scholarly journals DOMAIN-GENERAL AUDITORY PROCESSING EXPLAINS MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS OF L2 ACQUISITION IN ADULTHOOD

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Kazuya Saito ◽  
Hui Sun ◽  
Magdalena Kachlicka ◽  
John Robert Carvajal Alayo ◽  
Tatsuya Nakata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Initial Phase ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Multiple Dimensions ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Primary Determinant ◽  
Proficiency Scores ◽  
L1 Acquisition

ABSTRACT In this study, we propose a hypothesis that domain-general auditory processing, a perceptual anchor of L1 acquisition, can serve as the foundation of successful post-pubertal L2 learning. This hypothesis was tested with 139 post-pubertal L2 immersion learners by linking individual differences in auditory discrimination across multiple acoustic dimensions to the segmental, prosodic, lexical, and morphosyntactic dimensions of L2 proficiency. Overall, auditory processing was a primary determinant of a range of participants’ proficiency scores, even after biographical factors (experience, age) were controlled for. The link between audition and proficiency was especially clear for L2 learners who had passed beyond the initial phase of immersion (length of residence > 1 year). The findings suggest that greater auditory processing skill benefits post-pubertal L2 learners immersed in naturalistic settings for a sufficient period of time by allowing them to better utilize received input, which results in greater language gains and leads to more advanced L2 proficiency in the long run (similar to L1 acquisition).

‘I me Mine’ The Acquisition of Dutch Pronominal Possessives by L1 Children, L2 Children and L2 Adults

2008 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 23-52
Author(s):  
Elma Nap-Kolhoff ◽  
Peter Broeder
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Young Children ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Dutch Language ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Abstract This study compares pronominal possessive constructions in Dutch first language (L1) acquisition, second language (L2) acquisition by young children, and untutored L2 acquisition by adults. The L2 learners all have Turkish as L1. In longitudinal spontaneous speech data for four L1 learners, seven child L2 learners, and two adult learners, remarkable differences and similarities between the three learner groups were found. In some respects, the child L2 learners develop in a way that is similar to child L1 learners, for instance in the kind of overgeneralisations that they make. However, the child L2 learners also behave like adult L2 learners; i.e., in the pace of the acquisition process, the frequency and persistence of non-target constructions, and the difficulty in acquiring reduced pronouns. The similarities between the child and adult L2 learners are remarkable, because the child L2 learners were only two years old when they started learning Dutch. L2 acquisition before the age of three is often considered to be similar to L1 acquisition. The findings might be attributable to the relatively small amount of Dutch language input the L2 children received.

Assessing Differences and Similarities between Instructed Heritage Language Learners and L2 Learners in Their Knowledge of Spanish Tense-Aspect and Mood (TAM) Morphology

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvina Montrul ◽  
Silvia Perpiñán
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Language Instruction ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Tense And Aspect ◽  
Classic Problem ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Advanced Proficiency ◽  
L1 Acquisition

The acquisition of the aspectual difference between the preterit and imperfect in the past tense and the acquisition of the contrast between subjunctive and indicative mood are classic problem areas in second language (L2) acquisition of Spanish by English-speaking learners (Collentine, 1995, 1998, 2003; Salaberry, 1999; Slabakova & Montrul, 2002; Terrell, Baycroft & Perrone, 1987). Similarly, Spanish heritage speakers in the U.S exhibit simplification of the preterit/imperfect contrast and incomplete acquisition/attrition of subjunctive morphology (Merino, 1983; Montrul, 2002, 2007; Potowski, Jegerski & Morgan-Short, 2009; Silva-Corvalán, 1994). This raises the question of whether the linguistic knowledge of a developing L2 learner is similar to incomplete L1 acquisition in heritage language (HL) learners. Because heritage speakers are exposed to the heritage language from infancy whereas L2 learners begin exposure much later, Au et al. (2002, 2008) have claimed that heritage speakers are linguistically superior to L2 learners only in phonology but not in morphosyntax. The present study reexamines this claim by focusing on the interpretation of tense, aspect and mood (TAM) morphology in 60 instructed HL learners and 60 L2 learners ranging from low to advanced proficiency in Spanish. Results of four written tasks showed differences between the groups both in tense and aspect and in mood morphology, depending on proficiency levels. Implications of these findings for heritage language instruction are discussed.

Acquisition of scalar implicatures

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal Snape ◽  
Hironobu Hosoi
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Scalar Implicatures ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Proficiency Levels ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Research Questions

Abstract Our study investigates the second language (L2) acquisition of scalar implicatures some and all. We set out to answer two research questions based on three theoretical accounts, the lexical, pragmatic and syntactic accounts. In an experiment we include English and Japanese native speakers, and intermediate and advanced Japanese L2 learners of English. We used quantifiers some and all in ‘Yes/No’ questions in a context with sets of toy fruits, where pragmatic answers are expected, e.g., a ‘No’ response to the question ‘Are some of the strawberries in the red circle?’ (when a set of 14/14 strawberries are placed inside a red circle). Our individual results indicate that L2 learners are generally more pragmatic in their responses than native English speakers. But, there are neither significant differences between groups nor significant differences between L2 proficiency levels. We consider the implications of our findings for the acquisition of L2 semantics and pragmatics.

‘I me Mine’ The Acquisition of Dutch Pronominal Possessives by L1 Children, L2 Children and L2 Adults

2008 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 23-52
Author(s):  
Elma Nap-Kolhoff ◽  
Peter Broeder
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Young Children ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Dutch Language ◽  
L1 Acquisition

This study compares pronominal possessive constructions in Dutch first language (L1) acquisition, second language (L2) acquisition by young children, and untutored L2 acquisition by adults. The L2 learners all have Turkish as L1. In longitudinal spontaneous speech data for four L1 learners, seven child L2 learners, and two adult learners, remarkable differences and similarities between the three learner groups were found. In some respects, the child L2 learners develop in a way that is similar to child L1 learners, for instance in the kind of overgeneralisations that they make. However, the child L2 learners also behave like adult L2 learners; i.e., in the pace of the acquisition process, the frequency and persistence of non-target constructions, and the difficulty in acquiring reduced pronouns. The similarities between the child and adult L2 learners are remarkable, because the child L2 learners were only two years old when they started learning Dutch. L2 acquisition before the age of three is often considered to be similar to L1 acquisition. The findings might be attributable to the relatively small amount of Dutch language input the L2 children received.

De Derde Persoon

2001 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 23-39
Author(s):  
Ineke van de Craats
Keyword(s):  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Older Children ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Third Person ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
The Third Person

This paper deals with the question in which respects L1 acquisition differs from L2 acquisition. For this purpose, the way children learning Dutch as their mother tongue acquire possessive constructions is compared to how children and adults learning Dutch as a second language acquire them. The comparison is restricted to the third person role as possessor. Although L1 and L2 learners have many learner variants in common, L2 learners - both children and adults - are initially guided by the structure of their mother tongue. The influence of the L1 can even be resistent for a long time in the preference of one of the two possessive patterns of Dutch. A more conspicuous outcome is that young children are much more susceptibe to weak pronouns in the environmental input and use them at an earlier time than adults and older children.

The acquisition of determiners in child L2 German

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Schönenberger
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Free Play ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Sensitive Phase ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
German Children ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Abstract The object of this study is to test Meisel’s (2009) hypothesis that there is a sensitive phase in language acquisition that ends around age 4. Early L2 acquisition may therefore already show differences from L1 acquisition. To test this hypothesis, determiner production in the naturalistic speech of four successive bilingual Turkish-German children recorded during free-play situations was compared to that of monolingual German children discussed in the literature. The successive bilinguals had an age of onset of German between 3 and 4 years and were studied over a period of 20 months. Determiner production was examined because Turkish, as opposed to German, does not have an article system. Determiner omission and incorrect article use were considered. A clear difference emerged in determiner omission, but not in article misuse. After some initial variability in determiner production, determiner omission by the monolingual children was found to gradually fall below 10 per cent, while a plateau effect could be observed in the bilingual children. There was no clear evidence for article misuse in either the L1 or the child L2 data. Our findings about determiner omission suggest that early L2 acquisition differs from L1 acquisition. It is unclear, however, whether the child L2 learners will persist in omitting determiners from obligatory contexts, since data collection was ended while the children were still in the process of acquiring German

Is morphosyntactic change really rare?

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
SARAH G. THOMASON
Keyword(s):  
Major Influence ◽  
Complex Societies ◽  
Speech Community ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Grammatical Variation ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Agents Of Change ◽  
Parametric Change ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
Community Adult

Jürgen Meisel argues that “grammatical variation. . .can be described. . .in terms of parametric variation”, and – crucially for his arguments in this paper – that “parameter settings do not change across the lifespan”. To this extent he adopts the standard generative view, but he then departs from what he calls “the literature on historical linguistics” (by which he means the generative literature only) in developing the arguments leading to his major claims: that only “transmission failure” resulting from L2 acquisition can produce parametric morphosyntactic change; that any L2 learners, children or adults, may be the agents of change; that such changes “happen less frequently than is commonly assumed”; and that, “in larger and more complex societies, situations in which L2 learners exert a major influence on a language are most likely to emerge in periods of substantial demographic changes” (his example is a plague that kills most members of a speech community). Adult L2 learners, according to Meisel, can only be agents of parametric change if they provide most or all of the input for the next generation's L1 acquisition.

scholarly journals The early stages in adult L2 syntax: additional evidence from Romance speakers

1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Vainikka ◽  
Martha Young-Scholten
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Spanish Speakers ◽  
Weak Continuity ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Native Languages ◽  
Auxiliary Verbs ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Verb Raising ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994) propose an analysis of the acquisition of German by adult Korean and Turkish speakers based on the Weak Continuity account of L1 acquisition. They claim that L2 acquisition initially involves a bare VP whose (final) headedness is transferred from the learner's L1, with functional projections evolving entirely on the basis of the interaction of X'- Theory with the input. In this article, we extend this account to data from Italian and Spanish speakers learning German. Our analysis reveals that these learners initially posit a bare VP whose (initial) headedness is transferred from their native languages but, while still at the bare VP stage, they adopt the head-final VP of German. At this bare VP stage the morphological elements incompatible with the VP are not attested (e.g., auxiliary verbs, verbs marked for agreement and obligatory subjects). At the next stage of acquisition, simi lar to what Vainikka and Young-Scholten observed for the Korean and Turkish speakers, the Italian and Spanish speakers posit a head-initial func tional projection. This projection further resembles the first functional projec tion observed in the acquisition of German by children (Clahsen, 1991) and involves optional verb-raising and the emergence of elements which typically appear in INFL (auxiliaries, modals) and in Spec (IP) (obligatory subjects). We conclude that child L1 learners and adult L2 learners build up syntactic structure in much the same manner and propose that the Weak Continuity approach accounts for all instances of syntactic acquisition.

The computation and suspension of presuppositions by L1-Mandarin Chinese L2-English speakers

2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832199387
Author(s):  
Shuo Feng
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
First Language ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Similar Response ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Precise Understanding ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
External Interface ◽  
Discourse Interface

The Interface Hypothesis proposes that second language (L2) learners, even at highly proficient levels, often fail to integrate information at the external interfaces where grammar interacts with other cognitive systems. While much early L2 work has focused on the syntax–discourse interface or scalar implicatures at the semantics–pragmatics interface, the present article adds to this line of research by exploring another understudied phenomenon at the semantics–pragmatics interface, namely, presuppositions. Furthermore, this study explores both inference computation and suspension via a covered-box picture-selection task. Specifically, this study investigates the interpretation of a presupposition trigger stop and stop under negation. The results from 38 native English speakers and 41 first language (L1) Mandarin Chinese learners of English indicated similar response patterns between native and L2 groups in computing presuppositions but not in suspending presuppositions. That is, L2 learners were less likely to suspend presuppositions than native speakers. This study contributes to a more precise understanding of L2 acquisition at the external interface level, as well as computation and suspension of pragmatic inferences.

L2 acquisition of the bei passive in Mandarin Chinese: A constructionist approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-198
Author(s):  
Chen Chen ◽  
Feng-hsi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Choice Task ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Passive Construction ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Constructionist Approach ◽  
High Level ◽  
And Function

Abstract A major claim in the constructionist approach to language acquisition is that grammar is learned by pairings of form and function. In this study we test this claim by examining how L2 learners of Mandarin Chinese acquire the bei passive construction, a construction that is associated with the meaning of adversity. Our goal is to find out whether L2 learners make the association between the passive and adversity. Participants performed a sentence choice task under four conditions: an adversative context with an adversative verb, an adversative context with a neutral verb, a neutral context with a neutral verb and a positive context with a neutral verb. In each context participants were asked to select either the bei passive construction or its active counterpart. We found that high-level learners consistently chose the bei passive significantly more in adversative contexts than in non-adversative contexts regardless of the connotations of the verbs, while low-level learners made the distinction half of the time. In addition, while low-level learners did not yet associate adversity with the form of the construction, high-level learners did. We conclude that L2 learners do learn the bei passive construction as a form-meaning pair. The constructionist approach is supported.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document