1

What L2 phenomena reveal What L2 phenomena reveal about phonological cognitionabout phonological cognition

Bert Vaux, UWMBert Vaux, UWMNAPhC NAPhC 44

May 13, 2006May 13, 2006

“He sees the world simply, without all your complicated facts”“He sees the world simply, without all your complicated facts”

Bill O’Reilly

OverviewOverview

Focus on comparison of leading theories(DP : OT)

What each predicts to be possible and impossibleHow these predictions compare to the data

Results of comparisonSLP facts are inconsistent with the predictions of canonical OT and Constraint Demotion algorithmsSLP facts support a derivational model driven by generalization formation (rules), a la Kiparsky and Menn 1977Emergence of UG principles is equally problematic for both OT and DP

2

Scientific SLA: research questionsScientific SLA: research questions

theory

data

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

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

Focus on OT. Why?Focus on OT. Why?Incorporation of markedness (Eckman2004)

TETU/ Hidden rankings (Broselow et al. 1998, 2004, Davidson 2002, Uffmann 2004, etc.)

Explicit learning theory available for exploitation

CDA/GLAStrong testable predictions made by canonical OT (= Kager 1999)Explanation for cross-linguistic differences previously thought to be arbitrary

Treatment of θ (Lombardi 2003, Eckman 2004)

3

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 learningNo opacity, derived environment, or avoidance effects that don’t appear in L1 or L2wouldn’t make sense to spontaneously invoke constraint conjunction, Null Parse, sympathy constraints, etc.

ConsistencyConsistent cross-linguistic treatment of a given phenomenon, e.g. resolution of thetasame constraints as characterize natural languages, so *D/_# will always be dealt with via devoicing, etc.

No levelsno level-based effects, since there are no levelsunnatural processes will not be imported into L2, because they are morphologically conditioned (according to Lombardi, Steriade, etc.)

MarkednessIL 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 rankingsmarkedness-based changes will conform to universal markedness hierarchyneutralizations will be in direction of unmarked member of oppositionNatural/unmarked patterns will be easier to learn

Predictions of canonical OTPredictions of canonical OT

4

Contra M/F-based learning:Nonderived environment blockingOpacityAvoidance

Contra Consistency:Optionality and variationConvention vs. automaticityFinal devoicing

Contra No levels:Level-based interferenceUnnatural interference

Contra Markedness:Cases where IL phenomenon ≠ NL, TLUnnatural patterns not harder to learn

Some central SLP phenomenaSome central SLP phenomena

NonderivedNonderived Environment BlockingEnvironment Blocking

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

Kiparsky and Menn 1987:47—derived environment effect in acq of GreekPolish 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 rankingOT’s rejection of generalizations/rules—DEC in SLA is clearly a generalization kicking in, not a constraint conjunction spontaneously appearing

5

Opacity in SLPOpacity in SLPCounterfeeding chain shift substitution

Cho and Lee 2001, Idsardi 2002 on opacity in Korean acq of Englishsin → 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 PLDIdsardi 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 repairsWeinberger 1987:412—Mandarin learners of English who apply final epenthesis before final C-cluster simplification, e.g. <and> →[aenə]

Counterfeeding and counterbleeding in toy L2 acq…

Vaux, Nevins, Dye, and Keren (ongoing)Learners exposed to PLD providing evidence for two generalizations:

V → Ø / _ Vs → š / _ i

How do these interact in absence of evidence for interaction in PLD?

DES, SO…

Opacity in toy L2 Opacity in toy L2 acqacq

KOP KOPI KOPO KOPO

SATA SATI SATO

6

Predictions of canonical DP for NES, BASA

Possible systems{neši, basi, nešo, baso} (CF+CB) [SP >> VD]{neši, baši, neso, baso} (transparent) [VD >> SP]{neši, baši, nešo, bašo} (CB) [VD&SP cycl., either order]

Impossible systemsAny set including [nesi]{neši, baši, nešo, baso}, {neši, baši, neso, bašo}, {neši,basi, neso, baso}, {neši, basi, nešo, bašo}, {neši, basi,neso, bašo}

Predictions of canonical OTNothing with basi (CF), bašo (CB), nešo (CB)

Preliminary results ⇒

Opacity in toy L2 Opacity in toy L2 acqacq

Preliminary results

Opacity in toy L2 Opacity in toy L2 acqacq

x8/12basix1/8, 1/12nešo

OT predicts?DP predicts?# of Ssform

7

AvoidanceAvoidancespeakers 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 ParseWrongly predicts phonologically empty output, rather than contentful output that crashessee Orgun and Sprouse 1999, Nevins and Vaux 2004 for further discussion and exemplification

OptionalityOptionality and variationand variation

OverviewHow animals deal with ambiguityVariable differential substitutionImplications for generalization formation vs. constraint demotionVariable repair of *Coda/voi

8

Ambiguity and animal Ambiguity and animal wugwug teststestsG

allis

tel,

C. 2

003.

Con

ditio

ning

from

an

info

rmat

ion

proc

essi

ng

pers

pect

ive.

Beh

avio

ural

Pro

cess

es 6

1.3:

1234

1-1

3.

ConsistencyConsistencyLombardi 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 acqmultiple 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)

9

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 2002:204-5Cf. Hayes 2000Intra-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: nIS 31, nI 25, nISt 4, nIs 4, n Ik 4, nE t 2, nI C 2, nICt 1, nI Z 1Similar findings in L1 acq

Hayes’ alternative (strictness bands) predicts that only adjacent constraints can be involved in optionality

Problem: Pierrehumbert’s hovacity data

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

OverviewIL final devoicing as TETU?L1 vs. L2 strategies for dealing with coda [voice]Sources and mechanisms of devoicing

10

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

2 guiding principles:1. Initial state = L1 ranking2. L2 learners may also assume default M >> FRanking for lgs that don’t allow codas

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

Faith >> *Coda/voi, *CodaDemotion 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), Uffmannproposes 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 devoicingThe “too many solutions problem” (Lombardi 1995, Kager1999, Steriade 2001, McCarthy 2002…)

Lombardi: MaxOns, *Lar, MaxVoiSteriade: 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 attestedDeletion

Chinese: Anderson 1983, Xu 2004Epenthesis

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]

11

Problems with OT analysis of final devoicingProblems with OT analysis of final devoicingL1 prediction doesn’t fall out nicely from constraint inventory; requires conspiracy of several constraints

*Coda/voi-less system (Lombardi 2000, Beckman 2004) misses key articulatorymotivation 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 dataNot clear why devoicing should be easier to learn than contrastL2 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

LevelsLevelsOnly 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 modelProblem 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] Españan-insertion in Korean (H. Kim 1999)

[lukεnñuəsεlph] ‘look at yourself’

12

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

Cases where novel marked configurations are produced, violating markedness hierarchy

Russian čOdd 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, TLNL, TL

Learning unnatural patternsLearning unnatural patternsCDA 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)

13

ConclusionsConclusionsClassic OT predictions disconfirmed by SLP data

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

Universal markedness/UG plays a role in SLAfinal 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-responseFor variation, cf. Macken and Ferguson’s flexible learning model that allows for variation, contrary to earlier deterministic models that had predictable L1→L2 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.

14

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.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.