Utterance Structure in Initial L2 Acquisition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Utterance structure in initial L2 acquisition Jacopo Saturno language Eurosla Studies 2 science press EuroSLA Studies Editor: Gabriele Pallotti Associate editors: Amanda Edmonds, Université de Montpellier; Ineke Vedder, University of Amsterdam In this series: 1. Pérez Vidal, Carmen, Sonia LópezSerrano, Jennifer Ament & Dakota J. ThomasWilhelm (eds.). Learning context effects: Study abroad, formal instruction and international immersion classrooms 2. Saturno, Jacopo. Utterance structure in initial L2 acquisition. ISSN: 26262665 Utterance structure in initial L2 acquisition Jacopo Saturno language science press Saturno, Jacopo. 2020. Utterance structure in initial L2 acquisition (Eurosla Studies 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/265 © 2020, Jacopo Saturno Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-96110-261-7 (Digital) 978-3-96110-262-4 (Hardcover) ISSN: 2626-2665 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3889998 Source code available from www.github.com/langsci/265 Collaborative reading: paperhive.org/documents/remote?type=langsci&id=265 Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort Typesetting: Sebastian Nordhoff Proofreading: Amir Ghorbanpour, Andreas Hölzl, Brett Reynolds, Jeroen van de Weijer, Lachlan Mackenzie, Sebastian Nordhoff, Tom Bossuyt Fonts: Libertinus, Arimo, DejaVu Sans Mono Typesetting software:Ǝ X LATEX Language Science Press Xhain Grünberger Str. 16 10243 Berlin, Germany langsci-press.org Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin Contents Acknowledgements v 1 Introduction: Rationale and research questions 1 1.1 Word order vs. inflectional morphology .............. 3 1.2 Task effects: structured tests vs. semi-spontaneous production . 7 1.3 L1 influence ............................. 9 1.4 Input control ............................. 10 1.4.1 Markedness: frequency and form-function association . 12 1.4.2 Generalisability of input models .............. 13 1.5 A note on labels and notation ................... 16 2 The VILLA Project: Methodology 21 2.1 The course .............................. 21 2.1.1 Input control ........................ 24 2.1.2 Input transcription ..................... 25 2.1.3 The VILLA input as a variety of Polish .......... 27 2.2 The target language and the VILLA L1S .............. 31 2.2.1 Inflectional morphology .................. 31 2.3 The learners ............................. 35 2.4 Learner data collection ....................... 36 2.4.1 Transcription of the production tasks ........... 37 2.4.2 Data analysis and visualisation .............. 39 2.4.3 The Elicited Imitation Test (EIT) ............. 39 2.4.4 The comprehension test .................. 49 2.4.5 Semi-spontaneous production ............... 51 3 The Elicited Imitation Task 53 3.1 Research questions and hypotheses ................ 53 3.2 Results ................................ 54 3.2.1 Overview of learner output: overall repetition accuracy 54 3.2.2 Overview of learner output: repetition of case endings . 55 3.2.3 Repetition of -[e] ...................... 56 Contents 3.2.4 A different perspective ................... 63 3.2.5 Repetition of -[e]: a comprehensive picture ....... 67 3.2.6 Repetition of -[a] ...................... 69 3.3 Summary ............................... 73 4 The comprehension test 75 4.1 Research questions and hypotheses ................ 75 4.2 Results ................................ 75 4.2.1 Descriptive statistics .................... 75 4.2.2 Inferential statistics ..................... 78 4.2.3 Individual processing strategies .............. 82 4.2.4 A comprehensive picture .................. 84 4.2.5 Differential processing of OS word orders ........ 85 4.3 Summary ............................... 91 5 A comprehensive view of morphosyntactic skills 93 5.1 Research questions and hypotheses ................ 93 5.1.1 Task type .......................... 93 5.1.2 Word order ......................... 93 5.1.3 Correlation between task type and word order ..... 94 5.1.4 Cross-linguistic influence ................. 94 5.1.5 Exposure to the input ................... 94 5.2 The comprehension test as a disambiguator to the EI task .... 95 5.2.1 Correlating the repetition and comprehension tests: methodology ........................ 96 5.2.2 Scenarios .......................... 98 5.3 An overall picture of learner morphosyntactic skills: results .. 102 5.3.1 Effects of additional exposure to the input ........ 104 5.4 Inferential statistics ......................... 106 5.4.1 Repetition in the absence of comprehension ....... 109 5.5 Conclusion .............................. 112 6 Semi-spontaneous production 113 6.1 Research questions and rationale .................. 113 6.2 An overview of learner output ................... 113 6.2.1 Morphological variability and relation to the input ... 115 6.2.2 Same-word utterances ................... 119 6.3 Evaluating a syntactic principle of utterance organisation .... 120 6.4 Correlating the structured tests with semi-spontaneous output . 123 ii Contents 6.5 Interlanguage principles of utterance formation and interpretation 124 6.6 Summary ............................... 126 7 Discussion 127 7.1 Input ................................. 127 7.1.1 Information structure ................... 128 7.1.2 Form-function association ................. 131 7.1.3 A learner variety perspective ............... 137 7.2 The elicited imitation task ..................... 139 7.2.1 Range of case endings ................... 140 7.2.2 Sources of error: processing for meaning vs. perception 141 7.3 The comprehension test ....................... 145 7.4 A comprehensive view of morphosyntactic skills ......... 146 7.4.1 Relation between comprehension and production .... 147 7.4.2 Repetition in the absence of comprehension ....... 148 7.4.3 Competing scenarios .................... 149 7.4.4 Effect of time ........................ 150 7.4.5 Role of the L1 ........................ 151 7.5 Learner semi-spontaneous production ............... 152 7.6 Limitations of the study and future directions of research .... 155 7.6.1 The EI task ......................... 155 7.6.2 Generalisability of results and communicative situation 156 7.6.3 A comprehensive view of morphosyntactic skills .... 156 8 Conclusion 159 Pronunciation guide 165 References 167 Index 185 Name Index ................................. 185 iii Acknowledgements This book bears the name of a single author, but it could not have come to light without a team effort. Indeed, the analysis is entirely based on data elicited within the VILLA project, to which I had the privilege of being welcomed from an early stage. Therefore I would like to warmly thank all to the people who devoted their effort, knowledge and experience to develop and run this ambitious re- search: Giuliano Bernini, Christine Dimroth, Rebekah Rast, Marianne Starren, Marzena Watorek (the VILLA steering committee), along with Cecilia Andorno, Marina Chini, Roberta Grassi, Henriëtte Hendriks, Heather Hilton, Johanna Hinz, Monika Krzempek, Agnieszka Latos, Emma Marsden, Urszula Paprocka, Sebas- tian Piotrowski, Leah Roberts, Ellie Shoemaker, Ada Valentini, in addition to nu- merous technicians and student assistants. Special thanks go to the many VILLA learners, too, who lent us their time as well as their learner varieties, trusting that the experiment would benefit our understanding of the language faculty. I am particularly indebted to the two advisors who jointly supervised my PhD project, on which this book is based. My mentor Giuliano Bernini taught me a particular way to look at linguistic facts, both within and beyond the field of language acquisition, and transmitted to me the values of scientific rigour and professional ethics. Indeed, my work has always been inspired by the wish to be up to these teachings. Marzena Watorek fascinated me with her almost per- sonal relation with the data, along with a certain taste for complexity and the tireless search for new paths to explore. When writing the book, this approach would indeed prove precious to look at the same phenomenon from multiple perspectives in search of a coherent, overall picture. I would also like to express my gratitude to the “EuroSLA studies” series editor Gabriele Pallotti for his very accurate and untiring editing of the book. The final product owes much to his scientific rigour and linguistic culture, not to mention his personal generosity and the great amount of time and effort he devoted to it. Finally, many thanks to all the people who contributed to this work at various times, including the anonymous reviewers and consultants and the whole editorial staff. The author 1 Introduction: Rationale and research questions The purpose of this work is to analyse the strategies of input processing em- ployed by beginner learners of Polish in the earliest stages of second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular focus on morphosyntax. It targets a minimal fragment of grammar, i.e. a subset of the singular number of the paradigm of feminine nouns in -a (e.g. siostra ‘sister’). The morphosyntactic opposition of in- terest contrasts the nominative case (NOM), encoded by the ending -[a] <a>, and the accusative case (ACC), encoded by the ending -[e] <ę>, which respectively correspond to the subject (SUBJ) and object (OBJ) syntactic functions (1). (1) siostr-a lubi Warszaw-ę sister-NOM likes Warsaw-ACC ‘(my) sister likes Warsaw’ Case morphology makes it possible to vary word