MPhil Seminar: MPhil Seminar: Evaluating OTEvaluating OT

L1/L2 Acquisition and learnability8-3-2007

OverviewOverview Focus on comparison of leading

theories (RBP : OT) What each predicts to be possible and

impossible How these predictions compare to the data

General acquisition effects SLA effects

Scientific study of acquisition: Scientific study of acquisition: research questionsresearch questions

theory

data

Top-down: what does each theory predict to be possible and impossible?

Bottom-up: what are the central acquisition phenomena that any theory must account for?

Evaluating theoriesEvaluating theories Grammar/Theory 1

Lexicon: {a} Rules:

a optionally b Grammar/Theory 2

Lexicon: {a} Rules:

a optionally b b optionally c

Venn diagram of outputs for grammar 1 and grammar 2

a b c

grammar 2grammar 1

Loci of predictive difference box = range of conceivable outputs for any theory

Is a theory that makes fewer predictions better?

Some basic learning Some basic learning issuesissues

All existing OT learning models (except some flawed nascent work by Tesar) require being handed correct URs, SRs, and CON.

How can an OT grammar be learned, given the large number of constraint rankings that can produce the limited data set to which a language learner is exposed? Does UG provide a default ranking of constraints?

Prince and Smolensky 203: since constraints can’t be inferred from surface data (because they’re violable), they must be part of UG

Sherrard 1997 and McMahon 2000: in OT 10 (untied) constraints produce 36 million possible grammars, posing a learning problem, whereas rules simply state observable generalisations.

McMahon and Calabrese: the first step in learning the grammar is observing alternations/generalizations. DP stops there, but OT requires an extra step of going from there to a constraint ranking. Why is this necessary?

Typical OT presentation of Typical OT presentation of the learning taskthe learning task

http://www.ling.rochester.edu/people/cross/acquisition-of-ot.pdf Prince and Smolensky 1993: All constraints are universal, occurring in

all languages. Languages only vary with respect to their lexicons (input forms) and the

rankings of the constraints. Implication: If constraints are innate, you don't have to learn them.

Constraints that have to be learned anyway morpheme constraints

Leftmost(um): Place the morpheme –um- in the leftmost position possible. (P&S 1993).

clitic alignment constraints, à la Anderson 1994. parameterisable constraints

RhythmicType=Iamb/Trochee: Feet are iambic/trochaic. (P&S 1993) conjoined constraints?

Any two simple constraints can be conjoined to form a complex constraint. Are all possible conjunctions of simple constraints universal? Can you conjoin a previously conjoined constraint?

Hale and Reiss 1998Hale and Reiss 1998 Fact: child language production differs from comprehension

Children understand [khæt] but produce [ta] Smolensky 1996: Optimality Theory (OT) can generate this Hale and Reiss: no it can’t, and it shouldn’t

(1) The nature of child phonologya. The Strong Identity Hypothesis, which holds that child phonology is governed by

the same principles as adult phonology [H/R]b. The view that child phonology is fundamentally distinct from adult phonology—

that it licenses processes unattested in adult language, that it depends on a series of developmental stages, and so on [S]

(2) The nature of the evidencea. Deviations from target forms—in children’s as well as adults’ grammars—are to

be attributed to performance effects, including nonlinguistic cognitive and motor processing. [H/R]

b. Many deviations from target forms are the result of ‘‘child phonology’’ (i.e., the child’s phonological competence)—grammatical effects for which the target language provides no evidence. [S]

OT learning OT learning algorithmsalgorithms

M >> FGLACDA

Smolensky’s schemeSmolensky’s scheme initial state of grammar: M >> F production: OT grammar selects most harmonic

output for a given input comprehension: OT grammar selects most harmonic

input for an observed output correction algorithm: when the comprehension

evaluation is less harmonic (i.e. there are more asterisks) than the production evaluation, relevant constraints are demoted to make the comprehension parse more harmonic than the production parse

Smolensky’s schemeSmolensky’s scheme

Problems with S identified Problems with S identified by H/Rby H/R

can’t account for surface neutralization, e.g. German /rad/, /rat/ [rat] Asudeh 2001:7 “OT grammars seem to be non-trivially non-reversible, whether

they use interpretive parsing or not. This is in conflict with the reversibility prized by other constraint-based architectures and is tantamount to having separate grammars for production and comprehension, which is conceptually undesirable.”

it isn’t possible to have a steady-state grammar of Smolensky’s type, because the correction algorithm will always kick in immediately and rerank the constraints

can’t account for Captain Hazelwood’s drunken speech (misarticulation of liquids, final devoicing, deaffrication), which in OT requires reranking of constraints (see next slide on performance)

S has severe problems with chain shifts and opacity effects. S can’t account for higher accuracy in direct imitation:

i. improved performance under concentration S predicts simply better pronunciation of [s] for [š]

ii. parroting S would have to require instantaneous ranking of Cree constraints!

competence vs. competence vs. performanceperformance

Johnson, Pisoni, and Bernacki (1990) report on the intoxicated speech of the captain of the Exxon Valdez around the time of the accident at Prince William Sound, Alaska. (669)

Observed effects: misarticulation of /r/ and /l/ final devoicing Deaffrication

Performance problem, not different grammar Cf. mimicking Cree sentences doesn’t mean that one has acquired Cree

grammar (671) attempts at producing adult [phεn] pen collected from a 15-month-old

child in a 30-minute period (Ferguson 1986): [mãə], [], [dεdn], [], [mbõ], [], [], [bah], [], [buã]

Kids who can’t speak yet but can accurately identify subject and object of sentence, distinguish phonemes, etc. (Hirsh-Pasek and Golinkoff 1991)

Hale and Reiss’s C-P Hale and Reiss’s C-P modelmodel

Some problems with OT Some problems with OT acquisition theories acquisition theories identified by Menn 2000identified by Menn 2000 mushy and non-phonemicized early outputs rules that are no longer constraint-based U-shaped developmental curves the need to differentiate ‘input’ in the sense

of ‘the adult form the child is trying to approximate’ from ‘input’ in the sense of ‘abstract strings of concatenated morphemes to be parsed’

The Gradual Learning The Gradual Learning AlgorithmAlgorithm

Boersma and Hayes 2001 “The GLA is cast within a stochastic version of OT that places constraints on a

numeric scale (Boersma 1998). Each time the grammar is used to evaluate Input-Output pairings, the ranking

values are perturbed slightly (by ‘evaluation noise’) before converting the values to a ranking order. This produces variation between the rankings of constraints whose values are close to one another.

In the version proposed by Boersma and Hayes (2001), the values of all constraints preferring the winner are raised, and the values of those preferring the loser are lowered, all by an equal amount termed the plasticity.

“The result is that the model is much closer to a standard stochastic grammar than would at first appear; phonological templates which are abundantly instantiated in the training set end up being highly favored by the grammar, and those which are poorly instantiated end up disfavored. Thus, the rankings of constraints closely track the frequency values that would be assigned to the same constraints in some stochastic grammars.” (Pierrehumbert 2003)

Problems: GLAProblems: GLA non-convergence (Pater 2005)—see later slide Pierrehumbert 2003:225-6

requires constraints like *ks to get morphophonemic rules like velar softening in fact, one needs to postulate a universal set of constraints pairing each phoneme with each other

phoneme (i.e. *ks, *kt, *kp…) “the price of folding unnatural morphophonological correspondences into the phonological

grammar is splitting the correspondences into unrelated constraint pairs, which are ranked separately.”

“In the GLA model, all constraints are at the same level and all constraint rankings are trained on the same data set. Thus, the connection drawn above between the granularity of constraints and the size of the effective training set does not appear to be available.”

“Phonetics, in common with many other physical processes, provides examples of skewed [e.g. gamma] distributions relating to physical nonlinearities and saturations…In contrast, distributions arising from repeated independent decisions (as in coin-flipping, or a forced choice experiment) tend to be Gaussian. Since the assumption of Gaussian distributions is critical to the mathematical tractability of [GLA], the existence of non-Gaussian distributions appears to be problematic.”

“The GLA model also does not distinguish effects relating to type frequency from effects relating to surface, or token, frequency.”

“It also provides no way to downweight the grammatical impact of extremely frequent words, as Bybee (2001) and Bailey and Hahn (2001) show to be necessary.”

The Constraint Demotion The Constraint Demotion AlgorithmAlgorithm Tesar and Smolensky 1993 version, as

reported by Crosswhite and Keer

Problems: CDAProblems: CDA learning of unnatural patterns can’t deal with variation (Tesar and

Smolensky 1998, Boersma and Hayes 2001) see later slide

Learning unnatural patternsLearning unnatural patterns CDA predicts that natural patterns will be

easier to learn than unnatural ones, because they require fewer departures from UG ranking. Support from Pater’s 2005 study?

On the other hand, if learning involves formulating rules and their difficulty is computed on the basis of their formal structure, then unnatural patterns should be equally learnable. Supported in studies by Pycha et al. 2003, Morrison

2005, and Seidl & Buckley (forthcoming)

Variation is a problem for Variation is a problem for constraint demotion algorithmsconstraint demotion algorithms

“inconsistent data, such as variation in the ambient language, causes RCD to choke” McCarthy 2002:204-5 Cf. Hayes 2000 Intra-individual variability in L2 production

Tropf 1987:174—multiple renditions of German nicht ‘not’ in a one-hour session with a Spanish speaker learning German: 31, 25, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1

Similar findings in L1 acq Hayes’ alternative (strictness bands) predicts that only

adjacent constraints can be involved in optionality Problem: Pierrehumbert’s hovacity data

Non-convergence for GLA in Non-convergence for GLA in complex credit scenarios (Pater complex credit scenarios (Pater 2005)2005)

“The GLA will succeed on the learning problem presented in the last section if it is run in “demotion only” mode, in which it only decreases the values of loser preferring constraints, and does not change the value of winner preferring constraints. However, as Boersma (1997, 1998) shows, this version of the GLA fails to converge in cases involving variation.”

Variation in CDAVariation in CDA from Pater 2005

Second Language Second Language AcquisitionAcquisition

OT on SLAOT on SLA “We assume that second language

acquisition involves creation of a new grammar, using the same resources as first language acquisition (though other cognitive strategies may be used as well). One major difference, however, is that the initial state of second language acquisition is the final state of first language acquisition” (Pater and Tessier 2005)

M/F-based learning No opacity, derived environment, or avoidance effects that don’t appear in L1

or L2 wouldn’t make sense to spontaneously invoke constraint conjunction, Null

Parse, sympathy constraints, etc. Consistency

Consistent cross-linguistic treatment of a given phenomenon, e.g. resolution of theta

same constraints as characterize natural languages, so *D/_# will always be dealt with via devoicing, etc.

No levels no level-based effects, since there are no levels unnatural processes will not be imported into L2, because they are

morphologically conditioned (according to Lombardi, Steriade, etc.) Markedness

IL effects will result from either hidden UG rankings in L1, or from intermediate degrees of constraint demotion/promotion; NOT from reversion to UG rankings when already superseded by L1 rankings

markedness-based changes will conform to universal markedness hierarchy neutralizations will be in direction of unmarked member of opposition Natural/unmarked patterns will be easier to learn

Predictions of canonical OTPredictions of canonical OT

Contra M/F-based learning: Nonderived environment blocking Opacity Avoidance

Contra Consistency: Optionality and variation Convention vs. automaticity Final devoicing

Contra No levels: Level-based interference Unnatural interference

Contra Markedness: Cases where IL phenomenon NL, TL Unnatural patterns not harder to learn

Some central SLP phenomenaSome central SLP phenomena

Nonderived Environment BlockingNonderived Environment Blocking

Eckman and Iverson 1995 et seqq.: Suppression of s-palatalization in Korean acq of English Suppression of spirantization in Spanish acq of English

Kiparsky and Menn 1987:47—derived environment effect in acq of Greek Polish devoicing and raising with loanwords

snop (not *snup) but pagoda → pagut, toga → tuk Standard OT treatment of NDEB: constraint conjunction (Łubowicz 1999)

Smolensky: only postulate CC as warranted by PLD DEC is problem for:

OT claim that grammars only differ in constraint ranking OT’s rejection of generalizations/rules—DEC in SLA is clearly a generalization kicking in, not a constraint

conjunction spontaneously appearing

Opacity in SLPOpacity in SLP Counterfeeding chain shift substitution

Cho and Lee 2001, Idsardi 2002 on opacity in Korean acq of English sin → sjin + thin → sin

same is found in L1 (Dinnsen, O’Connor, and Gierut 2001) opaque substitution = contrast maintenance + ordering, not

sympathy, turbidity, targeted constraints, etc. Smolensky: only postulate constraint conjunction as warranted by PLD

Idsardi 2002: “this spontaneous chain shift…does not reflect properties of their original L1 grammar, the target L2 grammar, or of Universal Grammar…only by employing persistent rules can we correctly create the conditions for chain-shift; persistence of constraints and constraint rankings into the L2 does not correctly induce the chain-shifting behavior”

Counterbleeding repairs Weinberger 1987:412—Mandarin learners of English who apply final

epenthesis before final C-cluster simplification, e.g. <and> [aenә] Counterfeeding and counterbleeding in toy L2 acq

already discussed earlier in course

AvoidanceAvoidance speakers sometimes avoid complex L2 configurations

even if their L1 has them Laufer and Eliasson 37, Jordens 1977, Kellerman 1977, 1978,

1986 Celce-Murcia 1977:

child learning English and French simultaneously avoided words containing fricatives in one language by using the word from the other language, e.g. couteau for knife

Well-documented in L1 phonological acquisition and disorders also cleft palate speech, lisp…

Standard OT treatment of avoidance: Null Parse Wrongly predicts phonologically empty output, rather than

contentful output that crashes see Orgun and Sprouse 1999, Nevins and Vaux 2004 for

further discussion and exemplification

Ambiguity and animal wug testsAmbiguity and animal wug tests

Ga

llist

el,

C.

20

03

. C

on

diti

on

ing

fro

m a

n in

form

atio

n p

roce

ssin

g

pe

rsp

ect

ive

. B

eh

avi

ou

ral P

roce

sse

s 6

1.3

:12

34

1-1

3.

ConsistencyConsistency Lombardi 2003: repair of L2 {θ, ð} predictable from structure of

L1 system /s, z/: Japanese, France French, German… /t, d/: Russian, Quebecois, Hungarian, Sinhalese… Cf. Ritchie 1968, Nemser 1971, Hancin-Bhatt 1994, Weinberger 1997)

Actual facts: intra-lingual/individual variation in L1 and L2 acq multiple L1 substitutes for unfamiliar/difficult L2 sound (Hammarberg 1990)

Polish replacement of θ, ð by [s, z] [t, d] or [f, v] (Gussmann 1984:31) Japanese, German, and Turkish speakers vary in what they hear θ, ð as (Hancin-

Bhatt 1994) Calabrese uses f/v, whereas other Italians use t/d (Flege, Munro, and MacKay 1996)

(cf. Cockney vs. New York; Archibald 1998:102) Unschooled French speakers use [t] (Berger 1951); beginners use [f], intermediate

learners use [t] (Wenk 1979); Quebecois use [t], France uses [s] (Archibald 1998:102)

Korean variation between tense [s'] and tense [t'] (think = ssink ~ ttink) (Oh 2002) Austrian learners of English vary between f ~ s ~ š ~ dental s ~ “lenisized” θ

(Wieden 1997:232) Cf. L1:

English L1 acq θ [f] in stages IV-VII; ð [d] or [v] in stages V-VII (Wenk 1979, Grunwell 1982)

θ [f] ~ [s], e.g. Susie’s think sink ~ fink (Vihman and Greenlee 1987) Conclusion: ambiguity resolved by arbitrary choice (convention)

Dealing with coda [voice]Dealing with coda [voice]

Overview IL final devoicing as TETU?L1 vs. L2 strategies for dealing with

coda [voice]Sources and mechanisms of devoicing

Devoicing as TETU?Devoicing as TETU? From Uffmann 2004:

2 guiding principles:1. Initial state = L1 ranking2. L2 learners may also assume default M >> F

Ranking for lgs that don’t allow codas *Coda/voi, *Coda >> Faith

Ranking for lgs that allow contrastive voicing in codas Faith >> *Coda/voi, *Coda

Demotion of *Coda below Faith based on TL evidence *Coda/voi >> Faith >> *Coda [NB requires ignoring evidence for voiced codas]

To get Hungarian-English phenomenon (IL devoicing despite both NL and TL having voice contrast in codas), Uffmann proposes L2 learners assume default M >> F until they receive evidence to the contrary Problem: contravenes OT assumption that L2 learners start with

L1 ranking (Pater 2005, etc.)

L1: claimed to only use devoicing The “too many solutions problem” (Lombardi 1995, Kager

1999, Steriade 2001, McCarthy 2002…) Lombardi: MaxOns, *Lar, MaxVoi Steriade: P-map

[McCarthy 2002: targeted constraints can get deletion repair, and therefore shouldn’t be part of OT]

Kiparsky 2004: blocking also used (Konni, Meccan Arabic) L2: epenthesis and deletion attested

Deletion Chinese: Anderson 1983, Xu 2004

Epenthesis Brazilian Portuguese: Major 1987; Korean: Kang 2003, Iverson and

Lee 2004; Vietnamese: Nguyen and Ingram 2004; Chinese: Eckman 1981, Xu 2004

Also found in L1 acq (Major 2001)

L1 vs. L2 strategies for coda [voice]L1 vs. L2 strategies for coda [voice]

More problems with OT analysis of final More problems with OT analysis of final devoicingdevoicing

L1 prediction doesn’t fall out nicely from constraint inventory; requires conspiracy of several constraints

*Coda/voi-less system (Lombardi 2000, Beckman 2004) misses key articulatory motivation by avoiding (cf. Smith et al. 2005)

Lombardi’s scheme should hold for NC as well, but doesn’t (Myers 2002)

Lombardi can’t get word-initial neutralization, like in English and Lac Simon

L1 prediction falsified by L2 data Not clear why devoicing should be

easier to learn than contrast L2 devoicing may not be emergent

UG effect: English has devoicing (Haggard 1978,

Ladefoged 1982, Pierrehumbert and Talkin 1992, Smith 1997)

May be articulatory phonetic problem “L2 speakers…may not have developed

adequate voicing control abilities” (Smith et al. 2005)

English-Hungarian case requires reversion to UG ranking, not hidden rankings

LevelsLevels Only low-level automatic L1 rules can cause

interference (Linell 1979, Rubach 1980, 1984, Broselow 1984, Singh and Ford 1987, Eckman and Iverson 1995) Morphologically-conditioned processes do not cause

interference Problem 1: incoherent in monostratal model Problem 2: interference from processes treated as

morphologically-conditioned in OT (McCarthy 1997, Steriade 2001, Picard 2002, Lombardi 2003) r-insertion in RP pronunciation of L2 French, German, Spanish

(Wells 1982) J’étais déjà[r] ici, ich bin ja[r] fertig, viva[r] España

n-insertion in Korean (H. Kim 1999) [lukεnñuәsεlph] ‘look at yourself’

Cases where hidden rankings aren’t involved Idsardi’s 2002 spontaneous chain shift Hungarian-English final devoicing (?) Japanese antepenultimate mora accentuation (?) Hungarian gemination after stressed vowel (?)

Cases where novel marked configurations are produced, violating markedness hierarchy Russian č Odd neutralizations in L1 acq:

Child with dental click for all coronal continuants (Bedore et al. 1994) Child with ingressives for all postvocalic stops (Gierut and Champion

2000) 4;8 subject, Jason, produces [pfw] “to represent nearly all word-initial

liquid clusters, as well as initial labial fricatives” (Edwards 1996:153) Amahl’s word-initial engma and voiceless sonorants (Smith 1973:4) child with s in onset, x in coda (Gierut 1993)

L2: Yuchun’s production of [ü] for [i] in English UG, phonology, etc. NB she doesn’t just do it after j

Cases where IL phenomenon Cases where IL phenomenon NL, TL NL, TL

ConclusionsConclusions Classic OT predictions disconfirmed by acquisition data

contra M/F-based learning: NDEB, opacity, avoidance contra Consistency: variation, convention contra No levels: Level-based interference, Unnatural interference contra Markedness: Cases where IL phenomenon NL, TL; Unnatural patterns not harder to learn

Universal markedness/UG plays a role in SLA final devoicing, cluster simplification… Not well captured in OT; SLA requires reference to UG system

overridden by L1 and to phenomena not in L1/L2/UG-CON Conversely, language allows a broader range of possibilities than is

countenanced in OT strategies to deal with devoicing, unnatural rules…

Acquisition is generalization-driven and potentially variable supported by DEC effects, conventionalized segmental

substitutions, which V to delete in hiatus, deneutralization… Cf. Kiparsky and Menn’s 1977 model, which involves active

hypothesis formation and testing on the part of the child, and Fey and Gandour 1979, vs. Stampe’s and OT’s, which are closer to behaviorist stimulus-response

For variation, cf. Macken and Ferguson’s flexible learning model that allows for variation, contrary to earlier deterministic models that had predictable L1L2 transfer

ReferencesReferencesBedore, L., J. Leonard, and J. Gandour. 1994. The substitution of a click for sibilants: A case study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 8:283-293.Broselow, Ellen, S.-I. Chen, & C. Wang. 1998. The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology.  Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 261-280.Broselow, Ellen. 2004. Unmarked structures and emergent rankings in second language phonology. In Lleó, C., & Vogel, I. (Eds.), On the acquisition of second language

phonology [Special issue]. International Journal of Bilingualism 8.1:51-65.Cebrian, J. 2002. Phonetic Similarity, Syllabification and Phonotactic Constraints in the Acquisition of a Second Language Contrast. Doctoral dissertation, University of

Toronto.Celce-Murcia, M. 1977. Phonological factors in vocabulary acquisition: a case study of a two-year-old English-French bilingual. Working Papers in Bilingualism 13:27-41.Cho, Mi-Hui and Shinsook Lee. 2001. Phonological transparency and opacity in the sound substitution of interlanguages. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology.

7.2. 449-468Connelly, Mark (1994) Phonological Markedness and Second Language Error Interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Davidson, Lisa. 2002.  The effects of hidden rankings on the acquisition of consonant clusters. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), New Sounds 2000 (pp. 87-96).  Klagenfurt,

Austria:  University of Klagenfurt.Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams D. R. and Meyer, A.S. 2000. “Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language

production”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26: 1355-1367.Dinnsen, Daniel, Kathleen O’Connor, and Judith Gierut. 2001. The puzzle-puddle-pickle problem and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition. Journal of Linguistics 37.Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 1988. How do Poles perform English tips of the slung? In Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics 22:179-86.Eckman, Fred & Iverson, G. K. (1994), Pronunciation difficulties in ESL: coda consonants in English interlanguage In M. Yavas (Ed) First and second language phonology.

(pp.251-265). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.Eckman, Fred & Iverson, G. K.  (1997).  Structure preservation in interlanguage phonology.  In S. J. Hannahs, & M. Scholten (Eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition (pp.

183-207).  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Eckman, Fred, A. Elreyes, & Greg Iverson. 2003. Some Principles of Second Language Phonology. Second Language Research 19:169-208.Eckman, Fred. (1987b) The reduction of word-final consonants in interlanguage. In. A. James & L. Leather (Eds.) Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 143-

162). Dordrecht: Foris.Gierut, Judith and Annette Hust Champion. 2000. Ingressive substitutions: typical or atypical phonological pattern?Grijzenhout, Janet and Bertus van Rooy. 200x. Second language phonology: acquisition through gradual constraint demotion.Grunwell, P. 1982. Clinical phonology. London: Croom Helm.Gussmann, Edmund. 1984. Contrastive analysis, substantive evidence and the abstractness issue. In Theoretical issues in contrastive phonology, S. Elliason (ed), 27-36.

Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Haggard, M. 1978. The devoicing of voiced fricatives. Journal of Phonetics 6:95-102.Hammarberg, B. 1990. Conditions on transfer in phonology. In News Sounds 90, Proceedings of the symposium on second-language speech, A. James and J. Leather, eds.

Dordrecht: Foris.Hancin-Bhatt, Barbara. 1994. Segment transfer: a consequence of a dynamic system. Second Language Research 10.3:241-269.Hayes, B. 1999. Phonological Restructuring in Yidiny and its Theoretical Consequences. The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory, B. Hermans and M.

van Oostendorp (eds). 175-205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Idsardi, William. 2002. Further opacity issues: spontaneous L2 opacity. Proceedings of the 2002 LSK International Summer Conference.Iverson, Gregory K. & Ahrong Lee. 2004. "Perception of Contrast in Korean Loanword Adaptation," revison of "Perceived Syllable Structure in the Adaptation of Loanwords

in Korean," Linguistic Society of Korea International Conference, Seoul, 28-30 July, 2004, in review.Johansson, F. 1973. Immigrant Swedish phonology: a study in multiple contact analysis. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Johnson, Mark. 1984. A discovery procedure for certain phonological rules. 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd Annual Meeting of the

Association for Computational Linguistics.Jordens, P. 1977. Rules, grammatical intuitions, and strategies in foreign language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2:5-76.Kellerman, E. 1977. Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2:58-145.Kim, Hyouk-Keun. 1999. Interlanguage Phonology of Korean Learners of English. http://odin.prohosting.com/hkkim/cgi-bin/kaeps/il_phon.htm#n_ins.Kim, Mi-Hyun. 2004. Transfer of manner assimilation to English. Language Research 40.3.

ReferencesReferencesKiparsky, Paul. 1977. On the Acquisition of Phonology (with L. Menn). In J. Macnamara (ed.), Language Learning and Thought, Academic Press, 1977. Reprinted in

Georgette Ioup and S. W. Weinberger (eds.), Interlanguage Phonology: the Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System, Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury House, 1987.

Kiparsky, Paul. 2004. Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations.Lombardi, Linda. 2001. Why Place and Voice are Different: Constraint-Specific Alternations in Optimality Theory. In Lombardi, Linda, ed. (2001) Segmental Phonology in

Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lombardi, Linda. 2003. Second language data and constraints on manner: Explaining substitutions for the English interdentals. Second Language Research 19:225-250.Łubowicz, Anna. 1999. Derived environment effects in OT. The Proceedings of the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Kimary Shahin,

Susan Blake and Eun Sook Kim, 451-65. Stanford, CA: Center Study Language & Information. [Rutgers Optimality Archive 239]]Major, Roy. 1987. A model for interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger.

(Eds.) Interlanguage Phonology (pp 101 - 124). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.Morrison, G. S. (2005, May). Phonetic naturalness and phonological learnability. Paper presented at The 13th Manchester Phonology Meeting (mfm 13), Manchester, UK. Nguyen, Thu and John Ingram. 2004. A corpus-based analysis of transfer effects and connected speech processes in Vietnamese English. Proceedings of the 10th

Australian International Conference on Speech Science & Technology, Macquarie University.Pater, Joe and Anne-Michelle Tessier. 2005. Phonotactics and alternations: Testing the connection with artificial language learning. In Kathryn Flack and Shigeto Kawahara

(eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 31:1-16.Pierrehumbert 2003, in Bod, Rens, Jennifer Hay and Stefanie Jannedy, eds. 2003. Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Pycha, Anne, Pawel Nowak, Eurie Shin, and Ryan Shosted. 2003. Phonological Rule-Learning and Its Implications for a Theory of Vowel Harmony. WCCFL 22 Proceedings,

ed. M. Tsujimura and G. Garding, pp. 101-114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Rubach, J. 1984. Rule typology and phonological interference. In Theoretical issues in contrastive phonology, S. Elliason (ed), 37-50. Heidelberg, Julius Groos Verlag.Seidl, A. and E. Buckley. To appear. On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. In Language Learning and Development.Singh, Rajendra and Alan Ford. Interphonology and phonological theory. In Sound patterns in second language acquisition, James and Leather, eds., 163-172. Dordrecht:

Foris.Smith, Bruce, Darcie DeMille & Amy Roberts, Ann Bradlow & Tessa Bent. 2005. Devoicing in word-final voiced stop targets produced by native and nonnative speakers of

English. http://www.sfu.ca/~spchlab/A54.pdfSmith, Caroline. 1997. The devoicing of /z/ in American English: effects of local and prosodic context. Journal of Phonetics 25.4:471-500.Stark, J. 1974. Aphasiological evidence for the abstract analysis of the German velar nasal. Wiener linguistische Gazette 7:21-37.Tarone, E. 1976. Some influences on interlanguage phonology. Working Papers in Bilingualism 8:87-111.Tarone, E.  1988.  Variation in interlanguage.  London: Edward Arnold.Tropf, Herbert. 1987. Sonority as a variability factor in second language phonology. In Sound patterns in second language acquisition, James and Leather, eds., 173-191.

Dordrecht: Foris.Uffmann, Christian. 2004. Re-Evaluating Transfer in SLA. Talk presented at the Montreal Dialogues workshop, Université du Québec à Montréal.Vihman, Marilyn and M. Greenlee. 1987. Individual differences in phonological development: ages one and three years. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30:503-

521.Weinberger, Steven. 1987. The influence of linguistic context on syllable simplification. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Eds.) Interlanguage Phonology (pp 401-417). Rowley,

MA: Newbury House Publishers.Wieden, Wilfred. 1997. Austrian learners’ development of phonological representations for English. In Second-Language Speech: Structure and Process, Allan James and

Jonathan Leather, eds., 229-239. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Wilson, C. 2003. Experimental Investigation of Phonological Naturalness. In Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, G. Garding and M.

Tsujimura (eds), 533-546. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Xu, Zheng. 2004. The Interlanguage Phonology of Mandarin Learners of English and the Gradual Learning Algorithm. 9th Conference on Laboratory Phonology.Yavas, M.  (1994).  Final stop devoicing in interlanguage. In M. Yavas (Ed.), First and second language phonology (pp. 267–282). San Diego, CA: Singular.