Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:06:20.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE ROLE OF L1 PHONOLOGY IN L2 MORPHOLOGICAL PRODUCTION

L2 ENGLISH PAST TENSE PRODUCTION BY L1 SPANISH, MANDARIN, AND JAPANESE SPEAKERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2017

Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro ,
Gonzalo Campos-Dintrans  and
Jason Rothman
Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago
Gonzalo Campos-Dintrans
Affiliation:
University of Mary Washington
Jason Rothman
Affiliation:
University of Reading/UiT The Arctic University of Norway
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro, 601 S Morgan St., 1722 University Hall (M/C 315), Chicago, IL 60607, USA. E-mail: cabrelli@uic.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study considers the role of L1 phonological influence in L2 English past tense morphology production by native speakers of Spanish, Mandarin, and Japanese. While these L1s share similar phonological restrictions on consonant cluster formation needed for English past tense morphology, differences arise in L1 syntax (only Mandarin lacks syntactic past) and L1 prosodic structure (only Japanese has English-equivalent structure). Aggregate analyses indicate that an L1 English control group outperforms all L2 groups in oral suppliance of past tense morphology. Results therefore reveal that having the syntactic feature for past in the L1 does not translate into targetlike performance and that L1 phonological restrictions alone cannot fully explain nontargetlike performance. Considering previous and the current data sets, we argue that evidence from production of L2 English past tense cannot be used to adjudicate between representational deficit approaches and full access approaches, contrary to what has been argued previously.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 503 - 527
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, and Bill Davies, Roger Hawkins, Roumyana Slabakova, and Amanda Van Horne for their support in the development of this project. Special thanks go to Heather Goad for extensive feedback on an earlier version of this paper and to Jeffrey Renaud for his assistance with data analysis. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS#1024256. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

REFERENCES

Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, T., & Martohardjono, G. (2012). Performance factors trump representational deficits: Perception and production of English inflections by L1 Mandarin speakers. In Biller, A., Chung, E., & Kimball, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development [BUCLD 36] (pp. 74–86). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners—A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
Davidson, L. (2005). Addressing phonological questions with ultrasound. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19, 619–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/Google Scholar
Duanmu, S. (2007). The phonology of standard Chinese. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammar: A prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 22, 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., White, L., & Bruhn de Garavito, J. (2011). Prosodic transfer at different levels of structure: The L2 acquisition of Spanish plurals. In Danis, N., Mesh, K., & Sung, H. (Eds.), Online Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development [BUCLD 35]. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/bucld/files/2011/05/35-Goad-White-Bruhn-de-Garavito.pdfGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., White, L., & Steele, J. (2003). Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1-constrained prosodic representations? The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La Revue Canadienne De Linguistique, 48, 243–263.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1987). The accentual patterns of verb paradigms in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Casillas, G. (2008). Explaining frequency of verb morphology in early L2 speech. Lingua, 118, 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of UG in second language acquisition: The “failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In van Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F., & Towell, R. (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 21–44). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J., & Vergnaud, J. R. (1990). Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology, 7, 193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labrune, L. (2012). The phonology of Japanese. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to form in second language acquisition. In Archibald, J. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–129). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on a contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 171–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, A. (2000). Discovering grammar: an introduction to English sentence structure. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, C., & van der Lely, H. (2006). A challenge to current models of past tense inflection: the impact of phonotactics. Cognition, 100, 302–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S. (1997). Prosodic words. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Piñeros, C. E. (2008). Estructura de los sonidos del español. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2008). Aspect selection in adult L2 Spanish and the competing systems hypothesis: When pedagogical and linguistic rules conflict. Languages in Contrast, 8, 74–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1992). Testing between UG-based and problem-solving models of L2A: Developmental sequence data. Language Acquisition, 2, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive state and the Full Transfer/Full Access Model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solt, S., Pugach, Y., Klein, E., Adams, K., Stoyneshka, I., & Rose, T. (2004). L2 perception and production of the English regular past: Evidence of phonological effects. In Brugos, A., Micciulla, L., & Smith, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 28) (pp. 553–564). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsujimura, N. (2007). An introduction to Japanese linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vance, T. (2008). The sounds of Japanese. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cabrelli Amaro supplementary material

Appendix

Download Cabrelli Amaro supplementary material(File)
File 43.2 KB