Gut et al.

This Element focusses on phonetic and phonological

development in multilinguals and presents a novel
methodological approach to it within Complex Dynamic
Systems Theory (CDST). We will show how the traditional
conceptualisations of acquisition, with a strong focus on
linear, incremental development with a stable end point, Phonetics
can be complemented by a view of language development
as emergent, self-organised, context-dependent and highly
variable across learners. We report on a longitudinal study
involving sixteen learners with L1 German, L2 English and
L3 Polish. Over their ten months of learning Polish, the
learners’ perception and production of various speech sounds
Phonetics and

Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development

and phonological processes in all of their languages were
investigated. Auditory and acoustic analyses were applied
together with group and individual learner statistical analyses to
trace the dynamic changes of their multilingual phonological
Phonology in
system over time. We show how phonetic and phonological
development is feature-dependent and interconnected and Multilingual
how learning experience affects the process.
Language
About the Series
The Cambridge Elements in Phonetics
Series Editor
David Deterding Development
series features a range of high-quality Universiti Brunei
scholarly works, offering researchers and Darussalam
students authoritative accounts of current
knowledge and research in the various
fields of phonetics, as well as research into Ulrike Gut,
the pronunciation of a range of languages
and language varieties. Romana Kopečková
and Christina Nelson

Cover image: David Deterding

 Elements in Phonetics
edited by
David Deterding
Universiti Brunei Darussalam

PHONETICS
AND PHONOLOGY
IN MULTILINGUAL
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Ulrike Gut
University of Münster
Romana Kopečková
University of Münster
Christina Nelson
University of Münster
 Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi – 110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467

Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,

a department of the University of Cambridge.
We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108994743
DOI: 10.1017/9781108992527
© Ulrike Gut, Romana Kopečková and Christina Nelson 2023
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions
of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take
place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
First published 2023
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978-1-108-99474-3 Paperback
ISSN 2634-1689 (online)
ISSN 2634-1670 (print)
Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence
or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will
remain, accurate or appropriate.
Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language
Development

Elements in Phonetics

DOI: 10.1017/9781108992527
First published online: July 2023

Ulrike Gut
University of Münster
Romana Kopečková
University of Münster
Christina Nelson
University of Münster
Author for correspondence: Ulrike Gut, [email protected]

Abstract: This Element focusses on phonetic and phonological

development in multilinguals and presents a novel methodological
approach to it within Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST). We will
show how the traditional conceptualisations of acquisition, with
a strong focus on linear, incremental development with a stable end
point, can be complemented by a view of language development as
emergent, self-organised, context-dependent and highly variable
across learners. We report on a longitudinal study involving sixteen
learners with L1 German, L2 English and L3 Polish. Over their ten
months of learning Polish, the learners’ perception and production of
various speech sounds and phonological processes in all of their
languages were investigated. Auditory and acoustic analyses were
applied together with group and individual learner statistical analyses
to trace the dynamic changes of their multilingual phonological system
over time. We show how phonetic and phonological development is
feature-dependent and interconnected and how learning
experience affects the process.

Keywords: third language acquisition, speech perception, speech

production, multilingual, Complex Dynamic Systems Theory

© Ulrike Gut, Romana Kopečková and Christina Nelson 2023

ISBNs: 9781108994743 (PB), 9781108992527 (OC)
ISSNs: 2634-1689 (online), 2634-1670 (print)
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Theories of L2 Phonological Acquisition 3

3 The Conceptualisation of Foreign Language

Development 10

4 Study: Multilingual Development of Phonetics

and Phonology 19

5 Results 30

6 Discussion 45

7 Conclusion 49

Appendix 51

References 55
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 1

1 Introduction
Foreign language instructors and language students are commonly fascinated
by the differences between the speech of native and non-native speakers of
a language. They may have their intuitions, possibly stemming from their own
experiences with teaching and learning foreign languages, about the challenges
involved in perceiving and producing the sounds of a new language. The
scientific study of the development of perception and production of sounds in
a foreign language has a seventy-year-long tradition, and numerous theoretical
models as well as empirical research have yielded important insights into
various factors that can influence the learning process. In the first decades of
research into phonological acquisition of foreign languages, the language that
was learned was usually referred to as a second language (L2), which was used
as an umbrella term for all foreign languages no matter how many and when
they were learned. With the important insight that not only the native language
(L1) but also the other languages a speaker knows can influence the phono-
logical acquisition of a target language, a terminological distinction has been
proposed between a learner’s first foreign language (L2) and their further
foreign languages (L3). In this Element, we will refer to the chronologically
first learned foreign language as the L2 and to languages that are learned
chronologically later as the L3. L3 learners will also be referred to as multilin-
gual learners.
The observation that a learner’s multiple languages interact has been widely
documented in both speech perception and production. This phenomenon,
referred to as cross-linguistic influence (CLI), has been shown in the acquisition
of target sounds (e.g., Amengual et al., 2019; Cabrelli & Pichan, 2019; Gabriel
et al., 2016; Kopečková, 2014, 2016; Kopečková et al., 2016; Llama et al.,
2010; Llama & Cardoso, 2018; Llama & López-Morelos, 2016; Morales Reyes
et al., 2017; Patience, 2018; Wrembel, 2014, 2015) and prosody (e.g., Cabrelli
& Rothman, 2010; Gut, 2010) as well as phonological processes (e.g., Cebrian,
2000; Sato, 1984). Related findings have also revealed that such an influence is
multidirectional in nature, i.e., that it concerns not only the influence of an
earlier acquired language (whether L1 or L2) on the later acquired language but
also vice versa (e.g., Aoki & Nishihara, 2013; Beckmann, 2012; Cabrelli, 2016;
Cabrelli & Rothman, 2010; Sypiańska, 2016, 2017). Research into L3 phono-
logical learning has further drawn our attention to the possibility that more than
one language can act as the source of this influence, i.e., a simultaneous
(combined) influence of more than one language at the same time (see De
Angelis, 2007; Wrembel, 2015), critically distinguishing the learning constel-
lation of L2 learners from that of L3 learners. Multiple language knowledge
2 Phonetics

thus entails an increase in the number of potential cross-linguistic interactions

as well as in the number of potential directions.
Indeed, one of the main tenets of the L3 acquisition field is that learning
a second foreign language is fundamentally different from learning a foreign
language for the first time. It is not only the broadened phonetic repertoire and
hence a potential for a range of cross-linguistic interactions but also the learn-
er’s greater experience with language learning that qualitatively distinguish the
learning situations. L3 learners have already learned their first foreign language
to some extent and thus are likely to have discovered their individual learning
strategies and style to further their own L3 learning success (Hufeisen, 2010).
Studies examining the effects of having learned a first foreign language on L3
speech perception and production have further shown that L3 learners tend to
outperform L2 learners in target language phonetic discrimination and sound
production, which has been explained by L3 learners’ raised level of metapho-
nological awareness and/or enhanced perceptual sensitivity (e.g., Antoniou
et al., 2015; Kopečková, 2016).
Yet one characteristic of non-native speech perception and production argu-
ably common to L2 and L3 learners is the large amount of variability between
learners (inter-learner variability) and within the same learner (intra-learner
variability). The sources of such variability have been shown to be either
linguistic factors, such as segmental and prosodic contexts in which the target
occurs, or learner-related factors. The latter can include a myriad of learner-
internal factors (e.g., age at onset of language learning, phonological awareness,
motivation) as well as learner-external factors (e.g., quality and quantity of
phonetic input, opportunities for language use). It has been shown that each of
the learner-related factors is subject to change in the course of an individual’s
phonological development, and therefore definite predictions about a learner’s
pattern of development may be hard to make.
The goal of scientific explorations of L2/L3 phonological acquisition is to
gain a systematic understanding of the processes and factors involved in the
acquisition of a target sound system and to explain the perception and produc-
tion outcomes observed for learners. This Element aims to contribute to this
goal by presenting findings from a study that investigates the development of
phonology in all of the languages of multilingual speakers across a ten-month
period. It will do so based on a novel methodological approach that was
developed within a relatively recent theoretical framework of foreign language
development: Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) (de Bot et al., 2007;
Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; Verspoor et al., 2011).
In Sections 2 and 3, we review the state of the art with regard to L2 and L3
phonological acquisition. Section 2 presents and compares the currently leading
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 3

theories of L2 speech learning. We will discuss the extent to which the L2

theories offer suitable frameworks with respect to modelling phonological
learning by multilingual speakers, i.e., speakers who speak and learn several
foreign languages at the same time. Section 3 explains that the traditional
conceptualisations of phonological acquisition which underlie both previous
research and the theories presented in Section 2 tend to imply that foreign
language speech learning is a linear, incremental process with a stable end
point. It then presents Complex Dynamic Systems Theory, which conceptual-
ises language development as an emergent, self-organised process with high
variability across learners. It goes on to show which new methodologies are
used to investigate foreign language phonological development within this
framework. Section 4 presents the methodology of our longitudinal study
involving sixteen learners with L1 German, L2 English and L3 Polish. The
results are presented in Section 5 and discussed in Section 6. The Element
concludes with suggestions for possible directions in future research in the area
of L2/L3 phonological acquisition.

2 Theories of L2 Phonological Acquisition

It is widely recognised that L2 speakers normally sound different from L1
speakers of the target language. Although an intuitive account of this could
lead one to believe that this is primarily due to production difficulties that affect
L2 learners’ performance, most theories of L2 speech learning assume that the
learners’ difficulty to produce target language sounds is actually perceptual in
nature, i.e., that it is directly linked to the learners’ ability to detect similarities
and differences between the sounds of their L1 and the sounds of their L2.
Languages differ in their contrastive phonemes (e.g., English and Polish have
/w/ and /v/ while German only has /v/), but phonemes may also vary across
languages in terms of their phonetic properties (e.g., German /v/ is produced
differently from English and Polish /v/). Theories of L2 speech learning
describe, predict and explain L2 difficulty based on their particular view
regarding the phonological and/or phonetic properties of the learners’ L1
categories (i.e., long-term memory representation of sounds) in comparison to
L2 sound categories.
Two perception-based models have inspired the majority of L2 perception
and production studies conducted on a variety of first language and target
language combinations, namely the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM:
Best, 1995; and PAM-L2: Best & Tyler, 2007) and the Speech Learning
Model (SLM: Flege, 1995, 2003; and SLM-r: Flege & Bohn, 2021). While
the former aims to explain the development of foreign speech perception at both
4 Phonetics

the phonetic and the phonological level, the latter model aspires to address both
the perception and the production development in an L2 at the phonetic level.
Both models were developed to predict the influence of an L1 onto an L2 and
have so far not been expanded to include potential influences of any additional
languages on the learner’s perceptual mappings of the target sounds.
Best’s Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM: Best, 1995) and its adaptation
to L2 speech learning (PAM-L2: Best & Tyler, 2007; Tyler, 2019) propose that
the learner’s ability to perceive L2 sound contrasts depends on the degree to
which L2 sounds are assimilated to the exemplars of L1 sound categories. It
follows a direct realist or ecological approach to speech perception that argues
that listeners detect speech information in terms of articulatory gestures such as
the manner and place of articulation rather than on the basis of any mental
representation of sounds (Best, 1995; Fowler, 1986). In other words, the L2
learner engages in perceptually assimilating the articulatory gestures of target
sounds to the articulatory gestures of their L1 phonemes. A non-native sound
can be heard as a good or a poor example of an L1 phoneme (categorised), as
different from any particular L1 phoneme (uncategorised) or as a non-speech
sound (non-assimilated). Accordingly, different pairwise assimilation types
associated with different levels of L2 discrimination difficulty have been
proposed in the model (for a description of all assimilation types and their
predictions, see Tyler, 2021).
For example, both sounds of an L2 contrast can be judged as members of
a single L1 sound category. When both members of the non-native contrast are
phonetically and phonologically perceived as good or poor members of a single
L1 category (single-category assimilation), then the discrimination in the L2
will be very poor. An example for such a scenario for German learners of Polish
might be Polish /w/ and /v/ (as in łata /wata/ ‘patch’ and wata /vata/ ‘cotton
wool’), both of which may be perceived as members of the German category /v/
and therefore poorly discriminated at the beginning of L2 learning. However, if
one sound of the contrast is perceived as a much poorer member of the L1
category than the other (category-goodness assimilation), then discrimination
between these two non-native sounds may range from moderate to very good,
depending on how dissimilar the two non-native sounds are from the L1 sound
category (Shinohara et al., 2019). The PAM-L2 predicts that, with increasing L2
experience, new L2 categories can be formed as a result of the learner’s growing
L2 lexicon when noticing that there are minimally contrasting words in the
target language that are communicatively relevant. As will be explained in
Section 4, an interesting learning constellation arises in this connection for
German learners of Polish as an L3 and English as an L2. For these experienced
language learners, the /v-w/ contrast is shared in both of their foreign languages;
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 5

if acquired in the L2 as a result of the category-goodness assimilation there is

a potential for a facilitative phonetic mapping of the contrast from the learners’
L2 onto their L3 categories rather than non-facilitation stemming from their L1
(an interaction with L2 and L3 orthography has to be further considered in this
specific case).
Another possible pattern for discrimination of L2 contrasts occurs when one
member of the contrast is perceived as a member of an L1 category and one is
perceived as uncategorisable (categorised-uncategorised assimilation). Such an
L2 contrast should be discriminated well because it reflects a phonological
distinction between an exemplar of a known phoneme and an unknown
sound. However, this type can be discriminated poorly when the uncategorised
sound is in close phonological space to the categorised sound (Faris et al.,
2016). A possible sound contrast that may fit this pattern for German learners of
Polish is Polish /ε/ and /ɛ/̃ (as in step /stɛp/ ‘steppe’ and stęp /stɛp̃ / ‘gait’) since
the Polish nasal vowel is probably perceived as uncategorisable by many L1
German speakers.
The PAM-L2 uses these PAM assimilation types to predict the likelihood of
category formation for L2 sounds when an L2 learner (rather than a naive
listener/beginner L2 learner in the case of the PAM) is actively using the target
language. Perceptual discrimination should thus improve when the assimilation
type changes as a result of new category acquisition (e.g., a single-category
assimilation becomes a category-goodness assimilation), the prerequisite being
that the learner is exposed to input that preserves phonetic differences. Tyler
(2019) explains that in classroom settings, in contrast to an immersion environ-
ment with rich native speaker input, teachers who speak the target language as
an L2 may fail to provide clear phonetic differences between L2 categories and
thus inhibit the likelihood of their learners’ L2 category acquisition. The
outcome is not necessarily to be linked to the teacher not being a native speaker
though, as accented speech may also preserve the phonological distinction
between all L2 phonemes and thus facilitate the learner’s formation of relevant
L2 categories. Similarly, written language input, which constitutes probably the
main difference between immersion and classroom L2 acquisition, may
reinforce the perception of L2 categories as based on L1 grapheme-phoneme
correspondences and thus hinder L2 category formation. Finally, Tyler (2019)
elaborates on the effect of prior foreign language exposure (i.e., target language
exposure) on perception learning, which has a special relevance for the predic-
tions of the PAM-L2. For instance, a learner with previous exposure to the L2
may have already established a category-goodness contrast as a single L1–L2
category and therefore their perceptual learning trajectory may be set before
classroom exposure. This may happen, for example, when a learner previously
6 Phonetics

learned to read the L2 and, in the absence of spoken input, applied their L1
phonology to a considerable amount of L2 words via orthography (Tyler, 2019,
p. 617). The presence of previous language exposure can therefore hamper the
prediction of category acquisition. In any case, it is conceivable that L2 phon-
emes included in the single-category assimilation type and the category-
goodness assimilation type will be even more difficult to acquire in the
classroom setting, whereas the acquisition of the uncategorised L2 phonemes
in turn may be supported in such a learning environment, especially where L2
orthography is present and provides an unambiguous distinction.
As stated, neither the PAM nor the PAM-L2 make specific predictions
regarding the development of speech perception by L3 learners, i.e., those
with prior foreign language exposure to additional languages. In one of the
rare studies that extended the predictions of the PAM-L2 to the context of
multilingual phonological acquisition, Wrembel et al. (2019) found that multi-
linguals assimilate L3 vowel sounds to both L1 and L2 categories with
a preference for the latter, at least in their population of L1 German, L2
English and L3 Polish learners. The study also showed that even beginner L3
learners formed new L3 categories, distinguishing between highly similar L3
sibilant pairs that would typically follow the single-category assimilation pat-
tern. In other words, in terms of perceptual acquisition, beginner L3 learners
were argued to behave similarly to advanced L2 learners in that they were able
to discriminate sound contrasts predicted by the PAM-L2 to be challenging.
Unlike the PAM/PAM-L2, which assumes that perceivers extract speech
information at a gestural/articulatory level, Flege’s Speech Learning Model
(SLM: Flege, 1995, 2002, 2003) and its revised version (SLM-r: Flege &
Bohn, 2021) assume that perceivers form a long-term mental representation
for target sounds from acoustic-phonetic cues. According to the SLM/SLM-r,
this is a learning mechanism that is involved in L1 speech learning and that
remains intact throughout life. Yet monolingual-like performance is not
expected on the part of L2 learners as their L1 and L2 categories are stored
in the common phonological space, inevitably influencing each other (Flege,
1995, 2002; referred to as ‘common phonetic space’ in Flege & Bohn, 2021).
This regularly leads to category assimilation in which L1 and L2 sounds of
the learner are perceptually equated; a target language category is blocked
and a composite or merged L1–L2 category is then used to perceive and
produce both the L2 and the L1 sounds, leading to bidirectional cross-
linguistic influence. Consequently, the model predicts that learners who
have a merged L1–L2 category will not display monolingual-like perform-
ance as they are likely to produce sounds differently from monolinguals of
either language.
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 7

One of the main hypotheses of the SLM/SLM-r is that the greater the
perceived dissimilarity between L1 and L2 sounds, the greater the likelihood
that learners establish target-like categories and consequently perceive and
produce the target sounds more accurately. However, similar L2 sounds may
remain difficult to learn, as L2 learners might not be able to discern the subtle
phonetic differences between the L2 and L1 sounds and thus they will readily
map the target sounds onto L1 categories, perceiving and producing such L2
sounds in terms of those L1 categories. For example, German learners of Polish
are likely to easily detect the phonetic differences between the rhotic sounds of
their L1 and L2, the uvular fricative /ʁ/ and alveolar trill /r/, respectively.
Although the Polish rhotic may be initially difficult to produce, the likelihood
of L2 category formation for such a novel sound is predicted in the model to be
high. In contrast, the subtle phonetic differences and complex acoustic cues
applied in distinguishing between word-final voiced and voiceless obstruents
may be a particular learning challenge for German learners of English because
they can be expected to apply their voiceless L1 category (in this word-final
position) in perceiving and producing the target obstruents. It is to be noted in
this regard that the position of the target language categories within a word is
highly relevant, i.e., whether an individual sound occurs in the initial, medial or
final position. According to the model, it is at the level of position-sensitive
allophones that L1 and L2 categories are compared and refined with experience.
Similarly to the PAM-L2, the SLM/SLM-r assumes a continuous, slow
refinement of L2 learners’ perception of phonetic differences between their
L1 and L2 as a function of the quality and quantity of phonetic input obtained in
meaningful communication. For instance, Flege and Liu (2001) showed that, for
two groups of L2 learners who resided in the target language country for the
same amount of time (i.e., as measured by length of residence), it was only the
students and not the age-matched learners in other occupations who showed
improvement towards native-like performance. The authors argued that the
student group was exposed to a substantially greater amount of native-like L2
input, which enhanced their identification of word-final consonants.
In the original SLM, the ability to form new phonetic categories for an L2
sound was further predicted to be mediated by the age (of onset) of L2 speech
learning. Adult (late) L2 learners were predicted in the model to readily
subsume L2 sounds into L1 categories thanks to the assimilative power of
their well-established L1 sound categories, thus failing to form new categories
for some L2 sounds. Child (early) learners, in contrast, were predicted to be less
influenced by their evolving L1 sound system, and thereby more likely to form
separate categories for L2 sounds and thus to learn the target language sounds to
native-like levels. Considering the generality of this hypothesis and mainly the
8 Phonetics

difficulty of disentangling the development of the L1 sound system from the

overall state of neurocognitive development of child L2 learners, the revised
version of the model (SLM-r) replaces the ‘age hypothesis’ with the ‘L1
precision hypothesis’. According to this hypothesis, the more precise the L1
category when L2 learning begins, the more likely the phonetic differences
between L1 and L2 sounds will be discerned and a new L2 category formed. In
this connection, Flege and Bohn (2021) point out that individual differences in
L1 category precision apply to all age groups and are potentially linked to
auditory acuity, early-stage (pre-categorical) auditory processing and auditory
working memory. The authors call for future research to evaluate the role of L1
category precision in L2 speech development, also with respect to the question
of whether individual differences in L1 category precision affect how much L2
input learners need in order to show consistent patterns of interlingual
identification.
Also, the SLM-r no longer focusses primarily on examining highly proficient
L2 learners but instead acknowledges that it is the early stages of L2 develop-
ment that offer an insight into the process of L2 phonetic category formation
because it is only then that cross-linguistic measures of dissimilarity can serve
as a predictor of later-formed L2 categories. It is likely that, with increasing L2
experience, perceived phonetic dissimilarity between L1 and L2 sounds will
grow.
Another major hypothesis of the SLM/SLM-r concerns the link between the
development of L2 sound perception and production. In the original version of
the model, accurate L2 sound perception was predicted to be a precondition for
accurate L2 sound production. Based on the observation of inconsistencies in
related L2 research, the SLM-r also revises this hypothesis and proposes that L2
segmental perception and production co-evolve without precedence, i.e., that
there exists a strong bidirectional connection between the two modalities
although ‘the correspondence between the two is never perfect, even in mono-
linguals’ (Flege & Bohn, 2021, p. 19).
Finally, the SLM-r makes a fundamental move in orientation from examining
between-group differences towards analysing the learning trajectories of indi-
vidual L2 learners. Because L1 speakers cannot be all assumed to have formed
the very same L1 categories (e.g., Hillebrand et al., 1995), their L1–L2 map-
pings and consequently L2 speech learning trajectories and outcomes will vary
(e.g., Escudero & Williams, 2012). Also, Flege and Bohn (2021, p. 38) admit
that two practicalities motivated their call for this methodological shift in L2
speech research: the difficulty to constitute groups differing in one variable only
and the challenge to always be able to draw meaningful generalisations from
group data. Future L2 research conducted within the SLM-r framework should
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 9

therefore refocus on individual L2 learners and adapt its research design

accordingly, i.e., ‘obtaining enough data from each participant to permit treating
each individual as a separate experiment’ (p. 38). Section 3 explains this more
specifically and suggests what research designs and statistical analyses may be
most conducive to such a new agenda in L2/L3 phonology research.
In summary, the PAM/PAM-L2 and the SLM/SLM-r relate the development of
perception and production abilities in an L2 to the perception of cross-language
(dis)similarity. Specifically, the PAM/PAM-L2 proposes that L2 contrasts that are
phonetically and phonologically assimilated to a single L1 category will be the
most challenging for the L2 learners to perceive, whereas the SLM/SLM-r
contends that L2 sounds (rather than contrasts) that are perceived as phonetically
similar to L1 sounds will be perceived and produced in terms of those L1
categories, and thus be the most challenging to achieve. Both models propose
that L2 learners (children and adults alike) will never show monolingual-like
performance because L1 and L2 categories coexist in the same phonological
space. The models also agree that L2 learners can improve in their L2 speech
learning as a result of rich and relevant L2 phonetic input. The models diverge in
their explanation of the processes involved in L2 speech learning. Whereas the
PAM/PAM-L2 posits that L2 learners extract information about articulatory
gestures from the speech signal, the SLM/SLM-r focusses on the development
of phonetic categories from acoustic-phonetic cues. Likewise, the models dis-
agree on the linkage between perception and production: while the PAM-L2
postulates no direct link between perception and production (Tyler, 2019,
p. 619), the SLM-r proposes a co-evolution of the two modalities. Finally, the
new goal of the SLM-r is to account for how individual L2 learners reorganise
their phonetic system over time in response to the phonetic input received.
Apart from perception-based models explaining the learning trajectory of L2
learners, theoretical models that focus on various aspects of acquiring L2
speech production have also been advanced (e.g., Eckman, 1981; Lado, 1957;
Major, 2002). Although this theorising is less prominent in present research into
L2 phonetic and phonological acquisition, one production-based model seems
relevant for its developmental perspective on the process of L2 speech learning:
Major’s (2001, 2002) Ontogeny and Phylogeny Model (OPM) posits that L2
speech learning is influenced by a learner’s L1, L2 and certain universal
processes common to language learning and human language in general. One
example of such a universal process is final obstruent devoicing (e.g., bed
pronounced as [bet]), a phonological process resulting in a less marked struc-
ture: voiceless codas are unmarked in comparison to their voiced counterparts in
that the former could be understood as ‘simpler’. Various criteria have been
proposed to determine which structures are less marked, including implicational
10 Phonetics

universals (i.e., ‘if A then B’, but not the other way around), how frequently the
structure occurs across languages and the order in which children acquire the
structure in their L1.
The OPM proposes an initial dominant influence of the L1 in L2 speech
learning, the emergent influence of universals and finally the possibility of
target-like L2 speech production, especially for structures dissimilar to L1
and for less marked structures. Interestingly, Major (2001) claims that the
model is equally valid for multilinguals, for whom ‘L1’ can be replaced by
‘L1 plus L2/L3/Ln’. However, there is no proposal in the model for either the
mechanisms that trigger the influence of L1 (and L2) and universals or the role
of input in L2/L3 speech development.
At present, there is no model of speech learning from a multilingual perspec-
tive, largely because of our scarce knowledge about the concurrent phono-
logical development in a multilingual speaker’s different languages. The aim
of this Element is therefore to contribute to the investigation of multilingual
phonological development with new data, including all languages of the multi-
lingual speakers, both adolescents and adults, and in terms of both their speech
perception and production. We will trace the interaction of a range of phono-
logical features and of individual speakers’ languages with a view of offering
new insights into the L3 speech learning process.

3 The Conceptualisation of Foreign Language Development

3.1 Implied Concepts in Models of Foreign Language
Development and Research Methods
In early models of and research on L2 phonological acquisition, the language
acquisition process was generally implied to be linear, leading from a starting
point or initial phase of no knowledge of the target language to an end point,
the final outcome of acquisition. This holds true for all early models and
conceptualisations of L2 acquisition (as reviewed, e.g., by Colantoni et al.,
2015, pp. 14–16), which were implicitly based on the assumption that the L2
acquisition process shares the linear development of successive stages that
had been proposed as a universal process in L1 acquisition. Accordingly, L2
acquisition has often been modelled as a ‘progression’ (Saville-Troike, 2006,
p. 18; Sharwood-Smith, 1999, p. 32) of successive and often predictable
stages leading to a stable end point.
For L2 phonological acquisition, these theoretical assumptions are implicitly
made in all models discussed in Section 2. For example, the OPM (Major, 2001)
predicts that, in the initial stage of phonological acquisition, CLI from the L1 is
most extensive and target language structures non-existent. In later stages, the
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 11

relationship is reversed with L1 properties losing their impact and phonological

properties of the target language increasingly appearing. Likewise, the SLM/
SLM-r (Flege, 1995; Flege & Bohn, 2021) views phonological acquisition as
a process in which L1 phonetic features and their representations initially
constrain an L2 speaker’s perception and production of the target sounds.
This can be overcome by achieving specific L2 speech learning ‘landmarks’
(Flege & Bohn, 2021, p. 38), such as the use of target-like cue-weighting in the
perception of an L2 sound, potentially leading to the establishment of a new
phonetic category for it. The SLM-r recognises that the L1 and L2 phonetic
categories of a learner remain malleable across the lifespan in response to
phonetic input, yet it envisages an ‘end state’ for those learners who are no
longer exposed to phonetic input that differs from what they were exposed to
earlier. By the same token, in the PAM-L2 perceptual discrimination is assumed
to improve with new category acquisition through exposure to input that
preserves phonetic differences. The underlying idea of a linear and incremental
process of phonological development is, although not explicitly stated, reflected
in terminology such as ‘initial stage of learning’ (Tyler, 2019, p. 619) and
‘learning trajectory’ (Tyler, 2019, p. 621).
Not only theoretical models but also much research in L2 phonological
acquisition so far has foregrounded the conceptualisation of the language
acquisition process as being incremental and overall linear. This means that
development is typically modelled as a progression from one developmental
point to another. In longitudinal research designs of this type, conclusions about
language development are usually drawn based on differences between group
averages at two or more points in time, while in cross-sectional research designs
learners at different ‘stages’ or different levels of competence are measured
once each and a development is inferred from the observed differences in their
group means. For example, researchers interested in the discrimination of
a phonetic contrast by a group of learners might collect data upon arrival in
the target language country and two years later and then present the mean
perception accuracy of the group at both data points. Alternatively, data from
two learner groups, for example beginners and intermediate learners of
a language, is collected at one point in time and the results are presented in
the form of the mean scores of each group, with the beginners’ score placed on
the left and the intermediate learners’ score on the right. Both these data
collection methods and the interpretation of the results would suggest that
language development is a linear process.
Thus, most research in the field of L2 acquisition so far is characterised by
what Lowie (2017) refers to as ‘product-orientation’. Product-oriented research
focusses on the investigation of differences in language competence between
12 Phonetics

groups of learners at one or more points in time. In a typical product-oriented

study, one or more features of a learner’s linguistic repertoire are measured at
one or a few points in time and results are usually presented in the form of
average group scores. Thus, the effect of specific factors such as different types
of instruction can be determined by comparing, for example, the pronunciation
accuracy of two learner groups before and after two types of pronunciation
training. If one group has significantly higher scores after the training, one can
conclude that their type of instruction is more effective.
Drawing conclusions about the language learning process based on group
comparisons suggests that individual learners share a more or less uniform
developmental process. In cross-sectional research designs, for example, the
measurements obtained for particular learner groups such as beginners and
intermediate learners are usually taken as representative for all learners at
these stages. Thus, the developmental trends that are found by analysing
specific learners or learner groups are often generalised to other learners and
their language development. The observed variability between learners tends
to be disregarded and is typically treated as ‘noise’ that needs to be ignored as
it distorts the underlying general trends or effects. Accordingly, the traditional
statistical methods employed to analyse such data, such as multivariate ana-
lyses and t-tests, often require a normal distribution and equal variances
within groups. Nowadays, in order to account for learner variability, new
statistical methods, such as mixed effect models, are employed for data
analyses.
In recent years, questions have been raised about these implicit assumptions
on language development which are reflected in theoretical models and ‘trad-
itional’ empirical research alike, i.e., product-orientation, the modelling of the
developmental process as an overall linear progression and the assumption that
learners share a relatively uniform process of language development (e.g., de
Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011; de Bot et al., 2007). In particular, there is
a growing interest in aspects of language development that have been less in
focus in the traditional research approaches – for example, the investigation of
developmental processes rather than learner competence at different stages of
language acquisition or a focus on individual learners and their variability rather
than on general or universal trends that are assumed to apply across all learners.
This new perspective is also evidenced in the recently revised SLM-r (Flege &
Bohn, 2021), outlined in Section 2. The model now directs its focus on
individual learner performance over time and the reorganisation of a learner’s
phonological system in response to dynamic changes in phonetic input.
Hammarberg (2017) describes these two approaches to investigating lan-
guage development as differing in their perspective and timescale. He refers to
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 13

the ‘traditional’ line of research with its focus on learner competence, the
development of the learners’ linguistic repertoire over time and the (universal)
stages and sequences of learning as having a macro perspective, while the ‘new’
approach focusses on the micro level. Research on the micro level concentrates
on specific situations of language use by a learner as well as the conditions and
factors that influence their language use in such situations, for example their
pronunciation of words when reading out a word list several times. It is assumed
that in every situation where language is used, language elements or skills might
be learned, which in turn contribute to the learner’s language development over
time. Hammarberg does not present the two approaches as exclusive but rather
as complementary and connected. He argues that it is the individual events of
language use that form the basis for evolving patterns and changes in the
linguistic repertoire. In other words, a learner’s language system develops
from repeated language use in specific situations, with the recurrent activation
of linguistic elements leading to their cognitive entrenchment, i.e., their being
stored in the speaker’s memory Thus, the more a specific word, phrase or
pronunciation is being used, the likelier it is to be remembered and used
again. Languages are thus pictured as adaptable systems that emerge from the
learner’s experiences in concrete events of language use.

3.2 The Complex Dynamic Systems Theory of Language

Development
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) is based on a model of the L2/L3
language learning process whose theoretical focus and applied methodologies
differ from the traditional lines of research and their emphasis on linear con-
ceptualisations of language acquisition and product-orientation as described in
Section 3.1. In contrast to other models, CDST explicitly posits that language
development is a non-linear, dynamic and self-organising process (Larsen-
Freeman, 2009). The research focus does not lie on general trends based on
group averages, but it zooms in on the developmental processes evidenced in
individual learners that lead to those general trends. CDST assumes that all
languages of a learner form part of one complex system that consists of several
subsystems which are all interconnected (de Bot, 2012). In addition, while
a system consists of several subsystems, it itself forms part of a larger system.
For example, a speaker’s language system consists of the phonological, the
lexical and the syntactic subsystems while it forms part of the speaker’s cogni-
tive system. Relationships between subsystems can differ in their strength and
can be supportive, competitive or conditional (Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010). In
supportive relationships, one subsystem will contribute to the improvement of
14 Phonetics

another; for example, the development of the pronunciation of one sound might
support the accuracy of the pronunciation of another, and their development is
typically synchronous. By contrast, in competitive relationships between sub-
systems, development is asynchronous and growth in one subsystem will result
in the decline of another subsystem; for example, the perceptual accuracy of
a sound contrast in one language might increase alongside a temporary decline
in the perception of the same contrast in another language. A third option for
a relationship between different subsystems is that one subsystem needs to be in
place before another one can start developing, as proposed, for example, in
some theorising about the relationship between segmental perception and
production in L2 speech learning (Flege, 1995; Nagle, 2018).
Language development in the CDST framework is seen as dynamic, i.e., as
a changing complex system over time. Changes can be caused by both internal
and external forces, and changes in one subsystem always give rise to changes
in the other subsystems. Thus, a learner’s motivation to learn vocabulary, their
language learning aptitude, the time spent on revision as well as their know-
ledge of other languages all can influence the learning of new words in
a language, which in turn may affect the learner’s ability to form more complex
sentences in this language and boost the vocabulary learning of another lan-
guage. Different types of change are presumed to occur: some are continuous,
others discontinuous and often chaotic (van Dijk & van Geert, 2007). Due to the
system’s constant interaction with its environment as well as its internal
changes, the system is observed to never stop changing. Rather, it will continu-
ally reorganise itself, changing its form from one relatively stable preferred state
or ‘attractor state’ to another. In summary, in the CDST conceptualisation,
language development is non-linear and unpredictable: in a complex system
with numerous interacting subsystems, even the tiniest changes to one subsys-
tem can cause the entire system to change. Changes in the different subsystems
can occur slowly or ‘in leaps and bounds’ and they can conspire to move the
entire system into a reorganisation process. However, there seem to be preferred
states and directions for the system (de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011, p. 15)
such as a seeming stagnation of learning or general trends in language develop-
ment. Moreover, due to the complex interaction of the numerous variables and
subsystems, it is difficult if not impossible to predict the exact shape and
direction in which the complex system will develop.
CDST stresses the crucial effect of the initial conditions, which may have far-
reaching effects on the processes of change of the system (de Bot & Larsen-
Freeman, 2011, p.10). This consideration is clearly most relevant for the context
of learning a new L3, where the initial condition will entail knowledge of both
the L1 and the L2. CDST does not, however, assume an endpoint of language
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 15

development and therefore avoids the term ‘acquisition’ that implies this. In the
CDST framework, it is acknowledged that linguistic skills can always grow and
decline and that learners undergo continuous developmental processes. Thus,
even the language system of a highly advanced learner and the first language of
a speaker are not assumed to remain stable but they are likely to undergo
changes due to external forces and the interaction of their subsystems.
Furthermore, in the CDST approach to language development, inter- and
intra-learner variability is treated as meaningful rather than an issue to be
controlled for in order to find significant differences between conditions (de
Bot et al., 2007; Lowie, 2011). It is considered essential for a description of the
process of language development and a sign of self-organisation of the
language system. Variability across learners (inter-speaker variability) occurs
due to their different initial conditions such as prior linguistic knowledge, and
cognitive and affective factors as well as the different influences of external
and internal variables, making it impossible to generalise from the language
learning process of one learner to the processes of others. In the CDST
approach, intra-speaker variability is seen as a driving force of development
and as an indicator for ongoing developmental processes (Spoelman &
Verspoor, 2010). It is assumed that the degree of intra-speaker variability
can help to explain how the language system of a learner changes over time:
low intra-speaker variability (e.g., highly consistent pronunciation of a word
across multiple occasions) is taken to indicate that the speaker’s language
system is relatively stable and settled into an attractor state, while a high
degree of variability is interpreted as an indication that developmental
changes are currently taking place. If two distinct variability patterns or
variability ranges can be identified in the individual’s learning trajectory,
commonly marked by an unexpectedly large peak or spike at the moment of
the transition, the learner’s language system is understood to have moved into
a different level of development (van Dijk & van Geert, 2007; Larsen-
Freeman & Cameron, 2008). The CDST approach is interested in identifying
and describing the transformative transition between such phases to appreci-
ate the different shapes a developmental change can take.
In summary, CDST and the traditional linear model of language ‘acquisition’
differ in their focus in the following ways. In CDST,

• language development is not presumed to be linear over time but is concep-

tualised as non-linear and dynamic: it is characterised by increasing and
decreasing variability as well as subsequent phases of relative stability
• language development is seen to be constantly changing without reaching
a stable end point
16 Phonetics

• language development is not presumed to be similar across language learners

and thus the research focus lies on describing individual learning processes
• not all variability in the learning process can be explained by external
influences because some variability is an intrinsic property of a self-
organising, dynamic system
• only the fact that changes will happen in the system can be predicted but not the
exact outcomes of these changes; thus, an individual learner cannot be seen as
a generalisable hypothetical representative of a larger learner population.

3.3 New Methods of Studying Language Development

The underlying theoretical assumptions and research goals of CDST mean that
studies carried out within this framework require a whole set of new research
methods. They present challenges to and cannot be answered by using the
traditional methods. For example, researchers in the CDST framework do not
search for simple linear causal relationships, such as the influence of two
different types of input on the perception of a particular sound, because they
assume that there are many contributing variables to the development of speech
perception, such as other languages known, the quality of the phonological
working memory or exposure to orthographic representations of the sound,
which might in turn influence each other and which are not stable but change
over time. Rather than focussing on individual variables, researchers in the
CDST framework focus on patterns of co-variability and try to analyse as many
subsystems as possible including their interactions. They study patterns of
variability over time by charting the dynamic interaction of related subsystems
(e.g., Verspoor et al., 2011; Lowie, 2017). Studies in the CDST framework thus
typically employ what has been called a process-oriented method: the research
design is longitudinal involving learner groups or individuals from whom data
is collected at numerous densely spaced data points and the analyses focus on
the description of the dynamic changes in L2/L3 development.
Hammarberg’s (2017) small-scale study on Swedish word production by L1
German learners exemplifies this method. The participants were shown cards by
a test leader who pronounced them once and were asked to name the objects
themselves. The set of cards was presented three times during each of three
sessions: immediately after arriving in Sweden, one month and two months
later. The experiment thus yielded learner pronunciations multiple times and on
three different timescales: the immediate repetitions after having been shown
a card, the three repetitions of a word within one session and the repetitions
across the different testing sessions. This method allowed the author to
detect the learners’ variable productions within each session and over time,
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 17

the points in time when productions settled into an ‘attractor state’ reflected by
invariable pronunciations as well as differences across learners in terms of both
variability and the point when the attractor state was reached.
Similarly, Yu and Lowie (2019) adopted a dense data collection procedure
and recorded the oral English performance of Chinese learners of English ten
times in weekly intervals over ten weeks. They showed that while at the group
level the learners improved both their lexical and syntactic complexity as well
as accuracy in oral English, individual learners showed unique patterns of
development which were argued to be influenced by the initial condition of
their learning path.
Working within a CDST framework not only requires different methods in terms
of data collection but also necessitates the use of different statistical methods that
are able to detect and compare the learners’ individual developments on different
timescales as well as major shifts in their language system. Studies based on the
assumption of a linear developmental process and aiming at discovering general
trends usually employ mean scores and standard deviations and imply the normal
distribution of their data in the search of discovering the effects of individual factors
on the linguistic competence of learners and the developmental process. By
contrast, the research design of CDST-inspired studies yields longitudinal individ-
ual data collected at dense intervals in order to reveal any changes in language
development. (For a detailed overview of such methods, see Verspoor et al., 2011)
The moving min-max graph, for example, is a descriptive data analysis
technique that visualises a learner’s dynamic developmental process and high-
lights the intra-learner variability while keeping the raw data visible (van Dijk
et al., 2011). This method uses a fixed window, a time frame comprising, for
example, five data points that continuously moves ahead one data point. Each
consecutive window thus largely overlaps with the preceding one, differing
only in the first and last data point. For each of these windows, the maximum
and minimum values are calculated, displaying the bandwidth of the observed
scores. This method thus shows the amount of variation at each period of time in
relation to sudden developmental ‘jumps’ that might reflect the internal reorgan-
isation of the language system (van Dijk et al., 2011, p. 76).
Moreover, a moving correlation can be calculated to estimate the relationship
between two language subsystems. For this, like for the moving min-max tech-
nique, a time window is defined and the correlation coefficient is calculated
between two data sets for all points within this window. The window is then
moved along the data set by the next data point and the correlation coefficient is
calculated at every fixed time window. This technique shows whether develop-
ments of different features in a language system are synchronous or not and allows
the characterisation of such relationships as competitive or supportive.
18 Phonetics

Resampling techniques can be employed for testing the significance of

fluctuations in variability. This method ‘consists of randomly drawing a large
number of subsamples . . . from the original sample’ (van Dijk et al., 2011,
p. 77). After defining the variable that serves as the testing criterion,
a resampling model is set up and the original data is randomly reshuffled
a predefined number of times (e.g., 7,000 times). The original data set is then
compared to each of these resampled data sets, testing the observations against
chance. This Monte Carlo analysis thus calculates, for example, how often
a peak similar to the one found in the data set occurs when the data is shuffled
randomly. Yu and Lowie (2019) considered a peak significant when it occurred
fewer than 250 times in 10,000 rounds of reshuffling.
An alternative technique of modelling language development at a group level
is Generalised Additive Mixed Modelling (GAMM). The method uses smooth
terms to account for time-varying patterns in individual data, it provides the
option of including nonlinear interactions with two or more numeric predictors
and it can tackle the issue of temporal autocorrelation. As such, it seems
particularly useful for exploring fluctuations, trends and interactions as well
as intra-individual variation in time-series data (Pfenninger, 2021).

3.4 Motivation for the Present Study on Multilingual Phonological

Development
A large number of studies on language development carried out within the
CDST framework have yielded important insights such as:

• Learning trends observed in learner group comparisons most often do not

reflect the learning processes of individual learners (van Dijk et al., 2011).
• The language development of individuals can be very diverse, even for
identical twins learning a language in similar settings (Chan et al., 2015).
• Variability is an inherent property of language development and can some-
times serve as its driving force (e.g., Dong, 2016; Penris & Verspoor, 2017;
Verspoor et al., 2011).
• The interaction between several language subsystems can be supportive,
competitive or conditional and may change over time (e.g., Spoelman &
Verspoor, 2010).

However, so far CDST-based studies have focussed almost exclusively on

linguistic levels other than phonology (but see theoretical and pedagogical
contributions by Lima Jr., 2013; Lima Jr. & Alves, 2019) and, for the most
part, do not specifically investigate the entire language system of the learners
but analyse only their target language (cf. Lowie, 2011). Typically, longitudinal
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 19

data is collected at close intervals in order to trace the variability in performance

as well as overall developmental trends in the learners’ target language while
ignoring their L1 and further foreign languages. Thus, it has so far been rarely
tested whether the relationships found to operate between a learner’s different
linguistic subsystems also apply to their different languages (for an exception,
see Huang et al., 2020). It is therefore the aim of this Element to present one of
the first studies on phonetic and phonological development by multilingual
speakers within the framework of CDST that seeks to contribute to this theory.
In particular, we would like to show which insights using longitudinal, individ-
ual and dense data can contribute to describing and understanding phonetic and
phonological development and how this approach can complement traditional
product-oriented research designs.
In other words, it is the object of this study to test whether the findings that
were obtained in the studies concentrating on other linguistic levels that were
discussed in this section also apply to phonetics and phonology. Specifically, the
following hypotheses will be tested:

1. Learning trends in phonetic and phonological development that are observed

through learner group comparisons do not model well the learning processes
of individual learners (cf. van Dijk et al., 2011).
2. Learners’ variability at the micro level influences and correlates with their
long-term phonetic and phonological development (cf. Hammarberg, 2017).
3. Extreme variability at one point in time signals (upcoming) major developmen-
tal changes (van Dijk & van Geert, 2007; Evans & Larsen-Freeman, 2020).
4. Different phonetic and phonological features develop in interaction with
each other (cf. Yu & Lowie, 2019).
5. The perception and production of speech sounds co-evolve (Flege & Bohn,
2021).
6. The developmental relationship between a learner’s foreign languages is
initially competitive and subsequently supportive, and it changes with
proficiency (cf. Yu & Lowie, 2019; Huang et al., 2020).

4 Study: Multilingual Development of Phonetics and Phonology

4.1 Method
4.1.1 Design

A longitudinal study design was implemented to shed light on intra- and inter-
individual processes of the phonetic and phonological development of multilin-
gual speakers. A group of sixteen learners with a similar language profile
20 Phonetics

(L1 German, L2 English, L3 Polish) was recorded in all of their languages four
times (T1–T4) within the first year of L3 learning. In addition, in between T2
and T4, a small subset of these participants consisting of three learners recorded
themselves at home in their L2 and L3 every week for eighteen weeks (dense
data collection; DDC). All testing sessions were designed to elicit certain
phonetic and phonological features which were either shared by the languages
or not (see Section 4.1.4). This way, potential interactions between the language
subsystems over time can be revealed.
Figure 1 visualises the longitudinal data collection with four main group
testing times. It commenced a month after the start of L3 Polish lessons and
stretched over the first ten months of L3 learning (T1 at five weeks, T2 at ten
weeks, T3 at five months and T4 at ten months into L3 learning). Due to the
expectation that there would be less development in the learners’ L1 than in
their non-native languages, L1 production data was collected at T1 and T4 only,
along with other background measures such as the learners’ language attitudes
and cross-linguistic phonological awareness. In their L2 and L3, the participants
completed various production and perception tasks (see Section 4.1.3) at all four
group testing times. Between the third and seventh month of L3 learning, three
adults each participated in eighteen weekly dense testing sessions for which

Figure 1 Visualisation of data collection timeline.

 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 21

they recorded themselves at home in their L2 and L3. Each week they also
provided information on their language learning activity and progress that
week. The general language learning profile of these three as well as the other
participants are described in the following section.

4.1.2 Participants

In total, sixteen beginner learners of L3 Polish took part in the longitudinal

study. Nine of them were adolescents of the same age group (12–13 years; 5
females, 4 males), and the remaining seven adults were between 21 and 39 years
old (5 females, 2 males). All of them shared German as L1 and English as L2,
the latter of which they had learned or were still learning in school within their
L1 environment (Germany). In addition, five of the adults also had some
knowledge of French and/or Spanish, which they had acquired in secondary
school. Although they were tested in these additional languages as well, only
English and Polish are the focus of this enquiry, as these are the foreign
languages the participants were actively using at the time this study was
conducted. The two age groups were matched regarding their L3 Polish input,
which amounted to three hours per week. For all participants, Polish was
a completely new language, i.e., all heritage speakers were excluded from the
final data set, as were all early bilinguals.
The adult participants, aged 21–39 (mean age = 26.4), were recruited from
community college and university language classes and received a small finan-
cial compensation for participating in the study. They had started learning their
L2 English in a formal context (at primary or secondary school) at a mean age of
9.4 years and self-assessed their language skills as upper-intermediate to
advanced.
Three out of the seven adults participated in the DDC, recording themselves
at home in their L2 and L3 every week for eighteen weeks (see Figure 1). The
two females, REBA03 (aged 28) and ROGI18 (aged 32), decided to take Polish
classes with the aim to be able to better communicate with their partners’ Polish
families (they both spoke German to their Polish partners). REBA03 was
a university librarian, and ROGI18 was in the second year of studying to
become a secondary school teacher of English and German. The male partici-
pant, SYLÜ08 (aged 22), was a politics student who took Polish classes before
going to Poland for four months as part of an Erasmus exchange. He was still in
Germany at T1 and T2 of the group testing times and the first nine weeks of the
DDC. From DDC week 10, he recorded himself from Poland. The final group
testing time (T4) took place shortly after his return to Germany. These three
participants were chosen for the dense data collection because they had
22 Phonetics

demonstrated at T1 a number of non-target-like pronunciations in both their L2

and L3, which made changes in their phonological system more likely than for
the other participants who showed mainly target-like pronunciations in their L2
or L3 or both. Shifts in the phonological system were expected especially for
SYLÜ08, given the changes in the language learning environment in the course
of the study.
The younger L3 learners, aged 12–13, were recruited at a school located in
Germany within close proximity to the Polish border. They all chose Polish as
a new subject (over French) and were total beginners as well. All of them had
been receiving instruction in their L2 English for several years, their mean age
of onset of L2 learning being younger than those of the adults at 6.5 years. The
difference of the two groups’ starting age has to do with educational policies in
Germany that had changed over the years regarding the school year in which
English is introduced as a mandatory subject. Alongside their Polish lessons, the
adolescents also had four 45-minute English lessons at school (a total of three
hours per week) throughout the time span of the research project. They self-
assessed their L2 skills as lower-intermediate.

4.1.3 Data Collection

The data collection comprised a language background interview, three different

production tasks and two perception tasks. For each language (L1 German, L2
English and L3 Polish), the tasks were administered on different days and by
a research assistant who addressed the participants in the target language only.
The research assistants were native speakers of German and Polish respectively
and native or near-native speakers of English.

Language background interview. An extensive language background inter-

view was conducted as part of the L1 recording sessions at both main testing
times (T1 and T4). This structured interview covered many aspects considered
potentially important with regard to the participants’ language development
such as their language learning history, language use and attitudes.

Production task 1: Delayed repetition (DR). In this task, the participants

heard a stimulus word in a carrier phrase in the L1, L2 and L3 (‘Ich sage X zu
dir’ in German, ‘I say X to you/again’ in English and ‘Mówię X do ciebie’ in
Polish). After a prompt (e.g., ‘And what do you say?’ in English) spoken by
a different speaker, the learners repeated the entire first phrase (with the inter-
stimulus interval set at 1,000 ms). The delayed repetition task was selected as it
effectively elicits speech production even in low-proficiency speakers and
reduces the risk of direct imitation by including a distractor phrase. The stimuli
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 23

were presented in two randomised orders and embedded in a PowerPoint

presentation as a self-paced task. The testing block was preceded by
a practice block of three trial items.

Production task 2: Picture naming (PN). In this task, the participants were
presented with a series of simple pictures in a PowerPoint presentation (one
picture per slide). They were selected from a range of categories that language
learners are typically exposed to in the earlier stages of language learning such
as colours, animals and foods. Concerning the L3 stimuli, the respective Polish
teachers had been consulted to assure that the vocabulary items had been
covered in class. This task was self-paced.

Production task 3: Storytelling (ST). The participants were given a different

eight-frame picture story for each language to elicit free speech. They were
granted as much time as they needed to familiarise themselves with the pictures
and the simple storyline before they were asked to tell it. The picture stories
contained a number of objects and actions suitable to elicit the items of interest,
and the research assistant administering the task made sure to guide and prompt
the participant to name some of them after the participants’ first rendition if
necessary.

Perception task 1: Forced-choice goodness (FC). In the forced-choice good-

ness task, the participants heard two renditions of the same phrase differing
only on the stimulus items embedded in a carrier phase and had to decide
which one sounded more natural. One rendition was a target realisation and
the other was an accented language realisation in which only the target sound
was manipulated, i.e., realised as the L1, L2 or L3 sound respectively. For
example, in the L2 English version of the task, the rhotic stimuli included the
target-like phrase ‘You will hear the word ring [ɹiŋ]’ followed by the Polish-
like realisation of the rhotic sound ‘You will hear the word ring [riŋ]’, as well
as stimuli including pairs of English and German-like rhotics. In the L3 Polish
session, the stimuli included Polish target rhotics as well as German and
English rhotics. The carrier sentences were always consistent with the lan-
guage of the session.
The stimuli were recorded by female native speakers of the respective
languages who were fluent advanced speakers of the other two languages in
the triad of languages. The stimuli were randomised and counterbalanced across
trials in E-Prime 2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA). The testing
block was preceded by three trial items. The inter-stimulus interval was set at
500 ms and the participants had a 3,000 ms response limit. The response
accuracy and reaction time were recorded.
24 Phonetics

Perception task 2: ABX. While the forced-choice task was administered to test
the learners’ judgement of naturalness employing cross-language sound con-
trasts, ABX tasks test language-specific contrasts (Strange & Shafer, 2008).
Such timed discrimination tasks assess the learners’ ability to
distinguish between two minimally contrasting sounds within a language, as
for example /v/ and /w/ in English and Polish. Therefore, this perception task
was adopted for testing the phonemic contrast between /v/ and /w/ but not the
allophonic contrasts of the other three features investigated in the study. In the
ABX task, the participants listened to a pair of stimuli (AB) recorded by one
speaker. Subsequently, they heard a third stimulus (X) produced by a different
speaker which was either the same as the first (A) or the second one (B). The
participants then had to decide whether the final stimulus (X) was more like the
first (A) or the second one (B) by pressing a button on a button box (see Figure 2
for a visualisation of the task procedure). The trials were randomised so that the
minimal pairs included appeared in all possible combinations (ABA, ABB,
BAB, BAA). Like in the case of the FC task, the ABX task was administered
through E-Prime 2.0 measuring accuracy and response times. If no response
was logged within 3,000 ms after the last stimulus, the trial was coded as
incorrect, and the experiment automatically proceeded with the next trial.

Production tasks dense data collection. The weekly dense data collection
included a picture naming, a delayed repetition and a different free speech
production task in the L3 every week, with the free speech tasks having been
carefully compiled in line with current topics and vocabulary from the partici-
pants’ L3 classes. For the L2 session, the free speech element was the only task
since the learners were much more fluent in English and were expected to

Figure 2 ABX task procedure (adapted from Nelson, 2020; p. 38). ISI = inter-
stimulus interval, RW = response window.
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 25

produce sufficient tokens of interest in this single task. To help the participants
to tune into the appropriate language mode, the free speech prompt was a short
video recording featuring the L2 research assistant (who also collected the L2
data at the group testing times, so they were familiar with the person and already
associated them with English). In the video, the research assistant briefly talked
about a specific topic and then asked an open-ended question related to that
topic which the participants were asked to respond to or talk about for about
one minute. Perception dense data in the L2 and L3 was also obtained, but it is
not included in our analyses here.

4.2 Features under Investigation

Four phonetic and phonological features were chosen as the focus of this study, all
of which differ between the three languages to some extent. Table 1 offers an
overview of the production and perception tasks used to elicit them along with
a description of how they are typically realised in the three languages. Each of the
features (and the measures applied in their analysis) is described in greater detail in
the following section, including predictions of learnability for the study partici-
pants, based on the L2 models presented in Section 2. These are to be rendered
with care, however, as the predictions for discrimination difficulty of sound
contrasts (PAM/PAM-L2), for the perception and production of sound segments
(SLM/ SLM-r), and for the production of sound segments and universal phono-
logical processes (OPM) were put forth for L2 rather than for L3 speech learning
scenarios in the models, i.e., without considering a possibility of an interaction
between the target language sound system and that of other foreign languages. The
acoustic measurements were completed by three phonetically trained raters in
Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2021). Whenever the second rater did not agree with
the transcription of the first one, the third rater decided between the two.

4.2.1 /v-w/ Contrast

Previous studies have shown that the contrast between the voiced labiodental
fricative /v/ and the labiovelar approximant /w/, as it exists in English and
Polish, can be challenging for L1 speakers of German in both perception
(Iverson et al., 2008; Ankerstein & Morschett, 2013) and production (Pascoe,
1987). This is partly because /w/ does not exist in the German sound inventory but
also because /v/ is typically produced slightly differently in German than it is in
English and Polish. In German, /v/ is commonly realised as a weak labiodental
approximant [ʋ] and is therefore phonetically speaking almost in between English
and Polish /w/ and /v/. Within the pair, and in correspondence with the predictions
of the SLM/SLM-r (Flege, 1995; Flege & Bohn, 2021), English /v/ may be the
 Table 1 Overview of features, tasks, and typical realisation in each of the languages.

Tasks
(production; Realisation in Realisation in Realisation in
Feature perception) German (L1) (British) English (L2) Polish (L3)
/v-w/ contrast DR, PN, ST; only /v/ exists both /v/ and /w/ exist (but higher both /v/ and /w/ exist (but higher
ABX frequency of /w/ than /v/) frequency of /v/ than /w/)
Final obstruents DR, PN, ST; always devoices final typically maintains a distinction usually devoices final obstruents
(de)voicing FC obstruents between voiced and voiceless
final obstruents
Vowel reduction DR, PN, ST; some degree of vowel clear reduction of nearly every no vowel reduction
FC reduction in unstressed unstressed syllable
syllables
Rhotics DR, PN, ST; voiced uvular fricative /ʁ/; voiced postalveolar voiced alveolar trill /r/;
FC sometimes voiced uvular approximant /ɹ/ sometimes tap [ɾ] (the latter
trill [ʀ] especially in fast speech)
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 27

more challenging member to learn to produce by L1 German speakers, as it is the

more similar sound to German /v/ than English /w/ is (Iverson et al., 2008). If this
distinction is made perceptually by L1 German learners, the PAM/PAM-L2 (Best,
1995; Best & Tyler, 2007) would predict a moderate discrimination accuracy for
such a category-goodness type of a sound contrast.

4.2.2 Final Obstruent (De)voicing

The languages in the learners’ repertoire also differ in their realisation of coda
obstruents such as /b/, /d/, /g/ and /v/. While English retains a voicing contrast in
syllable-final positions (e.g., between bad vs. bat), final obstruents are always
devoiced in German and most of the time in Polish (Rubach, 1984; Smith et al.,
2007). Many L2 studies have reported learning difficulties of the phonological
process of syllable-final voicing by speakers of different L1 backgrounds (e.g.,
Cebrian, 2000; Dmitrieva et al., 2010), accounting for their results by the marked-
ness status of final obstruent voicing. This theorising is in line with such production-
based L2 speech learning models as the OPM (Major, 2001). The same outcome
would be predicted by the SLM/SLM-r (Flege, 1995; Flege & Bohn, 2021) for L1
German speakers perceiving and producing L2 English word-final obstruents, albeit
on the account of their use of L1-based cue-weighting regarding vowel duration
and/or closure voicing rather than due to the markedness of the phonological
process. In terms of L3 Polish final obstruent devoicing, L1 German speakers
would thus be predicted in the model to be facilitated in the learning of devoiced
word-final obstruents. The PAM/PAM-L2 (Best, 1995; Best & Tyler, 2007)
focusses on the perception of sound contrasts and does not make any predictions
about phonological processes.

4.2.3 Vowel Reduction

The learners’ languages German and English both clearly differentiate between
stressed and unstressed syllables by making a difference in vowel duration in
combination with other characteristics (different vowel quality, increased pitch
and increased intensity). The languages differ, however, in the extent to which
unstressed vowels are reduced, with English being more extreme in that regard.
Therefore, as would be predicted in the SLM/SLM-r (Flege, 1995; Flege & Bohn,
2021) for highly similar features, numerous studies have reported vowel reduction
as challenging for L2 learners of English with L1 German and vice versa (e.g., Gut,
2010). In Polish, on the other hand, vowels in unstressed syllables are not reduced,
resulting in a similar duration and quality for vowels in stressed and unstressed
positions. As the existing theoretical models of L2 speech learning focus on sound
segments, they cannot be straightforwardly applied to other aspects of L2 speech
28 Phonetics

such as phonological processes or prosody and its various properties. A study on

unstressed vowel reduction in L3 Brazilian Portuguese by Ribeiro (2021) suggests,
however, that this prosodic feature may show a combined cross-linguistic influence
in learners who have experience with both reducing and non-reducing languages.

4.2.4 Rhotics

Rhotics are realised distinctly in the three languages of the learners in this study.
Standard German mainly uses voiced uvular fricatives /ʁ/ as well as some
uvular trills [ʀ] (Kohler, 1999). In most varieties of English, rhotics are realised
as a postalveolar approximant /ɹ/ or a retroflex approximant [ɻ], which can
sometimes be labialised to [ɹʷ] (Roach, 2004). Polish has both voiced alveolar
trills /r/ and taps [ɾ] as free-variant allophones, the latter of which is primarily
used intervocalically and in fast speech (Jassem, 2003). Thus, according to the
SLM/SLM-r (Flege, 1995; Flege & Bohn, 2021), the new L2 and L3 rhotic
sounds should be relatively easy to learn for L1 German speakers, at least in
terms of perceptual discrimination, although alveolar trills, in particular, can be
articulatorily challenging sounds to acquire (Catford, 2001). The PAM/PAM-L2
(Best, 1995; Best & Tyler, 2007) does not make any predictions for the percep-
tion of individual sounds but rather focusses on sound contrasts only.

4.3 Data Analysis

Following previous L3 studies in the field (e.g., Kopečková et al., 2016;
Cabrelli, 2016; Nelson, 2022), inferential statistics were eschewed in favour
of descriptive statistics for most of the individual data as well as group analyses.
Plonsky (2015, p. 30), for instance, calls for the implementation of descriptive
statistics when power is low due to small sample sizes, which is the case here.
Moreover, as stated in the Introduction, this study aims to describe the process
of language development and its dynamic changes, which many inferential
methods are not geared towards. The exact coding and analysis process applied
for each feature is described in what follows.

4.3.1 /v-w/ Contrast

The learners’ ability to distinguish between the two sounds perceptually, tested in
the ABX task (n = 24 for L2 and n = 24 for L3), was calculated as a per cent
accuracy score for each learner and testing time. For the three production tasks, the
sounds (n = 14 for L1, n = 24 for L2 and n = 14 for L3) were auditorily analysed,
transcribed and coded for accuracy by the three phonetically trained raters. Due to
the nature of the free speech task and because not all tokens were produced in the
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 29

picture naming task, some learners produced more or fewer tokens in total. The
report of the production results is limited to /w/ in the study, as this member of the
contrast was expected to be more likely to show developmental changes in the
multilinguals’ production (cf. Iverson et al., 2008).

4.3.2 Final Obstruent (De)voicing

The perception of final voiced and devoiced obstruents, tested in the FC task
(n = 13 for L2 and n = 16 for L3), was analysed in terms of accuracy percentage
for each multilingual learner at each testing time. For the production of (under-
lying) voiced final obstruents (n = 16 for L1, n = 17 for L2 and n = 16 for L3), as
tested in the three production tasks, three measures were analysed, mirroring the
method of previous studies on final obstruent (de)voicing (e.g., Smith et al.,
2007; Smith & Peterson, 2012):

• duration of the vowel preceding the final voiced obstruent in ms,

• duration of the closure portion of the final voiced obstruent in ms, and
• duration of the release portion or burst of the final voiced obstruent in ms.

The segmentation was done according to commonly utilised acoustic characteristics

associated with substantial changes in waveform shape and/or amplitude and
spectrographic events. The end of the vowel was set at the drop in amplitude in
the waveform following Smith et al. (2007) and Smith and Peterson (2012). The
duration of the release portion was measured from the onset of sudden discontinuity
in the waveform and spectrogram until the end of the visible noise in the spectro-
gram. In addition, it was transcribed whether the obstruent was followed by a new
word beginning with a voiced or voiceless sound or by a pause. This is relevant
especially for the target production of Polish word-final obstruents, which are voiced
when followed by a voiced sound (undergoing regressive assimilation of voicing;
a process that does not occur in German). All three duration parameters were
submitted to phase-shift analyses of the weekly dense data collected from three
adult multilinguals, in order to detect any major developmental changes in their
realisation of (underlying) voiced final obstruents. To this end, use was made of the
Change-Point Analyzer Software (Version 2.3; Taylor, 2021), which combines
cumulative sum charts and bootstrap methods to detect statistically significant
changes in time-series data and calculates a confidence interval of any changes for
the data points.

4.3.3 Vowel Reduction

The participants’ perception of naturalness of vowel reduction, tested in the FC

task (n = 5 for L2 and n = 4 for L3), was calculated as an accuracy score for each
30 Phonetics

learner and testing time. In the three production tasks (n = 17 for L1, n = 17 for L2
and n = 12 for L3), the ratio of vowel length in stressed versus unstressed syllables
was established. The duration of monophthongs (in ms) in stressed and unstressed
syllables of all correctly stressed words was marked using the onset and offset of
vowel formants as cues. The ratio was yielded by dividing the duration of an
unstressed vowel by the duration of the immediately preceding stressed vowel
within the same word (values of around 1 indicating same length of stressed and
unstressed vowels, values below 1 indicating reduction of unstressed vowels, and
values above 1 indicating longer duration of unstressed vowels). Moreover, it was
annotated for each word whether it was phrase-final or not, as unstressed vowels in
phrase-final words may be longer than those in non-final position within intonation
phrases. Both average production accuracy at each main testing time and change
point analyses of the weekly dense data were computed for this feature.

4.3.4 Rhotics

The learners’ perception of naturalness of the different rhotics in L2 and L3, tested
in the FC task (n = 10 for L2 and n = 10 for L3), was calculated as an accuracy score
for each learner and testing time. The production data (n = 10 for L1, n = 14 for L2
and n = 10 for L3) that was collected in the three tasks was analysed auditorily,
transcribing all instances of the learners’ rhotic sound realisations using a range of
IPA symbols, and analysed for accuracy. The rate of the production accuracy was
calculated in raw numbers as well as percentages for each learner.

5 Results
First, we present an overview of the whole data set for perception and produc-
tion results separately. Figure 3 displays the perception accuracy of the /v-w/
contrast, the rhotics, final voiced obstruents and vowel reduction by the sixteen
learners in both their L2 English and their L3 Polish at T1, T2, T3 and T4 (for
the features rhotics, final voiced obstruents and vowel reduction no data was
collected in L3 Polish at T1). Only the perception of the /v-w/ contrast was
elicited via an ABX task, while the perception of the remaining features
was elicited via an FC task. It shows that the perception accuracy varies across
the phonological/phonetic features and processes with the perception of the
rhotics having the highest and the perception of final voiced obstruents having
the lowest accuracy overall. Only for the perception of /r/ in L3 Polish and the
perception of final voiced obstruents in both L2 and L3 can differences between
the adolescents and the adult learners be observed. Overall, perception accuracy
of a particular phonological feature or process is very similar in both the
learners’ L2 and the L3. Variation across the individual speakers, however, is
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 31

Figure 3 Mean accuracy of perception of /v-w/, the rhotics, final (underlying)

voiced obstruents and vowel reduction by the sixteen learners in their
L2 English and their L3 Polish at T1, T2, T3 and T4 (at T1 in L3 Polish
only for /v-w/). Adult learners are represented by dotted lines. The group mean
values are indicated by the bold line.

evident for all features except the rhotics, where perception accuracy is above
60 per cent in their L2 English for all learners.
Figure 4 shows the mean values of accurate production of /w/, the rhotics and
vowel reduction (= the mean vowel ratio) by the sixteen learners in both their L2
English and L3 Polish at T1, T2, T3 and T4 (only T2 and T4 for vowel reduction).
The production results for final voiced obstruents are not reported at this point as
this feature was analysed in the study in terms of three different duration parameters
rather than an accuracy score. Both /w/ and the rhotics show distinct patterns from
each other but appear similar across both languages and both age groups: while /w/
is produced fairly accurately in L2 English and L3 Polish by most adolescents and
32 Phonetics

Figure 4 Mean accuracy of production of /w/, the rhotics and mean vowel
duration ratio by the learners in their L2 English and L3 Polish. Values of around
1.0 for mean vowel duration ratio indicate the same length of stressed and
unstressed vowels. Adult learners are represented by dotted lines. The group
mean values are indicated by the bold line.

adults, the accuracy of the rhotics is much more diverse with individual learners at
ceiling level in both languages and others not producing them accurately at all. The
two age groups were also comparable in their production of vowel reduction in that
they showed some progress, in a target-like direction, with less reduced forms in
their L3 Polish than in their L2 English, as suggested by the score for mean vowel
duration ratio around 1.0 for L3 Polish. A high degree of inter-learner variability
was nevertheless also evident in the L3 Polish.
Here, the results for each of our hypotheses (see Section 3.4) are presented.

H1. Learning trends in phonetic and phonological development that are

observed through learner group comparisons do not model well the learning
processes of individual learners

Figures 3 and 4 show that the group average values depicted in bold do not
model well the learning processes of the individual learners. In fact, not a single
one of the sixteen learners shows a development that matches the group mean
value in any of the phonetic or phonological features or two languages.
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 33

H2. Learners’ variability at the micro level influences and correlates with their
long-term phonetic and phonological development.

Figure 5 displays the sixteen learners’ variability of producing the rhotics in

their three languages at T1, T2 and T4. The variability was calculated by
dividing the number of different sounds per token produced at one point in
time, irrespective of them being target-like or not, and multiplied by 100. For
example, BISC14 produced five words containing /r/ in Polish at T1 and
realised the rhotic in three different ways: three times as the uvular trill [ʀ]
and once each as the uvular fricative [ʁ] and the voiceless velar fricative [x]. Her
calculated variability for L3 Polish at T1 is thus 3 (different realisations) / 5
(tokens) * 100 = 60.
Figure 5 shows clear differences across the multilinguals in terms of the
variability of their realisations at the three data points T1, T2 and T4. DIMO03
and ROGI18 appear to be in a stable period of pronouncing the rhotic sound in
their L2 English: they consistently realise it as the approximant [ɹ] during the
ten months of our study but show some variation in their pronunciation of the
rhotic in both their L1 and L3. While for DIMO03 this variation is entirely
target-like in both L1 and L3 – for example, producing both the trill [r] and the

Figure 5 Variability of rhotic production for all learners in their three languages
at T1, T2 and T4 (no L1 data is available for T2).
34 Phonetics

tap [ɾ] in Polish (see Table 1 in Section 4.2) – ROGI18’s production of the Polish
rhotic varies between [r], [ɾ] and non-target ‘German’ [ʁ]. Similarly, the three
multilinguals BISC14, MESC03 and SMSC15 all demonstrate a non-variable
realisation of the rhotic in their L1 German but exhibit some variability in the
production of the rhotic in both L2 English and L3 Polish. Yet, while BISC14
produces non-target-like rhotics such as [ʁ] in both English and Polish at all data
collection points and SMSC15 produces exclusively target-like rhotics in
English only at T2 and never in Polish, MESC03 only produces some non-
target-like rhotics in English at T2 and T4. For EDMÜ06, variability occurs in
all three of his languages at T1 but is restricted to L3 Polish at T2 and T4. Thus,
for five out of the sixteen multilinguals, production of the rhotic in one language
is stable, which points towards an attractor state of this subsystem during the ten
months of our study.
Another interesting observation concerns potential changes in some of the
learners’ L1. Six of the multilinguals produce the voiceless velar fricative [x]
or a combined [ʁ/x] sound as the German rhotic at T4. In fact, half of the
learners produced such sounds in their L3 Polish in the very early stages of
learning to attempt the trill [r] when they were not able to produce it at all or
not consistently. This non-acceptable realisation of rhotics in Polish, which is
used in their L1 German at T4, can thus tentatively be interpreted as a special
kind of L3-to-L1 influence, i.e., regressive CLI from an earlier production in
the L3 to the L1 at a later stage of learning. This example highlights the
complexity of cross-linguistic interaction, where an ‘L1-coloured’ sound from
the learners’ L3 repertoire can find its way back into their L1. Similarly, the
production of uvular trills [ʀ] in German increases from T1 to T4. This can
also be argued to be evidence for regressive CLI, as the learners produce more
of the L1 variant with the L3-like manner of articulation. Hence, on this
feature, these two languages seem to be more prone to mutual influence for
some of the learners with their distinct yet articulatorily more similar rhotics
than the English approximant [ɹ]. The L1 rhotic sounds (and other articulato-
rily similar L1 sounds) clearly seem to be the preferred basis for those
struggling with the Polish tap or trill, which in turn also seems to make their
L1 German more receptive to Polish-like sounds.
Figure 5 thus also shows highly individual relationships between variability
at the micro level, i.e., single realisations at one particular data collection point,
and long-term development at the macro level, i.e., a potentially stable state
after ten months of learning. Of those multilinguals that show target-like
pronunciation of the rhotic in L3 Polish at T4, three had target-like pronun-
ciations from T1 onwards (DIMO03, LYBO29, MESC03). SYLÜ08 pro-
duced both [r] and [ɾ] at T1, varied between [r], [ɾ] and [ʁ] at T2 and returned
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 35

to producing [r] and [ɾ] at T4. DOSC23 shows substantial variability in

realising the Polish rhotic at T1, including [ɾ], the voiceless velar fricative
[x] and a combined [ʁ/x] sound, but then consistently realised it as [ʁ] at
both T2 and T4. For both SYLÜ08 and DOSC23 thus there is cross-
linguistic influence from the L1 at one point in time reflecting the competi-
tion of the different realisation of the rhotic in their languages, which formed
the basis for dynamic developments at later stages. All of the other multi-
linguals’ pronunciation of the Polish rhotic is still variable and includes non-
target forms at T4, hence reflecting a dynamic, non-stable state in their
development.
Zooming into the variability at the micro-level and mid-term development,
Figure 6 displays min-max graphs for the production of /w/ in L2 English and
L3 Polish by SYLÜ08 across the eighteen weeks of dense data collection. It
shows that, overall, variability in the accuracy of producing /w/ at each
weekly data collection point is higher in L2 English than in L3 Polish.
Only at around week 15 of the observation period does the production of
English /w/ stabilise.
For ROGI18, by contrast, more variability in the production of /w/ occurs
in L3 Polish than in L2 English (see Figure 7). She produces English /w/
most accurately at the start of the observation period, which is then followed
by some weeks of increased variability that diminishes again at week 14 but
ultimately returns. No clear picture arises as to how this variability at the
micro level may affect the speakers’ mid/long-term development.

H3. Extreme variability at one point in time signals (upcoming) major

developmental changes.

Figure 6 Accuracy of production of /w/ in L2 English and L3 Polish by

SYLÜ08 across the eighteen weeks of dense data collection.
36 Phonetics

Figure 7 Accuracy of production of /w/ in L2 English and L3 Polish by ROGI18

across the eighteen weeks of dense data collection.

As can be seen in Figure 5, two multilinguals show extreme variability

(80 per cent) in their rhotic productions at some point in time: COSC26 in L3
Polish at T2 and CHSC09 in L3 Polish at T1. CHSC09 realises the five Polish
words containing a rhotic with the L1 sounds uvular fricative [ʁ] (twice) and
uvular trill [ʀ] as well as the combined sounds [k/ʀ] and [x/ʀ] at T1. At T2, she
produces three realisations: [ʀ] (three times), [x] (once) and [ʁ] (four times).
At T4, however, her Polish rhotics show only two different realisations, [ʁ] six
times and [ʀ] three times. While for CHSC09 the extreme variability of rhotic
productions at T1 might be interpreted as heralding an upcoming stabilisation
of the system, this hypothesis does not hold for COSC26’s development. She
produces three different realisations ([ʁ] four times as well as [v] and [k/x]
once each) in the six Polish words containing a rhotic at T1 and then shows
extreme variability at T2, when she realises the five Polish words containing
rhotics with the English approximant [ɹ] twice as well as [w], [ʀ] and [ʁ] once
each. At T2, thus, her realisations of the Polish rhotic consist of both L2 and
L1 sounds but no target-like sounds. At T4, however, she produces the seven
Polish words containing rhotics with a target-like trill [r] four times, as well as
[ʁ], [ɹ] and [l] once each. Her subsystem thus has not stabilised after ten
months of learning Polish but now contains L1, L2 and L3 realisations of the
rhotic. The high variability in her productions observed at T2 can still be
interpreted as signalling a major developmental step insofar as her produc-
tions of the Polish rhotic at T4 for the first time include some target-like
realisations.
To identify possible major developmental changes in the production of the
other features also tested in the study, we performed change point analyses of
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 37

Figure 8 Change point analyses of vowel reduction ratio in L2 English and L3

Polish by SYLÜ08 (eighteen weeks of dense data collection) and ROGI18
(sixteen weeks of dense data collection).

the weekly collected L2 and L3 vowel reduction and final obstruent

(de)voicing by SYLÜ08, ROGI18 and REBA03. Figure 8 displays the identi-
fied phase shifts or lack thereof for the ratio of vowel duration in stressed/
unstressed vowel pairs (values of around 1 indicate the same length) in two
speakers. The two lines in the graph are control limits which represent the
maximum range over which the values are expected to vary assuming no
change has occurred. Points outside the control limits indicate that a change
has occurred, visually represented by the dark grey shifts in the background, in
which case the accompanying table provides further information describing
the change(s).
SYLÜ08 demonstrated no developmental shift in realising vowel reduction
in his L2 English in the observation period, as evidenced by the absence of any
dark grey shifts in the background; the L2 vowel ratio values still fluctuate on
a weekly basis. He did, however, change his realisation of unstressed vowels in
relation to the stressed vowels in his L3 Polish at around week 10: prior to the
change, the average vowel reduction ratio yielded a value of 0.87, while after
38 Phonetics

the change it was 0.97. This change occurred with a 95 per cent confidence and
level 4 was associated with it, indicating the importance of the change (the
lower the level, the higher the importance). ROGI18, in turn, showed no
significant changes in realising vowel reduction in L3 Polish but
a developmental shift in her L2 English instead. At around week 7, her vowel
reduction ratio dropped from 0.78 to 0.64, a change that occurred with
94 per cent confidence and was detected on a third pass of the data (level 3).
For both speakers, the identified developmental shifts exhibited a target-like
direction. Analyses of respective shifts as per standard deviation changes
yielded no significant results, which suggests that they were not preceded by
extreme levels of increased variability.
Figure 9 presents selected results for significant changes in the duration
parameters of final obstruent (underlying) voicing in three speakers in their
L2 English or L3 Polish. It shows that all three speakers changed their conson-
ant duration (rather than vowel or consonant burst duration that were also
measured) in realising final obstruents in their L2 English or L3 Polish. It is
notable that these shifts approach the expected target in that voiced realisations
are to be expected to show shorter consonant duration than devoiced realisations
(as manifested in REBA03’s production of shorter voiced final obstruents in
English, and SYLÜ08’s and ROGI18’s production of prolonged devoiced final
obstruents in Polish).
SYLÜ08 evidenced one significant shift in his realisation of L3 consonant
duration (with 99 per cent confidence, level 1 change) at around the same
time as his realisation of vowel reduction changed (see Figure 8), which
coincides with his move to Poland for a stay abroad. Interestingly, REBA03
evidenced two significant shifts in her production of L2 English consonants
in that she lengthened her word-final obstruents from around week 10 of the
data collection (97 per cent confidence, level 1 change) but five weeks later
returned to her original manner of realising the sounds (the average length
stabilising at 0.14 ms; 94 per cent confidence, level 2 change), which is
suggestive of the speaker’s preferred, ‘attractor’ length. The third speaker,
ROGI18, significantly changed her production of L3 Polish word-final
obstruents in terms of both consonant duration and burst duration at around
week 10 of the data collection (with 95 per cent and 97 per cent confidence,
respectively, both changes identified at level 1). An inspection of change
point analyses for standard deviation and the identified developmental shifts
indicated no significant results. There is thus little evidence in the present
dense data on vowel reduction and final obstruent (de)voicing for extreme
variability as an index of upcoming major developmental changes for the
three speakers.
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 39

Figure 9 Selected change point analyses for final obstruent (de)voicing in L2

English or L3 Polish by SYLÜ08 (eighteen weeks of data collection), REBA03
and ROGI18 (sixteen weeks of data collection).

H4. Different phonetic and phonological features develop in interaction with

each other.

Figures 10 and 11 display the accuracy of producing both /w/ and the rhotics
across the four data points for each speaker. A clear interaction can be seen
between the development of the two sounds in their L2 English for the four
speakers shown on the top row, DIMO03, REBA03, JUEB20 and SMSC15.
Although on different levels of accuracy (e.g., ceiling performance for
DIMO03 for both sounds but relatively low accuracy for /ɹ/ produced by
JUEB20), the production of those two sounds for these four speakers show
parallel increases and decreases of accuracy from T1 to T4. No such relation-
ship could be found for the remaining twelve speakers, where the accuracy of
their L2 English /w/ and /ɹ/ production seems to develop independently,
40 Phonetics

Figure 10 Relationship between accuracy of producing /w/ (grey line) and /ɹ/
(black line) in L2 English for the sixteen speakers.

Figure 11 Relationship between accuracy of producing /w/ (grey line) and /r/
(black line) in L3 Polish for the sixteen speakers.
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 41

though perhaps one might suggest some linkage between the two sounds for
SYLÜ08.
There is little evidence for these sixteen speakers exhibiting parallel devel-
opment in producing /w/ and /r/ in their L3 Polish (see Figure 11). Many
speakers never pronounce Polish /r/ correctly during the first ten months of
learning this language, especially those shown on the last row, SISC11,
CHSC09, REBA03 and EDMÜ06, and also JUEB20 on the top row, while
BISC14 and JOHA09 only produce one token correctly at T3. Some tendencies
for parallel developments of the production of the two sounds are evident for
DIMO03 from T3 and LYBO24 at T4, but in general the two sounds do not
develop together in the L3 Polish.

H5. The perception and production of speech sounds co-evolve.

Tables 2–5 show how many individual learners evidenced different patterns
of a perception-production relationship for L2 and L3 rhotics and /w/ at each of
the main testing times, as well as across the testing times (the last column in the
tables). The categorisation of these patterns is based on the calculation of
within-subject effect size (Cohen’s d) for perception and production differences
in mean scores (d ≤ 0.7 = small to no effects, d ≥ 0.7 = medium effects and
d ≥ 1.0 = large effects; cf. Plonsky & Oswald, 2014). That is, a small within-
subject effect size was interpreted as suggesting no meaningful difference
between the production and perception scores and thus some evidence for a
co-evolution of the skills for a learner (‘perception = production’). Medium and
large within-subject effect sizes suggested a precedence of one skill over another
for a learner (either ‘perception > production’ or ‘production > perception’). If
one or both of the skills equalled or fell below a 50 per cent accuracy threshold,
this was interpreted as pointing at a ‘dissociation’ between a learner’s perception

Table 2 Total number of learners showing a particular type of relationship

between perception and production of L2 rhotic sounds at each testing time.

L2 rhotic sounds
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1–T4
(n=16) (n=16) (n=13) (n=16)
perception = production 11 8 5 10 6
perception > production 4 3 2 2 0
dissociation 1 5 6 4 3

The last column excludes those participants who showed an inconsistent pattern of
perception-production development across the testing times.
42 Phonetics

Table 3 Total number of learners showing a particular type of relationship

between perception and production of L3 rhotic sounds at each testing time.

L3 rhotic sounds
T1 T2 T3 T4 T2–T4
(no data) (n=16) (n=15) (n=16)
perception = production 6 6 6 6
perception > production 0 0 1 0
dissociation 10 9 9 9

The last column excludes those participants who showed an inconsistent pattern of
perception-production development across the testing times.

Table 4 Total number of learners showing a particular type of relationship

between perception and production of L2 /w/ at each testing time.

L2 /w/
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1–T4
(n=16) (n=16) (n=14) (n=16)
perception = production 13 12 11 13 10
dissociation 3 4 3 3 0

The last column excludes those participants who showed an inconsistent pattern of
perception-production development across the testing times.

Table 5 Total number of learners showing a particular type of relationship

between perception and production of L3 /w/ at each testing time.

L3 /w/
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1–T4
(n=16) (n=16) (n=15) (n=16)
perception = production 13 14 11 14 10
dissociation 3 2 4 2 1

The last column excludes those participants who showed an inconsistent pattern of
perception-production development across the testing times.

and production, suggesting lack of ability and hence little direct relationship. For
an overview of individual learner trajectories and perception-production relation-
ships, see the Appendix.
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 43

As shown in Table 2, overall, the learners in this study perceived L2 English

rhotics equally accurately as they produced the sounds (eleven learners at T1,
eight learners at T2, five learners at T3 and ten learners at T4). Six learners (five
adults and one adolescent) showed a consistent alignment in perceiving and
producing L2 English rhotics across the four testing times (note that the total
count across the four testing times, provided in the last column in Tables 2–5,
may differ from the number of participants as not all of the learners evidenced
a consistent pattern of a perception-production relationship across the main
testing times). The young learners tended to manifest more varied patterns at
each testing point, with two of them evidencing a consistent dissociation of their
perception and production of L2 rhotics, i.e., one or both of their skills in the L2
showed an accuracy level equal or below the 50 per cent threshold. As shown in
Table 3, this latter pattern was predominantly found for both learner groups in
their L3 Polish: nine out of the sixteen learners consistently perceived alveolar
trills fairly accurately (as tested in the FC task) but were not able to produce
them accurately. Yet six learners performed equally well in both modalities in
their L3 across the testing times, suggesting a co-evolution of their L3 percep-
tion and production skills.
The same analyses concerning the perception-production link for rhotic sounds
were also carried out for the labiovelar approximant /w/. Tables 4 and 5 show that
the two modalities developed in alignment for the majority of the adolescent and
adult learners for this phonological feature, in both their L2 English and L3 Polish.
For example, ten learners perceived L2/L3 /w/ as accurately as they produced the
sound across the four testing times. If a dissociation relationship was identified, this
was usually a scenario of a learner producing /w/ in their L2/L3 more accurately
than perceiving it (as tested in the ABX task), with one or both of the skills
equalling or falling below the 50 per cent threshold though.
Overall, our data suggests that perception and production of speech sounds
tend to co-evolve, although the strength of the link can be moderated by the
phonetic characteristics of the sound concerned and the stage of language
learning.

H6. The developmental relationship between a learner’s foreign languages is

initially competitive and subsequently supportive, which changes with proficiency.

Figure 12 shows the relationship between the production of /w/ by SYLÜ08

in L2 English and L3 Polish as a moving correlation. It shows that in the first ten
weeks the relationship is a competitive one, in that his production of the sound is
negatively related in his two foreign languages (r = between −0.20 and −0.80),
but the relationship turns into a supportive one from week 13 to 15 (r = between
0.60 and 0.80).
44 Phonetics

Figure 12 Moving correlation for the production of /w/ in L2 English and L3

Polish by speaker SYLÜ08.

Figure 13 Moving correlation for the production of vowel reduction in L2

English and L3 Polish by speaker SYLÜ08.

This is in contrast to the relationship found for the production of vowel

reduction in L2 English and L3 Polish by the same speaker, which is far more
fluctuating (see Figure 13). In the first two weeks as well as weeks 6 to 8 of the
observation period, vowel reduction in both of his languages develops in
alignment, i.e., the vowel reduction ratio is positively related in his two foreign
languages (r = between 0.20 and 0.60), while for weeks 3 to 5 it is negatively
related (r = between −0.20 and −0.80). An increased distinction between vowel
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 45

Figure 14 Moving correlation for the production of /w/ in L2 English and L3

Polish by ROGI18.

reduction in L2 and L3 can again be seen for weeks 9 to 12 (r = between −0.20

and −0.80) before it diminishes again towards the end of the observation period.
Figure 14 displays the moving correlation for the production of /w/ in L2
English and L3 Polish for ROGI18. Like for SYLÜ08 for this phonological
feature, an initially competitive relationship between the two languages turns
into a primarily supportive one (weeks 6 to 12). However, it returns to being
competitive again towards the end of the observation period. Thus, for both
speakers and for the production of /w/, the increase of proficiency in L3 Polish
does seem to go hand in hand with a more supportive relationship between the
learners’ two foreign languages, which tends to be more competitive at earlier
stages. However, the production of vowel reduction in the two languages
appears to have a rather more complex relationship, vacillating several times
between competitive and supportive.

6 Discussion
It was one aim of this study to describe the phonetic and phonological develop-
ment of multilingual speakers within the framework of CDST and to thereby
both test some of the main tenets of this theory and contribute to it. Our results
showed that, as hypothesised in H1, learning trends in phonetic and phono-
logical development based on group scores do not model well the learning
processes of individual learners. Confirming findings by van Dijk et al. (2011)
for the development of grammar, our data also showed, for each of the four
analysed phonetic and phonological features and for both modalities,
46 Phonetics

production and perception, that the learning trajectories of individual learners

vary substantially and cannot be represented by the trend that results from
calculating group mean values. As proposed within the framework of CDST,
speaker variation should thus be treated as a meaningful aspect of language
development in L2/L3 research and group means need to be interpreted with
care. Moreover, the individual learning trajectories in our data show that
development in most cases is non-linear: the accuracy in perception and pro-
duction of all analysed phonetic and phonological features shows drops across
the ten months of the observation period for many of the sixteen learners. The
results thus complement the PAM-L2 and the SLM/SLM-r, which propose
a continuous, slow refinement of L2 learners’ perception of phonetic differences
between their L1 and L2, with a more refined insight into the developmental
dynamics of the process. While the upward trend might apply on a very general
level of language development (i.e., the macro level; see Hammarberg, 2017), it
does not hold entirely true for the actual developmental process at close
inspection, which instead involves a back-and-forth progress. The results of
the present study thus support the CDST conceptualisation of the language
learning process as dynamic, non-linear, variable and highly individual.
The results further show that variability exists not only across different
learners and their processes of multilingual language development but also
within learners at different phases of their phonetic and phonological develop-
ment. With the second hypothesis, we wanted to explore a possible relationship
between learners’ variability at the micro level and their long-term develop-
ments by comparing the variability of production at one point in time (the micro
perspective reflecting single events of language use; see Hammarberg, 2017)
with mid-term and long-term development. For both the production of the
rhotics and the production of /w/, individual learners showed dynamic phases
with increased variability and cross-linguistic influence from their other lan-
guages as well as phases of relative stability with less variability. As in
Hammarberg’s (2017) study, there was substantial variation across the sixteen
learners in terms of both whether and when variability at the individual data
collection points occurred and whether a period of stabilisation could be
observed. Yet, no conclusive patterns were found that point towards the role
variation at the micro level plays for long-term developmental trends: alternat-
ing phases of variability and relative stability in the pronunciation of individual
speech sounds were observed for the learners’ L1 German, L2 English and L3
Polish, irrespective of the fact that they were beginners in Polish and much more
advanced learners of English. Furthermore, some learners never showed any
variability at any of the data collection points and produced the speech sounds in
the same (target or non-target) way. Given an observation period of only ten
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 47

months and a period of dense data collection covering only eighteen weeks, our
data might not have been optimally suited for capturing long-term trends. Thus,
more research is needed to explore the relationship between variability at the
micro level and long-term developments.
Another aspect of variability and its relationship with the dynamicity of the
phonetic and phonological learning process that was explored in this study
concerns the hypothesis that extreme variability at one point in time signals
(upcoming) major developmental changes, as suggested by van Dijk and van
Geert (2007) and Evans and Larsen-Freeman (2020). No clear evidence for this
hypothesis could be found: while the analysis of the four observation times
spread across the first ten months of learning the L3 Polish showed that extreme
variability does occur, such as five different realisations of one speech sound at
one point in time, it is difficult to link them to major developmental changes. For
one learner, extreme variability preceded a restructuring of the L3 Polish
subsystem that then included realisations from the L1, L2 and L3; for another
learner, extreme variability was followed by a phase of reduced variability.
However, due to the fact that the data collection points were spread out over
several weeks or even months, which was especially true for the L1 data
collection, it is not possible to say what developments occurred between them
and what effect the extreme variability may have had. Yet, even in the dense
data that included data collected at weekly intervals, no clear evidence was
found for increased variability before developmental changes. Future research
will have to investigate whether this applies only to phonetic and phonological
development or whether this seriously questions the suggestion by van Dijk and
van Geert (2007) and Evans and Larsen-Freeman (2020) that high variability
indicates developmental changes. In this connection, it will be important in
future research to carefully consider the criteria that characterise patterns of
discontinuity in the development of a particular feature under scrutiny (cf. van
Dijk & van Geert, 2007). The present results suggest that extreme variability,
understood as an unexpectedly large, local peak in the data, is not a prerequisite
for major developmental changes.
This study traced the development of various phonetic and phonological
features and, with the fourth hypothesis, aimed at exploring whether these
develop in interaction with each other or rather independently. To this end,
the development of the pronunciation of /w/ and the rhotics was compared in the
learners’ L2 English and also their L3 Polish. The results suggest that the
learning of the pronunciation of these two speech sounds proceeds largely
independently and thus stands in contrast to findings by Yu and Lowie (2019),
who found an interaction between the development of oral complexity and
accuracy in their L1 Chinese learners’ L2 English that developed from an
48 Phonetics

initially competitive relationship to a supportive one. The discrepancy between

our findings and theirs might be explained by the fact that individual speech
sounds form independent subsystems within a learner’s phonology, while
grammatical complexity and accuracy in oral language production depend
more on each other. Yet the results once more underline the substantial inter-
variability across the multilingual learners and suggest a possible role for
language proficiency. For four of the learners, parallel developments between
the production of /w/ and /ɹ/ were found in their L2 English only, pointing at
closer interconnections in a relatively well-established subsystem for these
learners and for speech sounds that are phonetically related.
The fifth hypothesis aimed to explore the relationship between the percep-
tion and production of individual speech sounds. According to the SLM-r
(Flege & Bohn, 2021), the two modalities co-evolve, implying that there is
a close relationship between perception and production development, while
the PAM-L2 postulates no direct link between them. Our results show that the
two skills do tend to develop in alignment, although the strength of the
relationship is moderated by the speech sound as well as the stage of language
learning. The different L2 and L3 rhotic sounds investigated in this study
arguably present different degrees of perceptual saliency and articulatory
challenge than /w/ does (Archibald, 2009; Catford, 2001; Colantoni &
Steele, 2008), which may explain the more varied patterns of a perception-
production relationship for the rhotics than for the labiovelar approximant. It
is also to be recalled that /w/ is a sound shared in both the L2 and the L3 of the
learners in this study, which may have facilitated the multilinguals’ ability to
perceive and to produce the familiar phoneme in their newly learnt L3. Our
results further suggest that the more established the phonological subsystem
of a learner, in this study the L2 in relation to the L3, the greater the likelihood
of a close relationship between the development of the two skills, which is in
line with studies that have reported a stronger positive correlation between
perception and production with increases in L2 proficiency (Cardoso, 2011;
Hanulíková et al., 2012). In a broader sense, our findings are thus in agreement
with the CDST’s theorising on the interconnected nature of learner subsys-
tems (perception and production of speech sounds in this case) and on the
potentially competing demands from the different parts of the language
subsystems (de Bot et al., 2007) such as the regulation of sensory and motor
processes, activation of the lexicon and syntax, which will be especially
operative in the beginning stages of learning a foreign language. Our analyses
of individual learner performance show yet again that the degree of corres-
pondence between perception and production as well as any changes in that
correspondence over time differ for individual multilinguals.
 Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development 49

The present results clearly confirm that the languages of multilingual

speakers interact as already documented in numerous previous studies (see
Section 1). This interaction is reflected in the intra-speaker variability that
was observed for many learners in all of their languages when they realise,
for example, the rhotics in their L3 Polish variably with the L1 German rhotics
[ʀ] and [ʁ] and/or the L2 English rhotic [ɹ] or even combinations and newly
created mixed sounds such as [x/ʀ]. The last hypotheses aimed to explore the
relationship between the multilingual speakers’ languages with a longitudinal
perspective and tested whether the developmental relationship between
a learner’s foreign languages is initially competitive and subsequently support-
ive. This type of interaction had rarely been tested across a multilingual
speaker’s different languages (cf. Huang et al., 2020) but was found for different
features of oral language development by Yu and Lowie (2019) within the
learners’ target language. In our densely collected data, we compared the
accuracy of the production of various speech sounds in the learners’ L2
English and L3 Polish and found different patterns for different speech sounds.
There is some suggestion that, for the production of /w/, which represents
a shared novel feature in the learners’ L2 and L3, with increasing proficiency
in the L3 Polish a more supportive relationship between the L2 and L3 sets in,
though it tended to be more competitive at earlier stages. However, again the
time window captured by our analysis might have been too small for stable
conclusions as shown in the data on vowel reduction: for this phonological
process, whose realisation is dissimilar in the learners’ two foreign languages,
the L2 English and the L3 Polish have a rather more complex relationship that
changes several times between being competitive and supportive over the
course of the eighteen weeks of dense data collection. It will be important in
future research to expand on the range of investigated features across
a multilingual speaker’s languages to capture (and measure) the range of cross-
linguistic similarity types possibly mediating the type of a developmental
relationship between the learners’ languages.

7 Conclusion
We have shown that employing longitudinal and dense data with a focus on
individual learners contributes important insights for describing and under-
standing multilingual phonetic and phonological development and that this
approach can complement traditional, more product-oriented research designs.
The new methods presented in Section 3 and applied in our own study are more
suited to showing dynamic development of phonology and phonetics in terms of
the interaction between different features as well as the interplay of the different
50 Phonetics

languages than traditional average scores and group comparisons. Moreover,

a focus on individual learners as well as on developments in small time
windows brings to light both the variability across learners and the individual
and dynamic process of their pronunciation learning.
The revised SLM-r (Flege & Bohn, 2021), with its new orientation towards
investigating how the phonetic systems of individuals reorganise over time,
would seem to be in line with our proposed avenue of research into multilingual
phonetic and phonological learning. Also, the model’s assumption of L1 and L2
sharing the same phonetic space may well be extendable to L3 speech learning
contexts: all of the multilingual’s languages share a common phonetic space and
are thus subject to (dynamic) interactions in the course of the learner’s develop-
ment of speech perception and production. In a similar vein, it is to be expected
that perceptual assimilation of native and non-native sounds and sound contrasts
as theorised in both the SLM/SLM-r (Flege, 1995; Flege & Bohn, 2021) and the
PAM/PAM-L2 (Best, 1995; Best & Tyler, 2007) works in like manner, the
difference being that L3 sounds and sound contrasts can be perceptually associ-
ated with either L1, L2 or both languages by L3 learners. The micro-level scrutiny
of such a multilingual phonetic and phonological development in individual
learners will nevertheless deserve yet greater scholarly attention and focus.
Our study also showed the limitations of a comprehensive, process-oriented
approach to studying pronunciation learning by multilinguals. The inclusion of
both production and perception data from three languages for each learner in
a longitudinal research design naturally limited the number of phonetic and
phonological features that could be investigated. Especially with younger learn-
ers, the number of tasks they are required to perform at each data collection point
needs to be limited to avoid fatigue and a subsequent withdrawal from the study.
Our study constitutes only a first step in the investigation of pronunciation
development of multilingual learners. We hope that many further studies using
dense data and a CDST framework will follow to shed more light on this
complex issue. Our study showed that an even larger time window for the
dense data collection as well as its commencement earlier in the L3 learning
process might have provided richer data and greater insight into the complex
and dynamic process of pronunciation learning. In particular, in this way it
might be better understood how individual learner productions and perception
at the micro level contribute to long-term learning at the macro level. Finally, an
important direction of future research will be to integrate quantitative data with
qualitative (biographical) data in order to not only characterise the process of an
individual multilingual’s phonetic and phonological development and changes
thereof but also to better understand the underlying environmental and affective
reasons for such developmental changes.
 Appendix
Within-subject effect size (Cohen’s d) for perception-production differences as
per individual learners, languages and testing times (d ≤ 0.7 = little to no effects,
d ≥ 0.7 = medium effects and d ≥ 1.0 = large effects). The effect size value of
infinity was yielded for cases of 100 per cent accuracy in perception and
0 per cent accuracy in production.

Table A1 Individual learner trajectories concerning the relationship between

perception and production of L2 English rhotics.

L2 English rhotics
T1 T2 T3 T4

BISC14 dissociation percept = product dissociation percept > product

(2.07) (1.17) (1.02) (0.85)
CHSC09 percept = product percept > product – percept > product
(0.62) (1.05) (0.98)
COSC26 percept = product percept = product – percept = product
(0.63) (0.59) (0.12)
DIMO03* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0) (0) (0.30) (0)
DOSC23 percept = product dissociation dissociation dissociation
(0.40) (0.59) (2.41) (2.53)
EDMÜ06* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.38) (0.30) (0.17) (0.06)
JOHA09* dissociation dissociation dissociation dissociation
(infinity) (infinity) (6.31) (infinity)
JUEB20 dissociation dissociation dissociation dissociation
(0.90) (0.95) (1.39) (1.39)
LYBO24* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0) (0.24) (0.07) (0)
MASC05 percept = product percept > product percept = product percept = product
(0) (0.79) (0.65) (0.59)
MESC03 percept = product dissociation percept > product percept = product
(0) (1.05) (1.25) (0.63)
REBA03* percept = product percept = product – percept = product
(0.26) (0.63) (0)
ROGI18* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.47) (0.46) (0.30) (0)
SISC11 dissociation dissociation dissociation dissociation
(0.28) (infinity) (3.81) (2.85)
SMSC15 percept = product percept = product dissociation percept = product
(0.30) (0.31) (0.82) (0.12)
SYLÜ08* percept > product percept > product percept > product percept = product
(1.22) (0.91) (1.10) (0.12)

*Adult learners
52 Appendix

Table A2 Individual learner trajectories concerning the relationship between

perception and production of L3 Polish rhotics.

L3 Polish rhotics
T2 T3 T4

BISC14 dissociation dissociation dissociation

(1.70) (1.95) (1.66)
CHSC09 dissociation dissociation dissociation
(2.06) 1.66) (1.64)
COSC26 dissociation – percept > product
(2.06) (0.76)
DIMO03* percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0) (0.51) (0)
DOSC23 dissociation dissociation dissociation
(2.06) (2.69) (2.69)
EDMÜ06* dissociation dissociation dissociation
(2.69) (infinity) (infinity)
JOHA09* dissociation dissociation dissociation
(infinity) (5.06) (infinity)
JUEB20 dissociation dissociation dissociation
(2.69) (2.06) (2.06)
LYBO24* percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0) (0.35) (0)
MASC05 percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.11) (0) (0.30)
MESC03 percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0) (0.51) (0)
REBA03* dissociation dissociation dissociation
(infinity) (infinity) (infinity)
ROGI18* percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.07) (0.51) (0.61)
SISC11 dissociation dissociation dissociation
(1.36) (2.06) (1.11)
SMSC15 dissociation dissociation dissociation
(0.96) (2.06) (2.69)
SYLÜ08* percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.63) (0.60) (0)

*Adult learners
 Appendix 53

Table A3 Individual learner trajectories concerning the relationship between

perception and production of L2 English /w/.

L2 English /w/
T1 T2 T3 T4

BISC14 percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product

(0.45) (0.11) (0.06) (0.67)
CHSC09 percept = product percept = product – percept = product
(0.44) (0.01) (0.37)
COSC26 percept = product percept = product – percept = product
(0.54) (0.02) (0.26)
DIMO03* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.05) (0.67) (0.63) (0.27)
DOSC23 percept = product percept = product dissociation dissociation
(0) (0.15) (1.48) (0.59)
EDMÜ06* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.03) (0.10) (0.13) (0.23)
JOHA09* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.38) (0.39) (0.10) (0.12)
JUEB20 dissociation dissociation percept = product dissociation
(1.43) (1.07) (0.10) (0.51)
LYBO24* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.40) (0.38) (0.23) (0.17)
MASC05 dissociation dissociation percept = product dissociation
(1.11) (1.92) (0.43) (1.0)
MESC03 percept = product percept = product dissociation percept = product
(0.08) (0.68) (0.82) (0.50)
REBA03* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.25) (0.37) (0.23) (0.18)
ROGI18* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.18) (0.20) (0.26) (0.20)
SISC11 dissociation dissociation dissociation percept = product
(1.14) (1.03) (0.51) (0.59)
SMSC15 percept = product dissociation percept = product percept = product
(0.16) (0.80) (0.47) (0.37)
SYLÜ08* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.44) (0.31) (0.68) (0.41)

*Adult learners
54 Appendix

Table A4 Individual learner trajectories concerning the relationship between

perception and production of L3 Polish /w/.

L3 Polish /w/
T1 T2 T3 T4

BISC14 dissociation percept = product percept = product percept = product

(0.76) (0.32) (0.10) (0.52)
CHSC09 percept = product dissociation percept = product dissociation
(0.38) (1.00) (0.51) (0.94)
COSC26 percept = product percept = product – percept = product
(0.22) (0.07) (0.23)
DIMO03* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.11) (0.46) (0.65) (0.24)
DOSC23 dissociation percept = product dissociation percept = product
(0.76) (0.61) (0.56) (0.64)
EDMÜ06* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.04) (0.12) (0.43) (0.13)
JOHA09* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.50) (0.19) (0.61) (0.06)
JUEB20 dissociation dissociation dissociation dissociation
(0.04) (1.17) (1.00) (0.81)
LYBO24* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.05) (0.13) (0.01) (0.31)
MASC05 percept = product percept = product dissociation percept = product
(0.19) (0.07) (0.99) (0.68)
MESC03 percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.32) (0.31) (0.22) (0.18)
REBA03* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.04) (0.11) (0.61) (0.13)
ROGI18* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.16) (0.12) (0.22) (0.03)
SISC11 percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.61) (0.26) (0.14) (0.04)
SMSC15 percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.43) (0.39) (0.15) (0.15)
SYLÜ08* percept = product percept = product percept = product percept = product
(0.42) (0.39) (0.81) (0.46)

*Adult learners
 References
Amengual, M., Meredith, L., & Panelli, T. (2019). Static and dynamic phonetic
interactions in the L2 and L3 acquisition of Japanese velar voiceless stops. In
S. Calhoun, P. Escudero, M. Tabain, & P. Warren (Eds.), Proceedings of the
19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 964–8). Australasian
Speech Science and Technology Association Inc.
Ankerstein, C. A., & Morschett, R. (2013). Do you hear what I hear?
A comparison of phoneme perception in native and Saarlandian German
nonnative speakers of English. Saarland Working Papers in Linguistics, 4,
1–8.
Antoniou, M., Liang, E., Ettlinger, M., & Wong, P. (2015). The bilingual
advantage in phonetic learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18
(4), 683–95.
Aoki, R., & Nishihara, F. (2013). Sound feature interference between
two second languages: An expansion of the feature hypothesis to the multi-
lingual situation in SLA. In C. Cathcart, I.-H. Chen, G. Finley et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society
(pp. 18–32). Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Aoyama, K., Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., Yamada, T., & Akahane-Yamada, R.
(2008). The first years in an L2-speaking environment: A comparison of
Japanese children and adults learning American English. IRAL: International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(1), 61–90. https://
doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2008.003.
Archibald, J. (2009). Phonological feature re-assembly and the importance of
phonetic cues. Second Language Research, 25(2), 231–3. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0267658308100284.
Beckmann, E. (2012). ‘A gup of dea, please’: Crosslinguistic influence in
English and German word-initial stops produced by German L3 learners of
Dutch. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 252–62. https://doi.org/
10.1075/dujal.1.2.06bec.
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In
W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in
cross-language research (pp. 171–204). York Press.
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech
perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In O.-S. Bohn &
M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learn-
ing: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins Publishing.
56 References

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2021). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer

(6.2.03) [Computer software].
Cabrelli, J. (2016). Testing the phonological permeability hypothesis: L3
phonological effects on L1 versus L2 systems. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 21(6), 698–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916637287.
Cabrelli, J., & Pichan, C. (2019). Initial phonological transfer in L3 Brazilian
Portuguese and Italian. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(2), 131–67.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18048.cab.
Cabrelli, J., & Rothman, J. (2010). On L3 acquisition and phonological perme-
ability: 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), 275–96. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2010.012.
Cardoso, W. (2011). The development of coda perception in second language
phonology: A variationist perspective. Second Language Research, 27(4),
433–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658311413540.
Catford, J. C. (2001). A practical introduction to phonetics (2nd ed). Oxford
University Press.
Cebrian, J. (2000). Transferability and productivity of L1 rules in Catalan–
English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100001017.
Chan, H., Verspoor, M., & Vahtrick, L. (2015). Dynamic development in
speaking versus writing in identical twins. Language Learning, 65(2),
298–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12107.
Colantoni, L., & Steele, J. (2008). Integrating articulatory constraints into
models of second language phonological acquisition. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 29(3), 489–534. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640
8080223.
Colantoni, L., Steele, J., & Escudero, P. (2015). Second language speech:
Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Multilingual
Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690050.
de Bot, K. (2012). Rethinking multilingual processing: From a static to
a dynamic approach. In J. Cabrelli, S. Flynn, & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third
language acquisition in adulthood (Vol. 46, pp. 79–94). John Benjamins
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.46.07bot.
de Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language devel-
opment from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. Verspoor, K. de
Bot & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language develop-
ment: Methods and techniques (pp. 5–24). John Benjamins Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.01deb.
 References 57

de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic view as

a complementary perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(01),
51–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002811.
Dmitrieva, O., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. (2010). Phonological neutralization by
native and non-native speakers: The case of Russian final devoicing. Journal of
Phonetics, 38(3), 483–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.06.001.
Dong, J. (2016). A dynamic systems theory approach to development of listen-
ing strategy use and listening performance. System, 63, 149–65. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.10.004.
Eckman, F. R. (1981). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules.
Language Learning, 31(1), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981
.tb01379.x.
Escudero, P., & Williams, D. (2012). Native dialect influences second-language
vowel perception: Peruvian versus Iberian Spanish learners of Dutch. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(5), EL406–EL412. https://
doi.org/10.1121/1.3701708.
Evans, D. R., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Bifurcations and the emergence of
L2 syntactic structures in a Complex Dynamic System. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 574603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574603.
Faris, M. M., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2016). An examination of the different
ways that non-native phones may be perceptually assimilated as
uncategorized. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(1),
EL1–EL5. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4939608.
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and
problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience:
Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 233–77). York Press.
Flege, J. E. (2002). Interactions between the native and second-language phon-
etic systems. In P. Burmeister, T. Piske & A. Rohde (Eds.), An integrated view
of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 217–44).
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Flege, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second-language segmental pro-
duction and perception. In N. O. Schiller & A. S. Meyer (Eds.), Phonetics and
phonology in language comprehension and production (pp. 319–58). De
Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895094.319.
Flege, J. E., & Bohn, O.-S. (2021). The Revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r).
In R. Wayland (Ed.), Second language speech learning (1st ed., pp. 3–83).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108886901.002.
Flege, J. E., & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of
a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 527–52.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101004041.
58 References

Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from

a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14(1), 3–28.
Gabriel, C., Kupisch, T., & Seoudy, J. (2016). VOT in French as a foreign
language: A production and perception study with mono- and multilingual
learners (German/Mandarin-Chinese). SHS Web of Conferences, 27, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162709002.
García Lecumberri, M., & Gallardo, F. (2003). English FL sounds in school
learners of different ages. In M. del Pilar Garcia Mayo &
M. Garcia Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as
a foreign language (pp. 115–35). Multilingual Matters.
Gut, U. (2010). Cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14790710902972248.
Hamann, S., & Sennema, A. (2005). Acoustic differences between German and
Dutch labiodentals. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 42, 33–41. https://doi.org/
10.21248/zaspil.42.2005.272.
Hammarberg, B. (2017). Becoming multilingual: The macro and the micro time
perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 55(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0010.
Hanulíková, A., van Alphen, P. M., van Goch, M. M., & Weber, A. (2012).
When one person’s mistake is another’s standard usage: The effect of foreign
accent on syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4),
878–87. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00103.
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic
characteristics of American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 97(5), 3099–111. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.411872.
Huang, T., Steinkrauss, R., & Verspoor, M. (2020). Learning an L2 and L3 at the
same time: Help or hinder? International Journal of Multilingualism, 19(4),
566–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1779726.
Hufeisen, B. (2010). Theoretische Fundierung multiplen Sprachlernens –
Faktorenmodell 2.0. Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 36(1), 200–7.
Iverson, P., Ekanayake, D., Hamann, S., Sennema, A., & Evans, B. G. (2008).
Category and perceptual interference in second-language phoneme learning:
An examination of English /w/-/v/ learning by Sinhala, German, and Dutch
speakers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 34(5), 1305–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1305.
Jassem, W. (2003). Polish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association,
33(1), 103–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100303001191.
Kohler, K. (1999). German. In Handbook of the International Phonetic
Association (pp. 86–9). Cambridge University Press.
 References 59

Kopečková, R. (2014). Crosslinguistic influence in instructed L3 child phono-

logical acquisition. In M. Pawlak & L. Aronin (Eds.), Essential topics in
applied linguistics and multilingualism (pp. 205–24). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01414-2_12.
Kopečková, R. (2016). The bilingual advantage in L3 learning: A developmental
study of rhotic sounds. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(4), 410–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1217605.
Kopečková, R., Marecka, M., Wrembel, M., & Gut, U. (2016). Interactions
between three phonological subsystems of young multilinguals: The influ-
ence of language status. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(4), 426.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1217603.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language
teachers. University of Michigan Press. https://books.google.com/books?
id=ZzYGAQAAIAAJ.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity,
accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30
(4), 579–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp043.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language
development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language
Journal, 92(2), 200–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x.
Lima Jr., R. M. (2013). Complexity in second language phonology acquisition.
Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 13(2), 549–76.
Lima Jr., R. M., & Alves, U. K. (2019). A dynamic perspective on L2 pronun-
ciation development: Bridging research and communicative teaching
practice. Revista do GEL, 16(2), 27–56.
Llama, R., & Cardoso, W. (2018). Revisiting (non-)native influence in VOT
production: Insights from advanced L3 Spanish. Languages, 3(3), 30. https://
doi.org/10.3390/languages3030030.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710902972255.
Llama, R., & López-Morelos, L. P. (2016). VOT production by Spanish heritage
speakers in a trilingual context. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13
(4), 444–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1217602.
Lowie, W. (2011). Early L2 phonology: A dynamic approach. In K. Dziubalska-
Kołaczyk, M. Wrembel, & M. Kul (Eds.), Proceedings of 6th New Sounds
2010 (pp. 159–70). Peter Lang.
Lowie, W. (2017). Lost in state space? Methodological considerations in
Complex Dynamic Theory approaches to second language development
research. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language
60 References

development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 123–41). John

Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.48.07low.
Major, R. C. (2001). Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second
language phonology. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Major, R. C. (2002). The phonology of the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of
the L2 user (pp. 65–92). Multilingual Matters. https://books.google.de/books?
id=FDmcuWKqmzwC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summa
ry_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Morales Reyes, A., Arechabaleta-Regulez, B., & Montrul, S. A. (2017). The
acquisition of rhotics by child L2 and L3 learners. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation, 3(2), 242–66. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.3.2.04rey.
Nagle, C. L. (2018). Examining the temporal structure of the perception-production
link in second language acquisition: A longitudinal study. Language Learning,
68(1), 234–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12275.
Nelson, C. (2020). The younger, the better? Speech perception development in
adolescent vs. adult L3 learners. Yearbook of the Poznań Linguistic Meeting,
6(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.2478/yplm-2020-0005.
Nelson, C. (2022). Do a learner’s background languages change with increasing
exposure to L3? Comparing the multilingual phonological development of
adolescents and adults. Languages, 7(2), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/
languages7020078.
Pascoe, G. (1987). Die Aussprache des Englischen an bayerischen Schulen:
Untersuchungen an Gymnasien, Realschulen und Hauptschulen. Profil.
Patience, M. (2018). Acquisition of the tap-trill contrast by L1 Mandarin–L2
English–L3 Spanish speakers. Languages, 3(4), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/
languages3040042.
Penris, W., & Verspoor, M. (2017). Academic writing development: A complex,
dynamic process. In S. E. Pfenninger & J. Navracsics (Eds.), Future research
directions for applied linguistics (pp. 215–42). Multilingual Matters.
Pfenninger, S. (2021). About the INTER and the INTRA in age-related
research: Evidence from a longitudinal CLIL study with dense time serial
measurements. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(2), 2020–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/
lingvan-2020-0028.
Plonsky, L. (2015). Statistical power, p values, descriptive statistics, and effect
sizes: A ‘back-to-basics’ approach to advancing quantitative methods in L2
research. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second
language research (pp. 23–45). Routledge.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes
in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/
lang.12079.
 References 61

Ribeiro, D. M. (2021). Third language acquisition: A study of unstressed vowel

reduction. Doctoral thesis, Purdue University.
Roach, P. (2004). British English: Received pronunciation. Journal of the
International Phonetic Association, 34(2), 239. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0025100304001768.
Rubach, J. (1984). Cyclic and lexical phonology: The structure of Polish. Foris
Publications.
Sato, C. J. (1984). Phonological processes in second language acquisition:
Another look at interlanguage syllable structure. Language Learning, 34
(4), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00351.x.
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition.
Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1999). Second language learning: Theoretical founda-
tions (4th ed.). Longman.
Shinohara, Y., Han, C., & Hestvik, A. (2019). Effects of perceptual assimilation:
The perception of English /æ/, /ʌ/, AND /ɑ/ by Japanese speakers. In
S. Calhoun, P. Escudero, M. Tabain, & P. Warren (Eds.), Proceedings of the
19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 603–8). Australasian
Speech Science and Technology Association Inc.
Smith, B. L., Bruss, M., Hayes-Harb, R., & Hamilton, A. (2007). Voicing and
devoicing in similar German and English word pairs by native speakers of
German. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(5), 3032.
https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2942851.
Smith, B. L., & Peterson, E. A. (2012). Native English speakers learning
German as a second language: Devoicing of word-final voiced stop targets.
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(4), 2523. https://doi
.org/10.1121/1.3655068.
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of
accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of
Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/
amq001.
Stevens, K. N. (2000). Acoustic phonetics. MIT Press.
Strange, W., & Shafer, V. L. (2008). Speech perception in late second language
learners: The re-education of selective perception. In J. G. Hansen &
M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition
(pp. 153–191). John Benjamins Publishing.
Sypiańska, J. (2016). L1 vowels of multilinguals: The applicability of SLM in
multilingualism. Research in Language, 14(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/
rela-2016-0003.
62 References

Sypiańska, J. (2017). Cross-linguistic influence in bilinguals and multilinguals.

Doctoral thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University.
Traunmüller, H. (1990). Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(1), 97–100. https://doi.org/
10.1121/1.399849.
Taylor, W. E. (2021). Change-Point Analyzer 2.3 [Computer software]. https://
variation.com.
Tyler, M. D. (2019). PAM-L2 and phonological category acquisition in the
foreign language classroom. In A. M. Nyvad, M. Hejná, A. Højen,
A. B. Jespersen, & M. H. Sørensen (Eds.), A sound approach to language
matters: In honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn (pp. 607–30). Aarhus University.
Tyler, M. D. (2021). Phonetic and phonological influences on the discrimination
of non-native phones. In R. Wayland (Ed.), Second language speech learning
(1st ed., pp. 157–74). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781108886901.005.
van Dijk, M., & van Geert, P. (2007). Wobbles, humps and sudden jumps:
A case study of continuity, discontinuity and variability in early language
development. Infant and Child Development, 16(1), 7–33. https://doi.org/
10.1002/icd.506.
van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In
M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach
to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 55–84).
John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.04van.
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). A dynamic approach to second
language development: Methods and techniques. John Benjamins Publishing.
Wrembel, M. (2014). VOT patterns in the acquisition of third language
phonology. Concordia Papers in Applied Linguistics, 5, 751–71. http://repo
zytorium.amu.edu.pl:8080/bitstream/10593/12094/1/COPAL_paper_51-
Wrembel%2C%20M.pdf.
Wrembel, M. (2015). Cross-linguistic influence in second vs. third language
acquisition of phonology. In U. Gut, R. Fuchs, & E.-M. Wunder (Eds.),
Universal or diverse paths to English phonology (pp. 41–70). De Gruyter
Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346084-004.
Wrembel, M., Marecka, M., & Kopečková, R. (2019). Extending perceptual assimi-
lation model to L3 phonological acquisition. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 16(4), 513–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019
.1583233
Yu, H., & Lowie, W. (2019). Dynamic paths of complexity and accuracy
in second language speech: A longitudinal case study of Chinese learners.
Applied Linguistics, 41(6), 855–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz040.
 Phonetics

David Deterding
Universiti Brunei Darussalam
David Deterding is a Professor at Universiti Brunei Darussalam. His research has involved
the measurement of rhythm, description of the pronunciation of English in Singapore,
Brunei and China, and the phonetics of Austronesian languages such as Malay, Brunei
Malay, and Dusun.

Advisory Board
Bill Barry, Saarland University
Anne Cutler, Western Sydney University
Jette Hansen Edwards, Chinese University of Hong Kong
John Esling, University of Victoria
Ulrike Gut, Münster University
Jane Setter, Reading University
Marija Tabain, La Trobe University
Benjamin V. Tucker, University of Alberta
Weijing Zhou, Yangzhou University
Carlos Gussenhoven, Radboud University

About the Series

The Cambridge Elements in Phonetics series will generate a range of high-quality
scholarly works, offering researchers and students authoritative accounts of current
knowledge and research in the various fields of phonetics. In addition, the series will
provide detailed descriptions of research into the pronunciation of a range of
languages and language varieties. There will be elements describing the phonetics of the
major languages of the world, such as French, German, Chinese and Malay as well as the
pronunciation of endangered languages, thus providing a valuable resource for
documenting and preserving them.
 Phonetics

Elements in the Series

The Phonetics of Malay
David Deterding, Ishamina Athirah Gardiner, Najib Noorashid
Spontaneous Speech
Benjamin V. Tucker, Yoichi Mukai
Phonetics and Phonology in Multilingual Language Development
Ulrike Gut, Romana Kopečková, Christina Nelson

A full series listing is available at: www.cambridge.org/EIPH