| ROA: | 418 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Second language data and constraints on Manner: explaining substitutions for the English interdentals |
| Authors: | Linda Lombardi |
| Comment: | |
| Length: | 21 |
| Abstract: | Second language data and constraints on Manner: substitutions for the English interdentals Linda Lombardi University of Maryland, College Park The English interdental fricatives are marked, uncommon sounds. For speakers of English as a second language (L2), two different substitutions are seen - [t] or [s] (ignoring voicing). Interestingly, speakers of a given first language (L1) tend to all use the same substitution: e.g., speakers of Thai and Russian use [t] while speakers of Japanese and German use [s]. It is difficult to explain such substitutions in a rule-based theory. L1 has no [theta], so the child could not have acquired a rule changing it either to [t] or to [s] - that is, this cannot be an obvious case of what the L2 acquisition literature calls transfer. Yet, some aspect of L1 must be crucial, since speakers of different languages use different substitutions. As I will show, Optimality Theory (OT) allows a solution to this conundrum. While these speakers cannot possibly have learned a rule that applies to [theta], they will have independently necessary constraint rankings in their grammar that will inevitably have some effect on [theta]. I will further argue that these data provide support for particular formalizations for markedness and faithfulness constraints on Manner features. First I show that stops are less marked than fricatives, so that the ranking *cont >> *stop is universal. This is supported by sound system generalizations, and by first language acquisition data: all children go through a stage where fricatives are absent and are replaced by the corresponding stops. I will then propose that the initial state of UG contains a unitary constraint on faithfulness to the Manner class, Ident Manner, but that there may be reranking of the component constraints on individual Manner features on the strength of positive evidence. We can then account for the different replacements as follows: 1. [theta] -> [t] Markedness high ranked: Output is a stop, the less marked Manner 2. [theta] -> [s] Faithfulness high ranked: Output is more faithful to the Manner of the input The grammar that accounts for (1) contains the original ranking of constraints on Manner that the first language learner begins with. In an L1 whose speakers show this substitution, this original ranking has not changed. In contrast, where L2 speakers show (2) there must be some L1 phonology that forced reranking of the constraints on Manner, which we should be able to identify. I will exemplify these predictions with data from Japanese, Thai, Dutch and Italian. In sum, we can interpret (2), then, as a transfer effect - something particular to that L1 results in that substitution - and (1) as an effect of universals - the UG ranking, retained in this L1, causes this substitution. But crucially, both substitutions are simply the result of applying the L1 grammar (constraint ranking) to the L2 data: no L2-specific mechanisms are necessary. In addition, this paper shows that L2 data can shed light on properties of UG that are relevant to L1 phonology, in this case the formulation of the markedness and faithfulness constraints that apply to Manner features. |
| Type: | Paper/tech report |
| Area/Keywords: | |
| Article: | Version 1 |