’
d. bep grep ‘grape’
e. pajt kwajt ‘quite’
f. fɛ'Də swɛ'Də ‘sweater’
g. fɛw smɛl ‘smell’
![Page 30: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
pr, tr, kr, kw > p (‘tree’ > [pi])
br, dr, gr > b (‘grape’ > [bep])
sm, sw > f (‘smell’ > [fɛw]
Labial articulation is always maintained, though labial segment may disappear.
![Page 31: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
G’s perception: [bep] ‘grape’
Does G actually hear (e.g.) [gr] as [b]?
![Page 32: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Replacement of initial unstressed syllable
G Adult
a. fiténə kənténər ‘container’
b. figɛ'Di spəgɛ'Di ‘spaghetti’
c. fibɛ'kə rəbɛ'kə ‘Rebecca’
d. fimáwo təmáro ‘tomorrow’
![Page 33: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Accurate perception?
Does G actually hear the material in the initial syllable replaced by [fi]?
![Page 34: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Preference for obstruent onsets
G Adult
a. fikálə koálə ‘koala’
b. fibún bəlún ‘balloon’
c. fipís pəlís ‘police’
d. fibó bəló ‘below’
![Page 35: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
When the syllable following [fi] begins with a high sonority onset (liquid, glide) or no onset, the word-initial onset is recruited
‘balloon’ > fibún
![Page 36: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
G’s Perception
Although G replaces initial unstressed syllables with [fi], she apparently does hear the segmental content (at least the onset) of these syllables--because features of that onset may appear elsewhere in the word.
![Page 37: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
fibɪ’jə gərɪ’lə ‘gorilla’
It seems unlikely that G hears [g…r] in ‘gorilla’ as [b], since G seems to hear that ‘gorilla’ contains 3 syllables.
![Page 38: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Gnanadesikan’s analysis
G’s modifications result from a grammar that differs from the adult grammar.
These modfications result from a preference for less marked surface structures.
Each feature of G’s grammar is attested in some adult NL grammar.
![Page 39: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
OT is intended as a theory of
typology—defines possible grammars.
learnability--defines how a grammar is learned from exposure to a set of data.
![Page 40: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Architecture of the theory
Markedness constraints (or well-formedness constraints, structural constraints) define possible surface structures.
e.g. NoCoda, NoComplexOnset
![Page 41: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Faithfulness constraints define possible mappings from lexical representations to surface representations.
e.g. Dep (no insertion), Max (no deletion)
![Page 42: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Ranking Tableau: M>>F
/sno/ NoComplexOnset
(Markedness)
Max (no deletion)
(Faithfulness)
a. sno *!
> b. so *
![Page 43: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Ranking Tableau: F>>M
/sno/ Max (no deletion)
(Faithfulness)
NoComplexOnset
(Markedness)
> a. sno *
b. so *!
![Page 44: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Rankings determine surface structures
M >>F suppresses surface contrasts.
NoComplexOnset >> Max:
/so/ > [so]
/sno/ > [so]
(no CV-CCV contrast is possible)
![Page 45: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
F >> M preserves lexical contrasts.
Max >> NoComplexOnset:
/so/ > [so]
/sno/ > [sno]
(CV-CCV contrast is possible)
![Page 46: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Rankings determine preferred repair
Dep >> Max: /sno/ > [so]
(deletion is preferred to insertion)
Max >> Dep: /sno/ > [sVno]
(insertion is preferred to deletion)
![Page 47: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Rankings determine…
Choice of deletion vs. insertion
Which C is deleted (/sno/ > [so] vs. [no])
Which V is inserted (/sno/ > [sino], [sono], etc.)
![Page 48: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Assumptions (‘classical’ OT)
Constraint set is universal.
Rankings are language-specific.
Each possible ranking defines a possible grammar.
![Page 49: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
‘Classical’ OT model of First Language Acquisition
Constraints are innate.
Rankings must be learned.
![Page 50: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Corollary
Each developing grammar (each stage of language acquisition) must represent a possible human grammar, since grammars differ only in ranking of constraints.
![Page 51: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Parallels between G’s grammar and adult grammars
onset simplification to lowest-sonority C: [gay] for ‘sky’, [so] for ‘snow’
Sanskrit reduplication pa-prach, tha-stha
![Page 52: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Coalescence of segments
[bep] for 'grape', [fɛw] for 'smell’
Navajo: d+x => g, Luganda: m+u => mw, Kirundi: t+u => tkw
![Page 53: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Preference for trochaic feet, aligned with left edge : [fibún] for ‘balloon’
Fikkert 1994, Demuth 1996
Dutch: ó:xant (ólifant), ándə, ánRə (andere),
bálə (bal)
Sesotho: kolo (sekolo) ‘school’
K’iche’ (word-final stress): lóm (jolóm) ‘head’
![Page 54: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Melodic overwriting: [fi]
Kolami: pal-gil, kota-gita, maasur-giisur
Chinese secret language: may ka for ma, xway kwey for xwey
![Page 55: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Child grammar = possible adult grammar
Each developing grammar should reflect some possible constraint ranking.
![Page 56: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Question
Is there an initial state/default constraint ranking?
Answer from Gnanadesikan and others: M>>F
![Page 57: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Arguments for Default M>>F
1. Children’s modifications are generally in the direction of reduced markedness.
![Page 58: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Subset Problem (Angluin 1980, Baker 1979)
2. If children can only use positive evidence (actual linguistic forms) in constructing a grammar, they must begin with the most restrictive grammar possible—otherwise their grammars will overgenerate.
![Page 59: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Illustration
Child C (for conservative) assumes M>>F NoComplexOnset >> Faithfulness.
Child C’s grammar allows only CV syllables.
![Page 60: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Child R (for reckless) assumes F>>M
Faithfulness >> NoComplexOnset.
Child R’s grammar allows both CV and CCV syllables.
![Page 61: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
If Child C (M>>F) is born to
Hawaiian-speaking parents, Child’s grammar = adult grammar
English-speaking parents, Child’s grammar ≠ adult grammar, but no
worries--child gets positive evidence (CCV) telling her to rerank constraints.
![Page 62: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
If Child R (F>>M) is born to
English-speaking parents, Child’s grammar = adult grammar
Hawaiian-speaking parents,
☹ Child’s grammar ≠ adult grammar, AND
no positive evidence can ever trigger
reranking.
![Page 63: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Learning is error-driven
Default ranking = M>>F.
Other rankings (M>>M, F>>F) must be learned from data.
![Page 64: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
What is default for language contact situations?
Presumably, the learner/adapter begins from the NL rankings.
Therefore, adaptation/error patterns should be explainable as either
• transfer of NL rankings, or• universal default rankings.
![Page 65: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Potential Problems in Language Contact Phonology
1. M >>M rankings (differential difficulty)
NL bans 2 structures
FL allows both structures
![Page 66: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
BUT learners/adapters master one structure more easily.
e.g. Japanese shiitibanku (both [ti] and [si] are illegal in Japanese).
![Page 67: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
2. F>>F rankings (differential repair)
NL has no inputs with illegal structures, so no evidence for repair preference
• BUT learners/adapters adopt specific repairs,
• AND these repairs may vary across languages (therefore not universal),
• AND different repairs may be used within a single language in different contexts.
![Page 68: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Dehu (Tryon 1970)
a. Obstruent__Sonorant: copy V peleit ‘plate’ galas ‘glas’
b. Obstruent__Obstruent: default [i] sipö ‘spur’ sipun ‘spoon’
![Page 69: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
3. Ranking Reversals
Korean NL: stop+nasal > nasal + nasal
/kuk+mul/ > [kuŋmul] ‘soup’
But in SLA, Koreans often insert vowel:
/tegnal/ > [tegɨnal] (Hwang 2006).
![Page 70: Questions for the Week. Questions Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081516/56649ce65503460f949b4906/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Proposal
Where modification patterns would require a grammar with unlearnable rankings, these patterns have their source in factors such as
misperception
frequency
orthography
time course of language contact
etc.