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.

‘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.

‘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.

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).

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.

THE TENSE-ASPECT SYSTEM IN PIDGINS AND NATURALISTICALLY LEARNED L2

2003 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Clancy Clements
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Verbal System ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
System A ◽  
Verb Forms ◽  
Third Person ◽  
The Difference ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
The Third Person

The advantages and disadvantages of wider or narrower definitions of pidginization and pidgin are reviewed to determine the differences between pidgins and naturalistically learned second languages (L2s). It is argued that a wider definition is preferred because it avoids problematic counterexamples and captures generalizations that allow us to view the difference between naturalistic L2 varieties and pidgins as one of degree, not of type. In first language (L1) acquisition, Bates and Goodman (1999) showed the link between the development of vocabulary and grammar and argued that this may be explained by, among other things, logical and perceptual bootstrapping. It is suggested that these types of bootstrapping are also relevant for explaining the pace of grammar development in pidgins and naturalistic L2 varieties. The tense-aspect system of a Spanish variety spoken by a Chinese immigrant in Spain is examined in detail. The data, taken from a 90-minute interview that yielded 602 tokens, reveal several clear traits of the informant's verbal system: (a) All nonfinite, imperfective verb forms (gerunds) correspond exclusively to Vendlerian activities; (b) all but three of the perfective nonfinite forms (past participles) correspond to telic verbs or predicates; and (c) 81% of the stative verbs appear in the third-person-singular present form. The sensitivity to aspectual distinctions in the informant's variety of Spanish is not addressed by logical and perceptual bootstrapping. Furthermore, although this sensitivity can be partially explained by language-specific considerations (i.e., transfer from Mandarin), such an explanation does not speak to precise form–function mappings found, which are best accounted for by appealing to the Primacy of Aspect and Distributional Bias hypotheses (Andersen, 1993; Andersen & Shirai, 1996).

The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2

1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Jordens
Keyword(s):  
Simple Model ◽  
Adult Learners ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
German Word ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

In a recent paper, Clahsen and Muysken (1986) argue that children acquiring German as their first language have access to the 'move alpha' matrix when constructing a grammar for German. This should explain why children have SOV base order and the rule of verb-fronting from the very beginning. In this paper, it is argued that children's OV utterances cannot be related trans formationally to VO utterances. Initially, children acquire OV and VO with different sets of verbs.Clahsen and Muysken (1986) also claim that interlanguage rules of adult L2 learners are not definable in linguistic theory. Du Plessis et al. (1987) reply to this in arguing that the interlanguage rules of adults acquiring L2 German word order fall within the range of systems permitted by the Headedness parameter, the Proper Government parameter, and the Adjunction parameter. Therefore, these adult learners should have access to Universal Grammar (UG). It is argued here that it is not necessary to make this assumption. The L2-acquisition data can be easily accounted for within a simple model of L1-structural transfer.

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.

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.

Anomaly detection in the processing of complex syntax by early L2 learners

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Stepanov ◽  
Sara Andreetta ◽  
Penka Stateva ◽  
Adam Zawiszewski ◽  
Itziar Laka
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Early Age ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Complex Syntax ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Syntactic Dependencies ◽  
Syntactic Islands ◽  
L1 And L2

This study investigates the processing of long-distance syntactic dependencies by native speakers of Slovenian (L1) who are advanced learners of Italian as a second language (L2), compared with monolingual Italian speakers. Using a self-paced reading task, we compare sensitivity of the early-acquired L2 learners to syntactic anomalies in their L2 in two empirical domains: (1) syntactic islands, for which the learners’ L1 and L2 grammars provide a converging characterization, and (2) verb–clitic constructions, for which the respective L1 and L2 grammatical descriptions diverge. We find that although our L2 learners show native-like processing patterns in the former, converging, grammatical domain, they may nevertheless perform non-native-like with respect to syntactic phenomena in which the L1 and L2 grammars do not align, despite the early age of L2 acquisition. Implications for theories of L2 acquisition and endstate are discussed.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document