Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing: Theory and Practice
    L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing: Theory and Practice
    L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing: Theory and Practice
    Ebook299 pages3 hours

    L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing: Theory and Practice

    By Deborah Arteaga

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    The chapters in this volume, all written by experts in the field, present an array of new research on second language acquisition (SLA) that touches on several current theoretical debates in the field and present a rich range of new empirical data and a number of innovative findings. The studies address questions relating to ultimate attainment, first language transfer, universal properties of SLA, processing and second language (L2) grammar, and explore a number of grammatical features of the L2: tense, aspect, modality, specificity, definiteness, gender, number, anaphora. These themes are complemented by the study of pragmatic competence in sociocultural aspects of register use. The students investigated in the studies range from heritage speakers to naturalistic learners, to instructed learners and immigrants. Another distinctive feature of this book is the inclusion of pedagogical recommendations based on L2 research, making the book relevant for both SLA researchers and language teachers.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherMultilingual Matters
    Release dateSep 19, 2019
    ISBN9781788925365
    L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing: Theory and Practice

    Related to L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing

    Titles in the series (100)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Linguistics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      Watch Your Mouth

      Jul 12, 2018

      Watch Your Mouth
      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Secret Military Test, Coming Soon to Your Spanish Class: A powerful, precise language aptitude test is entering civilian life.

      Apr 17, 2014

      Imagine a test that could tell you how good you can ultimately get in any foreign language, from Hindi to Welsh, from Igbo to Spanish, before you’ve even learned how to say “hello” or “please pass the butter.” Très alléchant, non?1 Most adults would

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Language Barrier

      May 30, 2021

      Language Barrier
      7 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Why Kids Learn Languages More Easily Than You Do

      May 28, 2018

      LEARNING A SECOND LANGUAGE IS TRICKY AT ANY age (and it only gets tougher the longer you wait to crack open that dusty French book). Now, in a new study, scientists have pinpointed the exact age at which your chances of reaching fluency in a second l

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      I Am Taught By Towels

      Sep 19, 2018

      It’s impressive how educational hand-drying the dishes can be. Almost without knowing it, one may absorb a range of more or less useful information as the cutlery gets drier and the dishcloth damper. I am thinking in particular of two literary dish t

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      How Accents at Home Affect Baby Language

      Dec 6, 2017

      Babies raised in homes where they hear one language spoken with different accents recognize words dramatically differently at about 12 months than babies who hear little variation in accent, a new study suggests. “Variability in children’s language i

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      A New Course of Action

      Dec 9, 2021

      New Oriental, one of China’s largest tutoring institutions, is facing controversy after recently unveiling plans for its business transformation. During a live-streaming event in November, founder and Chair Yu Minhong said the company would set up an

      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Why Brits Are Monoglots

      Mar 5, 2021

      spectator.co.uk We Brits are often belittled for being terrible at learning foreign languages, says Rory Sutherland. But there is a reason for this. Consider the questions: do I need to learn another language? And what language should I learn? Swed

      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Lost In Translation

      May 3, 2019

      English has become the lingua franca of the world, something probably related to the spread of the British Empire, then with the American move to hegemony in a polarised postwar world. In racing there is no escaping English, as the sport’s official l

      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      What Sign Language Can Teach Us About Music

      Aug 16, 2017

      We may better understand the meaning of music by looking at sign language, a new analysis suggests. …music can mimic a reality, creating a “fictional source” for what is perceived to be real. “Musicians and music lovers intuitively know that music ca

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Mind your LANGUAGE!

      Jun 15, 2022

      Mind your LANGUAGE!
      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Language Haven

      Sep 12, 2017

      Language Haven
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      In Plain Language

      Jun 10, 2021

      In Plain Language
      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Art of Teaching Writing

      Sep 9, 2020

      The Art of Teaching Writing
      7 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The End Or The Beginning?

      Nov 4, 2021

      The End Or The Beginning?
      5 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing - Deborah Arteaga

      Introduction

      Julia Herschensohn

      Overview

      From a historical perspective, theoretical approaches to second language (L2) studies can be viewed as both cyclic and innovative. Scholarship in the mid-20th century focused on contrastive analysis (Lado, 1957), the role of the native language (transfer) in acquisition of the L2, while recommending audiolingual pedagogy based on behaviorist principles (Lado, 1964). Two decades later, scholarship focused on universal properties of language and acquisition (Bailey et al., 1974) while advocating communicative language teaching. From the 1980s, in both formalist Universal Grammar (UG), (White, 1989) and functionalist – sociocultural (Lantolf, 1994), cognitive (McLaughlin, 1987), and interactionist (Swain, 1985) – theoretical approaches, L2 acquisition (L2A) research expanded significantly. Interest in native transfer and concentration on universal properties have repeated cyclically over the decades, whereas theoretical innovations and empirical evidence have moved scholarship forward over many decades. The link between theory of L2A and pedagogical practice has also varied cyclically. L2 research may ignore any pedagogical implications, particularly with respect to studies of naturalistic L2A (Klein & Perdue, 1992). Likewise, Gil et al. (2017: 4) point out that ‘the approach to second language acquisition that assumes a formal generative linguistic orientation to the properties of language has, in the bulk of its research, abstracted away from the language classroom.’ In contrast, some L2 research may involve actual instruction, for example in terms of miniature language systems (Ellis & Sagarra, 2010) or it may point to a beneficial methodology (e.g. Hopp, 2016). In the same spirit, Gil et al. (2017) advocate for experimental classroom research based on formal generative theory, a reprise of earlier work bridging theory and practice (e.g. Arteaga & Herschensohn, 1995; Arteaga et al., 2003; Whong, 2011).

      The chapters in the current collection are aimed at Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers with interest in pedagogical implications, including scholars who use SLA expertise to assist teaching, and touch on both L2 theory and its application in pedagogical settings. The majority of the authors work in the formal generative paradigm (hence they presume some familiarity with that framework) and gather their evidence for the most part from classroom learners, with each chapter presenting a new set of empirical data. In terms of theory and practice, the chapters range from very theoretical (Chapter 4, Dekydtspotter & Gilbert) to very pedagogical (Chapter 7, Yaden), although most fall in the middle of the continuum. While the collection is not designed to be a lesson in language pedagogy, many of the chapters do address classroom applications. Arteaga and Herschensohn (Chapter 2) make concrete suggestions for teaching sociocultural pragmatic skills at beginning and advanced levels. Ayoun (Chapter 3) considers the use of certain assessment tools as measures of advanced student mastery of verbal morphology. Yaden (Chapter 7) presents a detailed picture of both overall curriculum and classroom implementation of technology in online and hybrid coursework. Finally, the Conclusion presents pedagogical implications of each study on a chapter by chapter basis, so that readers are led to consider the importance of linguistic theory to classroom L2 learning.

      Currently, theoretical frameworks examining L2A continue to line up in formalist versus functionalist camps, but both share similar concerns and methodologies. Connectionist–emergentist and functionalist approaches (e.g. Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009; Elman et al., 1996) view language as a learned phenomenon that uses similar cognitive mechanisms as for other (animal and machine) learning, based on frequency of input and strength of activation of certain factors. Functionalist approaches are less interested in grammatical features than the role of token mastery and analogy in language learning. In contrast, formalist UG approaches (Herschensohn, 2000; White, 2003) aim to discern the properties of the interlanguage (between L1 and L2) grammar of the language learner at different stages of the L2 development. Scholarship in the UG tradition is often concentrated on a single stage in a property theory framework, but some work aims to view the developmental process in a transition theory framework (Gregg, 2003), through longitudinal or cross-sectional studies. The chapters in this collection are mainly situated in a UG framework from both property and transition perspectives. Vainikka and Young-Scholten’s (Chapter 6) Organic Grammar is a transition theory noting the stages that characterize L2 development; they examine a broad range of native and second languages in providing an account of the filler words that have been documented for decades. Achimova and Déprez (Chapter 1) use a cross-sectional population to do a longitudinal investigation of L2 article mastery. Arteaga and Herschensohn (Chapter 2) and Yaden (Chapter 7) report on evaluations of L2 learners that span a year. The other studies present a snapshot of a static level of competence, from intermediate to highly advanced learners.

      Within formalist theory, there are two perspectives on the role of the native language for the abstract grammatical features in the developing L2, for both grammatical representation and processing. For representation, the contrast is set in terms of the availability of grammatical features at early stages of L2 acquisition, with structure building approaches (Hawkins, 2001) assuming limited availability, and full access approaches (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) assuming theoretical availability of L2 grammatical features. Schwartz and Sprouse propose that at the initial stage of L2A, the learner’s grammar is a full transfer of the native one, but that UG is fully accessible for the learner at all stages; this is characterized as full transfer/full access (FTFA). The learner’s task is to unconsciously infer the similarities and differences between the L1 and L2 grammars based on the primary linguistic data received from the input. A number of reallife intervening factors such as age of acquisition onset (AoA), amount of input or cognitive overload may hinder the learner’s acquisition or their use of the grammar in real-time processing. Subsequent research has explored such factors and built accounts for the oft-observed weaknesses in L2 morphological realization (Lardiere, 2009). In contrast to FTFA, grammatical deficit approaches (Snape et al., 2009) view the morphological errors as evidence of defective syntax. The initial state of the L2 grammar may transfer lexical categories, but not functional ones, and for adults it will be difficult to acquire L2 functional categories given a critical period (late AoA) handicap. In this volume, Vainikka and Young-Scholten (Chapter 6) address the debate directly in arguing for structure building in their Organic Grammar proposal. Ayoun (Chapter 3) tests hypotheses related to morphological errors in terms of verbal tense and aspect, while Achimova and Déprez (Chapter 1) test determiner features of definiteness and specificity.

      For processing, the contrast may be seen as qualitatively different (Clahsen & Felser, 2006) versus qualitatively similar (Hopp, 2013) processing strategies in both native and second language. Clahsen and Felser (2006), following in the path of fundamental difference due to critical period effects (Bley-Vroman, 1990), propose that adult L2 learners differ substantially in their parsing of the target language from child learners of the language. They propose that native speakers, in parsing the incoming language, are able to assign complex structures as they receive input, whereas L2 adults are only capable of doing ‘shallow’ processing (the Shallow Structure Hypothesis) that remains linear and local. In contrast, Hopp (2013) argues for fundamental similarity between L1 and L2 processing, attributing differences to factors other than AoA, such as reaction speed (L2 adults are inevitably much slower than natives) or representational lacunae (e.g. lack of knowledge of accurate gender for a given lexical item). The chapters collected here include two addressing the processing debate directly. Dekydtspotter and Gilbert (Chapter 4) set out to test very advanced speakers of L2 French and find that they actually outperform native French speakers in terms of processing subtle differences between long-distance anaphora. Sagarra (Chapter 5) looks at intermediate learners of L2 Spanish, whose processing of gender and number agreement definitely shows influence of L1 English in their greater skill with number than gender. The differences between intermediate and advanced learners is also highlighted by Achimova and Déprez (Chapter 1), who advance the hypothesis that processing load leads to differential responses between different levels of proficiency. More advanced learners, whose grammatical mastery of determiner features is better established, are better able to bring to bear this knowledge in article selection; less advanced learners, more susceptible to processing demands, show diminished performance in the same task.

      All approaches have used increasingly complex and sensitive measures of assessment of language skills, exploiting offline (accuracy tests of comprehension and production) and online (real-time measures of L2 processing in comprehension and production) methodologies. While each chapter in this collection may concentrate on a small part of the L2 grammar, altogether they use real-time production and comprehension processing data to deduce the grammatical representation of the interlanguage of the L2 participants. Ranging from spontaneous production (Arteaga & Herschensohn (Chapter 2), Vainikka and Young-Scholten (Chapter 6)) to specific testing of classroom learners (Achimova & Déprez (Chapter 1), Ayoun (Chapter 3), Yaden (Chapter 7)), to online reaction time and eye tracking (Dekydtspotter & Gilbert (Chapter 4), Sagarra (Chapter 5)), the chapters use a broad selection of tools to contribute to L2A scholarship.

      Chapters in this Volume

      Chapter 1: Achimova and Déprez

      Reexamining Ionin’s Fluctuation Hypothesis, Achimova and Déprez consider the acquisition of the features of definiteness and specificity by Anglophone L2 learners of French. Definiteness indicates shared presupposition of a referent by speaker and hearer, while specificity indicates the speaker’s knowledge of a unique referent in a given context. Unlike learners – such as Russian or Korean L1 speakers – whose L1 does not possess articles, Anglophones do have native articles with similar distribution to French of the two features in question, a fact that should lead to straightforward transfer. Ionin et al. (2004) propose that languages favor either [definite] or [specific] as the canonical morphological mark (the Article Choice Parameter), and that learners may use the incorrect morphological form as they gain mastery of the L2 differing in featural value (the Fluctuation Hypothesis). Subsequent research has shown fluctuation among learners, but some predictions of the hypothesis have not been borne out; furthermore, evidence from native speakers has shown that the Article Choice Parameter is more complex than originally stated. Achimova and Déprez carry out a cross-sectional study of French learners (low, mid and advanced college students), using an article choice task based on short situations and combining [definite] and [specific] features in both values. Although both French and English mark definiteness overtly and use specificity in a similar manner, the learners show increased article misuse in [+def –spec] and [–def +spec] contexts; that is, when the two features clash. Furthermore, errors are greater for the less proficient learners, leading the researchers to look to processing load as a factor. They argue that specificity is a pragmatic feature related to knowledge of the speaker with respect to reference. While L1 transfer facilitates article choice in the French-English pairing, cognitive pressure affects the computation of common ground in the less proficient learners. This chapter contributes to the growing evidence that knowledge of the L2 is mediated strongly by the processing load brought to bear in implementation.

      Chapter 2: Arteaga and Herschensohn

      Arteaga and Herschensohn use data from two advanced learners of L2 French to explore sociolinguistic competence in second language acquisition, and they then make recommendations based on their findings to enhance classroom instruction in discourse and pragmatic competence. They begin with a review of earlier work on L2 sociolinguistic competence, noting that work by Dewaele (2004), Dewaele and Regan (2002), Regan (1998), Rehner and Mougeon (1999), Rehner et al. (2003) and Armstrong (2002) has emphasized the importance of mastery of cultural knowledge and sociopragmatic appropriateness to learners of a second language. Of particular focus in terms of register in French is the appropriate use (and deletion) of negative ne, replacement of nous ‘we’ by on and the accurate deployment of second person tu and vous. First person plural is almost exclusively restricted to on in current spoken French, whereas ne deletion is a definite mark of informal register. Tu and vous use depends on a number of factors, more sociocultural than register based, but is a matter of difficulty for French L2 learners. These points are the areas of investigation in the new corpus, a collection of six interviews (three each) from two distinct profiles of language learner, ‘Max’ (an academic learner whose AoA is 48) and ‘Chloe’ (a more naturalistic learner whose AoA is 13). Both are interviewed before, during and after a year’s stay in France. Max’s style favors the formal, especially for ne deletion, whereas Chloe’s style is more informal due to casual interactions with peers, diminished formal education and lower age of acquisition onset. These factors offer her fewer opportunities to switch into more formal registers. Using the data presented, the authors advocate the instruction of sociolinguistic competence by furnishing classroom students communicative activities that elicit appropriate register and interpersonal address. There are suggestions for both beginning/intermediate and for advanced learners to engage in structured communication through role play, information gap and more advanced discussions using films.

      Chapter 3: Ayoun

      Ayoun brings to bear her extensive research background in tenseaspect-modality (TAM) to examine short-term development of TAM mastery by fourth year college students of L2 French. She compares students with three different native languages: heritage French, heritage Spanish (with a similar TAM system to French) and English. After reviewing previous studies showing that TAM is a persistent learnability issue for L2 learners – especially the less frequent perfect tenses (e.g. pluperfect, future perfect) – she outlines three theoretical approaches to morphological feature-form mapping: the Missing (Surface) Inflection Hypothesis, the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis and the Interface Hypothesis. She notes the following points of difficulty for Anglophones learning L2 French: abstract features of aspect and their correlation to surface forms (e.g. passé composé versus imparfait, être en train de progressive) and the mood differences between indicative and subjunctive. The semester-long study (with a post-test after completion of the term) investigated longitudinal changes in the ability of the students to produce target verb forms in a cloze test format. Classroom pedagogy included communicative methodology, audiovisual materials, recasts and interpersonal involvement in a course that used movies as the launching point for the study of the corresponding novel that the students discussed over a period of weeks. The results indicated quite a bit of variability among the students, with disproportionate mastery of present tense over others and of stative over telic and activity verbs. There was also no advantage in TAM for French and Spanish heritage learners (despite their advantage in the initial general proficiency test). Ayoun concludes that cloze tests are not a good instrument for testing students, because they produce quite varied results for the native speaker controls, who sometimes scored but half of the targeted forms (yet were appropriate). She suggests that explicit instruction and corrective feedback may be more effective than implicit instruction and recasts, whose ‘correction’ may be missed by the student.

      Chapter 4: Dekydtspotter and Gilbert

      Dekydspotter and Gilbert investigate the relationship of grammatical knowledge (representation) and its implementation in real-time processing while comparing native speakers (NSs) and nonnative speakers (NNSs) on two tasks involving long distance anaphora. They consider Clahsen and Felser’s (2006) Shallow Processing Hypothesis – which holds that L2 learners use only superficial parsing, whereas native speakers employ detailed grammatical representations in their parse – and the possibility that shallow processing may become more detailed under environmental circumstances (e.g. living in L2 target environment or performing a task focused on grammaticality). Their area of investigation is long distance anaphoric dependencies in multiply embedded sentences in French, contrasting selected complement (1) versus nonselected modifier (2).

      (1) Quelle décision à propos de luii est-ce que Pauli a dit que Lydie avait rejetée [quelle décision à propos de lui] sans hésitation? ‘What decision about himself did Paul say that Lydie had rejected without hesitation?’

      (2) Quelle décision lei concernant est-ce que Pauli a dit que Lydie avait rejetée [quelle décision] sans hésitation? ‘What decision concerning him did Paul say Lydie had rejected without hesitation?’

      The anaphor lui in (1) is syntactically bound in the embedded position and raised with its head noun to matrix Complementizer Phrase (CP); in contrast, le in (2) gains coreference through discourse semantics, not syntax. The referential chain of (1) should reduce processing load and increase speed of parsing compared to that of (2). The contrast permits the authors to design an experiment that will test the hypothesis for both NSs and NNSs. Using a moving window design, they compare reading times (RTs) and accuracy of the two groups, finding that the NSs and NNSs are comparable on both criteria. They also address the issues of environment (their subjects are not in a target environment) and grammaticality (the tasks focus on meaning and reference, not grammaticality). The comparability of the native and nonnative groups lead them to conclude that the noun-complements with matching embedded clause subjects induced the advanced L2 learners to read the verb generally more quickly than NP-modifiers did (see Chapter 4, p. 87), thus supporting their contention that NNSs are capable of processing as do NSs and that anaphoric chains facilitate syntactic parsing.

      Chapter 5: Sagarra

      Sagarra gives fresh perspectives on the well-explored area of second language difficulties with gender agreement, considering the influence of learner characteristics, morphological markedness and experiment design. Drawing from the extensive L2 literature of the past 25 years, she reviews the competing representational and processing accounts. The former propose either that post-critical period learners are morphologically impaired if their native language does not have gender agreement, or that factors other than age of acquisition onset cause L2 agreement difficulties. Some morphology-based models propose that default (e.g. masculine, singular) forms are more available to L2 learners than marked (feminine, plural) ones in both comprehension and production. The latter attribute processing factors such as cognitive load, input frequency or morphological transparency as the source of L2 agreement problems. The author points out that the conflicting results obtained in earlier studies can be in part attributed to the experiment designs’ using explicit (requiring more cognitive resources) rather than implicit tasks and noncumulative presentation. Her investigation studies intermediate Anglophone L2 Spanish learners’ perception of agreement/disagreement of adjectives with respect to gender and number, asking two research questions: (1) do L2 learners process gender agreement/disagreement as do native speakers of Spanish? and (2) does morphological markedness affect native and L2 processing? A corollary question is whether experimental design may have an impact on results. Using eye tracking of self-paced reading (an implicit, cumulative methodology that is cognitively facilitative), she tests native and L2 reading responses in terms of reaction time and cumulative eye movement. Her results indicate that L2 learners are slower than native speakers, but that the processing of agreement and disagreement of adjectives is qualitatively similar for both groups, and that morphological markedness is not a factor in processing for either native speakers or for L2 learners. She also finds a distinction for both groups in processing gender versus number, which she convincingly explains in the discussion.

      Chapter 6: Vainikka and Young-Scholten

      Working within a Universal Grammar framework, Vainikka and Young-Scholten elaborate their model of Organic Grammar (OG) as a theoretical account of L2 acquisition. OG is a theory of transition that accounts for the evolving grammar of the learner at different stages of acquisition. In this chapter, they particularly focus on the use of what they call placeholders as a stage in the development of the morphosyntax of Tense Phrase (TP). The authors first outline the two theoretical ‘camps’ in developmental L1 and L2 acquisition: those who maintain that functional projections are absent in the earliest grammars (e.g. Radford, 1995 for L1A, Hawkins, 2001 for L2A) and those who argue that functional projections are present but unrealized (e.g. Lust, 2006 for L1A, Lardiere, 2009 for L2A). For both L1 and L2, production from the earliest stages is devoid of inflectional morphology, function words and accurate syntactic order. The authors belong to the first camp and have built their framework over decades for both L1 and L2; the current chapter contributes to the ongoing elaboration

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1