Does explicit instruction affect L2 linguistic competence? An examination with L2 acquisition of English inverse scope

2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832199283
Author(s):  
Mien-Jen Wu ◽  
Tania Ionin
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Intervention Study ◽  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
Linguistic Competence ◽  
The Other ◽  
Quantifier Scope ◽  
L2 Acquisition

This article investigates whether explicit instruction can affect second language (L2) competence in the domain of English quantifier scope. An intervention study was conducted with L1-Mandarin L2-English learners in order to examine (1) whether these learners can learn inverse scope for the structure on which they are instructed (double-quantifier configuration: A dog scared every man; quantifier-negation configuration: Every sheep did not jump over the fence); (2) whether they can correctly generalize availability of inverse scope from the configuration on which they are instructed to one on which they are not instructed; and (3) whether learners overgeneralize inverse scope to a superficially similar configuration that does not allow inverse scope. Following Schwartz (1993), generalization is taken to be a hallmark of true acquisition (= changes to linguistic competence) as opposed to learning. The results show that learners successfully learn inverse scope for the configuration on which they are instructed, but do not generalize availability of inverse scope to the other configuration. Moreover, learners instructed on double-quantifier configurations overgeneralize availability of inverse scope to island configurations such as There is one dog which scared every man. The findings indicate that in this domain, explicit instruction does not affect linguistic competence.

L1 Korean and L1 Mandarin L2 English learners’ acquisition of the count/mass distinction in English

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sea Hee Choi ◽  
Tania Ionin ◽  
Yeqiu Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
English Learners ◽  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Mandarin Speakers

This study investigates the second language (L2) acquisition of the English count/mass distinction by speakers of Korean and Mandarin Chinese, with a focus on the semantics of atomicity. It is hypothesized that L1-Korean and L1-Mandarin L2-English learners are influenced by atomicity in the use of the count/mass morphosyntax in English. This hypothesis is tested in two experiments, one comparing Korean and Mandarin speakers in their L2 (English) and the other investigating count/mass morphosyntax in native Korean and Mandarin Chinese. In both experiments, participants are tested on their suppliance of plural marking with count and mass NPs. The findings are fully consistent with the view of atomicity as a semantic universal: learners overuse plural marking with mass atomic nouns such as furniture more than with mass non-atomic nouns such as water. Even though plural marking is associated with atomicity in Korean but not in Mandarin, the same patterns are observed in L1-Korean and L1-Mandarin L2-English learners. We conclude that learners’ performance is not due to L1-transfer, but rather to the role of the semantic universal of atomicity in L2-acquisition.

Restrictive relative clauses in English and Korean learners' second language Chinese

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoling Hu ◽  
Chuanping Liu
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Head Direction ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Resumptive Pronouns ◽  
First Languages ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Korean Learners

This study investigates the second language (L2) acquisition of restrictive relative clauses (RRCs) in Chinese by two groups of learners speaking typologically different first languages (L1s): English and Korean. English RRCs, unlike those of Chinese, are head-initial whereas Korean RRCs, like those of Chinese, are head-final. The difference could be predicted to hinder English learners' acquisition of L2 RRCs but facilitate it for Korean learners. This prediction was not confirmed in this study, in fact the reverse was observed, and our data show contrasting patterns of acquisition between the two groups of learners. The English learners distinguished between target-like RRCs and non-target-like RRCs earlier than the Korean learners. A corresponding difference was observed for acquisition of resumptive pronouns. It is argued that where the L1 and the L2 share salient properties (such as head direction) restructuring of less salient features encoded in functional categories takes longer and may be persistently problematic. We suggest that the fact that Korean is more similar to Chinese (perhaps superficially, same head direction) leads learners not to restructure quickly, while the surface dissimilarity of English and Chinese gives rise to rapid restructuring in L2 grammars of learners.

scholarly journals Second language attainment and first language attrition: The case of VOT in immersed Dutch–German late bilinguals

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje Stoehr ◽  
Titia Benders ◽  
Janet G van Hell ◽  
Paula Fikkert
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Voice Onset Time ◽  
First Language ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Attrition ◽  
At Home ◽  
Late Bilinguals

Speech of late bilinguals has frequently been described in terms of cross-linguistic influence (CLI) from the native language (L1) to the second language (L2), but CLI from the L2 to the L1 has received relatively little attention. This article addresses L2 attainment and L1 attrition in voicing systems through measures of voice onset time (VOT) in two groups of Dutch–German late bilinguals in the Netherlands. One group comprises native speakers of Dutch and the other group comprises native speakers of German, and the two groups further differ in their degree of L2 immersion. The L1-German–L2-Dutch bilinguals ( N = 23) are exposed to their L2 at home and outside the home, and the L1-Dutch–L2-German bilinguals ( N = 18) are only exposed to their L2 at home. We tested L2 attainment by comparing the bilinguals’ L2 to the other bilinguals’ L1, and L1 attrition by comparing the bilinguals’ L1 to Dutch monolinguals ( N = 29) and German monolinguals ( N = 27). Our findings indicate that complete L2 immersion may be advantageous in L2 acquisition, but at the same time it may cause L1 phonetic attrition. We discuss how the results match the predictions made by Flege’s Speech Learning Model and explore how far bilinguals’ success in acquiring L2 VOT and maintaining L1 VOT depends on the immersion context, articulatory constraints and the risk of sounding foreign accented.

Theories of second language acquisition: three sides, three angles, three points

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Cognitive Bias ◽  
Sociocultural Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Theory Construction ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Point Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Metric

Three recent books take up different positions in the on-going debate about how, and out of what, to construct a theory of second language (L2) acquisition. Johnson (2004) advocates a ‘dialogically based approach’, inspired by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Bakhtin’s ‘dialogized heteroglossia’, with which she would replace what she views as a prevailing ‘cognitive bias’ in the field. Block (2003) similarly supports a ‘more interdisciplinary and socially informed orientation’ to second language acquisition. But Block wants to reform rather than replace certain assumptions of what he represents as the best existing theory of second language acquisition, namely, Susan Gass’ Input-Interaction-Output model (IIO model). Jordan (2004), on the other hand, argues forcefully that theorizing about second language acquisition must be based on a rationalist epistemology. He provides a set of ‘Guidelines’ for theory construction, including six assumptions foundational to rationalist inquiry in general, and a five-point evaluation metric against which rival theories can be judged. He also passes on a list of six ‘practices to be avoided’. Jordan encourages the cultivation of many, varied, theories so long as they observe the rationalist Guidelines. He goes on to criticize a broad sample of L2 research, commenting on whether specific proposals do or do not adhere to the Guidelines. This article reviews all three scholars’ positions in this important debate, which has the potential to sharpen second language theorists’ sense of what they are doing and how they should do it.

Contributions of the study of Japanese as a second language to our general understanding of second language acquisition and the definition of second language acquisition research

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shigenori Wakabayashi
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Definition Of

Japanese has figured frequently in second language acquisition (SLA) research, but more often than not it appears as the first language (L1) rather than the target. In this article, first I discuss the problems addressed and the insights obtained in these studies. I then consider two issues. One is what the field of SLA research should include. I suggest that it should include two categories, namely Core SLA Research, where second language (L2) linguistic knowledge is investigated, and Broad SLA research, where researchers study factors that influence the development of L2 knowledge. The other issue is what we can expect in Core SLA research concerning the L2 acquisition of Japanese. This article illustrates how studies of the L2 acquisition of Japanese can contribute to our understanding of SLA.

Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
PANOS ATHANASOPOULOS
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Japanese Speakers ◽  
Language And Cognition ◽  
Grammatical Number ◽  
The Relationship

Research investigating the relationship between language and cognition (Lucy, 1992b) shows that speakers of languages with grammatical number marking (e.g. English) judge differences in the number of countable objects as more significant than differences in the number or amount of non-countable substances. On the other hand, speakers of languages which lack grammatical number marking (e.g. Yucatec) show no such preference. The current paper extends Lucy's (1992b) investigation, comparing monolingual English and Japanese speakers with Japanese speakers of English as a second language (L2). Like Yucatec, Japanese is a non-plural-marking language. Results show that intermediate L2 speakers behave similarly to the Japanese monolinguals while advanced L2 speakers behave similarly to the English monolinguals. The results (a) provide support for the claim that grammatical representation may influence cognition in specific ways and (b) suggest that L2 acquisition may alter cognitive dispositions established by a first language (L1).

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.

scholarly journals Implicit and Explicit Second Language Training Recruit Common Neural Mechanisms for Syntactic Processing

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 936-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Batterink ◽  
Helen Neville
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Behavioral Measures ◽  
Learning Conditions ◽  
Grammar Rules ◽  
Implicit And Explicit

In contrast to native language acquisition, adult second-language (L2) acquisition occurs under highly variable learning conditions. Although most adults acquire their L2 at least partially through explicit instruction, as in a classroom setting, many others acquire their L2 primarily through implicit exposure, as is typical of an immersion environment. Whether these differences in acquisition environment play a role in determining the neural mechanisms that are ultimately recruited to process L2 grammar has not been well characterized. This study investigated this issue by comparing the ERP response to novel L2 syntactic rules acquired under conditions of implicit exposure and explicit instruction, using a novel laboratory language-learning paradigm. Native speakers tested on these stimuli showed a biphasic response to syntactic violations, consisting of an earlier negativity followed by a later P600 effect. After merely an hour of training, both implicitly and explicitly trained learners who were capable of detecting grammatical violations also elicited P600 effects. In contrast, learners who were unable to discriminate between grammatically correct and incorrect sentences did not show significant P600 effects. The magnitude of the P600 effect was found to correlate with learners' behavioral proficiency. Behavioral measures revealed that successful learners from both the implicit and explicit groups gained explicit, verbalizable knowledge about the L2 grammar rules. Taken together, these results indicate that late, controlled mechanisms indexed by the P600 play a crucial role in processing a late-learned L2 grammar, regardless of training condition. These findings underscore the remarkable plasticity of later, attention-dependent processes and their importance in lifelong learning.

Review article: Spanish-English and Portuguese-English interlanguage phonology

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-282
Author(s):  
Fred R Eckman
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Adult Learners ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Review Article ◽  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Phonology

This review article evaluates the intersection of the content of two recent anthologies in second language (L2) phonology. One of the books lays out both the methodological context and theoretical underpinnings of the field, whereas the other volume reports 11 empirical studies on the L2 acquisition of several aspects of pronunciation by adult learners of English whose native language is either Spanish or Brazilian Portuguese. The criteria applied for the evaluation lead to the conclusion that, for the most part, the studies are successful in presenting an interesting array of second-language pronunciation patterns, and that such an intersection of domains is a fruitful way to advance the field of interphonology.

(Working) memory and L2 acquisition and processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Rankin
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Survey Research ◽  
The Other ◽  
Large Array ◽  
Valuable Resource ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Memory Processing ◽  
Bilingual Processing ◽  
Empirical Tests

This review evaluates two recent anthologies that survey research at the intersection of cognitive psychological investigations of (working) memory and issues in second language (L2), and bilingual processing and acquisition. The volumes cover similar ground by outlining the theoretical underpinnings of models of (working) memory as well as providing empirical tests of a range of topics in bilingual and L2 acquisition and use. However, while one volume focuses specifically on issues of working memory and L2 acquisition and processing, the other provides a broader overview of the interface between memory and bilingualism more generally. Taken together, the volumes present a large array of research and will be a valuable resource for students and researchers interested in issues in bilingual memory, processing and acquisition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document