Developmental stages in the acquisition of variation … · Developmental stages in the acquisition...

Erik Schleef

Developmental stages in the acquisition of variation in English /t/

University of Manchester

Handout available here:

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/erik.schleef/research

Acquisition of variation •  Various strands

1.  L1 varia0on in na0ve children (Roberts 1994; Smith, Durham and Fortune 2007)

2.  2nd genera0on na0ve speakers in minority speech communi0es (Walker and Hoffmann 2010; Queen 2006; Horvath and Sankoff 1987; Mougeon and Nadasdi 1998; Sharma 2005, 2011)

3.  L2 varia0on in instructed and study abroad environments (Nagy et al. 2003; Mougeon et al. 2004; Dewaele 2004; Howard et al. 2006; Blondeau and Nagy 2008)

4.  L2 varia0on by non-‐na0ve speakers in immigrant contexts (Wolfram 1985; Adamson and Regan 1991; Bayley 1994; Schleef, Meyerhoff and Clark 2011) •  Children or adults

Methods •  Linguis0c data (paired chats and reading passage):

– 21 Polish adolescents from London – 24 London-‐born adolescents

•  Percep0on data collected using the verbal guise technique, see Clark and Schleef (2010)

•  All linguis0c data orthographically transcribed using ELAN

•  Variants extracted and coded •  Mixed-‐effect mul0ple regression using Rbrul

The variable •  Acquisi0on of T-‐glo^aling among immigrant teenagers in London

•  Instances of (t) : [t], [ɾ], [d], [ø]~[ʔ] – Word-‐final: hot vs. ho’; what vs wha’ – Medial: water vs. wa’er, wanted vs. wan’ed – Envelope of varia0on – 1855 tokens of (t) from L2 speakers

•  Frequency counts versus sociolinguis0cs factors constraining varia0on (=constraints)

•  Compara0ve sociolinguis0cs (Tagliamonte 2002)

Previous findings on (t)

•  Usual linguis0c constraints on (t)

–  Preceding and following segment (e.g. Roberts 2006, Drummond 2011)

–  Posi0on (Drummond 2011)

Only phonological constraints

•  Usual social constraints on (t) –  Socioeconomic class (Milroy et al. 1994, Mees and Collins 1999)

–  Stylis0c effects (e.g. Holmes 1997)

–  Gender effects (Milroy et al. 1994, Holmes 1997, Roberts 2006, Drummond 2011)

–  Age (Fabricius 2002, Roberts 2006)

•  It is increasing in use among younger genera0on (in certain posi0ons) and is spreading within the UK

Factor groups

•  Friendship network •  Proficiency in English •  Time spent learning English •  Time spent in the UK

•  Gramma0cal category •  Syllable count •  Word frequency •  Amtude towards London/

RP accent

•  Coded for all of these, except for social class •  Also coded for

•  Data presented by –  Posi0on of (t) in word: medial vs. final –  Length of stay in London

Research questions 1.  Are na0ve constraint hierarchies

acquired by non-‐na0ve speakers and, if so, when?

2.  How does the acquisi0on process of T-‐glo^aling progress [in apparent 0me] once it has been acquired?

•  2 steps –  Na0ve constraints –  Non-‐na0ve teenagers by stay in London

Results: replicating variable input

•  L1 learners replicate the variable input with variable output. This requires them to iden0fy: 1.  the variants and their rela0ve frequencies, 2.  the independent linguis0c and non-‐linguis0c

factors constraining those variants, and the ordering of specific constraints in those factors.

•  Difficult in L1, more complex in L2

Frequency by 0me spent in UK

!

è

è

è

Significant constraints -‐ na0ves (in order of effect size, [ʔ] applica0on value)

•  Gramma0cal category (func0on word .722, verb prog. .655, past part. .597, other verbs .582, adjec0ve .361, prop. noun .354, simple noun .241)

•  Preceding context (vowel .681, nasal & liquid .319)

•  Following context (obstruent .951, liquid .761, vowel mid .138, vowel high .091)

•  Style (speaking .813, reading .187) •  Lexical frequency (LOG .890)

•  Preceding context (vowel low .742, vowel high .541, vowel mid .488, vowel diphthong .428, nasal .292)

•  Following context (nasal .851, fric&affric 751, liquid .666, glide .620, pause .610, plosive .571, vowel low .354, vowel mid .259, vowel high 181, vowel diphthong 168)

•  Style (speaking .585, reading .415) •  Lexical frequency (LOG .316) •  Pos. amtude to RP (LOG -‐.059)

London-‐born teens (word-‐final) Deviance: 1070.625, Df: 18 Speaker ID random sd: .544

London-‐born teens (medial) Deviance: 427.493, Df: 14 Speaker ID random sd: 2.076

Non-‐na0ves: phase 1 (below 2 years)

No varia0on

•  Gramma0cal category (pronoun & conjunc0on .925, adverb .856, preposi0on .640, verb .171, noun .036)

•  Lexical frequency (LOG -‐1.654) •  Time learning English (LOG -‐.041)

Final: preceding context > following context > style — frequency — amtude RP Medial: Gram. category > preceding context > following context > style — frequency

èAll constraints are rejected and varia0on is reallocated

L2 teens (word-‐final) Deviance: 113.754, Df: 8 Speaker ID random sd: .224

L2 teens (word-‐medial)

Non-‐na0ves: phase 2 (2-‐3 years)

•  Gramma0cal category (adverb .765, pronoun .722, prep.&conj. .587, verb .503, adjec0ve .354, proper noun .302, simple noun .258)

•  Following context (liquid .665, fric&affric .609, pause .562, nasal .543, plosive .408, glide .374, vowel .340)

•  Posi0ve amtude LON accent (LOG .074)

•  Time learning English (LOG -‐.031) Final: preceding context > following context > style — frequency — amtude RP Medial: Gram. category > preceding context > following context > style — frequency

èRealloca0on, rejec0on, constraint altera0on, replica0on

•  Gramma-cal category (verb progressive .753, noun .679, verb&past part. .429, adjec0ve .171)

•  Following context (consonant .863, vowel .137)

•  Lexical frequency (LOG 2.08)


L2 teens (word-‐medial) Deviance: 88.203, Df: 7 Speaker ID random sd: 1.5

Non-‐na0ves: phase 3 (3 years+)

•  Gramma0cal category (adverb .726, pronoun&conj. .597, verb .584, adjec0ve .563, prep. .367, proper noun .359, simple noun .302)

•  Preceding context (vowel .791, nasal .209)

•  Following context (pause .652, nasal .595, fric&affric .565, liquid .544, vowel .449, plosive .356, glide .342)

•  Style (reading .568, speaking .432) Final: preceding context > following context > style — frequency — amtude RP Medial: Gram. category > preceding context > following context > style — frequency

èRealloca0on, rejec0on, constraint altera0on, replica0on

•  [Preceding context]

•  Following context (consonant .768, vowel .232)

•  Style (speaking .638, reading .362) •  Lexical frequency (LOG 1.924)


L2 teens (word-‐medial) Deviance: 133.891, Df: 5 Speaker ID random sd: 1.33

Returning to research questions 1.  When na0ve constraint hierarchies acquired?

–  Awer two years within England 2.  How does the acquisi0on process progress?

–  Learners acquire constraints one by one awer ini0al realloca0on

–  some constraints are (1) replicated completely; there is also evidence that even awer three years (2) some are altered, (3) some are rejected, and (4) some are re-‐interpreted and transformed, resul0ng in new constraints.

Further implica0ons

•  Why are some constraints replicated before others? •  Why is gramma0cal category reinterpreted and transformed in word-‐final posi0on?

Further implica0ons •  Why are some constraints replicated before others?

– Strongest contraint is NOT acquired –  Instead: strength and frequency of variant contrast

•  constraints with (1) high applica0on values of gloâl replacement and (2) stronger contrasts, easier to analyse

•  Provide more examples of gloâl replacement and render difference between [t] and gloâl replacement more no0ceable

Applica0on values and ranges of na0ve input

London-‐born teens (word-‐final)

•  Preceding context •  95.5-‐70.3%; range 25.2%

•  Following context •  95.2%-‐58.3%; range 36.9%

•  Style •  87.3%-‐85.2%; range 21.0%

•  Lexical frequency •  con0nuous +1, LOG .316

•  Posi0ve amtude towards RP •  con0nuous +1, LOG -‐.059

London-‐born teens (medial) •  Gramma0cal category

–  45.8% -‐ 24.3%; range 21.5% •  Preceding context

–  21.0% -‐ 9.8%; range 11.2% •  Following context

–  94.4%-‐14.7%; range 79.7% •  Style

–  40.6%-‐6.7%; range 33.9% •  Lexical frequency

–  con0nuous +1, LOG .890

Further implica0ons •  Why are some constraints replicated before others?

–  (1) Strength and frequency of variant contrast –  (2) Constraint complexity

• Why is it that gramma0cal category is not fully acquired for word-‐medial posi0on?

•  Guided by two rather than one constraint principles: func0on word constraint and morphophonological constraint

•  Learners need double-‐barrelled hypothesis to acquire this

Further implica0ons

•  Why is it that gramma0cal category is created as a constraint by non-‐na0ve speakers in word-‐final posi0on? –  Transforma0on of variable input into output that is constrained by gramma0cal category

–  Func0onal categories as a crucial parsing mechanism when learning an L2 (Carroll 2001)

–  Gramma0cal categories offer framework that is very suited to older learners of a language in forming hypotheses about data

–  Con0nuous frequency effect transformed into categorical gramma0cal effect?

Conclusion •  When acquired? •  Progression

•  Three factors influencing acquisi0on of constraints –  (1) strength and frequency of variant contrast –  (2) constraint complexity –  (3) gramma0cal category as an interpreta0ve

framework

References •  Adamson, H.D., and Vera Regan. 1991. The Acquisi0on of Community Speech Norms by Asian

Immigrants Learning English as a Second Language. Studies in Second Language Acquisi0on 13: 1-‐22.

•  Bayley, Robert. 1994. Interlanguage Varia0on and the Quan0ta0ve Paradigm: Past-‐Tense Marking in Chinese-‐English. In Elaine E. Tarone, Susan M. Gass and Andrew D. Cohen (eds.) Research Methodology in Second Language Acquisi0on. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 97-‐120.

•  Blondeau, Hélène, and Naomi Nagy. 2008. Subordinate Clause Marking in Montreal Anglophone French and English. In Miriam Meyerhoff and Naomi Nagy (eds.) Social Lives in Language – Sociolinguis0cs and Mul0lingual Speech Communi0es: Celebra0ng the Work of Gillian Sankoff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 273-‐313.

•  Carroll, Susanne E. 2001. Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisi0on. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

•  Clark, Lynn, and Erik Schleef. 2010. The Acquisi0on of Sociolinguis0c Evalua0ons among Polish-‐Born Adolescents Learning English: Evidence from Percep0on. Language Awareness 19: 299-‐322.

•  Dewaele, Jean-‐Marc. 2004. Reten0on and Omission of the Ne in Advanced French Interlanguage: The Variable Effect of Extralinguis0c Factors. Journal of Sociolinguis0cs 8: 433-‐50.

•  Drummond, Rob. 2011. Gloâl Varia0on in /T/ in Non-‐Na0ve English Speech: Paêrns of Acquisi0on. English World-‐Wide 32: 280-‐308.

•  Fabricius, Anne. 2000. T-‐Gloâling between S0gma and Pres0ge: A Sociolinguis0c Study of Modern Rp. Unpublished PhD thesis, Copenhagen Business School.

•  Holmes, Janet. 1997. Semng New Standards: Sound Changes and Gender in New Zealand English. English World-‐Wide 18: 107-‐42.

•  Horvath, Barbara, and David Sankoff. 1987. Delimi0ng the Sydney Speech Community. Language in Society 16: 179-‐294.

•  Howard, Mar0n, Isabelle Memee, and Vera Regan. 2006. The L2 Acquisi0on of a Phonological Variable: The Case of /L/ Dele0on in French. French Language Studies 16: 1-‐24.

•  Mees, Inger M., and Beverley Collins. 1999. Cardiff: A Real-‐Time Study of Gloâlisa0on. In Paul Foulkes and Gerard J Docherty (eds.) Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the Bri0sh Isles. London: Arnold. 185-‐202.

•  Milroy, James, et al. 1994. Gloâl Stops and Tyneside Gloâliza0on: Compe0ng Paêrns of Varia0on and Change in Bri0sh English. Language Varia0on and Change 6: 327-‐57.

•  Mougeon, Raymond, and Terry Nadasdi. 1998. Sociolinguis0c Discon0nuity in Minority Language Communi0es. Language 74: 40-‐55.

•  Mougeon, Raymond, Katherine Rehner, and Terry Nadasdi. 2004. The Learning of Spoken French Varia0on by Immersion Students from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Sociolinguis0cs 8: 408-‐32.

•  Nagy, Naomi, Hélène Blondeau, and Julie Auger. 2003. Second Language Acquisi0on and 'Real' French: An Inves0ga0on of Subject Doubling in the French of Montreal Anglophones. Language Varia0on and Change 15: 73-‐103.

•  Queen, Robin. 2006. Phrase-‐Final Intona0on in Narra0ves Told by Turkish-‐German Bilinguals. Interna0onal Journal of Bilingualism 10: 153-‐78.

•  Roberts, Julie. 1994. Acquisi0on of Variable Rules: (-‐T, D) Dele0on and (Ing) Produc0on in Preschool Children. Unpublished Phd Thesis. University of Pennsylvania.

•  -‐-‐-‐. 2006. As Old Becomes New: Glo^aliza0on in Vermont. American Speech 81: 227-‐49. •  Schleef, Erik, Miriam Meyerhoff, and Lynn Clark. 2011. Teenagers’ Acquisi0on of Varia0on: A

Comparison of Locally-‐Born and Migrant Teens’ Realisa0on of English (Ing) in Edinburgh and London. English World-‐Wide 32: 206-‐36.

•  Sharma, Devyani. 2005. Dialect Stabiliza0on and Speaker Awareness in Non-‐Na0ve Varie0es of English. Journal of Sociolinguis0cs 9: 194-‐224.

•  -‐-‐-‐. 2011. Cogni0ve and Social Forces in Dialect Shiw: Gradual Change in London Asian Speech. Language Varia0on and Change 23: 399-‐428.

•  Smith, Jennifer, Mercedes Durham, and Liane Fortune. 2007. Community, Caregiver and Child in the Acquisi0on of Varia0on in a Scomsh Dialect. Language Varia0on and Change 19: 63-‐99.

•  Tagliamonte, Sali. 2002. Compara0ve Sociolinguis0cs. In J.K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-‐Estes (eds.) The Handbook of Language Varia0on and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. 729-‐63.

•  Walker, James, and Michol Hoffmann. 2010. Ethnolects and the City: Ethnic Orienta0on and Linguis0c Varia0on in Toronto English. Language Varia0on and Change 22: 37-‐67.

•  Wolfram, Walt. 1985. Variability in Tense Marking: A Case for the Obvious. Language Learning 35: 229-‐53.

Developmental stages in the acquisition of variation … · Developmental stages in the acquisition...

Documents

Transcript of Developmental stages in the acquisition of variation … · Developmental stages in the acquisition...