scholarly journals Effects of L1 Transfer Are Profound, Yet Native-Like Processing Strategy Is Attainable: Evidence From Advanced Learners’ Production of Complex L2 Chinese Structures

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fuyun Wu ◽  
Jun Lyu ◽  
Yanan Sheng
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Asymmetric Pattern ◽  
Chinese Learners ◽  
L2 Chinese ◽  
Ultimate Attainment ◽  
English Group

English as a verb-medial language has a short-before-long preference, whereas Korean and Japanese as verb-final languages show a long-before-short preference. In second language (L2) research, little is known regarding how L1 processing strategies affect the ultimate attainment of target structures. Existing work has shown that native speakers of Chinese strongly prefer to utter demonstrative-classifier (DCL) phrases first in subject-extracted relatives (DCL-SR-N) and DCLs second in object-extracted relatives (OR-DCL-N). But it remains unknown whether L2 learners with typologically different language backgrounds are able to acquire native-like strategies, and how they deviate from native speakers or even among themselves. Using a phrase-assembly task, we investigated advanced L2-Chinese learners whose L1s were English, Korean, and Japanese, because English lacks individual classifiers and has postnominal relative clause (RC), whereas Korean and Japanese have individual classifiers and prenominal RCs. Results showed that the English and Korean groups deviated from the native controls’ asymmetric pattern, but the Japanese group approximated native-like performance. Furthermore, compared to the English group, the Korean and Japanese groups favored the DCL-second configuration in SRs and ORs. No differences were found between the Korean and Japanese groups. Overall, our findings suggest that L1 processing strategies play an overarching role in L2 acquisition of asymmetric positioning of DCLs in Chinese RCs.

scholarly journals The acquisition of English stress by Québec Francophones

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guilherme Duarte Garcia ◽  
Natália Brambatti Guzzo
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Acoustic Cues ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Control Data ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Canadian French ◽  
Acoustic Correlates ◽  
Ultimate Attainment

In this chapter, we report the results of two production experiments, one in Canadian French (CF) and one in English, aimed at examining how advanced CF L2ers produce English stress. In other words, our focus is not on language development (i.e. whether learners actually acquire stress in English), but rather on ultimate attainment in L2 acquisition (i.e. how native speakers and advanced learners compare vis-à-vis stress production). In order to evaluate whether L2ers’ rhythmic patterns mirror native English patterns, we compare L2ers’ production with control data, focusing on three possi- ble acoustic correlates of prominence: duration, pitch (F0) and intensity. To verify whether L2ers transfer acoustic cues or rhythmic patterns from their first language (L1) into the L2, we also analyse how prominence is produced by L2ers in their L1.

The acquisition of Mandarin dative constructions by L2 and heritage learners

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-275
Author(s):  
Chunsheng Yang ◽  
Han Luo
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Heritage Learners ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Grammaticality Judgment ◽  
L2 Chinese ◽  
Chinese Teaching ◽  
Linguistic Universal

AbstractThis study examines the acquisition of Mandarin dative constructions by second language (L2) and heritage learners of Mandarin Chinese. Three groups of speakers (L2, heritage, and native, 20 in each group) participated in this study by completing a questionnaire consisting of sentence translation and grammaticality judgment tasks on Mandarin dative constructions. In both tasks, native speakers outperformed the heritage learners, who in turn outperformed the L2 learners. The variance of performance in the two tasks across groups can be attributed to several factors, including linguistic universal, first language (L1) transfer, and individual difference. This study shows that L2 acquisition is a complex system and no single factor can fully explain or predict L2 learning outcomes. The findings of this study also have important pedagogical implications for L2 Chinese teaching.

Transfer and unlearning of topic prominence by Chinese learners of English

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Chang ◽  
Lilong Xu
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
English Only ◽  
Cognitive States ◽  
Chinese Learners ◽  
Topic Constructions ◽  
Chinese Learners Of English

Abstract Chinese allows both gapped and gapless topic constructions without their usage being restricted to specific contexts, while English only allows gapped topic constructions which are used in certain contexts. In other words, Chinese uses ‘topic prominence’, whereas English does not. The contrast between English and Chinese topic constructions poses a learnability problem for Chinese learners of English. This paper uses an empirical study investigating first language (L1) transfer in the case of Chinese learners of English and the extent to which they are able to unlearn topic prominence as they progress in second language (L2) English. Results of an acceptability judgment test indicate that Chinese learners of English initially transfer Chinese topic prominence into their English, then gradually unlearn Chinese topic prominence as their English proficiency improves, and finally unlearn Chinese topic prominence successfully. The results support the Full Transfer Theory (Schwartz, Bonnie & Rex Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research 12. 40–72) and the Variational Learning Model (Yang, Charles. 2004. Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 451–456), but contradict the proposal that the topic prominence can never be transferred but may be unlearned from the beginning in Chinese speakers’ acquisition of English (Zheng, Chao. 2001. Nominal Constructions Beyond IP and Their Initial Restructuring in L2 Acquisition. Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Foreign Studies Ph.D. dissertation). In addition, the type of topic constructions that is used and whether or not a comma is added after the topic have an effect on learners’ transfer and unlearning of topic prominence. It is proposed that the specification of Agr(eement) and T(ense) as well as the presence of expletive subjects in English input can trigger the unlearning of topic prominence for Chinese learners of English.

L1 transfer, proficiency, and the recognition of L2 verb-noun collocations: A perspective from three languages

2019 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Senyung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
English Only ◽  
Mixed Effects Modeling ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract This study investigated the effect of first language (L1) transfer in the recognition of second language (L2) collocations and unacceptable word combinations across low-intermediate to advanced learners of English, and the relationship between proficiency and the recognition of L2 collocations. The study targeted learners from two different L1 backgrounds and native speakers of English in order to disentangle the effect of L1 transfer from the effect of intralingual factors. Four types of English verb-noun combinations were included: English-Korean-Mandarin, English-only, Korean-only, and Mandarin-only phrases. A phrase acceptability judgment task and a phrase recognition report were used. The performances of 92 participants were analyzed using mixed effects modeling. The results from both Korean and Mandarin groups revealed no L1 influence in the recognition of unacceptable L2 word combinations, even at low levels of proficiency. The results also showed that L2 proficiency predicts learners’ ability to rule out grammatical-but-unacceptable L2 word combinations, but not the ability to recognize L2 collocations

Acquiring phenomena at the syntax/semantics interface in L2 Spanish

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 67-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes ◽  
Theodoros Marinis
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Proficiency Levels ◽  
Verb Semantics ◽  
Syntactic Features ◽  
Interface Phenomena ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
The Subject

Recent second language (L2) acquisition research has proposed that purely syntactic features are easier to acquire and less vulnerable than ones involving the interfaces (Sorace, 2004; Serratrice et al. 2004). The present paper addresses this issue by investigating the acquisition of the Spanish personal preposition a in English L2 learners of Spanish. The distribution of a in direct object NPs relates to the specificity/definiteness of the NP, the animacy/agentivity of the subject, and verb semantics (Torrego 1998; Zagona 2002). 33 English L2 learners of Spanish of different proficiency levels, and 14 Spanish controls participated in an acceptability judgement task. The results showed significant differences between native speakers and L2 learners of all proficiency levels, who performed at chance, and support the claim that L2 learners have difficulties acquiring structures involving the syntax/semantics interface. However, the advanced learners showed sensitivity to the least complex condition providing evidence that interface phenomena may be acquirable.

The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
HOLGER HOPP
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Reading Task ◽  
On Line ◽  
Discourse Interface ◽  
Ultimate Attainment ◽  
L1 English

This study investigates ultimate attainment at the syntax–discourse interface in adult second-language (L2) acquisition. In total, 91 L1 (first-language) English, L1 Dutch and L1 Russian advanced-to-near-native speakers of German and 63 native controls are tested on an acceptability judgement task and an on-line self-paced reading task. These centre on discourse-related word order optionality in German. Results indicate that convergence at the syntax–discourse interface is in principle possible in adult L2 acquisition, both in off-line knowledge and on-line processing, even for L1 English speakers, whose L1 does not correspond to L2 German in discourse-to-syntax mappings. At the same time, non-convergence of the L1 Dutch groups and differences in the L2 groups' performance between tasks suggest that asymmetries in L1–L2 discourse configurations and computational difficulties in mapping discourse onto syntax constrain L2 performance.

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 Pair-list readings in Korean-Japanese, Chinese-Japanese and English-Japanese interlanguage

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Investigation ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Experimental Task ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
First Languages ◽  
Korean Chinese ◽  
Japanese Learners

In English and Chinese, questions with a wh-object and a universally quantified subject (e.g. What did everyone buy?) allow an individual answer (Everyone bought apples.) and a pair-list answer ( Sam bought apples, Jo bought bananas, Sally bought...). By contrast, the pair-list answer is reportedly unavailable in Japanese and Korean. This article documents an experimental investigation of the interpretation of such questions in non-native Japanese by learners whose first languages (Lls) are Korean, Chinese or English. The results show that, regardless of L1, only a minority of advanced second language (L2) Japanese learners demonstrate knowledge of the absence of pair-list readings in Japanese. In English-Japanese and Chinese-Japanese interlanguage, L1 transfer readily accounts for this finding: the L1 grammar, which allows pair-list readings, may obstruct acquisition of the more restrictive Japanese grammar. But in Korean-Japanese interlanguage, L1 transfer predicts rejection of pair-list answers. However, in a Korean version of the experimental task, a native Korean control group robustly accepts pair-list readings, contra expectations. A proposal to account for this finding is put forward, under which the Korean-Japanese interlanguage data become compatible with an L1-transfer-based model of L2 acquisition. Moreover, the native-like rejection of pair-list readings by some advanced learners of all three L1 backgrounds is argued to imply that UG constraints operate at the L2 syntax-semantics interface.

The acquisition of object movement in Dutch: L1 transfer and near-native grammars at the syntax–discourse interface

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Smeets
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Object Movement ◽  
Target Performance ◽  
Discourse Interface ◽  
L1 English

This article investigates near-native grammars at the syntax–discourse interface by examining the second language (L2) acquisition of two different domains of object movement in Dutch, which exhibit syntax–discourse or syntax–semantics level properties. English and German near-native speakers of Dutch, where German but not English allows the same mapping strategies as Dutch in the phenomena under investigation, are tested on two felicity judgment tasks and a truth value judgment task. The results from the English participants show sensitivity to discourse information on the acceptability of non-canonical word orders, but only when the relevant discourse cues are sufficiently salient in the input. The acquisition of semantic effects on object movement was native-like for a large subset of the participants. The German group performed on target in all experiments. The results are partially in line with previous studies reporting L2 convergence at the syntax–discourse interface, but suggest that input effects should also be taken into account. Furthermore, the differences between the first language (L1) English and the L1 German group suggests that non-target performance at the syntax–discourse interface is not caused by general bilingual difficulties in integrating discourse information into syntax. The article elaborates on factors that contribute to (in)complete acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface.

Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Hopp
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Response Latencies ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Reading Accuracy ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Ultimate Attainment ◽  
L1 English

In order to investigate second language (L2) processing at ultimate attainment, 20 first language (L1) English and 20 L1 Dutch advanced to near-native speakers of German as well as 20 native Germans were tested in two experiments on subject-object ambiguities in German. The results from a self-paced reading task and a speeded acceptability judgement task show that the lower-proficient advanced learners in this study display the same processing preferences as natives in reading accuracy yet fail to demonstrate differential response latencies associated with native syntactic reanalysis. By contrast, near-native speakers of either L1 converge on incremental native reanalysis patterns. Together, the findings highlight the role of proficiency for processing the target language since it is only at near-native levels of proficiency that non-natives converge on native-like parsing. The results support the view that endstate non-native processing and native processing are qualitatively identical.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document