Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T12:43:20.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic localization in second language English and German*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2014

MARY GRANTHAM O’BRIEN  and
CAROLINE FÉRY
MARY GRANTHAM O’BRIEN*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
CAROLINE FÉRY
Affiliation:
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt
*
Address for correspondence: Mary Grantham O’Brien, Department of Linguistics, Languages and Cultures, C205 Craigie Hall, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N1N4, Canadamgobrien@ucalgary.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Marking new and given constituents requires speakers to use morphosyntactic and phonological cues within a discourse context. The current study uses a dynamic localization paradigm whereby German and English native speakers, with the other language as a second language (L2), describe constellations of pictures. In each picture a new or reintroduced animal is localized relative to other animals, thereby allowing for control of newness vs. givenness of animals. Participants completed the task in their native language (L1) and L2. English native speakers use predominantly canonical word order and often mark the new object with a falling pitch accent. German native speakers use a given-before-new word order, even when this is non-canonical, and they use a rising pitch accent in non-final position. The results indicate that speakers easily transfer unmarked grammatical structures – both word order and pitch accents – from their L1 to their L2.

Keywords

information structurespoken productionsyntaxphonologyproficiency
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 400 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank Laura Maffongelli for her assistance in data collection and analyses, Tak Fung for his assistance with data analysis and Susanne Carroll for her insights into the Interface Hypothesis. We would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Any errors that remain are our own.

References

Backman, N. (1979). Intonation errors in second-language pronunciation of eight Spanish-speaking adults learning English. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin Utrecht, 4, 239–265.Google Scholar
Bartning, I., Forsberg, F., & Hancock, V. (2009). Resources and obstacles in very advanced L2 French: Formulaic language, information structure and morphosyntax. Eurosla Yearbook, 9, 185–211.Google Scholar
Baumann, S. (2006). The intonation of givenness. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U. (2010). The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics. In Bohnacker, U. & Westergaard, M. (eds.), The Nordic languages and second language acquisition theory, special issue of Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 33, 105–143.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U., & Rosén, C. (2008). The clause-initial position in L2 German declaratives: Transfer of Information Structure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 511–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1958). A theory of pitch accent in English. Word, 14, 109–149.Google Scholar
Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1044–1098.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (1997). The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th Street Bridge accent (Routledge Studies in German Linguistics). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., Murcia-Serra, J., Watorek, M., & Bendiscioli, A. (2000). The relevance of information organization to second language acquisition studies: The descriptive discourse of advanced adult learners of German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 441–466.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definitness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic, pp. 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given–new contrast. In Freedle, R. O. (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension, pp. 1–40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 545–573.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. (2011). Nativelike right-dislocation in near-native French. Second Language Research, 27, 361–390.Google Scholar
Fernández, E. (2005). The prosody produced by Spanish–English bilinguals: A preliminary investigation and implications for sentence processing. Revista da ABRALIN, 4, 109–141.Google Scholar
Féry, C., & Kügler, F. (2008). Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 680–703.Google Scholar
Féry, C., Skopeteas, S., & Hörnig, R. (2010). Cross-linguistic comparison of prosody, syntax and information structure in a production experiment on localizing expressions. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108, 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, D. (1998). Intonation in German. In Hirst, D. & di Cristo, A. (eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, pp. 78–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goethe-Institut. (2004). Einstufungstest [Placement test]. http://www.goethe.de/cgi-bin/einstufungstest/einstufungstest.pl (retrieved October 30, 2006).Google Scholar
Grabe, E. (1998). Comparative intonational phonology: English and German. Wageningen: Ponsen and Looijen.Google Scholar
Grice, M., & Baumann, S. (2007). An introduction to intonation – functions and models. In Trouvain, J. & Gut, U. (eds.), Non-native prosody: Phonetic description and teaching practice, pp. 25–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grosser, W. (1997). On the acquisition of tonal and accentual features of English by Austrian learners. In James, A. & Leather, J. (eds.), Second language speech: Structure and process, pp. 211–228. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1983). A semantic analysis of the nuclear tones of English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2008). Notions and subnotions in information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55, 381–395.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (1995). The intonation of German learners of British English. Ms., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Harris, L. J. (1975). Spatial direction and grammatical form of instructions affect the solution of spatial problems. Memory & Cognition, 3, 329–334.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Holm, S. (2008). Intonational and durational contributions to the perception of foreign-accented Norwegian: An experimental phonetic investigation. Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2004). Syntactic and interface knowledge in advanced and near-native interlanguage grammars. EUROSLA Yearbook, 4, 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanov, I. P. (2012). L2 acquisition of Bulgarian clitic doubling: A test case for the Interface Hypothesis. Second Language Research, 28, 345–368.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, N. (2003). L2 acquisition of Japanese: Knowledge and use of case particles in SOV and OSV sentences. In Karimi, S. (ed.), Word order and scrambling, pp. 273–300. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. (1997). I-Topikalisierung. Linguistische Berichte, 168, 91–133.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1990). Tone, syllable structure and interlanguage phonology: Chinese learners’ stress errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 18, 99–117.Google Scholar
Kim, J. S., & Kim, S.-H. (2001). Remarks on Korean speaker's realization of English intonation: Focusing on declarative sentences. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 5, 187–207.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55, 243–276.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lenerz, J. (1977). Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Liberman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds.), Language sound structure, pp. 157–233. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1991). English. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W. & Vennemann, T. (eds.), Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (vol. 2), pp. 1319–1346. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M., Jackson, C., & Gardner, C. E. (2014). Cross-linguistic differences in prosodic cues to syntactic disambiguation in German and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 27–70.Google Scholar
Oxford University Press (2009). Oxford Online Placement Test. http://www.oxfordenglishtesting.com (retrieved May 5, 2011).Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics, pp. 249–264. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ramírez Verdugo, D. (2002). Non-native interlanguage intonation systems: A study based on a computerized corpus of Spanish learners of English. ICAME Journal, 26, 115–132.Google Scholar
Ramírez Verdugo, D. (2006). A study of intonation awareness and learning in non-native speakers of English. Language Awareness, 15, 141–159.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V. (2010). Judgments of information structure in L2 French: Nativelike performance and the critical period hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48, 53–85.Google Scholar
Schreiber, T., & Sprouse, R. A. (1998). Knowledge of topicalization and scrambling in English–German interlanguage. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 162–172.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In Goldsmith, J. A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, pp. 550–569. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S., Fiedler, I., Hellmut, S., Schwarz, A., Stoel, R., Fanselow, G., Féry, C., & Krifka, M. (2006). Questionnaire on Information Structure. (Working Papers of the SFB 632, vol. 4) Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/en/isis-en/isis-volumes.html/ (retrieved June 3, 2014).Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Language Research, 16, 93–102.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 195–210.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax–phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 649–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A. C. J., Sorace, A., & Tsimpli, I. (2010). Disentangling age and input effects in a crosslinguistic study of grammatical gender in child bilinguals. Presented at DFGS, Berlin.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. (2012). Contrastive topics decomposed. Semantics & Pragmatics, 5, 1–54 Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. (1994). Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of non-native speakers. Applied Linguistics, 15, 399–420.Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. (1998). Intonation as cohesion in academic discourse: A study of Chinese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 1–13.Google Scholar
White, L. (2009). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 49–68. Leeds: Emerald.Google Scholar
White, L. (2011a). The Interface Hypothesis: How far does it extend? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 108–110.Google Scholar
White, L. (2011b). Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121, 577–590.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax-discourse interface in second language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (1993). The acquisition of prosodic structure in a second language. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Yuan, B. (2010). Domain-wide or variable-dependent vulnerability of the semantic–syntax interface in L2 acquisition? Evidence from wh-words used as existential polarity words in L2 Chinese grammars. Second Language Research, 26, 219–260.Google Scholar