Abstract
A variety of phonological explanations have been proposed to account for why some sounds are harder to learn than others. In this mini-review, we review such theoretical constructs and models as markedness (including the markedness differential hypothesis) and frequency-based approaches (including Bayesian models). We also discuss experimental work designed to tease apart markedness versus frequency. Processing accounts are also given. In terms of phonological domains, we present examples of feature-based accounts of segmental phenomena which predict that the L1 features (not segments) will determine the ease and difficulty of acquisition. Models which look at the type of feature which needs to be acquired, and models which look at the functional load of a given feature are also presented. This leads to a presentation of the redeployment hypothesis which demonstrates how learners can take the building blocks available in the L1 and create new structures in the L2. A broader background is provided by discussing learnability approaches and the constructs of positive and negative evidence. This leads to the asymmetry hypothesis, and presentation of new work exploring the explanatory power of a contrastive hierarchy approach. The mini-review is designed to give readers a refresher course in phonological approaches to ease and difficulty in acquisition which will help to contextualize the papers presented in this collection.
Highlights
Why are some sounds harder to learn than others? A Japanese learner of English may have difficulty acquiring a novel L2 English [l]/[ɹ] contrast (Brown, 2000) but less difficulty acquiring a novel L2 Russian [l]/[r] contrast (Larson Hall, 2004)
Such approaches stand in marked contrast to the models of cross-language speech production (Flege, 1995) and cross-language speech perception (Best and Tyler, 2007) which primarily invoke acoustic and articulatory factors to explain difficulty in acquisition
If the notion is ill-defined measure of complexity—difficulty or abnormality?— how can it be a valid explanans? Responding to Archibald (1998) who suggested that positing markedness as an explanation only bumped the explanation problem back a generation, Eckman (2008; 105) counter-argues that, “to reject a hypothesis because it pushes the problem of explanation back one step misses the point that all hypotheses push the problem of explanation back one step–such ‘pushing back’ is necessary if one is to proceed to higher level explanations.”
Summary
Reviewed by: Anne-Michelle Tessier, University of British Columbia, Canada John H. A variety of phonological explanations have been proposed to account for why some sounds are harder to learn than others In this mini-review, we review such theoretical constructs and models as markedness (including the markedness differential hypothesis) and frequency-based approaches (including Bayesian models). A broader background is provided by discussing learnability approaches and the constructs of positive and negative evidence This leads to the asymmetry hypothesis, and presentation of new work exploring the explanatory power of a contrastive hierarchy approach. The mini-review is designed to give readers a refresher course in phonological approaches to ease and difficulty in acquisition which will help to contextualize the papers presented in this collection
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
