scholarly journals A Contrastive Study of L1 and L2 Acquisition

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Moinzadeh ◽  
Salman Dezhara ◽  
Omid Rezaei
Keyword(s):  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Contrastive Study ◽  
L1 And L2

scholarly journals Contrastive Study between Pronunciation Chinese L1 and English L2 from the Perspective of Interference Based on Observations in Genuine Teaching Contexts

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Contrastive Study ◽  
Learning Contexts ◽  
Asian Languages ◽  
L1 And L2

<p>Much research has been conducted on factors that impact on second language (L2) speech production in light of the age of L2 acquisition, the length of residence in the L2 environment, motivation, the amount of first language (L1) usage, etc. Very little of this research has taken the perspective of interference between L1 and L2, especially with respect to Asian languages. This article tries to locate the differences in pronunciation between Chinese L1 and English L2 by contrastive analysis through observing genuine teaching and learning contexts, in hope of facilitating English pronunciation pedagogy in China.</p>

A View of the Lexical–Grammatical Link in Young Latinos With Specific Language Impairment Using Language-Specific and Conceptual Measures

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 1775-1786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucía I. Méndez ◽  
Gabriela Simon-Cereijido
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Vocabulary Skills ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
L1 And L2

Purpose This study investigated the nature of the association of lexical–grammatical abilities within and across languages in Latino dual language learners (DLLs) with specific language impairment (SLI) using language-specific and bilingual measures. Method Seventy-four Spanish/English–speaking preschoolers with SLI from preschools serving low-income households participated in the study. Participants had stronger skills in Spanish (first language [L1]) and were in the initial stages of learning English (second language [L2]). The children's lexical, semantic, and grammar abilities were assessed using normative and researcher-developed tools in English and Spanish. Hierarchical linear regressions of cross-sectional data were conducted using measures of sentence repetition tasks, language-specific vocabulary, and conceptual bilingual lexical and semantic abilities in Spanish and English. Results Results indicate that language-specific vocabulary abilities support the development of grammar in L1 and L2 in this population. L1 vocabulary also contributes to L2 grammar above and beyond the contribution of L2 vocabulary skills. However, the cross-linguistic association between vocabulary in L2 and grammar skills in the stronger or more proficient language (L1) is not observed. In addition, conceptual vocabulary significantly supported grammar in L2, whereas bilingual semantic skills supported L1 grammar. Conclusions Our findings reveal that the same language-specific vocabulary abilities drive grammar development in L1 and L2 in DLLs with SLI. In the early stages of L2 acquisition, vocabulary skills in L1 also seem to contribute to grammar skills in L2 in this population. Thus, it is critical to support vocabulary development in both L1 and L2 in DLLs with SLI, particularly in the beginning stages of L2 acquisition. Clinical and educational implications are discussed.

scholarly journals Between Knowledge and Use of Iban and Malay Multiword Expression: An Insight into L1 and L2 Acquisition and Competence

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanthi Nadarajan ◽  
Fiona Balan
Keyword(s):  
Local Knowledge ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Questionnaire Data ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Multiword Expressions ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
Schooling Experience ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Insight Into

This article examines usage and use of multiword expressions (MWE) among Iban youths in Sarawak. The questionnaire data were from 80 Iban youths who had to identify 15 MWE (similar, nearly similar and different) in Malay and Iban, and use them at the word, phrase and sentence levels. The findings revealed that close to 67% of the respondents could not recognise or use expressions in Iban, suggesting some loss of productive knowledge and language empowerment. However, respondents with recent schooling experience were able to use the expressions in Malay and reproduce them in written forms. Formal instruction and the written language have helped to extend local knowledge and use of MWE expressions for Iban youths. The study suggests that documentation, preservation and maintenance efforts stand to benefit when there is greater sharing and consciousness raising of common features between and among languages in the region.

L1 attrition and L2 acquisition

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 248-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conny Opitz
Keyword(s):  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Host Community ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Lexical Retrieval ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Verbal Fluency Task ◽  
L1 Attrition ◽  
Global Language ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Fluency Task

L1 attrition is increasingly being studied as a feature of bilingualism, taking into account the parallel process of L2 language acquisition in a migrant situation. Such situations may foster L1 attrition as a result of insufficient L1 input and competition or interaction with the language of the host community. In a study of 27 German late bilinguals resident in Ireland, the question of a possible interaction between the two language systems (German and English) is addressed. This paper reports on the results of two of the elicitation instruments used – a C-test as a measure of global language proficiency, and a verbal fluency task as a measure of lexical retrieval and bilingual dominance. The former is an unspeeded integrative task, while the latter taps lexical access as a function of the relative activation levels of the languages. The analysis focuses on the proficiency profiles of the bilingual participants vis-à-vis a German and an Irish control group to establish the level of L1 attrition and L2 acquisition, and the degree with which L1 and L2 proficiency correlate.

scholarly journals Tracking Syntactic Conflict between Languages over the Course of L2 Acquisition: A Cross-sectional Event-related Potential Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 822-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Mickan ◽  
Kristin Lemhöfer
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Control Group ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Sentence Reading ◽  
Conflict Condition ◽  
Beginning Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

One challenge of learning a foreign language (L2) in adulthood is the mastery of syntactic structures that are implemented differently in L2 and one's native language (L1). Here, we asked how L2 speakers learn to process syntactic constructions that are in direct conflict between L1 and L2, in comparison to structures without such a conflict. To do so, we measured EEG during sentence reading in three groups of German learners of Dutch with different degrees of L2 experience (from 3 to more than 18 months of L2 immersion) as well as a control group of Dutch native speakers. They read grammatical and ungrammatical Dutch sentences that, in the conflict condition, contained a structure with opposing word orders in Dutch and German (sentence-final double infinitives) and, in the no-conflict condition, a structure for which word order is identical in Dutch and German (subordinate clause inversion). Results showed, first, that beginning learners showed N400-like signatures instead of the expected P600 for both types of violations, suggesting that, in the very early stages of learning, different neurocognitive processes are employed compared with native speakers, regardless of L1–L2 similarity. In contrast, both advanced and intermediate learners already showed native-like P600 signatures for the no-conflict sentences. However, their P600 signatures were significantly delayed in processing the conflicting structure, even though behavioral performance was on a native level for both these groups and structures. These findings suggest that L1–L2 word order conflicts clearly remain an obstacle to native-like processing, even for advanced L2 learners.

Can UG and L1 be distinguished in L2 acquisition?

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 728-730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Hale
Keyword(s):  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

AbstractThe contribution to L2-acquisition which comes from UG is conceptually distinct from that which comes from L1 (or from L1 and L2 jointly), but it is difficult to tease the two apart. The workings of deep, core principles (e.g., locality and subjacency) are so massively evident in L1 and L2 as to be of questionable use in the search for the contribution which is purely of UG.

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.

L1/L2 Spanish grammars and the pragmatic deficit hypothesis

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Liceras ◽  
E. Valenzuela ◽  
L. Díaz
Keyword(s):  
Continuity Condition ◽  
Null Subjects ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Verb Forms ◽  
Proposal A ◽  
Syntactic Development ◽  
Pragmatic Principle ◽  
L2 Spanish ◽  
L1 And L2

In recent research on primary (L1) and non-primary (L2) acquisition,special attention has been given to whether syntactic development is subject to a continuity condition. While it has been proposed that the continuity condition applies to both L1 and L2 syntactic growth,the changes that take place in developing grammars have sometimes been attributed to other cognitive systems. Specifically, it has been proposed that child grammars are ‘underspecified’ because they lack a pragmatic principle which determines the range of indices available for establishing verbal and nominal coreference. According to this proposal, a grammar which is underspecified for Number has null subjects and bare NPs only with non-inflected verb forms. Assuming that adults will not have a pragmatic deficit of the kind proposed for children, we have analysed data from child L1 Spanish and adult L2 Spanish. The results of our analysis show that: (1) in child L1 Spanish, the feature Person may encode Number so that when Person is distinctively implemented, root infinitives and bare NP subjects will cease to occur. However, the pervasive morphology of Spanish verbs conspires against the possibility of providing clear-cut evidence for underspecification in the case of child Spanish; (2) the different nature of L1 and L2 root infinitives may provide partial evidence for underspecification in the case of L1 Spanish; and (3) in the case of L2 learners, the distribution of null and overt subjects seems to be partially determined by their L1 rather than by underspecification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document