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.

‘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.

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.

Markedness, operator movement and discourse effects in the acquisition of purpose clause constructions in a second language

1997 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-33
Author(s):  
Malcolm A. Finney
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Additional Hypothesis ◽  
Late Emergence ◽  
Initial Learning ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Prepositional Object ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
Matrix Verb ◽  
Operator Movement

This article appraises the effects of gap position and discourse information in the acquisition of purpose clause constructions (PCs) by adult Francophones learning English as L2. L1 acquisition studies reveal children having little difficulty interpreting a PC with a subject gap only (SPC) while a PC with an object gap (OPC) has been problematic to interpret. This may be the result of the number of syntactic operations–including operator movement–involved in its derivation plus lexically specified restrictions on the matrix verb. There are grounds for hypothesizing a late emergence of OPCs in English for French speakers. They are not allowed in French and, in addition to lexical restrictions associated with the choice of matrix verb, are marked semantically and typologically; an OPC with a prepositional object gap is additionally syntactically marked. This may thus result in the late acquisition of OPCs relative to SPCs. An additional hypothesis addresses whether L2 learners are adept at using discourse clues to interpret syntactic structure. Results indicate initial difficulty interpreting only PCs with prepositional object gaps, providing support for the hypothesis that syntactically (structurally) marked constructions may create initial learning difficulty in L2 acquisition.

Innovations in second language research methods

2001 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 221-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Gass
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Stimulated Recall ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Acceptability Judgments ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Acceptance of the claims made by researchers in any field depends in large part on the appropriateness of the methods used to gather data. In this chapter I focus on two approaches to research in second language acquisition: (a) various types of acceptability judgments or probes aimed at assessing acquisition of syntactic structure; and (b) various types of stimulated recall designed to gather learners' accounts of their own thought processes. Both methods attempt to overcome a principal problem in psycholinguistics: the desire to describe a learner's knowledge about a language based on the incomplete evidence stemming from learner production. Refinements in acceptability judgments have come from some newer multiple-choice or truth-value story tasks that allow researchers to determine the level of learner knowledge about particular syntactic structures (in the examples here, reflexives). Stimulated recall offers some additional perspectives, but its usefulness can be greatly affected by the temporal proximity of the recall to the original task; the amount of support provided to prompt the recall; and the nature and amount of training given to both interviewer and interviewee. While these newer research methods can improve the accuracy and variety of data available to SLA investigators, research methods drawn from L1 acquisition or L1 research cannot necessarily be assumed to be equally valid when used to examine L2 acquisition.

scholarly journals Confirming or asserting?

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-43
Author(s):  
Cecilia Andorno ◽  
Fabiana Rosi
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Pragmatic Competence ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
L2 Learners

Yes and no allow an easy management of talk-in-interaction and, unlike other classes of discourse markers, occur from early stages of L2 acquisition onwards (Perdue 1993; Bernini 1996, 2000; Andorno 2008a for L2 Italian). However, problems in their use can arise in replies to negative utterances such as “Didn’t you hear the news?”, “You didn’t read the news, did you?”, as in this case speakers have to choose one of the two conflicting values possibly encoded by the particles — either asserting a positive/negative polarity for the proposition at issue or confirming/reversing the negative polarity conveyed by the previous speaker. Since Pope (1973), a distinction has been drawn between languages with polarity-oriented particles, such as English yes/no, and languages with agreement-oriented particles, such as Japanese hai/iie. The study compares the use of Italian sì/no and other routines such as echo-constructions in native speakers and L2 learners with either a polarity-oriented or an agreement-oriented L1. Results show that cross-linguistic influence can affect the use of sì/no in L2, as pointed for other domains of pragmatic competence (Gass & Selinker 1992; Kasper 1992; Jarvis & Pavlenko 2008). Results further show that, even when learners lack pragmalinguistic competence in the use of particles, they treat replies of confirmation or rejection differently, thus revealing sociopragmatic sensitivity similar to that of native speakers in recognising the markedness of disagreement replies.

scholarly journals Reference tracking in early stages of different modality L2 acquisition: Limited over-explicitness in novice ASL signers’ referring expressions

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Therese Frederiksen ◽  
Rachel I. Mayberry
Keyword(s):  
Control Group ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Limited Evidence ◽  
Reference Tracking ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Zero Anaphora ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Transfer Strategies ◽  
Native Signers

Previous research on reference tracking has revealed a tendency towards over-explicitness in second language (L2) learners. Only limited evidence exists that this trend extends to situations where the learner’s first and second languages do not share a sensory-motor modality. Using a story-telling paradigm, this study examined how hearing novice L2 learners accomplish reference tracking in American Sign Language (ASL), and whether they transfer strategies from gesture. Our results revealed limited evidence of over-explicitness. Instead there was an overall similarity in the L2 learners’ reference tracking to that of a native signer control group, even in the use of lexical nominals, pronouns and zero anaphora – areas where research on spoken L2 reference tracking predicts differences. Our data also revealed, however, that L2 learners have problems with the referential value of ASL classifiers, and with target-like use of zero anaphora from different verb types, as well as spatial modification. This suggests that over-explicitness occurs in the early stages of different modality L2 acquisition to a limited extent. We found no evidence of gestural transfer. Finally, we found that L2 learners reintroduce more than native signers, which could indicate that they, unlike native signers are not yet capable of utilizing the affordances of the visual modality to reference multiple entities simultaneously

'Novel unaccusatives'

2002 ◽  
Vol 135-136 ◽  
pp. 97-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZhaoHong Han
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Longitudinal Data ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Explanatory Account ◽  
The Creation ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Abstract Interlanguage 'novel unaccusative' (term borrowed from BALCOM 1997) has been a subject of investigation since the late 1970s, though it has usually been discussed under the terms of an interlanguage syntactic structure called the 'pseudo-passive' (e.g., SCHACHTER & RUTHERFORD 1979; RUTHERFORD 1983; YIP 1995; HAN 2000). While most of the research to date is in favor of the view that the interlanguage structure is primarily induced by L1 discourse/syntactic influence, BALCOM (1997) provides an alternative explanatory account. Assuming a lexical perspective, she sees the interlanguage structure as the creation of a 'novel unaccusative' through a lexical process of detransitivization. In this paper, I shall discuss Balcom's view, in particular, her contention that interlanguage novel unaccusatives and native-like unaccusatives with transitive counterparts share the same underlying lexical process of detransitivization. Drawing on both natural longitudinal data and elicited data (HAN 1998), I will show that Balcom's view would be over-generalizing if applied across language acquisition contexts. What renders the application problematic is the fact that while some novel unaccusatives from L2 acquisition may derive from the lexical process of detransitivization as in L1 acquisition, some do not. It seems imperative to me that in the context of SLA, we discriminate, at least in loose terms, between developmental and L1-induced novel unaccusatives. Such a distinction is important not only because it helps to refine our understanding of what underlies novel unaccusatives in L2 acquisition, but also because it would lend more accurate guidance to L2 teachers in dealing with novel unaccusatives in the classroom.

‘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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document