The storage and composition of inflected forms in adult-learned second language: A study of the influence of length of residence, age of arrival, sex, and other factors

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 820-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURA BABCOCK ◽  
JOHN C. STOWE ◽  
CHRISTOPHER J. MALOOF ◽  
CLAUDIA BROVETTO ◽  
MICHAEL T. ULLMAN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Length Of Residence ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Irregular Verbs ◽  
Past Tenses ◽  
L1 And L2

It remains unclear whether adult-learned second language (L2) depends on similar or different neurocognitive mechanisms as those involved in first language (L1). We examined whether English past tense forms are computed similarly or differently by L1 and L2 English speakers, and what factors might affect this: regularity (regular vs. irregular verbs), length of L2 exposure (length of residence), age of L2 acquisition (age of arrival), L2 learners’ native language (Chinese vs. Spanish), and sex (male vs. female). Past tense frequency effects were used to examine the type of computation (composition vs. storage/retrieval). The results suggest that irregular past tenses are always stored. Regular past tenses, however, are either composed or stored, as a function of various factors: both sexes store regulars in L2, but only females in L1; greater lengths of residence lead to less dependence on storage, but only in females; higher adult ages of arrival lead to more reliance on storage. The findings suggest that inflected forms can rely on either the same or different mechanisms in L2 as they do in L1, and that this varies as a function of multiple interacting factors.

Second language effects on ambiguity resolution in the first language

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 191-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christie Brien ◽  
Laura L. Sabourin
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Semantic Context ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Canadian English ◽  
Lexical Frequency ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Language Effects

The processing of homonyms is complex considering homonyms have many lexical properties. For instance, train contains semantic (a locomotive/to instruct) and syntactic (noun/verb) properties, each affecting interpretation. Previous studies find homonym processing influenced by lexical frequency (Duffy et al. 1988) as well as syntactic and semantic context (Folk & Morris 2003; Swinney 1979; Tanenhaus et al. 1979). This cross-modal lexical-decision study investigates second language (L2) effects on homonym processing in the first language (L1). Participants were monolingual English speakers and Canadian English/French bilinguals who acquired L2 French at distinct periods. The early bilinguals revealed no significant differences compared to monolinguals (p = .219) supporting the Reordered Access Model (Duffy et al. 1988). However, the late bilinguals revealed longer reaction times, syntactic priming effects (p < .001), and lexical frequency effects (p < .001), suggesting a heightened sensitivity to surface cues influencing homonym processing in the L1 due to a newly-acquired L2 (Cook 2003).

Acquisition without evidence: English infinitives and poverty of stimulus in adult second language acquisition

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 415-443
Author(s):  
Jeanne Heil ◽  
Luis López
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Linguistic System ◽  
Poverty Of Stimulus

This article provides a Poverty of Stimulus argument for the participation of a dedicated linguistic module in second language acquisition. We study the second language (L2) acquisition of a subset of English infinitive complements that exhibit the following properties: (a) they present an intricate web of grammatical constraints while (b) they are highly infrequent in corpora, (c) they lack visible features that would make them salient, and (d) they are communicatively superfluous. We report on an experiment testing the knowledge of some infinitival constructions by near-native adult first language (L1) Spanish / L2 English speakers. Learners demonstrated a linguistic system that includes contrasts based on subtle restrictions in the L2, including aspect restrictions in Raising to Object. These results provide evidence that frequency and other cognitive or environmental factors are insufficient to account for the acquisition of the full spectrum of English infinitivals. This leads us to the conclusion that a domain-specific linguistic faculty is required.

scholarly journals When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
RACHEL I. MAYBERRY
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
Sensory Motor ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Motor Modality

The present paper summarizes three experiments that investigate the effects of age of acquisition on first-language (L1) acquisition in relation to second-language (L2) outcome. The experiments use the unique acquisition situations of childhood deafness and sign language. The key factors controlled across the studies are age of L1 acquisition, the sensory–motor modality of the language, and level of linguistic structure. Findings consistent across the studies show age of L1 acquisition to be a determining factor in the success of both L1 and L2 acquisition. Sensory–motor modality shows no general or specific effects. It is of importance that the effects of age of L1 acquisition on both L1 and L2 outcome are apparent across levels of linguistic structure, namely, syntax, phonology, and the lexicon. The results demonstrate that L1 acquisition bestows not only facility with the linguistic structure of the L1, but also the ability to learn linguistic structure in the L2.

scholarly journals Investigating the acquisition of the Split-IP parameter and the V2 parameter in second language Afrikaans

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Conradie
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Parameter Resetting ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Parameter Values

Researchers who assume that Universal Grammar (UG) plays a role in second language (L2) acquisition are still debating whether L2 learners have access to UG in its entirety (the Full Access hypothesis; e.g. Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996; White, 1989; 2003) or only to those aspects of UG that are instantiated in their first language (L1) grammar (the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis; e.g. Hawkins and Chan, 1997). The Full Access hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will be possible where the L1 and L2 differ in parameter values, whereas the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will not be possible. These hypotheses are tested in a study examining whether English-speaking learners of Afrikaans can reset the Split-IP parameter (SIP) (Thráinsson, 1996) and the V2 parameter from their L1 ([-SIP], [-V2]) to their L2 ([+SIP], [+V2]) values. 15 advanced English learners of Afrikaans and 10 native speakers of Afrikaans completed three tasks: a sentence manipulation task, a grammaticality judgement task and a truth-value judgement task. Results suggest that the interlanguage grammars of the L2 learners are [+SIP] and [+V2] (unlike the L1), providing evidence for the Full Access hypothesis.

Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical gender system

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sabourin ◽  
Laurie A. Stowe ◽  
Ger J. de Haan
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Grammatical Gender ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Gender Assignment ◽  
Similar System ◽  
Gender System ◽  
L1 And L2

In this article second language (L2) knowledge of Dutch grammatical gender is investigated. Adult speakers of German, English and a Romance language (French, Italian or Spanish) were investigated to explore the role of transfer in learning the Dutch grammatical gender system. In the first language (L1) systems, German is the most similar to Dutch coming from a historically similar system. The Romance languages have grammatical gender; however, the system is not congruent to the Dutch system. English does not have grammatical gender (although semantic gender is marked in the pronoun system). Experiment 1, a simple gender assignment task, showed that all L2 participants tested could assign the correct gender to Dutch nouns (all L2 groups performing on average above 80%), although having gender in the L1 did correlate with higher accuracy, particularly when the gender systems were very similar. Effects of noun familiarity and a default gender strategy were found for all participants. In Experiment 2 agreement between the noun and the relative pronoun was investigated. In this task a distinct performance hierarchy was found with the German group performing the best (though significantly worse than native speakers), the Romance group performing well above chance (though not as well as the German group), and the English group performing at chance. These results show that L2 acquisition of grammatical gender is affected more by the morphological similarity of gender marking in the L1 and L2 than by the presence of abstract syntactic gender features in the L1.

L1 AND L2 WORD RECOGNITION IN FINNISH

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seppo Vainio ◽  
Anneli Pajunen ◽  
Jukka Hyönä
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Visual Word Recognition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Morphological Decomposition ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
L1 And L2

This study investigated the effect of the first language (L1) on the visual word recognition of inflected nouns in second language (L2) Finnish by native Russian and Chinese speakers. Case inflection is common in Russian and in Finnish but nonexistent in Chinese. Several models have been posited to describe L2 morphological processing. The unified competition model (UCM; MacWhinney, 2005) predicts L1-L2 transfer, whereas processability theory (Pienemann, 1998) posits a universal hierarchy in L2 acquisition regardless of the L1. The morphological decomposition deficiency hypothesis (Ullman, 2001b; VanPatten, 2004) claims that nonnatives cannot morphologically decompose words. Finally, DeKeyser (2005) proposes that morphophonological transparency affects nonnative processing. The current study explores which model best accounts for the processing of L2 Finnish by native Russian and Chinese speakers. The materials included simple nouns, transparently inflected nouns, and semitransparently inflected nouns. The results showed that Finns and Russians had longer reaction times (RTs) for morphologically complex nouns, but Chinese had longer RTs for semitransparent nouns. The RT results support the UCM by showing a L1-L2 transfer. Furthermore, transparency influenced word recognition among nonnatives; they made the most errors with semitransparent nouns.

Structural and conceptual equivalence in the acquisition and use of emotion words in a second language

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aneta Pavlenko
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Mental Lexicon ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Lexical Borrowing ◽  
Emotion Words ◽  
Russian Speakers ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Conceptual Equivalence ◽  
L1 And L2

The purpose of the study presented here is to examine the importance of structural and conceptual (non-)equivalence in the acquisition and use of emotion words in a second language (L2). The use of these words is examined in a corpus of 206 narratives collected with two stimuli from first language (L1) speakers of Russian and English, and L2 learners of Russian and English. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses of lexical choices made by the participants show that in the case of structural non-equivalence L2 learners can shift patterns of structural selection in the mental lexicon. Thus, L2 learners of English pattern with L1 English speakers in favoring adjectival constructions in the same context where L1 and L2 Russian speakers favor verbs. Conceptual non-equivalence, on the other hand, was shown to complicate acquisition of emotion words and lead to negative transfer, lexical borrowing, and avoidance. Implications are offered for models of the bilingual mental lexicon and for L2 instruction.

L2 Processing of Dutch regular and irregular Verbs

1997 ◽  
Vol 115-116 ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josine A. Lalleman ◽  
Ariane J. van Santen ◽  
Vincent J. van Heuven
Keyword(s):  
Mental Representation ◽  
Production Performance ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
Conjugation System ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Rule Application ◽  
On Line ◽  
Irregular Verbs ◽  
Past Tenses

Abstract Do Ll and (advanced) L2 speakers of Dutch employ distinct processes — rule application for regulars and lexical lookup for irregulars — when producing Dutch past tense forms? Do L2 speakers of a language that observes the same dual conjugation system as in Dutch (e.g. English, German) produce Dutch past tenses by a different process (i.e. more like that of Ll speakers) than learners of Dutch with a different Ll verb system (e.g. Japanese and Chinese)? We studied the on-line past tense production performance of Ll speakers and of advanced L2 speakers of Dutch varying relative past tense frequency of regular and irreg-ular Dutch verbs. Performance proved slower and less accurate with both Ll and L2 speakers for irregular verbs with relatively low past tense frequency. No frequency effects were found for regular verbs. The results were qualitatively the same for English/German and for Japanese/Chinese L2 speakers, with a striking tendency to overgeneralize the regular past tense formation. We conclude that the mental representation of the Dutch past tense rule is essentially the same for Ll and L2 language users.

First language acquisition... second language acquisition: ‘What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?’

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-344
Author(s):  
Susan Foster-Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Question ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

Second language (L2) research appeals to first language acquisition research frequently and standardly. It is important, however, to take stock from time to time of the uses that second language acquisition (SLA) makes of its sister field. Whether we use first language (L1) research to generate or bolster the importance of a particular research question, to argue for a fundamental similarity or a fundamental difference between the two sorts of acquisition, or to offer guidance in the formulation of research paradigms, it is important that we do so with our critical eyes open.This article examines the possible and specific relationships between L1 acquisition and SLA, with the aim of showing that a number of assumptions warrant closer inspection. It begins by examining the expressions ‘first language acquisition’ and ‘second language acquisition’, suggesting that the syntactic and lexical parallelism between the two masks important issues internal to the fields involved. It then explores problems in distinguishing L1 from L2 acquisition from three different perspectives: individual language learner histories, the data, and the mechanisms proposed to account for the two types of acquisition. Finally, it takes a brief look at the sociology of L1 and L2 studies, and suggests that second language study has yet to assume fully its rightful place in the academy.

Exploring the effects of first language influence on second language pragmatic processes from a syntactic deficit perspective

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 212-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Liszka
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Logical Form ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Present Perfect ◽  
Pragmatic Development ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Language Influence

Explaining the persistent optional use of overt forms of certain grammatical properties in adult second language acquisition (SLA) raises the question of whether or not such difficulties are directly attributable to first language (L1) influence. Using Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theoretic framework (1986/95), this paper considers how a grammatical deficit could contribute to non-native-like pragmatic processing at the level of explicature formation=recovery, on the assumption that the decoding of grammatical knowledge at logical form initiates the pragmatic development required for explicature formation. The study focuses on the contrast between the English present perfect (e.g., I have danced/sung) and the semantically close present (e.g., I dance/sing) and preterit (e.g., I danced/sang). Results from comparative data of second language (L2) English speakers from three typologically different language backgrounds (German, Japanese and Chinese) are used to explain how the L1 might influence the L2 acquisition of the present perfect and to assess pragmatic differences post-logical-form, resulting from such an influence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document