Structural Factors in Second Language Phonology SUMMARY

We looked at several important variables that are influential in shaping the phonological productions of L2 learners. We saw that contrastive phonological information can accurately pinpoint several difficulties that are encountered by learners of specific languages. Beyond the simple contrastive patterns, however, lie deeper principles that can account for different degrees of difficulty related to phonemic contrasts. Target contrasts are incorporated into the interlanguage phonology progressively; learners seem to have greater facility in creating a phonemic contrast of the target language in basic (tauto-morphemic) contexts than in derived (heteromorphemic) contexts. Also observed is that whenever we have two intersecting interlanguage substitutions, one of these is systematically blocked (i.e. deflected contrast), and hypercontrasts are results of overgeneralization.

Native language patterns that are in conflict with those of the target language alone are not sufficient to account for all of the learners’ difficulties; marked ness of the L2 structures also plays an important role in shaping the interlanguage phonology. Major’s Ontogeny and Phylogeny Model, dealing with the three components of interlanguage phonology – L1, L2, and universals – has different predictions about the relative weight of these factors in the acquisition of different phenomena. Similar phenomena and marked phenomena are acquired more slowly than normal phenomena. In the earlier stages of acquisition, the patterns are basically governed by the effects of L1 for all phenomena, the effects of universals are minimal, and the gradual decrease of L1 influence is slower in similar phenomena than in others. In later stages, the influences of L1 and universals decrease more slowly in similar and marked phenomena than in normal phenomena.

We also looked at Optimality Theory, a model that deals with the role of markedness and language transfer effects, and their interaction. OT assumes that interlanguage grammars are natural, dynamic systems in the process of accommodating new inputs, and that L1 influence and markedness effects are merely a consequence of the system’s design.

Finally, in addition to these phonological approaches to acquisition, we considered the role of perception in production and looked at perceptual models, which concentrate more on phonetic approximation and interference based on perceptual judgments.

All the above are indicative of the fact that the learning of L2 phonology is a highly structured process, and thus attempts at remediation should consider as many of these factors as possible. The capabilities of practices of remediators (language teachers, speech therapists) will definitely be enhanced by the inclusion of a greater number of linguistically based courses in their training.