Figure 2 - uploaded by Roumyana Slabakova
Content may be subject to copyright.
Similar publications
Este artigo apresenta duas das principais abordagens semântico-pragmáticas – Kaplan (1989a) e Wolter (2006) – para as descrições demonstrativas com usos dêiticos. A teoria de Kaplan, apesar de ter seus méritos, apresenta problemas para explicar os usos dêiticos em que as descrições demonstrativas não estão acompanhadas por demonstrações. Wolter (20...
Citations
... The study also used a test developed by the author and colleagues in a previous study in order to determine whether the L2 learners had knowledge of the syntactic properties of clitics (e.g. see Leal Méndez, Slabakova, & Rothman, 2015;Slabakova, Rothman, Leal Méndez, Campos, & Kempchinsky, 2011;Slabakova et al., 2012, for details). This task consisted of 10 multiple-choice test items. ...
The present study examines whether, as proposed by the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace, 2011), the syntax-discourse interface is especially vulnerable to non-native optionality even at very advanced levels. I focus on the acquisition of Clitic Left Dislocation in Spanish (CLLD), a structure that involves both syntax and discourse, when it combines with other structures at the left periphery (iterative topics, Fronted Focus, and wh -constructions). CLLD is a realization of topicalization requiring the integration of syntactic and discourse knowledge. This study provides data from an audio-visual rating task completed by 120 learners of Spanish of different proficiency levels and 27 monolingual native speakers. Results showed evidence that the most advanced learners had acquired the restrictions of these structures in a native-like way and supports López’s (2009) syntactic analysis of CLLD, whereby CLLD is generated through movement so that the pragmatic features [+anaphor]/[+contrast] can be assigned to the dislocated element.
... Interface theories of language acquisition include the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace & Felice, 2006), and Interlanguage Pragmatics (Kasper & Rose, 2002), that suggests that elements of language acquisition that rely on both language-internal and language-external factors (such as the management of coherent reference) are more difficult to acquire that language-internal-only features of language (such as mapping phonology to semantic meaning). The method of investigation of interface difficulties in language acquisition has primarily been conducted through traditional data collection methods such as grammaticality judgement tasks (Slabakova, Rothman, Mendez, Campos & Kempchinsky, 2011) or context sentence matching tasks (Iverson & Rothman, 2008), but so far investigation has not been fully extended to the field of corpus linguistics, and this could therefore be a potentially interesting approach to language acquisition for corpus linguists. ...
This research investigates errors of referring expressions used in L2 narrative discourse through two learner corpora, namely the Cambridge Learner Corpus (CLC), and a subsequent controlled corpus created in CLAN. By adopting the cross-sectional approach to learner language used in the English Profile Programme, the research identifies the frequency and type of errors of reference made by Mandarin and Korean L2 English groups from A1 (beginner) to C2 (advanced) levels of the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001), and asks if and when L2 learners cease making errors of reference, and whether L1 background is a factor in the frequency and type of errors made. The results suggest that L2 learners produce little to no syntactic marking of reference at lower proficiencies, gradually incorporating the appropriate markings of the L2 target at higher proficiencies. It was also found that Korean L2 English learners produce more errors compared to the Mandarin L2 English group at each CEFR level. The difference in the type and frequency of errors between the L2 groups is suggested to lie in the potential grammaticization of numerals and demonstratives in L1 Mandarin to sharing the same functions as the English indefinite and definite articles. (Li and Thompson, 1976, 1989, Hedberg, 1996, Chen, 2004), giving the Mandarin group an advantage in mapping syntactic form (articles) to pragmatic function (introducing and maintaining reference) in the L2.
... Under López's analysis, given that these two structures (Rheme and P-movement type 1) involve the feature [+a], we can draw the tentative conclusion that anaphoricity (as defined by López) does not seem to be a major hurdle for these learners. Additionally, prior research (Ivanov, 2009;Slabakova et al, 2011) has shown that the acquisition of Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD), which is also [+a] (albeit [+c] as well), is possible. ...
... In contrast, in the condition of Focus Fronting (which is [+c, -a]), our learners were not as successful, as they did not make the relevant distinctions between the two conditions. It may well be that our learners were not proficient enough, as at least one other study (see Slabakova et al, 2011) has shown that the successful acquisition of this property at the near-native stage is indeed possible. The lack of success of the learners in this structure is particularly perplexing, given that this is the only property for which transfer from their native English is possible. ...
At ultimate L2 attainment, Sorace's (2006) Interface Hypothesis predicts that narrow syntactic properties can be fully acquired whereas properties at the external interfaces will inevitably result in non-native optionality. The present study tests the Interface Hypothesis as it pertains to the acquisition of Focus Fronting (FF) and P-movement (type 1 and 2) with their ensuing pragmatic consequences by English natives learning Spanish (n=90 advanced, intermediate and low intermediate plus n=47 native controls). The syntactic analysis used was Lopez (2009). Group results indicate that these properties can be successfully acquired, although not all to the same extent. While Rheme and P-movement type 1 posed no problems for the learners, Focus Fronting was more problematic. The native data on P-movement type 2 indicate the need for further testing, as it did not confirm the linguistic predictions.
This volume presents a range of studies testing some of the latest models and hypotheses in the field of second/third language acquisition, such as the Bottleneck Hypothesis (Slabakova, 2008, 2016), the Scalpel Model (Slabakova, 2017), and the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace & Serratrice, 2009) to name a few. The studies explore a variety of linguistic properties (e.g., functional morphology, linguistic properties at the syntax-discourse interface) by focusing on distinct populations (L2 acquisition, L3/LN acquisition, Heritage Speakers), while also considering the links between experimental linguistic research, generative linguistics, and, in some cases, language pedagogy. Dedicated to Roumyana Slabakova, each chapter can be directly linked to her work in terms of the empirical testing of extant hypotheses, the formulation of new models and ideas, and her efforts to advance the dialogue between different disciplines and frameworks. Overall, the contributions in the volume bear evidence of Slabakova’s enduring influence in the field as a collaborator, teacher, and researcher.
This volume presents a range of studies testing some of the latest models and hypotheses in the field of second/third language acquisition, such as the Bottleneck Hypothesis (Slabakova, 2008, 2016), the Scalpel Model (Slabakova, 2017), and the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace & Serratrice, 2009) to name a few. The studies explore a variety of linguistic properties (e.g., functional morphology, linguistic properties at the syntax-discourse interface) by focusing on distinct populations (L2 acquisition, L3/LN acquisition, Heritage Speakers), while also considering the links between experimental linguistic research, generative linguistics, and, in some cases, language pedagogy. Dedicated to Roumyana Slabakova, each chapter can be directly linked to her work in terms of the empirical testing of extant hypotheses, the formulation of new models and ideas, and her efforts to advance the dialogue between different disciplines and frameworks. Overall, the contributions in the volume bear evidence of Slabakova’s enduring influence in the field as a collaborator, teacher, and researcher.
