NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Back to results
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1184636
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2018
Pages: 37
Abstractor: As Provided
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-1048-9223
EISSN: N/A
Universal Grammar and Second Language Phonology: Full Transfer/Prevalent Access in the L2 Acquisition of Turkish "Stress" by English and French Speakers
Özçelik, Öner
Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, v25 n3 p231-267 2018
This article explores the role of transfer and Universal Grammar (UG) in second language (L2) phonology by investigating the L2 acquisition of stress/prominence in footless languages, such as Turkish and French, which have fixed word- and phrase-final prominence respectively. It is proposed that once the prosodic constituent Foot is projected in a footed first language (L1), such as English, it is impossible to expunge it from the grammar in learning a footless L2. Learners in this condition will, instead, be restricted to resetting parameters that act on the Foot (e.g. trochaic/iambic, iterative/non-iterative, weight-sensitive/weight-insensitive). In order to investigate these predictions, a semi-controlled production experiment was conducted with English- and French-speaking learners of L2 Turkish, of various proficiency levels. The results largely confirm our predictions. None of the English-speaking subjects were able to rid their grammar of the Foot. They were, however, able to make various UG-constrained changes to their grammar, such as resetting Extrametricality from Yes to No, and later, Foot-Type from Trochaic to Iambic, thereby having increasingly more word types with word-final (but footed) stress. French-speaking learners, on the other hand, produced target-like footless outputs from the beginning, with word-final prominence. The findings provide strong evidence for UG-based theories of L2 acquisition: (i) interlanguage grammars, even when non-targetlike, are 'possible' grammars, paralleling other natural languages, (ii) options ruled out by UG, such as weight-insensitive iambs, are not employed, despite such a stage being cognitively most reasonable, and (iii) grammar change is brought along on a parameter-by-parameter basis, instead of being reflective of frequency.
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: Canada; United States; France
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A