1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhonda Oliver

This paper reports on a study that examines the pattern of interaction in child native speaker (NS)–nonnative speaker (NNS) conversation to determine if the NSs provide negative feedback to their NNS conversational partners. It appears that just as children are able to modify their input for their less linguistically proficient conversational partners in first language acquisition (Snow, 1977), so too are children able to modify their interactions for NNS peers in the second language acquisition process and, in doing so, provide negative feedback. Two forms of NS modification were identified in this study as providing reactive and implicit negative feedback to the NNS. These were (a) negotiation strategies, including repetition, clarification requests, and comprehension checks, and (b) recasts. The results indicated that NSs respond differentially to the grammaticality and ambiguity of their NNS peers' conversational contributions. Furthermore, NS responses (negotiate, recast, or ignore) appeared to be triggered by the type and complexity of NNS errors, although it was more likely overall that negative feedback would be used rather than the error ignored. Additionally, evidence suggested that negative feedback was incorporated by the NNSs into their interlanguage systems. This indicates that not only does negative evidence exist for child second language learners in these types of conversations, but that it is also usable and used by them in the language acquisition process.


2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 507-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roumyana Slabakova

This article presents an experimental study investigating the compounding parameter in the L2 Spanish interlanguage of English and French NSs in light of the Subset Principle and its predictions for the process of L2 development. The compounding parameter (Snyder, 1995, 2001) argues that languages permit complex predicate constructions like verb particles, resultatives, and double objects if and only if they can productively form N-N compounds. English exhibits the plus value of the parameter, allowing N-N compounds and the related constructions, whereas in Spanish and French these compounds and constructions are ungrammatical. Because English also allows periphrastic constructions of the same meaning, which are the only option in French and Spanish, English represents the superset parameter value to the Spanish and French subset value. At issue is whether L2 learners are able to acquire the subset value of the compounding parameter based on the naturalistic input they receive. In this case, the learning task involves realizing that some L1 constructions are unavailable in the L2. Results indicate that the learners initially transfer the L1 (superset) value and do not start with the subset value of the parameter. Findings also inform the debate on whether negative evidence can engage UG-related acquisition. Ten of the 26 advanced subjects were able to successfully reset the whole parameter based on negative data for only two of the four constructions in the cluster. This fact suggests that it is not impossible for negative evidence to be utilized in grammar reorganization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document