1887
Volume 8, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The container-content relation represents a set of nominal configurations unexplored in the acquisition literature. Whereas in English the switch from a noun-noun compound (water bottle) to a noun-prepositional phrase (bottle of water) is associated with a semantic shift from container to content, Spanish and Arabic adopt single canonical configurations for both conditions, noun-prepositional phrase and noun phrase, respectively. Importantly, Spanish, Arabic, and English display structural overlap in the content condition maintained by head-first isomorphic strings. In the container condition, they show structural dissimilarity; whereas English uses a head-final construction, Arabic and Spanish consistently use head-first constructions. Results from an elicited sentence-reordering task demonstrate that advanced late learners pattern native speakers when tested in Spanish but not when tested in English. Additionally, when tested in English, Arabic-speaking and Spanish-speaking learners overextend their L1 canonical configurations to both conditions. Furthermore, bilingual native speakers do not perform at ceiling, suggesting bidirectional cross-linguistic influence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.15012.aza
2017-02-06
2019-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, R. , & Ross-Feldman, L.
    (2003) An investigation of determinacy in the grammar of NS and end-state NNS. Paper presented atGeorgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics (GURT), Georgetown, D.C.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alhawary, M. T.
    (2011) Modern standard Arabic grammar: A learner’s guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Shaer, I.
    (2014) Arabic and English genitive constructions: A corpus-based contrastive analysis of patterns and equivalence. Languages in Contrast, 14, 163–190. doi: 10.1075/lic.14.2.01als
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.2.01als [Google Scholar]
  4. Amaral, L. , & Roeper, T.
    (2014) Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second Language Research, 30, 3–36. doi: 10.1177/0267658313519017
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313519017 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, S.
    (1992) A-morphous morphology (Vol.62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511586262
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586262 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bauer, L.
    (1983) English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2009) Typology of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.343–356). Oxford: Oxford University press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Benmamoun, E.
    (2000) The feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects (Vol.16). Oxford: Oxford University press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Benmamoun, E. & Choueiri, L.
    (2013) The syntax of Arabic from a generative perspective. The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics. In J. Owens (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Arabic linguistics (pp.115–164). Chicago: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Berwick, R.
    (1985) The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Birdsong, D.
    (2009) Age and the end state of second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.). The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp.401–424). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Birdsong, D. , & Gertken, L. M.
    (2013) In faint praise of folly: A critical review of native/non-native speaker comparisons, with examples from native and bilingual processing of French complex syntax. Language, Interaction & Acquisition, 4(2), 107–133. doi: 10.1075/lia.4.2.01bir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.4.2.01bir [Google Scholar]
  13. Bley-Vroman, R.
    (1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1983.tb00983.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00983.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Borer, H.
    (1996) The construct in review. In J. Lecarme , J. Lowenstamm , & U. Shlonsky (Eds.), Studies in Afroasiatic grammar (pp.30–61). Holland Academic Graphics: The Hague.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Borgonovo, C. , De Garavito, J. B. , & Prévost, P.
    (2008) Methodological issues in the L2 acquisition of a syntax/semantics phenomenon: How to assess L2 knowledge of mood in Spanish relative clauses. In J. Bruhn de Garavito & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp.13–24). Somerville: Cascadilla.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Boucher, P.
    (1990) Teaching compound nouns in English. CIEREC/Travaux, LXXVI. France: Université de Saint Étienne.
  17. Boucher, P. , F. Dannam & P. Sébillot
    (1993) Compounds: An intelligent tutoring system for learning to use compounds in English. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 6, 249–272. doi: 10.1080/0958822930060306
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822930060306 [Google Scholar]
  18. Clark, V.
    (1993) The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554377
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554377 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cook, V.
    (1997) Monolingual bias in second language acquisition research. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 35–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2003) Effects of the second language on the first (Vol.3). Clevedon, N.Y.: Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cuza, A.
    (2013) Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax proper: Interrogative subject – verb inversion in heritage Spanish. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 17, 71–96. doi: 10.1177/1367006911432619
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911432619 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cuza, A. , & Frank, J.
    (2011) Transfer effects at the syntax – semantics interface: The case of double que questions in heritage Spanish. The Heritage Language Journal, 8, 66–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. doi: 10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab [Google Scholar]
  24. Dekydtspotter, L. , Sprouse, R. A. , & Anderson, B.
    (1997) The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars. Language Acquisition, 6(4), 297–332. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la0604_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0604_2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dekydtspotter, L. , Sprouse, R. A. , & Swanson, K. A.
    (2001) Reflexes of mental architecture in second-language acquisition: The interpretation of combien extractions in English-French interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 9(3), 175–227. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la0604_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0604_2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dobrovolsky, M. , Katamba, F. , & O’Grady, W. D.
    (1997) Contemporary linguistics: An introduction. London: St. Martin’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Döpke, S.
    (2000) Generation of and retraction from cross-linguistically motivated structures in bilingual first language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 209–226. doi: 10.1017/S1366728900000341
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000341 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fassi-Fehri, A.
    (1999) Arabic modifying adjectives and DP structures. Studia Linguistica, 53, 105–154. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9582.00042
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00042 [Google Scholar]
  29. Flege, J. E. , MacKay, I. R. , & Piske, T.
    (2002) Assessing bilingual dominance. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(04), 567–598. doi: 10.1017/S0142716402004046
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716402004046 [Google Scholar]
  30. Foroodi-Nejad, F. , & Paradis, J.
    (2009) Crosslinguistic transfer in the acquisition of compound words in Persian – English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(04), 411–427. doi: 10.1017/S1366728909990241
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990241 [Google Scholar]
  31. Frank, J.
    (2013) Derivational complexity effects in bilingual adults: Instances of interrogative inversion in Spanish. In J. Cabrelli Amaro et al. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (HLS). (pp.143–155). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gass, S. , & Selinker, L.
    (Eds.) (1992) Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lald.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Grosjean, F.
    (1998) Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 131–149. doi: 10.1017/S136672899800025X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672899800025X [Google Scholar]
  34. Grüter, T. , Lieberman, M. , & Gualmini, A.
    (2010) Acquiring the scope of disjunction and negation in L2: A bidirectional study of learners of Japanese and English. Language Acquisition, 17(3), 127–154. doi: 10.1080/10489223.2010.497403
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2010.497403 [Google Scholar]
  35. Holes, C.
    (2004) Modern Arabic: Structures, functions, and varieties. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hulk, A. and Müller, N.
    (2000) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–44. doi: 10.1017/S1366728900000353
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000353 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ivanov, I.
    (2009) Topicality and clitic doubling in L2 Bulgarian: A test case for the interface hypothesis. In M. Bowles , T. Ionin , S. Montrul , & A. Tremblay (Eds.), Proceedings of the10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA) (pp.17–24). Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ionin, T. , Montrul, S. , & Crivos, M.
    (2013) A bidirectional study on the acquisition of plural noun phrase interpretation in English and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(03), 483–518. doi: 10.1017/S0142716411000841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000841 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jarvis, S. , & Pavlenko, A.
    (2008) Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kellerman, E. & Sharwood-Smith, M.
    (1986) Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kremers, J.
    (2005) Adjectival Constructs in Arabic. Linguistische berichte, 203, 331–348.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Liceras, J. , Díaz, L. , & Salomaa-Robertson, T.
    (2002) The compounding parameter and the word-marker hypothesis. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & J. M Liceras (Eds.). The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax (pp.209–237). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0291‑2_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0291-2_8 [Google Scholar]
  43. Liceras, J. M. and Díaz, L.
    (2000) Triggers in L2 Acquisition: The case of Spanish N-N compounds. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 197–211. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9582.00060
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00060 [Google Scholar]
  44. Liceras, J. M. , & Valenzuela, E.
    (1998) The compounding parameter in L2 acquisition: The subset principle revisited. Paper presented at theGenerative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA). Pittsburgh, PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lieber, R.
    (2006) English word-formation processes. In P. Stekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.). Handbook of word-formation (pp.375–428). Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lozano, C.
    (2006) The development of the syntax-information structure interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages (pp.371–399), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lald.41.18loz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.41.18loz [Google Scholar]
  47. MacIntyre, P. D. , Noels, K. A. , & Clément, R.
    (1997) Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47(2), 265–287. doi: 10.1111/0023‑8333.81997008
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.81997008 [Google Scholar]
  48. Marull, C. H.
    (2015) Syntactic position constrains cross-linguistic activation. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(2), 153–179. doi: 10.1075/lab.5.2.01mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.2.01mar [Google Scholar]
  49. Mohammad, M.A.
    (1989) The sentential structure of Arabic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Montrul, S.
    (2011) Interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua121(4), 591–604. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  51. Moyna, M.
    (2011) Compounds words in Spanish: Theory and history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.316
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.316 [Google Scholar]
  52. Müller, N. & Hulk, A.
    (2001) Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition4, 1–21. doi: 10.1017/S1366728901000116
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000116 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ortega, L.
    (2013) SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63(s1),1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00735.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x [Google Scholar]
  54. (2014) Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pavlenko, A.
    (2000) L2 influence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 175–205.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Pavlenko, A. , & Jarvis, S.
    (2002) Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 190–214. doi: 10.1093/applin/23.2.190
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.190 [Google Scholar]
  57. Piera, C.
    (1995) On Compounding in English and Spanish. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Rosenbach, A.
    (2014) English genitive variation – the state of the art. English Language and Linguistics, 18(2), 215–262. doi: 10.1017/S1360674314000021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000021 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rothman, J.
    (2008) Linguistic epistemology and the notion of monolingualism. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2(3), 441–458. doi: 10.1558/sols.v2i3.441
    https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v2i3.441 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2009) Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2011) On the comparative fallacy of comparisons and why SLA is bilingualism. Invited colloquium, (Why) Does SLA Need a Bilingual Turn?. Iowa State University, USA.
  62. Rothman, J. , & Iverson, M.
    (2008) Poverty-of-the-stimulus and SLA epistemology: Considering L2 knowledge of aspectual phrasal semantics. Language Acquisition, 15(4), 270–314. doi: 10.1080/10489220802352206
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220802352206 [Google Scholar]
  63. Ryding, K. C.
    (2005) A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486975
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486975 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R.
    (1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72. doi: 10.1177/026765839601200103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200103 [Google Scholar]
  65. Shameem, N.
    (1998) Validating self-reported language proficiency by testing performance in an immigrant community: The Wellington Indo-Fijians. Language Testing, 15(1), 86–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Shlonsky, U.
    (2004) The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua, 114(12), 1465–1526. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.019 [Google Scholar]
  67. Slabakova, R.
    (2002) The compounding parameter in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 507–540. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102004011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004011 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2006) Learnability in the second language acquisition of semantics: A bidirectional study of a semantic parameter. Second Language Research, 22(4), 498–523. doi: 10.1191/0267658306sr277oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr277oa [Google Scholar]
  69. (2011) The bilingual/multilingual native control. Paper presented at theSecond Language Research Forum (SLRF). Ames: Iowa.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (2013) Adult second language acquisition: A selective overview with a focus on the learner linguistic system. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 48–72. doi: 10.1075/lab.3.1.03sla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.1.03sla [Google Scholar]
  71. Slabakova, R. , & Montrul, S.
    (2003) Genericity and aspect in L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition, 11(3), 165–196. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la1103_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1103_2 [Google Scholar]
  72. Snyder, W.
    (1995) Language acquisition and language variation: The role of morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (2001) On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77, 324–342. doi: 10.1353/lan.2001.0108
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0108 [Google Scholar]
  74. Sorace, A.
    (2000) Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890. doi: 10.2307/417202
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417202 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2005) Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan , (Eds.). Syntax and Variation (pp.55–80). John Benjamins, Amsterdam. doi: 10.1075/cilt.265.04sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.265.04sor [Google Scholar]
  76. (2006) Gradedness and Optionality in Mature and Developing Grammars. G. Fanselow , C. Fery , M. Schlesewsky , and R. Vogel (Eds.), Gradience in Grammar Generative Perspectives (pp.106–123). Oxford: Oxford University press.
  77. (2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33. doi: 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  78. Sorace, A. , & Serratrice, L.
    (2009) Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195–210. doi: 10.1177/1367006909339810
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339810 [Google Scholar]
  79. Sorace, A. , & Filiaci, F.
    (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368. doi: 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr271oa [Google Scholar]
  80. Strik, N. , & Pérez-Leroux, A. T.
    (2011) Jij doe wat girafe?: Wh-movement and inversion in Dutch-French bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(2), 175–205. doi: 10.1075/lab.1.2.03str
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.2.03str [Google Scholar]
  81. Tsimpli, I , Sorace, A.
    (2006) Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax – semantics and syntax – discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman , T., Magnitskaia , & C. Zaller , (Eds.). Proceedings of the30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.653–664). Cascadilla Press, Somerville.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Valenzuela, E.
    (2006) L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of Spanish CLLD constructions. In R. Slabakova , S. Montrul , & P. Pr’evost , (Eds.), Inquiries in Linguistic Development (pp.283–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.133.16val
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.133.16val [Google Scholar]
  83. Varela, S.
    (2012) Derivation and Compounding. In J. Ignacio, H. A. & E. O’Rourke (Eds.), The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, (pp.209–226). Wiley: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118228098.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118228098.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  84. White, L.
    (1987) Markedness and second language acquisition: The question of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 261–286. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100006689
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006689 [Google Scholar]
  85. (1991) Argument structure in second language acquisition. French Language Studies, 1, 189–207. doi: 10.1017/S0959269500000983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500000983 [Google Scholar]
  86. White L.
    (2009) Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp.49–68). Leeds: Emerald Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. White, L.
    (2011) Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121(4), 577–590. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  88. Yip, V. & Matthews, S.
    (2009) Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual and multilingual contexts. Invited paper at the 2009International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB7). University of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.15012.aza
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.15012.aza
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error