Initial phonological transfer in L3 Brazilian Portuguese and Italian

Abstract

This study examines five variables posited to drive(s) initial phonological transfer of (part of) one system over another in an L3: language status (L1/L2), facilitation, global structural similarity, dominance, and bilingual experience. Specifically, we investigate production of intervocalic voiced stops by English/Spanish bilinguals at the initial stages of L3 Brazilian Portuguese (BP) or Italian. These segments surface as [−continuant] in BP, Italian, and English but are realized as [+continuant] in Spanish; English transfer is therefore facilitative while Spanish is non-facilitative. Three groups (English-dominant heritage Spanish speakers, L1 English/L2 Spanish, L1 Spanish/L2 English) enrolled in first semester BP or Italian completed delayed repetition tasks in all three languages. The majority of participants across groups produce Spanish-like [+continuant] segments, suggestive of a primary role for global structural similarity. For the subset of participants across groups that produces English-like/L3-like [−continuant] segments, debrief data indicate a potential relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and [−continuant] production.

Voice Onset Time in Multilingual Speakers: Italian Heritage Speakers in Germany With L3 English

“…In L3 English, the HSs VOT productions did not differ from those of L1 English and the HSs outperformed the L1 Italian control group. In theory, these results pattern both with studies that have shown phonological CLI from the typologically closest language (e.g., Cabrelli & Pichan, 2021), and also with studies that argue for CLI from the dominant language (e.g., Gabriel et al, 2016; Llama & López-Morelos, 2016, 2020; Lloyd-Smith et al, 2017). However, it is debatable to what extent typological proximity (in the sense of genealogical relatedness) plays a role when languages have a different phonological make-up.…”

“…Although several L3 models have been proposed to account for morphosyntactic transfer (see, e.g., Puig-Mayenco et al, 2020, for an overview), we still know little about the processes that drive CLI in the phonological domain (see, e.g., Cabrelli & Pichan, 2021; Kopečková, 2016). This is even truer for HSs, who have so far only seldom been the focus of L3 phonology research.…”

“…One additional possibility is that phonological CLI occurs from the typologically closest language. Cabrelli and Pichan (2021) found evidence for transfer from the typologically closest language in the production of voiced intervocalic stops in L3 Brazilian Portuguese and in L3 Italian, which are realized as [–continuant] in English, Brazilian Portuguese, and Italian, but as [+continuant] in Spanish. Their results showed that the majority of participants produced Spanish-like [+continuant] stops, regardless of whether Spanish was acquired as an L1, as an L2, or as a HL.…”

Phonological cross-linguistic influence at the initial stages of L3 acquisition

“…Previous research on phonological CLI in L3 acquisition does not show conclusive evidence for any of the models individually: while Williams and Hammarberg's (1998) and Hammarberg's (2001) case study of the phonology of an L1 English and L2 German speaker producing her first words in L3 Swedish seems to support the L2SF, Wrembel (2012) and Lloyd-Smith et al (2017) found partial confirmation of the TPM in their studies on foreign accentedness. Likewise, Cabrelli and Pichan (2021) found evidence for transfer driven by global structural similarity, at least in a language triad in which there is a clear similarity between the L3 and one of the source languages. In contrast, other studies have found some evidence consistent with the predictions of the CEM: Onishi (2016) on L3 phoneme perception, Sypiańska (2016) on L3 vowel production and Wrembel (2012) on foreign accent.…”

“…There are a number of important issues to be considered with respect to the findings of these L3 phonology studies. For one, although L3 learners at early stages of acquisition were included in the studies, they did not always represent the very initial stage of L3 acquisition, having been exposed to the L3 for a couple of months rather than hours (but see Cabrelli and Pichan, 2021). Likewise, they mostly analysed the acquisition of a single structure rather than compared across several structures, which precludes an adequate testing of models such as the LPM or the SM (for a notable exception, see Domene Moreno, 2021).…”