Adverbial quantification and perfective/imperfective interpretive nuances in L2 Portuguese

Slabakova (2006b) poses and directly addresses the question of whether or not there is a maturational effect (a critical/sensitive period) that affects the semantic component. She demonstrates that there is no empirical evidence suggesting that adults are unable to acquire phrasal semantic properties, even when the accessing of semantic universals is conditioned upon the acquisition of L2 morphosyntactic features (see Dekydtspotter and Sprouse 2001, Slabakova and Montrul 2003). In light of this, the authors test for interpretive properties associated with the aspectual projection higher (outer) AspP in advanced English learners of adult L2 Portuguese via their knowledge of [+/- accidental] related nuances in adverbially quantified preterit and imperfect sentences (Lenci and Bertinetto 2000; Menéndez-Benito 2002). In two experiments, the authors test for L2 knowledge of this [+/- accidental] distinction via semantic felicitousness judgments of adverbially quantified preterit and imperfect sentences depending on a supporting context as well as related restrictions on subject DP interpretations. Overall, the data show that advanced learners acquire this distinction. As the authors discuss, the present data support Full Access theories (White 1989, Schwartz and Sprouse 1996; Duffield and White 1999) and the No-Critical Period for semantics position (Slabakova 2006b), demonstrating that the syntax-semantics interface is not an inevitable locus for fossilization.

Individual differences and the role of the L1 in L2 processing: an ERP investigation

This study used ERP (event-related potentials) to examine both the role of the L1 and the role of individual differences in the processing of agreement violations. Theories of L2 acquisition differ with regard to whether or not native-like acquisition of L2 features is possible (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994, 1996; Tsimpli and Mastropavlou, 2007), and the results of previous ERP studies are inconsistent when it comes to whether or not native-like processing is observed in response to L2 agreement violations (e.g., Sabourin, 2003; Tokowicz and MacWhinney, 2005). Furthermore, studies of learners in early stages of L2 acquisition have found variability in the emergence of native-like responses (e.g., McLaughlin et al., 2010; Tanner et al., 2009), but sources of variability have not been investigated. The current study examines responses to gender and number agreement violations in English-speaking learners of Spanish (n=24). Stimuli targeted agreement in three conditions: subject-verb agreement (el barco flota/*flotan), which is similar in Spanish and English; number agreement on adjectival predicates (la isla rocosa/*rocosas), a context in which agreement is not instantiated in English; and gender agreement on adjectival predicates (la isla rocosa/*rocoso), which is unique to Spanish. Grammaticality judgments and ERP responses were also tested for correlations with aptitude scores on the Modern Languages Aptitude Test (MLAT; Carroll and Sapon, 1959) and the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1965). Results are in line with theories that claim native-like processing is acquirable, since learners demonstrated similar ERP responses to a control group of native Spanish-speakers (n=8) with regard to all three agreement types. Additionally, the MLAT (but not the Raven) was significantly correlated with sensitivity to number violations, both in terms of grammaticality judgments and ERP amplitudes, indicating a role for verbal but not nonverbal aptitude in L2 processing.

Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second language (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1-L2 similarity and structural distance

Different theoretical accounts of second language (L2) acquisition differ with respect to whether or not advanced learners are predicted to show native like processing for features not instantiated in the native language (L1). We examined how native speakers of English, a language with number but not gender agreement, process number and gender agreement in Spanish. We compare agreement within a determiner phrase (órgano muy complejo “[DP organ-MASC-SG very complex-MASC-SG]”) and across a verb phrase (cuadro es auténtico “painting-MASC-SG [VP is authentic-MASC-SG]”) in order to investigate whether native like processing is limited to local domains (e.g. within the phrase), in line with Clahsen and Felser (2006). We also examine whether morphological differences in how the L1 and L2 realize a shared feature impact processing by comparing number agreement between nouns and adjectives, where only Spanish instantiates agreement, and between demonstratives and nouns, where English also instantiates agreement. Similar to Spanish natives, advanced learners showed a P600 for both number and gender violations overall, in line with the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1996), which predicts that learners can show native-like processing for novel features. Results also show that learners can establish syntactic dependencies outside of local domains, as suggested by the presence of a P600 for both within and across phrase violations. Moreover, similar to native speakers, learners were impacted by the structural distance (number of intervening phrases) between the agreeing elements, as suggested by the more positive waveforms for within than across-phrase agreement overall. These results are consistent with the proposal that learners are sensitive to hierarchical structure.

Can we predict when “dying” will be difficult?: Progressive achievements in L2 English

A large body of research has focused on the observation that second language (L2) learners are limited in their production of temporal and aspectual forms. For example, in L2 English, it has been shown learners use progressive marking with activity verbs and only rarely extend the form to telic verb phrases such as accomplishments or achievements (Bardovi-Harlig and Reynolds, 1995; Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Robison, 1995). Shirai and Andersen (1995) proposed that activities represent the prototype for the category of progressive aspect and learners generally acquire the prototype first. However, very little research has focused explicitly on advanced learners to see if they eventually extend beyond the prototype. In addition, properties of the native language have not systematically been taken into account. Achievements such as "die" are especially interesting in that they interact differently with markers of progressive aspect across languages. The present study investigated the acquisition of progressive achievements in English by native speakers of Chinese and Korean in order to examine whether there is evidence of universal difficulty, as would be predicted by the prototype account, or whether similarity between the L1 and L2 (as in the case of English and Korean) can facilitate acquisition, as would be predicted by transfer. Our results suggest that the properties of the native language play an important role, supporting the transfer account. However, neither L1 group performs at the level of native speakers. We argue that the acquisition of aspect is influenced by both the properties of the native language and the semantic and pragmatic complexity of the target computation.

Older age of onset in child L2 acquisition can be facilitative: evidence from the acquisition of English passives by Spanish natives

We report a longitudinal comprehension study of (long) passive constructions in two native-Spanish child groups differing by age of initial exposure to L2 English (young group: 3;0-4;0 years; older group: 6;0-7;0 years); where amount of input, L2 exposure environment, and socio-economic status are controlled. Data from a forced-choice task show that both groups comprehend active sentences, not passives, initially (after 3.6 years of exposure). One year later, both groups improve, but only the older group reaches ceiling on both actives and passives. Two years from initial testing, the younger group catches up. Input alone cannot explain why the younger group takes 5 years to accomplish what the older group does in 4. We claim that some properties take longer to acquire at certain ages because language development is partially constrained by general cognitive and linguistic development (e.g. de Villiers, 2007; Long & Rothman, 2014; Paradis, 2008, 2010, 2011; Tsimpli, 2014).