Comparing two notions of transfer in third language
phonological acquisition
A reanalysis of three studies
In third language
acquisition (L3A) research on cross-linguistic influence, much of the
emphasis of the existing acquisition models has been on the
transfer of morphosyntactic features,
leaving phonology understudied. This chapter seeks to assess
the empirical adequacy of two competing hypotheses of
transfer and establish their potential value for future
L3
phonology research: Full Transfer
(FT) and Full Transfer
Potential (FTP). I review previous L3
phonological studies and examine how FT and FTP could
explain the data patterns. My analyses suggest that FTP
provides greater empirical coverage and more explanatory
potential than FT. Though better in accounting for sources
of L3 phonological transfer post facto and beyond the
initial stage, FTP may be
limited concerning its core idea that “anything
may transfer” (Westergaard, 2019).
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical overview
- 2.1Defining ‘transfer’
- 2.2Transfer in L3A
research
- 2.3The FT
model
- 2.4Defining FT in L3A
- 2.5An alternative hypothesis to FT: FTP
- 3.L3
phonology production and perception
studies
- 3.1Chen and Han
(2019): L1 and L2 influence on L3 Mandarin pronunciation
- 3.2Llama et al.
(2010), Llama and Cardoso (2018): L3 Spanish VOT
- 3.3Chan and Chang
(2019): Perception
of L3 Yoruba/Thai tonal contrasts
- 4.FT or FTP: Which provides a better account?
- 4.1Chen and Han
(2019)
- 4.2Llama et al.
(2010) and Llama and Cardoso
(2018)
- 4.3Chan and Chang
(2019)
- 4.4Wholesale (FT) or Property-by-property transfer
(FTP)?
- 4.5Scope: Initial
state or beyond?
- 4.6FTP: Potential limitations
- 5.Concluding remarks
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References