Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



When acquiring Spanish object pronouns (OP), English-speaking second language (L2) learners must learn the variety of forms available, word order, and case distinctions. The acquisition of case distinctions in particular is an aspect that has not been thoroughly investigated. Zyzik (2006) showed, through production tasks, that English-speaking L2 Spanish learners overgeneralize the dative form to accusative contexts when the referent is animate. This study investigates how L2 learners use animacy (human, animal, and inanimate object) instead of case marking as cues to interpret and produce L2 Spanish object pronouns. Data from an interpretation task and a fill-in-the-blank production task were collected from 121 intermediate to advanced levels of Spanish learners. Results from linear mixed effects models reveal that learners show effects of the influence of animacy on object pronoun distinction in comprehension as well as production. A key new finding is that learners use the dative form with human referents, reserving accusative forms for animals and inanimate referents. These results provide evidence that animacy cues strongly influence L2 Spanish learners in the formation of their OP paradigm, especially at lower-proficiency levels. As proficiency increases, L2 learners begin to rely on case cues to distinguish Spanish OPs.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arche, M. J., & Dominguez, L.
    (2011) Morphology and syntax interaction in SLA: A study on clitic acquisition in Spanish. InA. Galani, G. Hicks, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Morphology and its interfaces (pp.291–320). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.178.16arc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.178.16arc [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
    (1981) Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: pragmatic, semantic and perceptual strategies. InH. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York academy of science conference on native and foreign language acquisition (pp.190–214). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1981.tb42009.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42009.x [Google Scholar]
  3. (1982) Functionalist approach to grammar. InL. R. Gleitman & E. Wanner (Eds.), Language acquisition: State of the art (pp.173–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (1987) Competition, variation, and language learning. InB. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp.157–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blanco, J. A., & Donley, P. R.
    (2009) Panorama: Introducción a la lengua española (3rd ed.). Boston: Vista Higher Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bley-Vroman, R.
    (1983) The comparitive fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1983.tb00983.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00983.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
    (2009) Children’s understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(2), 267–300. 10.1515/COGL.2009.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.015 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clahsen, H., & Felser, C.
    (2006) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Pscholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42. 10.1017/S0142716406060024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060024 [Google Scholar]
  9. Comrie, B.
    (1989) Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dahl, Ö., & Fraurud, K.
    (1996) Animacy in grammar and discourse. InT. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp.47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.38.04dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.38.04dah [Google Scholar]
  11. Demuth, K., Machobane, M., Moloi, F., & Odato, C.
    (2005) Learning animacy hierarchy effects in Sesotho double object applicatives. Language, 81(2), 421–447. 10.1353/lan.2005.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0056 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
    (2008) German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 79(4), 1152–1167. 10.1111/j.1467‑8624.2008.01181.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01181.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Duffield, N. G., & White, L.
    (1999) Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: converging methodologies. Second Language Research, 15(2), 133–160. 10.1191/026765899668237583
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765899668237583 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. 10.1093/applin/aml015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2008) Usage-based and form-focused SLA. InP. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.372–405). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gass, S. M.
    (1989) How do learners resolve linguistic conflicts?. InS. M. Gass and J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp.183–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524544.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524544.013 [Google Scholar]
  17. Geeslin, K. L., García-Amaya, L. J., Hasler-Barker, M., Henriksen, N. C., & Killam, J.
    (2010) The SLA of direct object pronouns in a study abroad immersion environment where use is a variable. InC. Borgonovo, M. Español-Echevarría, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th hispanic linguistics symposium (pp.246–259). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceeding Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Harrington, M.
    (1987) Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(4), 351–377. 10.1017/S0142716400000370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400000370 [Google Scholar]
  19. Heap, D.
    (2000) Morphological complexity and Spanish object clitic variation. InC. R. Wiltshire and J. Camps (Eds.), Romance phonology and variation: Selected papers from the 30th linguistic symposium on romance languages (pp.55–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hopp, H.
    (2016) Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender processing in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 32(2), 277–307. 10.1177/0267658315624960
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315624960 [Google Scholar]
  21. Klee, C. A.
    (1989) The acquisition of clitic pronouns in the Spanish interlanguage of Peruvian Quechua speakers. Hispania, 72(2), 402–408. 10.2307/343164
    https://doi.org/10.2307/343164 [Google Scholar]
  22. Klein-Andreu, F.
    (1996) Anaphora, deixis, and the evolution of Latin ille. InB. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp.305–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.10kle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.10kle [Google Scholar]
  23. Larson, J. W.
    (1996) WebCAPE (Computer Adaptive Placement Exam) [computer software]. Provo, Utah: BYU Creative Works.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lipski, J. M.
    (1994) Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, J. F.
    (1987) Morphological factors influencing pronominal reference assignment by learners of Spanish. InT. Morgan, J. F. Lee, & B. VanPatten, Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp.221–232). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. MacWhinney, B.
    (2005) Extending the competition model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(7), 69–84. 10.1177/13670069050090010501
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090010501 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2012) The logic of the unified model. InS. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second langauge acquisition (pp.221–227). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Maldonado, R.
    (2002) Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 1–65. 10.1515/cogl.2002.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.010 [Google Scholar]
  29. Malovrh, P. A.
    (2008) A multifaceted analysis of the interlanguage development of Spanish direct-object clitic pronouns observed in L2-learner production. Bloomington, IN. Indiana University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Malovrh, P. A., & Lee, J. F.
    (2010) Connections between processing, production and placement: Acquiring object pronouns in Spanish as a second language. InB. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp.231–255). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.53.10mal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.53.10mal [Google Scholar]
  31. (2013) The developmental dimension in instructed second language learning: The L2 acquisition of object pronouns in Spanish. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Olsen, M. K.
    (2013) The acquisition of case in Spanish pronominal object clitics in English-speaking college-level L2 learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pittsburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ormazabal, J., & Romero, J.
    (2007) The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(2), 315–347. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9010‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ozeki, H. & Shirai, Y.
    (2007) Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses?. SSLA, 29(2), 169–196. 10.1017/S0272263107070106
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070106 [Google Scholar]
  35. Psychology Software Tools
    Psychology Software Tools (2001) E-prime, Pittsburgh, PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española (2005) Diccionario panhispánico de dudas [Electronic version]. RetrievedFebruary 14, 2019fromwww.rae.es
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rusch, D., Domínguez, M., & Garner, L. C.
    (2014) Imágenes: An introduction to Spanish language and cultures (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Salgado-Robles, F.
    (2014) Variación dialectal por aprendientes de español en un contexto de inmersión en el extranjero. Lenguas Modernas, 43(1), 97–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Salgado-Robles, F., & Ibarra, C. E.
    (2012) Les voy a echar de menos cuando regrese a los Estados Unidos”: Adquisición de la variación dialectal por aprendientes de español en un contexto de inmersión. Ogigia: Revista electrónica de estudios hispánicos, 11, 61–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sihler, A. L.
    (1995) New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Silva-Corvalán, C.
    (1981) La función pragmática de la duplicación de pronombres clíticos. Boletín del instituto de filología de la universidad de Chile, 31(2), 561–570.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Slobin, D. I.
    (1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. InJ. Gumperz and S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp.70–96). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Kroll, J. F.
    (2004) The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(3), 255–272. 10.1017/S1366728904001634
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001634 [Google Scholar]
  45. Torrego, E.
    (1995) On the nature of clitic doubling. InH. Campos and P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory (pp.399–418). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. VanPatten, B.
    (1984) Learners’ comprehension of clitic pronouns: More evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistics, 1, 57–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (1990) Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. SSLA, 12(3), 287–301. 10.1017/S0272263100009177
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2003) From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. New York: McGraw Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. VanPatten, B. & Houston, T.
    (1998) Contextual effects in processing L2 input sentences. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 53–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Vázquez Rozas, V.
    (1995) El complemento indirecto en español. Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Universidad de Santiago.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. White, L.
    (2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815065
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815065 [Google Scholar]
  52. Woolford, E.
    (1999) Animacy hierarchy effects on object agreement. InP. Kotey (Ed.) New dimensions in African linguistics and languages (pp.203–216). Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Zyzik, E.
    (2006) Learners’ overgeneralization of dative clitics to accusative contexts: evidence for prototype effects in SLA. InC. A. Klee and T. L. Face (Eds.) Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages (pp.122–134). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceeding Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2008) Null objects in second language acquisition: Grammatical vs. performance models. Second Language Research, 24(1), 65–110. 10.1177/0267658307082982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307082982 [Google Scholar]

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