Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.55> Article
Research Article

Verifying the Phonological Permeability Hypothesis – L3 French’s Regressive Impact on L2 English Aspirated Consonants

Bingjie XuCollege of Foreign Languages and Literature, Fudan University, Shanghai, China*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The provided study explores the impact of third language (L3) French acquisition on second language (L2) English pronunciation among native Chinese speakers, focusing on the influence of French on the articulation of aspirated consonants /p/, /t/, and /k/. Specifically, the research examines how learning French affects the voice onset time (VOT) of English voiceless plosives, thereby testing the Phonological Permeability Hypothesis (PPH). Voice onset time, a critical parameter in distinguishing voicing, was measured among 33 Chinese university students majoring in English, each with varying durations of French study. Findings reveal a significant reduction in VOT for English aspirated consonants as participants' French proficiency improved, particularly during the first two years of learning French, which saw the most substantial regression effect. This decline in VOT suggests that as learners develop proficiency in French, there is an observable influence of L3 French on their L2 English phonology, with effects stabilizing over time. The study provides empirical evidence supporting the PPH, highlighting a complex, dynamic interaction between multiple languages in multilingual learners. By shedding light on cross-linguistic phonological influence, this research contributes to the understanding of how L3 acquisition can influence previously acquired L2 sounds, emphasizing the permeability and adaptability of the multilingual phonological system.

Keywords: Third language acquisition; voiceless consonants; multilingual; cross language influence
Published: May 6, 2025
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2024.22507
Volume: CHR Vol.55
pp. 243-256
Download PDF

References

  1. Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological. bulletin, 143(3), 233.
  2. McGibney, S. (2023, June 17). What Percentage of the World’s Population is Bilingual?. Newsdle. Retrieved October 1, 2024, from https://www.newsdle.com/blog/world-population-bilingual-percentage
  3. Amaro, J. C. (2016). Testing the Phonological Permeability Hypothesis: L3 phonological effects on L1 versus L2 systems. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 698–717.
  4. Puig-Mayenco, E., González Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2020). A systematic review of transfer. studies in third language acquisition. Second Language Research, 36(1), 31-64.
  5. Fouser, R. (1995). Problems and Prospects in Third Language Acquisition Research. Language. Research, 31 (2), 387–414.
  6. Amaro, J. C., & Iverson, M. (2018). Third Language Acquisition. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The. Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics (pp. 737–757). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Ringbom, H. (2001). Lexical transfer in L3 production. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 59–68). Multilingual Mattersl.
  8. Bardel, C. (2019). Syntactic transfer in L3 learning: What do models and results tell us about learning and teaching a third language? In G. De Angelis & J. M. Dewaele (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom practice (pp. 101–120).
  9. Gut, U. (2009). Cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1), 19–38.
  10. Wrembel, M. (2009). L2-accented speech in L3 production. International Journal of. Multilingualism, 7(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710902972263
  11. Llama, R., Cardoso, W., & Collins, L. (2010). The influence of language distance and language status on the acquisition of L3 phonology. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1), 39-57.
  12. Amaro, J. C., & Rothman, J. (2010). On L3 acquisition and phonological permeability: A new test case for debates on the mental representation of non-native phonological systems. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(2-3), 275-296.
  13. Amaro, J. C. (2017). Testing the phonological permeability hypothesis: L3 phonological effects on L1 versus L2 systems. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 698-717.
  14. Wrembel, M. (2014). VOT patterns in the acquisition of third language phonology. Concordia Papers in Applied Linguistics (COPAL), 5(2014), 751-771.
  15. Chen, H. C., & Han, Q. W. (2019). L3 phonology: contributions of L1 and L2 to L3 pronunciation learning by Hong Kong speakers. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(4), 492-512.
  16. Kopečková, R., Gut, U., Wrembel, M., & Balas, A. (2023). Phonological cross-linguistic influence at the initial stages of L3 acquisition. Second Language Research, 39(4), 1107-1131.
  17. Parrish, K. (2024). The production of L3 stop-initial words by Spanish/English bilinguals. International Journal of Multilingualism, 21(1), 131-148.
  18. Zhu, Y., & Mok, P. (2024). Cross-linguistic influences on the production of third language consonant clusters by L1 Cantonese–L2 English–L3 German trilinguals. International Journal of Multilingualism, 21(3), 1700-1717.
  19. Sypiańska, J. (2018). Multilingual acquisition of vowels in L1 Polish, L2 Danish and L3 English. In M. Bohnacker & S. Löbel (Eds.), Advances in the investigation of L3 phonological acquisition (pp. 82–102). Routledge.
  20. Hui, B. (2010). Backward transfer from L3 French to L2 English production of relative clauses by. L1 Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 45-60.
  21. Cheung, S. C. (2011). Influence of L3 German on L2 English among Cantonese native speakers in the domain of tense-aspect. Hong Kong University Theses Online.
  22. Tsang, W. L. (2016). Acquisition of English number agreement: L1 Cantonese–L2 English–L3. French speakers versus L1 Cantonese–L2 English speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(5), 611-635.
  23. Cabrelli Amaro, J. L. (2013). The phonological permeability hypothesis: Measuring regressive L3 influence to test L1 and L2 phonological representations. ProQuest.
  24. Kartushina, N., & Martin, C. D. (2019). Third-language learning affects bilinguals’ production in both their native languages: A longitudinal study of dynamic changes in L1, L2 and L3 vowel production. Journal of Phonetics, 77, 100920.
  25. Marx, N., & Mehlhorn, G. (2010). Pushing the positive: encouraging phonological transfer from. L2 to L3. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1), 4-18.
  26. Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1967). Some effects of context on voice onset time in English stops. Language and speech, 10(1), 1-28.
  27. Docherty, G. J. (1992). The timing of voicing in British English obstruents. Foris Publications..
  28. Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of phonetics, 15(1), 47-65.
  29. Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of phonetics, 15(1), 47-65.
  30. Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of phonetics, 15(1), 47-65.
  31. Council of Europe. (n.d.). Table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common reference levels global scale. Council of Europe. Retrieved September 14, 2024, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-global-scale
  32. Nearey, T. M., & Rochet, B. L. (1994). Effects of place of articulation and vowel context on VOT production and perception for French and English stops. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 24(1), 1-18.
  33. Weismer, G. (1979). Sensitivity of voice-onset time (VOT) measures to certain segmental features in speech production. Journal of Phonetics, 7(2), 197-204.
  34. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.41). Retrieved from http://www.praat.org
  35. Styler, W. (2013). Using Praat for linguistic research. University of Colorado at Boulder Phonetics Lab.
  36. Kent, R. D., & Kim, Y. (2008). Acoustic analysis of speech. In M. Ball, M. Perkins, N. Müller, & S. Howard (Eds.), The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics (pp. 360–380). Blackwell Publishing.
  37. Ståhle, L., & Wold, S. (1989). Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems, 6(4), 259-272.
  38. Zach, B. (2019, April 14). A Guide to Using Post Hoc Tests with ANOVA. Statology. Retrieved October 14, 2024, from https://www.statology.org/anova-post-hoc-tests/
  39. Caramazza, A., Yeni‐Komshian, G. H., Zurif, E. B., & Carbone, E. (1973). The acquisition of a new phonological contrast: The case of stop consonants in French‐English bilinguals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54(2), 421-428.
  40. Summerfield, Q. (1975, August). How a full account of segmental perception depends on prosody and vice versa. In Structure and Process in Speech Perception: Proceedings of the Symposium on Dynamic Aspects of Speech Perception held at IPO, Eindhoven, Netherlands, August 4–6, 1975 (pp. 51-68). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
  41. Port, R. F., & Rotunno, R. (1979). Relation between voice‐onset time and vowel duration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66(3), 654-662.