scholarly journals L1 Transfer in L2 Acquisition of English Verbal Morphology by Japanese Young Instructed Learners

Languages ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akiko Muroya
Keyword(s):  
Junior High School ◽  
First Language ◽  
Morphological Variability ◽  
Inflectional Morphology ◽  
English Studies ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Verbal Morphology ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Feature Reassembly ◽  
Difficult Area

Inflectional morphology has been considered as a particularly difficult area in second language (L2) acquisition (Lardiere 2008; Slabakova 2008). This paper reports on an empirical study investigating the L2 acquisition of English verbal morphology by Japanese young instructed learners. The aim of this study is to explore how the first language (L1) plays a role in the L2 acquisition of inflectional morphology, by applying the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (FRH, Lardiere 2008, 2009) to a Japanese−English pairing. An elicited production task was administered to Japanese junior high school aged 12–15 (n = 102) and university students aged 19–20 (n = 30). The results show a difference with respect to accuracy rates and error types from previous L2 English studies, in terms of tense−aspect morphology. The findings provide evidence for the FRH’s prediction that attributes morphological variability to L1−L2 contrasts in reassembly of feature matrices for morpholexical items.

THE INTERACTION OF INSTRUCTION AND LEARNER-INTERNAL FACTORS IN THE ACQUISITION OF L2 MORPHOSYNTAX

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Toth
Keyword(s):  
Native Speaker ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Internal Factors ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Verb Classes ◽  
Grammaticality Judgment ◽  
English Speaking

This study considers the role of instruction, second language (L2) input, first language (L1) transfer, and Universal Grammar (UG) in the development of L2 morphosyntactic knowledge. Specifically, it investigates the acquisition of the Spanish morpheme se by English-speaking adult learners. Participants included 91 university students and 30 Spanish native-speaker controls. Learners received form-focused, communicative instruction on se for one week and were tested before, immediately following, and 24 days after the treatment period. Assessment consisted of a grammaticality judgment task and two production tasks using se in a variety of verb classes. The results showed that se had been added to many learners' grammars, but also that L1-derived forms and overgeneralization errors had not been completely preempted. These findings are taken as evidence that the development of L2 grammars is affected by a number of independent, yet cooperating, knowledge sources, which thus supports a modular account of L2 acquisition.

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.

Child second language acquisition from a generative perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belma Haznedar
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Morphological Variability ◽  
Current Work ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Functional Architecture ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
L1 Acquisition

This chapter reviews current work on child second language acquisition from a generative perspective. The primary goal is to identify characteristics of child L2 acquisition in relation to child first language (L1) acquisition and adult second language (L2) acquisition and to discuss its contribution to these sister fields both in typical and atypical domains. The chapter is organized into three sections, covering L1 influence in child L2 acquisition, the acquisition of functional architecture in child L2 acquisition, and the issue of morphological variability. Also included in the last section are the relatively new and fast developing areas of research in atypical child L2 acquisition research.

scholarly journals Syntactic development in early foreign language learning: Effects of L1 transfer, input, and individual factors

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (05) ◽  
pp. 1241-1267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Hopp ◽  
Anja Steinlen ◽  
Christina Schelletter ◽  
Thorsten Piske
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
Foreign Language Learning ◽  
Individual Factors ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Syntactic Development ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis study explores parallels and differences in the comprehension of wh-questions and relative clauses between early foreign-language (FL) learners and monolingual children. We test for (a) effects of syntactic first-language (L1) transfer, (b) the impact of input on syntactic development, and (c) the impact of individual differences on early FL syntactic development. We compare the results to findings in child second language (L2) naturalistic acquisition and adult FL acquisition. Following work on adult FL acquisition, we carried out a picture-based interpretation task with 243 child FL learners in fourth grade at different regular, partial, and high-immersion schools in Germany plus 68 monolingual English children aged 5 to 8 years as controls. The child FL learners display a strong subject-first preference but do not appear to use the L1 syntax in comprehension. Input differences across different schools affect overall accuracy, with students at high-immersion FL schools catching up to monolingual performance within 4 years of learning. Finally, phonological awareness is implicated in both early FL learning and naturalistic child L2 development. These findings suggest that early FL development resembles child L2 acquisition in speed and effects of individual factors, yet is different from adult FL acquisition due to the absence of L1 transfer effects.

scholarly journals Interrelationships between Time and Space in English and French discourse

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annie-Claude Demagny
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Narrative Discourse ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Verbal Morphology ◽  
Time And Space ◽  
Temporal And Spatial ◽  
Voluntary Motion ◽  
L1 English

This paper explores the expression of temporal boundaries in narrative discourse drawing on cartoon-elicited productions which narrate caused and/or voluntary motion events involving four types of paths. We hypothesise that the way speakers express temporal boundaries depends on the “framing” of their first language (Talmy 2000). We therefore examine productions by speakers of L1 French (V-framed language), L1 English (S-framed) and English learners of L2 French at three levels of proficiency. Productions may include a Setting section and a Main event. Findings show that each speaker group has its own mode of expressing temporal and spatial boundaries. The choice in L1 French depends on Path type, but not in L1 English. English learners of L2 French pattern more like L1 French speakers for verbal morphology, but their expression of space is nearly similar to their L1 English. The discussion highlights implications of this linguistic framing type for L2 acquisition.

scholarly journals Interpreting definiteness in a second language without articles: The case of L2 Russian

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacee Cho ◽  
Roumyana Slabakova
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Developmental Patterns ◽  
Feature Reassembly ◽  
Indirect Encoding ◽  
Feature Acquisition ◽  
Feature Expression

This article investigates the second language (L2) acquisition of two expressions of the semantic feature [definite] in Russian, a language without articles, by English and Korean native speakers. Within the Feature Reassembly approach (Lardiere, 2009), Slabakova (2009) has argued that reassembling features that are represented overtly in the first language (L1) and mapping them onto those that are encoded indirectly, or covertly, in the L2 will present a greater difficulty than reassembling features in the opposite learning direction. An idealized scale of predictions of difficulty is proposed based on the overt or covert character of the feature encoding and the ease/difficulty of noticing the feature expression. A total of 158 participants (56 native Russian, 49 English learners and 53 Korean learners of Russian) evaluated the acceptability of test sentences in context. Findings demonstrate that acquiring the expression of a feature that is encoded contextually in the L2 is challenging for learners, while an overt expression of a feature presents less difficulty. On the basis of the learners’ developmental patterns observed in the study, we argue that overt and covert expression of semantic features, feature reassembly, and indirect encoding appear to be significant factors in L2 grammatical feature acquisition.

Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘-s’?: acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Ionin ◽  
Kenneth Wexler
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Inflectional Morphology ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Agreement Morphology ◽  
Verb Raising

This study of first-language (L1) Russian children acquiring English as a second language (L2) investigates the reasons behind omission of verbal inflection in L2 acquisition and argues for presence of functional categories in L2 grammar. Analyses of spontaneous production data show that the child L2 learners ( n = 20), while omitting inflection, almost never produce incorrect tense/agreement morphology. Furthermore, the L2 learners use suppletive inflection at a significantly higher rate than affixal inflection, and overgenerate be auxiliary forms in utterances lacking progressive participles (e.g., they are help people). A grammaticality judgement task of English tense/agreement morphology similarly shows that the child L2 English learners are significantly more sensitive to the be paradigm than to inflection on thematic verbs. These findings suggest that Tense is present in the learners’ L2 grammar, and that it is instantiated through forms of the be auxiliary. It is argued that omission of inflection is due to problems with the realization of surface morphology, rather than to feature impairment, in accordance with the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis of Prévost and White (2000). It is furthermore suggested that L2 learners initially associate morphological agreement with verb-raising and, thus, acquire forms of be before inflectional morphology on in situ thematic verbs.

scholarly journals FROM SEEING ADVERBS TO SEEING VERBAL MORPHOLOGY

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuria Sagarra ◽  
Nick C. Ellis
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Associative Learning ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Inflectional Morphology ◽  
Verbal Morphology ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Shallow Structure Hypothesis ◽  
Verb Inflections ◽  
Shallow Structure

Adult learners have persistent difficulty processing second language (L2) inflectional morphology. We investigate associative learning explanations that involve the blocking of later experienced cues by earlier learned ones in the first language (L1; i.e., transfer) and the L2 (i.e., proficiency). Sagarra (2008) and Ellis and Sagarra (2010b) found that, unlike Spanish monolinguals, intermediate English-Spanish learners rely more on salient adverbs than on less salient verb inflections, but it is not clear whether this preference is a result of a default or a L1-based strategy. To address this question, 120 English (poor morphology) and Romanian (rich morphology) learners of Spanish (rich morphology) and 98 English, Romanian, and Spanish monolinguals read sentences in L2 Spanish (or their L1 in the case of the monolinguals) containing adverb-verb and verb-adverb congruencies or incongruencies and chose one of four pictures after each sentence (i.e., two that competed for meaning and two for form). Eye-tracking data revealed significant effects for (a) sensitivity (all participants were sensitive to tense incongruencies), (b) cue location in the sentence (participants spent more time at their preferred cue, regardless of its position), (c) L1 experience (morphologically rich L1 learners and monolinguals looked longer at verbs than morphologically poor L1 learners and monolinguals), and (d) L2 experience (low-proficiency learners read more slowly and regressed longer than high-proficiency learners). We conclude that intermediate and advanced learners are sensitive to tense incongruencies and—like native speakers—tend to rely more heavily on verbs if their L1 is morphologically rich. These findings reinforce theories that support transfer effects such as the unified competition model and the associative learning model but do not contradict Clahsen and Felser’s (2006a) shallow structure hypothesis because the target structure was morphological agreement rather than syntactic agreement.

scholarly journals Prosodic and lexical marking of contrast in L2 Italian

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppina Turco ◽  
Christine Dimroth ◽  
Bettina Braun
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Pitch Accent ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Native Languages ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Linguistic Markers ◽  
Organizational Principles ◽  
Polarity Contrast

We investigated the second language (L2) acquisition of pragmatic categories that are not as consistently and frequently encoded in the L2 than in the first language (L1). Experiment 1 showed that Italian speakers linguistically highlighted affirmative polarity contrast (e.g. The child ate the candies following after The child did not eat the candies) in 34.3% of the cases, by producing a nuclear pitch accent on the finite verb (i.e. verum focus accent). Experiment 2 revealed that high-proficient German and Dutch non-native speakers of Italian linguistically encoded polarity contrast more frequently, either using a verum focus accent (German) or lexical markers (Dutch). This corresponds closely to the patterns preferred in their native languages. Our results show L1 transfer on three levels: (1) the relevance of the pragmatic category (i.e. marking polarity contrast on the assertion component), (2) the linguistic markers to encode polarity contrast and (3) the phonetic implementation of the intonational marking. These three levels of transfer have implications for how non-native speakers acquire the L2 discourse organizational principles and the linguistic markers to encode them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document