Recoverability vs. Bisyllabicity: A Study of L2 Consonant Clusters

Authors

  • Omar A. Alkhonini

    English Department, College of Education, Majmaah University, Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i2.8071
Received: 14 December 2024 | Revised: 9 January 2025 | Accepted: 10 January 2025 | Published Online: 7 February 2025

Abstract

Deletion and epenthesis are the main recoverability strategies that second language (L2) learners use to simplify consonant clusters. Some researchers argued that advanced learners usually display a larger amount of epenthesis than non-advanced learners. However, referring to the concept of bisyllabicity, some argued that L2 learners usually prefer words of two syllables, meaning that while words of one syllable would be mostly epenthesized, other strategies would be used for words of two syllables. This paper investigated recoverability and bisyllabicity through a corpus study followed by an experimental study. In the corpus study, the data were from L2 English learners from different L1 backgrounds. Results showed that advanced learners used epenthesis more than deletion, but non-advanced learners used the same strategy as advanced learners, confirming only one part of the recoverability claim. Similarly, words of one syllable involved more epenthesis than deletion, as suggested by the bisyllabicity principle, but words of two syllables also showed more epenthesis than deletion. The experimental study tested these two claims on Arabic-speaking L2 learners of English. Participants were provided with one-, two-, and three-syllable words containing initial, medial, and final consonant clusters. The advanced learners used epenthesis slightly less than deletion, while non-advanced learners demonstrated a significantly higher tendency to employ epenthesis compared to deletion. The results therefore suggested that although recoverability and bisyllabicity principles could not ultimately predict what modification strategy L2 learners used, they were still capable of predicting some of the participants’ behavior.

Keywords:

Bisyllabicity; Consonant Cluster; Deletion; Epenthesis; Recoverability

References

[1] Weinberger, S.H., 1994. Functional and Phonetic Constraints on Second Language Phonology. In: Yavas, M. (Ed.). First and Second Language Phonology. Singular Publishing Group: San Diego, CA, USA. pp. 283–302.

[2] Wang, C., 1995. The Acquisition of English Word-Final Obstruents by Chinese Speakers [Ph.D. Thesis]. Stony Brook, NY, USA: State University of New York at Stony Brook.

[3] Flege, J.E., 1995. Second Language Speech Learning: Theory, Findings, and Problems. In: Strange, W. (Ed.). Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. York Press: Baltimore, MD, USA. pp. 233–277.

[4] Abrahamsson, N., 2003. Development and Recoverability of L2 Codas. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 25(3), 313–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000147

[5] Anthony, J.L., 2005. Phonological Awareness. In: Snowling, M.J., Hulme, C. (Eds.). The Science of Reading: A Handbook. Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, USA. pp. 82–98.

[6] Gillon, G.T., 2004. Phonological Awareness: From Research to Practice. Guilford Press: New York, USA.

[7] Kiparsky, P., 1979. Metrical Structure Assignment is Cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry. 10(3), 421–441.

[8] La Cruz, E., Savaria, L., 2010. Patterns of Regularity in Final Cluster Reduction in L2 English by L1 Spanish Speakers. Entre Lenguas. 15, 49–57.

[9] McCarthy, J., Prince, A., 1993. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science: New Brunswick, NJ, USA.

[10] Weinberger, S.H., 1987. The Influence of Linguistic Context on Syllable Structure Simplification. In Ioup, G., Weinberger, S.H. (Eds.). Interlanguage Phonology: The Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System. Newbury House: Rowley, MA, USA. pp. 401–417.

[11] Broselow, E., Chen, S.I., Wang, C., 1998. The Emergence of the Unmarked in Second Language Phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 20(2), 261–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198002071

[12] Heyer, S.C., 1986. English Final Consonants and the Chinese Learner [Ph.D. Thesis]. Carbondale, IL, USA: Southern Illinois University.

[13] Weinberger, S.H., 2024. Speech Accent Archive. Available from: http://accent.gmu.edu (cited 11 December 2024).

[14] Abrahamsson, N., Hyltenstam, K., 2009. Age of Onset and Nativelikeness in a Second Language: Listener Perception Versus Linguistic Scrutiny. Language Learning. 59(2), 249–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.x

[15] Birdsong, D., 2006. Age and Second Language Acquisition and Processing: A Selective Overview. Language Learning. 56(S1), 9–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00353.x

[16] Flege, J.E., Yeni-Komshian, G.H., Liu, S., 1999. Age Constraints on Second-Language Acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language. 41(1), 78–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2638

[17] Johnson, J.S., Newport, E.L., 1989. Critical Period Effects in Second Language Learning: The Influence of Maturational State on the Acquisition of English as a Second Language. Cognitive Psychology. 21(1), 60–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0

[18] Granena, G., Long, M.H., 2013. Age of Onset, Length of Residence, Language Aptitude, and Ultimate L2 Attainment in Three Linguistic Domains. Second Language Research. 29(3), 311–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312461497

[19] Boersma, P., Weenink, D., 2024. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 6.4.23) [Computer software]. Available from: http://www.praat.org/ (cited 11 December 2024).

[20] Broselow, E., 1983. Salish Double Reduplications: Subjacency in Morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 1(3), 317–346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00249301

[21] Davidson, L., 2006. Phonotactics and Articulatory Coordination Interact in Phonology: Evidence from Nonnative Production. Cognitive Science. 30(5), 837–862. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_73

[22] Paradis, C., LaCharité, D., 1997. Preservation and Minimality in Loanword Adaptation. Journal of Linguistics. 33(2), 379–430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226797006520

[23] Pater, J., 1999. Austronesian Nasal Substitution and Other NC Effects. In: Kager, R., van der Hulst, H., Zonneveld, W. (Eds.). The Prosody-Morphology Interface. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 310–343.

[24] Alkhonini, O.A., Wulf, D.J., 2018. “The Rain in Spain” Updated? An Elocution Drill for Efficiently Teaching English Consonant Clusters. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. 8, 231–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2018.86020

Downloads

How to Cite

Alkhonini, O. A. (2025). Recoverability vs. Bisyllabicity: A Study of L2 Consonant Clusters. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(2), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i2.8071

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 2 (February 2025): In Progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Omar A. Alkhonini

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.