THE ACQUISITION OF FRENCH NASAL VOWELS: FROM FIRST LANGUAGE ALLOPHONY TO SECOND LANGUAGE PHONOLOGICAL CONTRAST Miguel Angel Marquez Martinez Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of French and Italian, Indiana University December 2016 Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Doctoral Committee _____________________________________ Laurent Dekydtspotter, PhD _____________________________________ Isabelle Darcy, PhD _____________________________________ Barbara Vance , PhD _____________________________________ Julie Auger, PhD October 14, 2016 ii Acknowledgements There are so many people that I would like to thank that I could write another dissertation about it. However, as if it were an abstract, I will keep it very short. First, I would like to thank my family, friends, girlfriend and all those people who love me regardless of me finishing my dissertation. I felt their support each step of the way. They trusted I would see the end even in those times in which I was not certain about finishing one day. I further thank all my teachers, mentors and fellow classmates. In addition, I specially appreciate the help of my dissertation committee professors Isabelle Darcy and Laurent Dekydtspotter (co-chairs), Barbara Vance and Julie Auger. Each of you contributed to pave the way for each page of this dissertation. I would not have crossed the finish line if you had not assisted me in a technical, knowledgeable and supportive way. I thank also the French & Italian Department for giving me the opportunity to do a Ph.D. and letting me gain experience in teaching French at IU; the Spanish & Portuguese Department for allowing me to teach and gain experience in teaching Spanish at the university level at IU; the Spanish government and its Department of Education for their financial aid and support. Finally, I thank all those linguists and scientists that helped me put together these pages with their research, their expertise and their wisdom. As in the process of doing my Ph.D. and writing this dissertation, wisdom has always been my ultimate goal. iii Miguel Angel Marquez Martinez THE ACQUISITION OF FRENCH NASAL VOWELS: FROM FIRST LANGUAGE ALLOPHONY TO SECOND LANGUAGE PHONOLOGICAL CONTRAST This dissertation examines the acquisition of French nasal vowels by American college students who are learning French as a second language. Nasal vowels in French are common and important, since they are phonemic. French has a phonemic contrast between oral and nasal vowel categories, e.g. pain [pɛ]̃ “bread” vs. paix [pɛ] “peace”. English does not: nasalized vowels are allophonic variants of the oral vowel categories. Nasal vowels present a persistent difficulty for learners, and their acquisition from the perspective of perception and representation is not well understood. To explore the developmental steps involved in this acquisition, this dissertation analyzes the connection between phonetic categorization and phonological contrasts in lexical representations for learners at various levels of proficiency. Naïve (no French knowledge) participants as well as intermediate and advanced learners of French and French native speakers participated in phonological processing tasks involving perceptual mapping, ABX categorization, and lexical decision. Since nasal vowels are not part of the English phonological grammar — as opposed to French /kɑ̃/ ‘quand’—, learners will likely first “repair” such a disallowed feature combination (nasal+vowel) in perception, before being able to acquire a new underlying representation. Two possible acquisition strategies are outlined: nasal unpacking, in which learners attribute perceived nasality to a neighboring nasal consonant, and will assume the presence of a nasal consonant (e.g., they will “repair” /kɑ̃/ as /kɑn/); an alternative strategy is nasal-stripping, in which learners ignore nasality from the vowel representation, hence turning the nasal vowel into an oral vowel (“repairing” /kɑ̃/ into /kɑ/). The application of either strategy is probed via a discrimination task contrasting the predicted iv difficult pairs (/kɑ̃/ vs. /kɑn/); /kɑ̃/ vs. /kɑ/). The steps needed for the initial (repaired) representation to finally resemble the French native speakers’ representations are outlined for each strategy. The results indicate that naïve listeners mostly heard French nasal vowels as sequences of oral vowel+nasal consonant, applying nasal unpacking. However, exposure to French instruction appears to modify the strategy: intermediate learners initially heard French nasal vowels as oral, thus applying the nasal stripping strategy. Eventually, advanced learners successfully perceive and acquire nasal vowels in terms of their phonological underlying representation. This dissertation makes significant contributions to the field by advancing our understanding of the underlying phonological representation of these complex sounds, and of their perceptual similarity across languages. It also deepens our understanding of the steps involved in acquiring a phonemic category in L2 for a class of sounds that are not phonemic (allophonic) in L1. Finally, it also provides theoretically important data on the relationship between perception and lexical representation of segments, an area which is currently understudied. _____________________________________ Laurent Dekydtspotter, PhD _____________________________________ Isabelle Darcy, PhD _____________________________________ Barbara Vance, PhD _____________________________________ Julie Auger, PhD v Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 L2 sound acquisition ................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Sound system and sound acquisition................................................................................................. 11 2.2 The acquisition of L2 phonotactics ................................................................................................... 23 2.3 Allophones vs. Phonemes ................................................................................................................. 25 2.4 Research questions ............................................................................................................................ 31 Chapter 3 Nasal vowels in French and English .......................................................................................... 34 3.1 Nasal vowels: definitions and phonetic features ............................................................................... 34 3.2 The representation of nasal vowels in French and English ............................................................... 41 3.3 The acquisition of French nasal vowels in L2 French ..................................................................... 49 3.3.1 Representation as “nasal unpacking” and recovery from the Nasal-Unpacking Strategy ......... 56 3.3.2 Representation as “nasal stripping” and recovery from the Nasal-Stripping Strategy .............. 58 Chapter 4 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 62 4.0 General testing procedures ................................................................................................................ 65 4.1 Experiment 1: Perceptual assimilation task ...................................................................................... 66 4.2 Experiment 2: ABX discrimination .................................................................................................. 71 4.3 Experiment 3: Lexical decision with repetition priming ................................................................... 79 Chapter 5 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 84 5.1 Perceptual assimilation categorization .............................................................................................. 84 5.2 ABX discrimination task ................................................................................................................... 91 5.3 Lexical decision with repetition priming task ................................................................................... 96 Chapter 6 Discussion and conclusion ....................................................................................................... 107 6.1 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 107 6.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 123 References ................................................................................................................................................. 126 Curriculum Vitae vi List of Appendices Appendix I Perceptual Assimilation Experiment Stimuli ........................................................................ 142 Appendix II ABX Experiment Stimuli ...................................................................................................