Language, Interaction and Acquisition - Volume 11, Issue 1, 2020

This paper addresses the acquisition of L2 inflectional morphology after only a few hours of exposure. Eighty-nine participants with five different L1s and no experience of the L2 took part in a specially designed 14-hour L2 Polish course, during which they were tested on their developing morphosyntactic skills at various times. The present paper uses a Comprehension task and an Elicited Imitation task to probe learners’ ability to use nominative and accusative case markings to infer and express the subject and object. The study is designed to isolate variables such as the task employed to elicit L2 data, target sentence word order, time of exposure to the L2 input, and learners’ L1. The results show that while the majority of learners stick to a word order principle, some managed to identify and systematically apply the target-like use of inflectional morphology. Various intermediate strategies make it possible to identify a hierarchy of task difficulty. Both time of exposure and the learner’s L1 proved to be significant predictors of performance.

This article presents the findings of a study on the development of case assignment in Icelandic as a second language within the context of Processability Theory (PT) and compares them with previous PT studies on the development of case in L2 German, Russian, and Serbian. We argue that initially, learners are only able to appropriately mark subjects and objects in canonical positions (e.g., subjnom v objacc). Later they are also able to mark arguments with the appropriate case in sentences that deviate from canonical word order (e.g., objacc/dat v subjnom). In order to examine the case development in L2 Icelandic, 148 learners were asked to fill in the blanks of sentences with missing core arguments. Our results replicate for the most part the previous findings for L2 German, Russian, and Serbian. As such, the present study adds to the typological plausibility of PT as a framework that predicts and explains developmental sequences.

Spanish clitic pronouns present multiple morphosyntactic and semantic challenges to second language learners. One particular issue is that of case marking, which can be further complicated by variable native input. As a result, a number of factors have been proposed to explain L2 clitics, such as acquisition sequences, classroom input, dialect-specific input, and animacy cues (e.g. Andersen, 1984; Geeslin, García-Amaya, Hasler-Barker, Henriksen, & Killam, 2010; Malovrh, 2008; Malovrh & Lee, 2013; VanPatten, 1990; Zyzik, 2004). This paper uses the Dynamic Systems Theory to describe and explain L2 Spanish clitic development. The multiple social and linguistic variables that interact in clitic production suggest that clitics constitute a dynamic system. The data presented here come from a cross-sectional analysis of four groups of university-level L1 English learners of L2 Spanish, as well as a group of native Spanish speakers, who produced semi-spontaneous narration as well as post-production stimulated recall and interview. The results show a progression that is not always linear in terms of certain levels, learners, and measures. The quantitative and qualitative results reveal various interrelated social, linguistic, and cognitive factors which all play a role in the dynamic system of clitic case development.

This study examines the different learning outcomes of two computer-based cognitive tutors using two approaches to instructing German declension: an additive, bottom-up approach, which focuses on a stepwise introduction of each case, and a concept-based, top-down approach, which focuses on developing students’ conceptual understanding of the functions related to each case form and the case marking system as a whole. The results indicate that both groups learned, but what and how they learned differed depending on the method of instruction. The additive group showed general gains in production and a slight increase in their ability to correctly interpret object-first sentences. The concept-based group showed larger gains, but in fewer areas. Specifically, the production of adjective endings increased, although there were no differences in determiner production or accuracy. The concept-based group also had a larger gain in their ability to interpret non-SVO word order sentences. This study shows how concept-based approaches to grammar can outperform additive ones, and that the development of these concepts can prepare students for future learning.