Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 183-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Cadierno ◽  
Lucas Ruiz
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Adult Language Learners ◽  
Thinking For Speaking ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

The overall aim of this paper is to discuss how Talmy’s (1985, 2000) typological framework and Slobin’s (1996) thinking for speaking hypothesis can be fruitful for the investigation of how adult language learners come to express motion events in an L2. We report an empirical study which compares the expression of the semantic components of Path and Manner of motion by three groups of informants: (a) learners whose L1 and L2 belong to different typological patterns (Danish learners of Spanish; (b) learners whose L1 and L2 share the same typological pattern (Italian learners of Spanish); and (c) Spanish native speakers. Based on previous research on L1 acquisition, it was hypothesized that the Danish learner group would exhibit a higher degree of elaboration of the two semantic components than the other informant groups. The results of the study, however, show a limited role for the L1 thinking for speaking patterns in advanced second language acquisition.

A functional approach to the attainability of typological targets in L2 acquisition

1986 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Zobl
Keyword(s):  
Functional Approach ◽  
Input String ◽  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Logical Entailment ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Relationship Of

This paper proposes a functional, parsing-based approach to the attainability of typological targets in L1 and L2 acquisition. Ideally, there should be a functional synchronization between the order in which principles constituting typological values emerge in learner grammars and the computational demands imposed by the simplest data instantiating a typological value. In L2 acquisition this functional synchronization is jeopardized by the possibility of L1-inspired misparses which may impute more structure to an input string than is consistent with a minimal parse. As a result, the more marked typological setting or the implicans of two grammatical principles in a relationship of logical entailment can appear first in interlanguage grammars. In L1 acquisition, on the other hand, misparses appear to be the result of assuming too little structure. Because of these differences, recovery from an inappropriate value follows different courses in L1 and L2 acquisition. It is proposed that this difference has important implications for the learn-ability of first and second languages.

scholarly journals A cross-language study of the speech sounds in Yorùbá and Malay: Implications for Second Language Acquisition

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Boluwaji Oshodi
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Sound System ◽  
Austronesian Language ◽  
Correct Pronunciation ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Source Of Error

Acquiring a language begins with the knowledge of its sounds system which falls under the branch of linguistics known as phonetics. The knowledge of the sound system becomes very important to prospective learners particularly L2 learners whose L1 exhibits different sounds and features from the target L2 because this knowledge is vital in order to internalise the correct pronunciation of words. This study examined and contrasted the sound systems of Yorùbá a Niger-Congo language spoken in Nigeria to that of Malay (Peninsular variety), an Austronesian language spoken in Malaysia with emphasis on the areas of differences. The data for this study were collected from ten participants; five native female Malay speakers who are married to Yorùbá native speakers but live in Malaysia and five Yorùbá native speakers who reside in Nigeria. The findings revealed that speakers from both sides have difficulties with sounds and features in the L2 which are not attested in their L1 and they tended to substitute them for similar ones in their L1 through transfer. This confirms the fact that asymmetry between the sound systems of L1 and L2 is a major source of error in L2 acquisition.

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.

The acquisition of parameterized grammars

1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Identical Fashion

In this paper, I look at some problems that arise if second language learners are assumed to acquire the L2 on the basis of unconstrained hypothesis testing, since this crucially involves the assumption of the availability of negative evidence and does not seem to be sufficiently 'fine-tuned' for the learner to acquire certain aspects of the L2 grammar. Instead, it is proposed that L2 acquisition, like L1, may involve the prior knowledge of a number of highly contrained principles of Universal Grammar which restrict the number of options available to the learner. In some cases, these principles may be subject to parametric variation, so that they do not work in identical fashion in L1 and L2, allowing for the possibility of transfer of the L1 parameter setting. Taking subjacency as a case in point, a pilot study is reported in which native speakers of French and Spanish learning English as a second language were tested for their judgements on the bounding status of S in the L2 grammar. In English S is a bounding node, whereas in French and Spanish it is not. It was found that subjects were less accurate in their judgements on the bounding status of S in English than native-speaking controls, with a number of subjects consistently transferring the L1 parameter. In most cases, subjects showed improvement with increasing level of ESL proficiency. The majority of subjects adopted a consistent position with respect to the question of the bounding status of S, suggesting that they were not indulging in unconstrained hypothesis testing.

Linguistic universals, markedness and learnability: comparing two different approaches

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Subset Principle ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Language Learnability

There are currently two different linguistically-based approaches to universals in second language acquisition, one stemming from typological universals (Greenberg, 1966) and the other from Chomskyan Universal Grammar. Associated with each approach is a concept of markedness. Typologists define markedness implicationally; current theories of language learnability define markedness in terms of the Subset Principle. Although coming from very different perspectives, these two definitions of markedness coincide in a number of predictions they make for L1 and L2 acquisition. Similarities and differences between these two approaches to markedness and acquisition are discussed in this paper.

A CASE STUDY OF NL INFLUENCE IN UNIS FKIP ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS' INTERLANGUAGE

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-54
Author(s):  
Irmala Sukendra ◽  
Agus Mulyana ◽  
Imam Sudarmaji
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Communicative Competence ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Similar System ◽  
The One ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Regardless to the facts that English is being taught to Indonesian students starting from early age, many Indonesian thrive in learning English. They find it quite troublesome for some to acquire the language especially to the level of communicative competence. Although Krashen (1982:10) states that “language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for communication”, second language acquisition has several obstacles for learners to face and yet the successfulness of mastering the language never surmounts to the one of the native speakers. Learners have never been able to acquire the language as any native speakers do. Mistakes are made and inter-language is unavoidable. McNeili in Ellis (1985, p. 44) mentions that “the mentalist views of L1 acquisition hypothesizes the process of acquisition consists of hypothesis-testing, by which means the grammar of the learner’s mother tongue is related to the principles of the ‘universal grammar’.” Thus this study intends to find out whether the students go through the phase of interlanguage in their attempt to acquire second language and whether their interlanguage forms similar system as postulated by linguists (Krashen).

scholarly journals Isomorphism and language-specific devices in comprehension of Korean suffixal passive construction by Mandarin-speaking learners of Korean

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gyu-Ho Shin ◽  
Sun Hee Park
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Verbal Morphology ◽  
Passive Voice ◽  
Passive Construction ◽  
Case Marking

Abstract Across languages, a passive construction is known to manifest a misalignment between the typical order of event composition (agent-before-theme) and the actual order of arguments in the constructions (theme-before-agent), dubbed non-isomorphic mapping. This study investigates comprehension of a suffixal passive construction in Korean by Mandarin-speaking learners of Korean, focusing on isomorphism and language-specific devices in the passive. We measured learners’ judgment of the acceptability of canonical and scrambled suffixal passives as well as their reaction times (relative to a canonical active transitive). Our analysis generated three major findings. First, learners uniformly preferred the canonical passive to the scrambled passive. Second, as proficiency increased, the judgment gap between the canonical active transitive and the canonical suffixal passive narrowed, but the gap between the canonical active transitive and the scrambled suffixal passive did not. Third, learners (and even native speakers) spent more time in judging the acceptability of the canonical suffixal passive than they did in the other two construction types. Implications of these findings are discussed with respect to the mapping nature involving a passive voice, indicated by language-specific devices (i.e., case-marking and verbal morphology dedicated to Korean passives), in L2 acquisition.

scholarly journals Different speakers, different grammars

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewa Dąbrowska
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
Inflectional Morphology ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Widespread Belief ◽  
Ultimate Attainment

This article reviews several recent studies suggesting that — contrary to a widespread belief — adult monolingual native speakers of the same language do not share the same mental grammar. The studies examined various aspects of linguistic knowledge, including inflectional morphology, passives, quantifiers, and more complex constructions with subordinate clauses. The findings suggest that, in some cases, language learners attend to different cues in the input and end up with different grammars; in others, some speakers extract only fairly specific, ‘local’ generalizations which apply to particular subclasses of items while others acquire more abstract rules which apply ‘across the board’. At least some of these differences are education-related: more educated speakers appear to acquire more general rules, possibly as a result of more varied linguistic experience. These findings have interesting consequences for research on bilingualism, particularly for research on ultimate attainment in second language acquisition, as well as important methodological implications for all language sciences.

scholarly journals Tracking Syntactic Conflict between Languages over the Course of L2 Acquisition: A Cross-sectional Event-related Potential Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 822-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Mickan ◽  
Kristin Lemhöfer
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Control Group ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Sentence Reading ◽  
Conflict Condition ◽  
Beginning Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

One challenge of learning a foreign language (L2) in adulthood is the mastery of syntactic structures that are implemented differently in L2 and one's native language (L1). Here, we asked how L2 speakers learn to process syntactic constructions that are in direct conflict between L1 and L2, in comparison to structures without such a conflict. To do so, we measured EEG during sentence reading in three groups of German learners of Dutch with different degrees of L2 experience (from 3 to more than 18 months of L2 immersion) as well as a control group of Dutch native speakers. They read grammatical and ungrammatical Dutch sentences that, in the conflict condition, contained a structure with opposing word orders in Dutch and German (sentence-final double infinitives) and, in the no-conflict condition, a structure for which word order is identical in Dutch and German (subordinate clause inversion). Results showed, first, that beginning learners showed N400-like signatures instead of the expected P600 for both types of violations, suggesting that, in the very early stages of learning, different neurocognitive processes are employed compared with native speakers, regardless of L1–L2 similarity. In contrast, both advanced and intermediate learners already showed native-like P600 signatures for the no-conflict sentences. However, their P600 signatures were significantly delayed in processing the conflicting structure, even though behavioral performance was on a native level for both these groups and structures. These findings suggest that L1–L2 word order conflicts clearly remain an obstacle to native-like processing, even for advanced L2 learners.

Can the APT be a theory of Multiple Grammars and a minimal theory of parsing?

2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-41
Author(s):  
TOM ROEPER
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Final State ◽  
Minimal Theory ◽  
Processing Theory ◽  
Computational Work ◽  
Lexical Items ◽  
L1 Acquisition

This essay by Truscott and Sharwood-Smith is a valiant attempt with a laudable goal. It seeks to show how different perspectives and disciplines can capture what is happening in acquisition and notably in L2 acquisition. Nonetheless, I think that the results are much closer to an elaborated grammatical theory than an elaborated processing theory (thus it seems less important to me than to the authors to choose one label over the other). Their essential, sensible idea is that where different grammars provide independent analyses of constructions, both are computed (even where the lexical items belong to only one grammar). Therefore conflict is experienced which produces computational demands. However this is pure grammar – just a more sophisticated situation where, as I like to argue, the L2 person has Multiple Grammars (Roeper, 1999), creating more computational work as well. In this respect, the situation is no different from L1 acquisition, where the course of acquisition involves generation and maintenance of multiple grammars, some of which are shed and some retained in the Final State.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document