The Role of Structural Position in L2 Phonological Acquisition: Evidence from English Learners of Spanish as L2

Abstract: In this pilot study, the speech of 12 adult native speakers of English with intermediate to intermediate-high proficiency in Spanish as a second language (L2) was analyzed to determine whether L2 learners rely on distributional information in the process of L2 speech learning and if so, if similar or dissimilar distributional patterns of sounds are more easily acquired. The parameter for (dis)similarity was set around the notion of structural position in combination with native language (L1) and L2 phonemic inventories. The results show that the subjects were consistently more successful in producing the phonemes with overlapping distributional patterns in L1 and L2 than phonemes whose distribution differed in L1 and L2 as well as novel L2 contrasts. Key words: difficulty/ease of L2 acquisition, (dis)similarity, L2 phonological acquisition, L2 speech learning, structural position Language: Spanish (ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.) Introduction A topic that has received a lot of attention when discussing second language (L2) phonological acquisition is the role that similarity and dissimilarity of native language (L1) and L2 sound systems play in the process of acquisition of L2 phonology. This topic also represents one of the most controversial topics related to L2 phonological acquisition. It is generally accepted that in the process of L2 acquisition, learners identify certain sounds in the L2 with L1 sounds. Researchers have descriptively referred to this tendency as a gravitational attraction (Schouten, 1975) and assimilatory pull (Best, McRoberts, & Sithole, 1988) that L1 sounds exert on L2 sounds. This phenomenon is also known as interlingual identification or equivalence classification, and it is an important cognitive mechanism involved in speech learning because it permits learners to make perceptual groupings of a wide variety of disparate phones with a common communicative function (Flege, 1992). An expected consequence of this process is that certain L2 sounds will be regarded by the learner as similar to L1 sounds, while others will be classified as different. Thus, equivalence classification inarguably exists, but researchers cannot agree on whether it facilitates or impedes the attainment of native-like pronunciation in the L2. Moreover, not only are there different opinions about which phonological phenomena, similar or dissimilar, are relatively easier to acquire, but there are two mutually exclusive opinions regarding this issue. One position, predominantly associated with Lado (1957) and his contrastive analysis hypothesis, is that sounds similar in L1 and L2 are easier to acquire (Briere, 1966; Flege & Port, 1981; Johansson, 1973; Lado, 1957; Logan, Lively, & Pisoni, 1989; Politzer & Weiss, 1969; Trubetzkoy, 1939; WaIz, 1979; Wode, 1976). Underlying the position that L2 learners will have more difficulty with new sounds is the assumption that the production of a sound requires the establishment of a central phonetic representation that contains information concerning both the perceptual target and a motor plan specifying how that target is to be achieved in speech production (Keele & Summers, 1976; Schmidt, 1976). Thus, according to this view, problems in pronunciation and foreign accent stem from both perception and production difficulties. The opposing view, associated with Flege's speech learning model, is that sounds that differ in L1 and L2 will be more easily acquired by learners, whereas sounds similar in L1 and L2 will pose a problem for them (Flege, 1990; Valdman, 1976). It is predicted that late L2 learners will be less successful in learning similar L2 sounds precisely because they equate L2 sounds with sounds of the L?1. Hence, similar sounds are difficult to acquire because speakers perceive and classify them as equivalents of existent sounds in Ll and find no reason to establish a new phonetic category. …