Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:54:46.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The Ontogeny Phylogeny Model

from Part II - Theoretical Models of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2024

By
Roy C. Major
Edited by
Mark Amengual
Mark Amengual
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses the Ontogeny Phylogeny Model (OPM), which focuses on the formation and development of second language phonological systems. It proposes an interrelationship between L2 native-like productions, L1 transfer, and universal factors. The model argues that chronologically, and as style becomes increasingly formal, L2 native-like processes increase, L1 transfer processes decrease, and universal processes increase and then decrease. It further claims that the roles of universals and L1 transfer are mediated by markedness and similarity, both of which slow L2 acquisition. Specifically, in similar phenomena L1 transfer processes persist, while in marked phenomena universal processes persist. The OPM also argues that these same principles obtain for learners acquiring more than one L2, monolingual and bilingual acquisition, and L1 attrition. In addition to the chronological stages and variation of the individual learner, the model claims that these relationships hold true for language variation and change, including pidgins and creoles.

Keywords

interlanguageL1 transferuniversalsstylistic variationsimilaritymarkednesslanguages in contactloan phonologyisolationL1 attritionassimilationbilingualismmultilingualismdialects in contactpidgins and creoles
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology , pp. 217 - 240
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Development and recoverability of L2 codas: A longitudinal study of Chinese-Swedish interphonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 313–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alshalawi, H. (1998). The acquisition of Arabic pharyngeals by native speakers of English. [Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ].Google Scholar
Altenberg, E. & Vago, R. (1983). Theoretical implications of an error analysis of second language phonology production. Language Learning, 33, 427–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. In Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L., eds., Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 177–201.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1987). The Markedness Differential Hypothesis and syllable structure difficulty. In Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S. H., eds., Interlanguage Phonology: The Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System. New York: Newbury House, pp. 279–291.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. (2021). Ease and difficulty in L2 phonology: A mini-review. Frontiers in Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.626529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratten.Google Scholar
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W., ed., Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 171–204.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of Language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. (2020). Cross-language phonetic relationships account for most, but not all L2 speech learning problems: The role of universal phonetic biases and generalized sensitivities. In Wrembel, M., Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak, A, & Gąsiorowski, P., eds., Approaches to the Study of Sound Structure and Speech: Interdisciplinary Work in Honour of Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk. London: Routledge, pp. 171–184.Google Scholar
Bugelski, B. R. (1942). Interferences with recall of original responses after learning new responses to old stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 368–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Zurif, E. B., & Carbone, E. (1973). The acquisition of a new phonological contrast: The case of stop consonants in French-English bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 421–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlisle, R. S. (2017). Environmental markedness in Portuguese-English contact. In Yavaş, M., Kehoe, M., & Cardoso, W., eds., Romance-Germanic Bilingual Phonology. Sheffield: Equinox, pp. 157–180.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. S. & Espinosa, J. A. C. (2015). The production of /sC/ onsets in a markedness relationship: Investigating the Ontogeny Phylogeny Model with longitudinal data. In Yavaş, M., ed., Unusual Productions in Phonology: Universals and Language-Specific Considerations. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 183–205.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. B. & Dickerson, W. B. (1977). Interlanguage phonology: Current research and future directions. In Corder, S. P. & Roulet, E., eds., Actes du 5ème colloque de linguistique appliquée. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Faculté de Lettres, pp. 18–29.Google Scholar
Donegan, P. & Stampe, D. (1979). The study of natural phonology. In Dinnsen, D. A., ed., Current Approaches to Phonological Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 126–173.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (2018). Markedness and advanced development. In Malovrh, P. A. & Benati, A. G., eds., The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 264–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. R., Iverson, G. K., & Song, J. Y. (2015). Overt and covert contrast in L2 phonology. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1, 254–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W., ed., Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Linguistic Research. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 233–277.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. & Bohn, O.-S. (2021). The revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r). In Wayland, R., ed., Second Language Speech Learning: Theoretical and Empirical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, R. M. (1977). The Conditions of Learning, 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, B. & Bhatt, R. M. (1997). Optimal L2 syllables: Interactions of transfer and developmental effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 331–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecht, B. F. & Mulford, R. (1982). The acquisition of a second language phonology: Interaction of transfer and developmental factors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. ([1941] 1968). Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals (trans. A. R. Keiler). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A. R. (1983). Transferability and dialect phonology: Swabian: Swabian English. In James, A. & Kettemann, B., eds., Dialektphonologie und Fremdsprachenerwerb [Dialect phonology and foreign language acquisition]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr, pp. 162–188.Google Scholar
Jevring, C. (2015). I perceive, therefore I produce? A study on the perception and production of three English consonantal sounds by Swedish L2 learners. [Unpublished master’s thesis, Stockholm University].Google Scholar
Johansson, F. A. (1973). Immigrant Swedish Phonology. Lund, Sweden: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Kehoe, M. (2015). Cross-linguistic interaction: A retrospective and prospective view. In Babatsouli, E. & Ingram, D., eds., Proceedings of the International Symposium on Monolingual and Bilingual Speech 2015. Chania, Greece: Institute of Monolingual and Bilingual Speech, pp. 141–167.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. (1944). Sound Learning in the First Two Years. Vol. II of Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist’s Record. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1977). Phonological differentiation of a bilingual child. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 22, 88–122.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (1981). Stress-timing in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Phonetics, 9, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1985). Stress and rhythm in Brazilian Portuguese. Language, 61, 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1986a). The Ontogeny Model: Evidence from L2 acquisition of Spanish Language Learning, 36, 453–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1986b). Paragoge and degree of foreign accent in Brazilian English. Second Language Research, 2, 53–71.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (1987a). Phonological similarity, markedness, and rate of L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1987b). A model for interlanguage phonology. In Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S. H., eds., Interlanguage Phonology: The Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System. New York: Newbury House, pp. 101–125.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (1992). Losing English as a first language. Modern Language Journal, 76, 190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1994). Chronological and stylistic aspects of second language acquisition of consonant clusters. Language Learning, 44, 655–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (1996). Markedness in second language acquisition of consonant clusters. In Bayley, R. & Preston, D. R., eds., Variation Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (2004). Gender and stylistic variation in second language phonology. Language Variation and Change, 16, 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. (2010). First language attrition in foreign accent perception. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. ([2001] 2014). Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language Phonology. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (2018). Foreign accent. In Chapelle, C. A., ed., The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. & Faudree, M. C. (1996). Markedness universals and the acquisition of voicing contrasts in Korean speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. C. & Kim, E. (1996). The Similarity Differential Rate Hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 465–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, A. (2021). The Gifted Language Learner: A Case of Nature or Nurture? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musau, P. M. (1993). Aspects of Interphonology: The Study of Kenyan Learners of Swahili. Bayreuth, Germany: Bayreuth University.Google Scholar
Nemser, W. (1971a). An Experimental Study of Phonological Interference in the English of Hungarians. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Nemser, W. (1971b). Approximative systems of foreign learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oller, J. W. & Ziahosseiny, S. M. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors. Language Learning, 20, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. A. (1949). The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution. Psychological Review, 56, 132–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1997). Optimality: From neural networks to universal grammar. Science, 275, 1604–1610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1977). Sociolinguistic variation and language transfer in phonology. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 12, 79–95.Google Scholar
Schnitzer, M. L. & Krasinski, E. (1994). The development of segmental phonological production in a bilingual child. Journal of Child Language, 21, 585–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, J. J. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic representation. Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 5, 443–453.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in Interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. P. (1975). The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students of ESL. Language Learning, 25, 73–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. ([1939] 1958). Grundzuüge der Phonologie [Fundamentals of Phonology] (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 7 [Prague Linguistic Circle Papers]). Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. & Hannah, J. (1994). International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English, 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. (2015). Haitian Creole: Structure, Variation, Status, Origin. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Verhaar, J. W. M. (1995). Toward a Reference Grammar of Tok Pisin: An Experiment in Corpus Linguistics. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Volterra, V. & Taeschner, T. (1978). The acquisition and development of language by bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 5, 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Møllergard, E. (1981). Errors in the production of vowel no. 10 /ʌ/ by Norwegian learners of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. (1981). Phonology in L2 Acquisition: Learning a Second Language. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
Yang, Y., Chen, C., & Xiao, Q. (2020). Cross-linguistic similarity in L2 speech learning: Evidence from the acquisition of Russian stop contrasts by Mandarin speakers. Second Language Research, 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
Yavaş, M. (1997). The effects of vowel height and place of articulation in interlanguage final stop devoicing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 115–125.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (1985). Interference reconsidered: The role of similarity in second language acquisition. Selecta, 6, 6–12.Google Scholar
Zampini, M. L. (1994). The role of native language transfer and task formality in the acquisition of Spanish spirantization. Hispania, 77, 470–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1980). The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×