Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:29:38.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The variable development of English word-final stops by Brazilian Portuguese speakers: A stochastic optimality theoretic account

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2007

Walcir Cardoso
Walcir Cardoso
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the core problems in second language acquisition theory is how to describe and explain the highly variable (yet rule-governed) speech of second language learners. Is such variation simply random and most likely due to the first language's interference, or is it governed (at least in part) by general rules that reflect language universals? Within a multidisciplinary approach to the analysis of variability in second language acquisition, this article addresses these questions in the context of a cross-sectional study involving the acquisition of word-final stops by Brazilian Portuguese speakers learning English in a classroom environment. The study follows a sociolinguistic approach for data collection and the analysis is couched within a stochastic version of Optimality Theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , October 2007 , pp. 219 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Adamson, H. Douglas. (1988). Variation theory and second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Adjémian, Christian. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning 26:297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. (1997). Deriving variation from grammar: A study of Finnish genitives. In Hinskens, F., van Hout, R., & Wetzels, L. (eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana. (1997). Optimality Theory: An introduction to linguistics in the 1990s. In Archangeli, D. & Langedoen, D. T. (eds.), Optimality Theory—An overview. Oxford: Blackwell. 1–32.Google Scholar
Archibald, John. (1993). Language Learnability and L2 Phonology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. (2001). Linking, optionality, and ambiguity in Marathi. In Sells, Peter (ed.), Formal and empirical issues in optimality-theoretic syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 257–312.Google Scholar
Bayley, Robert & Preston, Dennis. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill. (1998). Positional faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Beebe, Leslie. (1980). Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning 30:433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, Barbara, & Stemberger, Joseph. (1998). Handbook of phonological development: From the perspective of constraint-based nonlinear phonology. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. (1973). Quantitative versus dynamic paradigms: The case of Montreal ‘que’. In Bailey, C. J. & Shuy, R. W. (eds.), News ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 23–43.Google Scholar
Bisol, Leda. (1996). Introdução a estudos de fonologia do português. 3a Edição. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. (1998). Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. (2000). Learning a grammar in functional phonology. In Dekkers, J., van der Leeuw, V., & van der Weijer, J. (eds.), Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 465–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. (2001). Review of Arto Anttila: Variation in Finnish phonology and morphology. GLOT International 5:31–40.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, & Hayes, Bruce. (2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32:45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, & Weenink, David. (2000). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. URL: http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, Chen, Su-I., & Wang, Chilin. (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20:261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, & Finer, Daniel (1991). Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research 7:35–59.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, Walcir. (1999). A quantitative analysis of word-final /r/-deletion in Brazilian Portuguese. Linguistica Atlantica 21:13–52.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Walcir. (2001). Variation patterns in regressive assimilation in Picard. Language Variation and Change 13:305–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, Walcir. (2003). Topics in the phonology of Picard. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Walcir. (2005). The variable acquisition of English word-final stops by Brazilian Portuguese speakers. In Dekydtspotter etal. (eds.), Somerville, MAProceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 38–49.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Walcir, & Liakin, Denis. (2007). The syllabification of word-final stops in Brazilian Portuguese English: Evidence for onset-nucleus sharing in interlanguage. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L., & Umeda, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America Conference (GALANA 2). Somerville, MA. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic. (1997). Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes? Language 73:493–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cobb, Tom. (2004). The Compleat Lexical Tutor 4.5 [A web-based suite for corpus analysis]. Available at http://www.lextutor.ca.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa, Jusczyk, Peter, & Smolensky, Paul. (2004). The initial and final states: Theoretical implications and experimental explorations of richness of the base. In Kager, R., Pater, J., & Zonneveld, W. (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 321–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, & Fee, Jane. (1995). Minimal prosodic words in early phonological development. Manuscript, Brown University and Dalhousie University.Google Scholar
Escartin, Claudia. (2005). The acquisition of English sC onset clusters by Mexican Spanish EFL learners. Master's thesis, Concordia University, Montreal (Canada).Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. (1996). Syllable integrity. Manuscript, University of Pittsburgh. Rutgers Optimality Archive: ROA-163.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. (1984). Variation theory and language learning. In Trudgill, P. (ed.), Applied Sociolinguistics. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. (1997). The mora as a measure of weight and as a syllabic constituent. In Bertinetto, P., Gaeta, G., Jetchev, G., & Michaels, D. (eds.), Certamen Phonologicum III. Papers from the Third Cortona Phonology Meeting. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. 91–110.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. (2003). Markedness, faithfulness, vowel quality and syllable structure in French. Journal of French Language Studies 13:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatbonton, Elisabeth. (1978). Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech: A gradual diffusion model. Canadian Modern Language Review 34:335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather. (1997). Codas, word minimality, and empty-headed syllables. In E. Clark, (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 113–122.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather. (2002). Markedness in right-edge syllabification: Parallels across populations. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 47:151–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather, & Kang, Hyun-Sook. (2003). Word-final syllabification in L2 acquisition with emphasis on Korean learners of English. In J. Liceras etal. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA). 122–129.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. (2002). Weight-by-position adjunction and syllable structure. Lingua 112:901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, Barbara, & Bhatt, Rakesh. (1998). Optimal L2 syllables: Interactions of transfer and developmental effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19:331–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. (2004). Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: The early stages. In Kager, R., Pater, J., & Zonneveld, W. (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 158–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. (2007). OTSoft: Constraint Ranking Software – Version 2.1. Manuscript, UCLA. URL: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/OTSoftManual.doc (Retrieved on July 29, 2007).Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce, & Zuraw, Kie. (2003). OTSoft 2.1 software package. URL: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. (2002). Variation and syntactic theory. In Chambers, J., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell. 267–282.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. (1998). The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: A case study of dominance effects. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 121–155.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, & Orgun, Orhan. (1995). Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71:763–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, Orhan, & Zoll, Cheryl. (1997). The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Roca, I. (ed.), Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, & Zoll, Cheryl. (2000). Reduplication as morphological doubling. Manuscript, University of California, Berkeley and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rutgers Optimality Archive: 412.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, & Mester, Ralf-Armin. (1995a). The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on reranking. In Beckman, J., Walsh-Dickey, L., & Urbanczyk, S. (eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in optimality theory. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 181–209.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, & Mester, Ralf-Armin. (1995b). Japanese phonology. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 817–838.Google Scholar
John, Paul. (2005). Variable h-epenthesis in the interlanguage of francophone ESL learners. Master's thesis, Concordia University, Montreal (Canada).Google Scholar
Kager, René. (1996). Stem disyllabicity in Guugu Yimidhirr. In Nespor, M. & Smith, N. (eds.), Dam Phonology: HIL Phonology Papers II. Den Haag: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. 59–101.Google Scholar
Kager, René. (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kim, Hyouk-Keun & Zsiga, Elisabeth. (2002). Assimilation and neutralization in Korean/English interlanguage. Poster presented at the 8th Conference on Laboratory Phonology. New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. (1994). Morphosyntactic variation. In Beals, K., Denton, J., Knippen, R., Melnar, L., Suzuki, H., & Zeinfeld, E. (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 2: The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic Theory. 180–201.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, & Taylor, Ann. (1997). Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, A., & Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 297–325.Google Scholar
Kucera, Henry, & Francis, Nelson. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English [The Brown Corpus]. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45:715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, Roy. (1986). Paragoge and degree of foreign accent in Brazilian English. Second Language Research 2:53–71.Google Scholar
Major, Roy. (1987). 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/Harper & Row. 101–125.Google Scholar
Major, Roy. (1994). Chronological and stylistic aspects of second language acquisition of consonant clusters. Language Learning 44:655–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, Roy. (2001). Foreign accent—The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, Roy. (2005). Gender and stylistic variation in second language phonology. Language Variation and Change 16:169–188.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, & Prince, Alan. (1993). Prosodic morphology I. Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, & Prince, Alan. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, J., Walsh-Dickey, L., & Urbanczyk, S. (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
Morris, Richard E. (1998). Stylistic variation in Spanish phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. (1996). Sign-based morphology and phonology with special attention to Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, & Prunet, Jean-François (eds.). (1991). The special status of coronals: Internal and external evidence. Phonology and Phonetics 2. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
Pater, Joseph. (1996). Consequences of constraint ranking. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Pater, Joseph. (1997). Metrical parameter missetting in second language acquisition. In Hannahs, S. J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 235–261.Google Scholar
Pater, Joseph, & Werle, Adam. (2001). Typology and variation in child consonant harmony. In C. Féry, A. Dubach Green, & R. van de Vijver (eds.), Proceedings of HILP5, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. (1996). Variationist perspectives on second language acquisition. In Bayley, R. & Preston, D. (eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–45.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Smolensky, Paul. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Tesar, Bruce. (2004). Learning phonotactic distribution. In Kager, R., Pater, J., & Zonneveld, W. (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 245–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. (1997). Optimality Theory and features. In Archangeli, D. & Langedoen, D. T. (eds.), Optimality Theory—An overview. Oxford: Blackwell. 59–101.Google Scholar
Reynolds, William. (1994). Variation and phonological theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Robinson, John, Lawrence, Helen, & Tagliamonte, Sali. (2001). GoldVarb 2001: A multivariate analysis application for windows. URL:http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. (1999). Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3):187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie, & Sprouse, Rex. (1994). Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 317–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie, & Sprouse, Rex. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research 12:40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, Larry. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10:209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. (1972). The phrase phonology of English and French. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. (1996). The initial state and ‘richness of the base’ in Optimality Theory. Technical Report JHU-CogSci-96-4, Cognitive Science Department, Johns Hopkins University. Rutgers Optimality Archive: 154.Google Scholar
Taler, Vanessa. (1997). S-weakening in the Spanish of San Miguel, El Salvador. Master's thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce, & Smolensky, Paul. (1993). The learnability of Optimality Theory: An algorithm and some basic complexity results. Manuscript, University of Colorado at Boulder. ROA-2.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. (1939). Grundzuge der phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. (This also appears in English translation as Principles of phonology, transl. C. Baltaxe. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).Google Scholar
Tzakosta, Marina. (2003). Morpho-phonological conflicts in the acquisition of stress in Greek. Paper presented at GLOW 2003 und (Sweden).Google Scholar
Ussishkin, Adam. (2000). The emergence of fixed prosody. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
van Oostendorp, Marc. (1997). Style levels in conflict resolution. In Hinskens, F., van Hout, R., & Wetzels, W. (eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van, Oostendorp, Marc. (2005). Variation in generative grammar. Manuscript, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam (The Netherlands).Google Scholar
van, Oostendorp, Marc. (2005b). In defense of the Loi de Position. Manuscript, Meertens Institut, Amsterdam (The Netherlands) Holland.Google Scholar
van, Oostendorp, Marc. (2006). Topics in the phonology of Dutch. Manuscript, Meertens Institut, Amsterdam (The Netherlands).Google Scholar
Villafaña, Christina. (2000). Emergence of the unmarked in interlanguage coda production. In Villafaña, C. (ed.), George Mason working papers in linguistics 33–48.Google Scholar
Wang, Chilin. (1995). The acquisition of English word-final obstruents by Chinese speakers. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
White, Lydia. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, John, & Henry, Alison. (1998). Parameter setting within a socially realistic linguistics. Language in Society 27:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles. (2003). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, Draga. (2005). Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology 22:77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar