Figure 2 - uploaded by Jason Rothman
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Much recent research in SLA is guided by the hypothesis of L2 interface vulnerability (see Sorace 2005). This study contributes to this general project by examining the acquisition of two classes of subjunctive complement clauses in L2 Spanish: subjunctive complements of volitional predicates (purely syntactic) and subjunctive vs. indicative comple...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... looking at the statistical results for experiment 2 can be somewhat mislead- ing. This is true because of the nature of statistical analyses of this sort and the questions we pursue. For example, group averages between the control and the L2 groups could demonstrate significant differences while at the same time the L2 groups (and individuals therein) could fall within the range of native speaker individuals. This is the case for the advanced L2 learners, but not the intermediate learners. Moreover, it is crucial to discuss the implications of relevant distinctions made across categories for the L2 learner groups even when they are not quite as polarized as native speakers. In light of these and other related issues, we couple the statistical analyses with a descriptive analysis of the actual group results (i.e. a discussion of Figure 3) to understand what, if anything, the significant differences mean. It is important to point out that each group makes their greatest distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical complements of volitional verbs. This is expected, especially for L2 learners, because according to the analysis presented here, volitional subjunctive is solely dictated by the narrow syntax in that the matrix verb obligatorily selects the subjunctive; i.e. an uninterpretable modality feature in Force which requires a Mood head in the lower clause to value and delete it. In Section 2.5, we suggested that English L2 learners of Spanish need to access the structure of English that- subjunctive in their formal register (and simultaneously disregard the competing for-to infinitive constructions), to acquire new (overt) morphology as the head of MoodP and to expand the lexical class of verbs which selects a clausal complement with an uninterpretable modal feature in Force to include the entire class of buletic intensional predicates in Spanish. Ulti- mately, whatever the correct acquisition task is, the advanced learners in this study clearly accomplished it and the intermediate learners showed strong indications of being successful. 15 Thus, it seems reasonable to claim that volitional subjunctive complements are straightforwardly acquired by English adult learners. Under any account, the case of the negated epistemic subjunctive/indicative contrast is more difficult to acquire insofar as the syntax here must interact with the discourse/pragmatic module. 16 Turning to the Adv L2 group first, Figure 2 shows that the Adv L2 group’s average ratings in the negative epistemic categories approach (and sometimes equal) those of the NS group. In the single-category intergroup statistical comparisons (Table 2), the Adv L2 group did not differ statistically from the native performance with respect to these sentence types. Furthermore, some of the distinctions they made between categories were statistically similar to those made by natives. This suggests that they exhibit native-like behavior in this respect. 17 However, even the Int L2 group shows a tendency towards native-like behavior. While they differed significantly from both other groups in most of the comparisons, their lowest ratings were assigned to volitionals with indicative complements and negated epistemics with infelicitous indicative complement clauses, the two ungrammatical categories. Furthermore, they made the same significant distinctions as the NS group in the intragroup comparisons. However, despite the fact that they make these distinctions, one would hesitate to characterize their performance as native-like, which Figure 2 demonstrates is clearly not the case. In all but two categories (volitionals with subjunctive complements and negated epistemics with subjunctive complements in which the speaker commits to the truth of the embedded clause) their ratings hover around 3 (ranging from 2.7–3.37), the mid- point judgment, which signifies that the participant is somewhat indeterminate about the judgment of sentences as acceptable or unacceptable. Overall, it is reasonable to say that the Adv L2 group demonstrates near-native- like behavior and that the Int L2 group does not, although they show a tendency towards it. This would mean that advanced L2 learners have a target-like com- mand of the subjunctive/indicative distinction in both purely syntactic contexts (i.e. volitionals) and where the syntax interfaces with pragmatics (negated epistemics). That the Int L2 group makes their greatest distinction between volitionals with subjunctive/indicative, although not as polarized as the other groups, suggests that this purely syntactic construction is more easily acquired/used by L2 learners in general. To summarize, we have presented data which suggests that English learners of L2 Spanish are able to acquire different types of Spanish subjunctive clauses, even those that require the acquisition of a feature interpreted at the syntax–discourse interface. In Section 2.5, we provided a minimal and maximal account of what the acquisition task would be for English learners of L2 Spanish. Insofar as there is variation in L1 English (see Section 2.3.4), we assumed that some L1 speakers would have to acquire the maximal structure while others would only need to acquire minimal structure. If such an assumption is tenable, then the results come to bear on partial access approaches to L2 acquisition, 18 which would have predicted that learners needing the maximal structure would not be able to acquire the subjunctive in either context. However, this prediction was not borne out at the group or individual level for the learners in this study. Additionally, by investigating the acquisition of subjunctive complement clauses to volitional and negated epistemic predicates in an intermediate and an advanced L2 learner population, we have been able to demonstrate that the acquisition of purely syntactic properties, in this case, the acquisition of volitional subjunctive complements, occurs more straightforwardly than the acquisition of properties requiring the integration of syntactic and discourse information, such as in the case of the indicative/subjunctive contrast with negated epistemic predicates. Taken together, the data and discussion herein provide evidence in support of the notion that interfaces are a locus for L2 delays and variability in interlanguage development. However, the data also suggest that target-like acquisition of syntax–discourse interface properties is possible, suggesting that this interface is not a source of inevitable fossilization due to problems specifically effecting features interpreted at the syntax–discourse interface ( in contra Belletti & Leoni 2004; Belleti et al. 2007; Sorace 2005; Sorace & Filiaci 2006; Valenzuela ...
Context 2
... looking at the statistical results for experiment 2 can be somewhat mislead- ing. This is true because of the nature of statistical analyses of this sort and the questions we pursue. For example, group averages between the control and the L2 groups could demonstrate significant differences while at the same time the L2 groups (and individuals therein) could fall within the range of native speaker individuals. This is the case for the advanced L2 learners, but not the intermediate learners. Moreover, it is crucial to discuss the implications of relevant distinctions made across categories for the L2 learner groups even when they are not quite as polarized as native speakers. In light of these and other related issues, we couple the statistical analyses with a descriptive analysis of the actual group results (i.e. a discussion of Figure 3) to understand what, if anything, the significant differences mean. It is important to point out that each group makes their greatest distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical complements of volitional verbs. This is expected, especially for L2 learners, because according to the analysis presented here, volitional subjunctive is solely dictated by the narrow syntax in that the matrix verb obligatorily selects the subjunctive; i.e. an uninterpretable modality feature in Force which requires a Mood head in the lower clause to value and delete it. In Section 2.5, we suggested that English L2 learners of Spanish need to access the structure of English that- subjunctive in their formal register (and simultaneously disregard the competing for-to infinitive constructions), to acquire new (overt) morphology as the head of MoodP and to expand the lexical class of verbs which selects a clausal complement with an uninterpretable modal feature in Force to include the entire class of buletic intensional predicates in Spanish. Ulti- mately, whatever the correct acquisition task is, the advanced learners in this study clearly accomplished it and the intermediate learners showed strong indications of being successful. 15 Thus, it seems reasonable to claim that volitional subjunctive complements are straightforwardly acquired by English adult learners. Under any account, the case of the negated epistemic subjunctive/indicative contrast is more difficult to acquire insofar as the syntax here must interact with the discourse/pragmatic module. 16 Turning to the Adv L2 group first, Figure 2 shows that the Adv L2 group’s average ratings in the negative epistemic categories approach (and sometimes equal) those of the NS group. In the single-category intergroup statistical comparisons (Table 2), the Adv L2 group did not differ statistically from the native performance with respect to these sentence types. Furthermore, some of the distinctions they made between categories were statistically similar to those made by natives. This suggests that they exhibit native-like behavior in this respect. 17 However, even the Int L2 group shows a tendency towards native-like behavior. While they differed significantly from both other groups in most of the comparisons, their lowest ratings were assigned to volitionals with indicative complements and negated epistemics with infelicitous indicative complement clauses, the two ungrammatical categories. Furthermore, they made the same significant distinctions as the NS group in the intragroup comparisons. However, despite the fact that they make these distinctions, one would hesitate to characterize their performance as native-like, which Figure 2 demonstrates is clearly not the case. In all but two categories (volitionals with subjunctive complements and negated epistemics with subjunctive complements in which the speaker commits to the truth of the embedded clause) their ratings hover around 3 (ranging from 2.7–3.37), the mid- point judgment, which signifies that the participant is somewhat indeterminate about the judgment of sentences as acceptable or unacceptable. Overall, it is reasonable to say that the Adv L2 group demonstrates near-native- like behavior and that the Int L2 group does not, although they show a tendency towards it. This would mean that advanced L2 learners have a target-like com- mand of the subjunctive/indicative distinction in both purely syntactic contexts (i.e. volitionals) and where the syntax interfaces with pragmatics (negated epistemics). That the Int L2 group makes their greatest distinction between volitionals with subjunctive/indicative, although not as polarized as the other groups, suggests that this purely syntactic construction is more easily acquired/used by L2 learners in general. To summarize, we have presented data which suggests that English learners of L2 Spanish are able to acquire different types of Spanish subjunctive clauses, even those that require the acquisition of a feature interpreted at the syntax–discourse interface. In Section 2.5, we provided a minimal and maximal account of what the acquisition task would be for English learners of L2 Spanish. Insofar as there is variation in L1 English (see Section 2.3.4), we assumed that some L1 speakers would have to acquire the maximal structure while others would only need to acquire minimal structure. If such an assumption is tenable, then the results come to bear on partial access approaches to L2 acquisition, 18 which would have predicted that learners needing the maximal structure would not be able to acquire the subjunctive in either context. However, this prediction was not borne out at the group or individual level for the learners in this study. Additionally, by investigating the acquisition of subjunctive complement clauses to volitional and negated epistemic predicates in an intermediate and an advanced L2 learner population, we have been able to demonstrate that the acquisition of purely syntactic properties, in this case, the acquisition of volitional subjunctive complements, occurs more straightforwardly than the acquisition of properties requiring the integration of syntactic and discourse information, such as in the case of the indicative/subjunctive contrast with negated epistemic predicates. Taken together, the data and discussion herein provide evidence in support of the notion that interfaces are a locus for L2 delays and variability in interlanguage development. However, the data also suggest that target-like acquisition of syntax–discourse interface properties is possible, suggesting that this interface is not a source of inevitable fossilization due to problems specifically effecting features interpreted at the syntax–discourse interface ( in contra Belletti & Leoni 2004; Belleti et al. 2007; Sorace 2005; Sorace & Filiaci 2006; Valenzuela ...
Context 3
...
Figure 2 below shows the average group rating of each of the six sentence types detailed in Section 4.2. As can be seen in Figure 2, the NS group reliably accepts subjunctive complements of volitional predicates, subjunctive complements of negated epistemics and indicative complements to negated epistemics when the speaker is committed to the truth of the embedded clause; in each instance, they rate these as 4.08 or above. Furthermore, they reliably reject volitionals with indicative subordinate clauses and negated epistemics with an indicative subordinate clause when the speaker is not committed to the truth of the embedded clause; in each instance they rate these 1.46 or below. The Adv L2 group shows these same distinctions, but they are less polarized: they rate 3.61 or above the sentences accepted by the NS group and they rate 1.67 or below the sentences rejected by the NS group. The Int L2 group is even less polarized than the Adv L2 group: they rate 3.13 or above the sentences accepted by the NS group and they rate 2.86 or below the sentences rejected by the NS group. The first research question called for a comparison of the single categories across groups. That is, the groups were compared to each other with respect to their rating volitionals with subjunctive clauses, then volitionals with indicative clauses, and so on. One way ANOVAs showed that there were significant differences between groups in each category: Vol/subj, F(2, 53) = 7.19, p = .002; Vol/ind, F(2, 53) = 22.67, p < .001; NE/subj +com, F(2, 53) = 3.37, p = .041; NE/ind +com, F(2, 53) = 4.90, p = .01; NE/subj –com, F(2, 53) = 10.70, p < .001; NE/ind – com, F(2, 53) = 14.10, p < .001. Post hoc tests revealed that the Adv L2 group did not differ significantly from the natives in their rating of any category, while the Int L2 group differed significantly from the NS group in all categories except negated epistemics with subjunctive embedded clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the embedded clause. The Adv L2 group differed from the Int L2 in all categories except in their rating of negated epistemics with either subjunctive or indicative embedded clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the embedded clause. The results of the post hoc tests are summarized in Table 2 below. To answer the second research question, the data was analyzed using mixed ANOVAs. This was done to see if each group made distinctions between certain categories, and furthermore if these distinctions were comparable across groups. In the case of volitional verbs, the between-groups factor was level (i.e. NS/Adv L2/Int L2) and the within-groups factor was complement type (i.e. subj/ind). A significant effect was found for group, F(2,53) = 13.48, p < 0.001, as well as complement type, F(2,53) = 360.9, p < 0.001. This means that all groups differentiated significantly between volitionals with subjunctive complements and those with indicative complements; however, these distinctions were not statistically similar across all groups. Post hoc tests revealed that the NS and Adv L2 groups performed similarly ( p = 0.23) while the Int L2 groups was distinct from both the NS group ( p = 0.027) and the Adv L2 group ( p < 0.001). The same type of analysis was performed with respect to negated epistemic (NE) verbs. Again, level was the between-groups factor, and there were four within-groups factors covering the four NE conditions (NE with an indicative complement with speaker commitment to the truth of the embedded clause, NE with an indicative complement without speaker commitment to the truth of the embedded clause, etc.). The results of the ANOVA demonstrate significant effects for group, F(2,53) = 5.70, p = 0.005, for complement type (indicative/subjunctive), F(2,53) = 107.0, p < 0.001 and for speaker commitment, F(2,53) = 94.04, p < 0.001. Post hoc tests showed that The Adv L2 group differed significantly from the NS group in both their contrast of negated epistemics with indicative clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the embedded clause and those in which the speaker does not ( p = 0.03). The Int L2 group differed significantly from the natives and the Adv L2 group in all comparisons ( p < 0.001 for each) except in their differentiation between negated epistemics with subjunctive complement clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the complement clause and negated epistemics with indicative complement clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the complement clause ( p = .092, 0.76 against the NS and Adv L2 groups, ...
Context 4
...
Figure 2 below shows the average group rating of each of the six sentence types detailed in Section 4.2. As can be seen in Figure 2, the NS group reliably accepts subjunctive complements of volitional predicates, subjunctive complements of negated epistemics and indicative complements to negated epistemics when the speaker is committed to the truth of the embedded clause; in each instance, they rate these as 4.08 or above. Furthermore, they reliably reject volitionals with indicative subordinate clauses and negated epistemics with an indicative subordinate clause when the speaker is not committed to the truth of the embedded clause; in each instance they rate these 1.46 or below. The Adv L2 group shows these same distinctions, but they are less polarized: they rate 3.61 or above the sentences accepted by the NS group and they rate 1.67 or below the sentences rejected by the NS group. The Int L2 group is even less polarized than the Adv L2 group: they rate 3.13 or above the sentences accepted by the NS group and they rate 2.86 or below the sentences rejected by the NS group. The first research question called for a comparison of the single categories across groups. That is, the groups were compared to each other with respect to their rating volitionals with subjunctive clauses, then volitionals with indicative clauses, and so on. One way ANOVAs showed that there were significant differences between groups in each category: Vol/subj, F(2, 53) = 7.19, p = .002; Vol/ind, F(2, 53) = 22.67, p < .001; NE/subj +com, F(2, 53) = 3.37, p = .041; NE/ind +com, F(2, 53) = 4.90, p = .01; NE/subj –com, F(2, 53) = 10.70, p < .001; NE/ind – com, F(2, 53) = 14.10, p < .001. Post hoc tests revealed that the Adv L2 group did not differ significantly from the natives in their rating of any category, while the Int L2 group differed significantly from the NS group in all categories except negated epistemics with subjunctive embedded clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the embedded clause. The Adv L2 group differed from the Int L2 in all categories except in their rating of negated epistemics with either subjunctive or indicative embedded clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the embedded clause. The results of the post hoc tests are summarized in Table 2 below. To answer the second research question, the data was analyzed using mixed ANOVAs. This was done to see if each group made distinctions between certain categories, and furthermore if these distinctions were comparable across groups. In the case of volitional verbs, the between-groups factor was level (i.e. NS/Adv L2/Int L2) and the within-groups factor was complement type (i.e. subj/ind). A significant effect was found for group, F(2,53) = 13.48, p < 0.001, as well as complement type, F(2,53) = 360.9, p < 0.001. This means that all groups differentiated significantly between volitionals with subjunctive complements and those with indicative complements; however, these distinctions were not statistically similar across all groups. Post hoc tests revealed that the NS and Adv L2 groups performed similarly ( p = 0.23) while the Int L2 groups was distinct from both the NS group ( p = 0.027) and the Adv L2 group ( p < 0.001). The same type of analysis was performed with respect to negated epistemic (NE) verbs. Again, level was the between-groups factor, and there were four within-groups factors covering the four NE conditions (NE with an indicative complement with speaker commitment to the truth of the embedded clause, NE with an indicative complement without speaker commitment to the truth of the embedded clause, etc.). The results of the ANOVA demonstrate significant effects for group, F(2,53) = 5.70, p = 0.005, for complement type (indicative/subjunctive), F(2,53) = 107.0, p < 0.001 and for speaker commitment, F(2,53) = 94.04, p < 0.001. Post hoc tests showed that The Adv L2 group differed significantly from the NS group in both their contrast of negated epistemics with indicative clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the embedded clause and those in which the speaker does not ( p = 0.03). The Int L2 group differed significantly from the natives and the Adv L2 group in all comparisons ( p < 0.001 for each) except in their differentiation between negated epistemics with subjunctive complement clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the complement clause and negated epistemics with indicative complement clauses in which the speaker commits to the truth of the complement clause ( p = .092, 0.76 against the NS and Adv L2 groups, ...
Similar publications
The relationship between finiteness and verb placement has often been studied in both first language (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition and many studies claim that, while there is a correlation between finiteness and verb placement in L1 acquisition, these areas represent separate learning tasks in second language acquisition (SLA). The purp...
Irrespective of the fact that two negations in the same clause usually cancel each other out and result in an affirmative sentence, the phenomenon of double negation in English is still a disputable problem. These aspects all lead to linguistic complexity of double negation in SLA followed by a description of its relevant characteristics and contra...
Citations
... Sofia Although English does have a subjunctive mood, this structure has been in a period of loss for centuries (Kovács, 2009), and acceptability judgment data indicate that many monolingual speakers find the indicative to be equally or more grammatical (Iverson et al., 2008;Rojas, 1998). Regardless, the subjunctive is not used in English volitional clauses as in Spanish. ...
... Regardless, the subjunctive is not used in English volitional clauses as in Spanish. Instead, for-to infinitival constructions are common, but tensed subordinate clauses following verbs of volition would be ungrammatical (see Iverson et al., 2008 for a syntactic account). To exemplify this difference, sentence (2) would be considered ungrammatical in English (but grammatical if translated to Spanish), while sentence (3) would be considered grammatical (but ungrammatical if translated to Spanish). ...
The present study tested Spanish heritage speakers' (HSs') production and selection of subjunctive mood in volitional clauses. Four groups participated to expose the effects of age on subjunctive acquisition: Spanish-dominant bilingual adults (SDBA; n = 18), HSs in fifth grade (HS5; n = 41), HSs in seventh/eighth grades (HS7/8; n = 34) and HS adults (HSA; n = 34). SDBAs produced and selected the subjunctive more than HS groups. There were no differences in production and selection between the HS7/8 and HSA groups, both of whom produced and selected subjunctive mood more frequently than the HS5 group. These results point toward protracted heritage language development. HSs selected the subjunctive more than they produced it, supporting theories that dissociate between mapping forms onto morphology and underlying syntactic competence. Finally, proficiency and frequency of use modulated individual variability between HSs. Results are addressed relative to incomplete acquisition, protracted development and feature reassembly.
... In contrast to Spanish, English has a less-utilized subjunctive. Acceptability judgment data have shown that the English indicative exists as a grammatical alternative to the subjunctive (Iverson et al., 2008;Rojas, 1998). In addition, English lacks a morphological paradigm that is specific to mood, as it is marked through past tense forms. ...
The present study investigated the production and receptive knowledge of the Spanish subjunctive mood in volitional clauses by 57 English-dominant heritage speakers in fifth, seventh, and eighth grades (ages 10–14), some of whom were enrolled in a dual-language immersion program. Children’s self-reported frequency of use of Spanish affected command of this structure, and participants showed more consistent selection of the subjunctive than production of this form. There were no differences in production or selection between children in the dual-language immersion and monolingual English schools, but older children produced and selected the subjunctive more than younger participants. The lexical frequency of individual subordinate verbs did not affect subjunctive use. The role for frequency of use and asymmetrical performance between tasks support Putnam and Sánchez’s (2013) activation approach to heritage language acquisition. However, the absence of an effect for bilingual schooling or lexical frequency and the increased use of subjunctive mood with age do not strictly align with theories of a reassembly of features in heritage language acquisition, and argue for a protracted development of subjunctive mood in heritage Spanish.
... Lingüística y Filología, vol. XII, núm. 1, año 2024: 73-122 explicar fenómenos de divergencia en las gramáticas de hablantes bilingües (por ejemplo, Iverson, Kempchinsky y Rothman, 2008;Pascual y Cabo, Lingwall y Rothman, 2012). Actualmente, se plantea como una posible explicación sobre propiedades gramaticales vulnerables en la realidad bilingüe que la distingue fundamentalmente de la monolingüe. ...
Este estudio examina la selección que hacen los hablantes de español como lengua heredada del subjuntivo del español. Estos hablantes han sido, normalmente, comparados con hablantes monolingües, y se ha dicho que su producción se asemeja a la de los aprendientes de español como segunda lengua. En este trabajo se problematiza esa hipótesis mediante dos instrumentos: uno de producción y otro de comprensión, los cuales fueron aplicados a tres grupos de contraste —hablantes de español como lengua heredada, aprendientes de español como segunda lengua y hablantes monolingües de español—. Los resultados muestran que existen diferencias significativas entre los grupos de contraste, de lo cual se puede concluir que son tres poblaciones distintas y que el grupo de hablantes de español como lengua heredada forma un grupo de estudio en sí mismo, que se distingue del grupo de aprendientes de español como segunda lengua y el grupo monolingüe.
... Despite the attested observation that phenomena at the syntax-discourse interface are often acquired late, evidence for a generalized interface-related deficit is not reported; there is an increasing body of research showing successful L2 acquisition of discourse properties that are not instantiated in the learner's first language (L1) (e.g. Donaldson, 2011;Hopp, 2009;Ivanov, 2012;Iverson et al., 2008;Leal et al., 2017;Rothman, 2009;Slabakova Kempchinsky and Rothman, 2012;Smeets, 2019), as well as positive transfer of L1 properties for speakers whose L1 and L2 behave alike (Hopp, 2009;Kraš, 2008;Smeets, 2019). ...
This study investigates feature acquisition and feature reassembly associated with Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD). The article compares the acquisition of CLLD in second language (L2) Italian to L2 Romanian to examine effects of first language (L1) transfer, construction frequency and the type of interface involved (external vs. internal interface) within the same syntactic construction. The results from an acceptability judgment task and a written elicitation task show that while English near-native speakers of Italian/Romanian acquired the L2 constraints on CLLD, which is [+anaphor] for Italian and [+specific] for Romanian, data from both Romanian L2 learners of Italian and Italian L2 learners of Romanian showed persistent L1 transfer effects. Target-like acquisition for these groups requires both grammatical expansion and retraction; Romanian CLLD requires the addition of an L1-unavailable [+specific] feature and the loss of a [+anaphor] feature, while Italian CLLD requires the addition of an L1-unavailable [+anaphor] and the loss of a [+specific] feature. The reported findings extend evidence in favour of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis to the syntax–discourse interface, as reassembly of interpretational features associated with CLLD proved more difficult than feature acquisition. While learners at the near-native levels were able to broaden the contexts that allow a clitic in the L2 (grammatical expansion), L1 preemption difficulties were attested as well. This was the case regardless of the frequency of the relevant construction in the input and the type of L2 feature that needed to be added/removed.
... Montrul (2007Montrul ( , 2009) and Montrul and Perpiñán (2011) found that HS and L2L have substantial difficulty acquiring the subjunctive, especially in areas where this structure can co-occur with the indicative. Variability in the use of the subjunctive is well-documented for both HS (e.g., Giancaspro, 2017;Lustres et al., 2020;Perez-Cortes, 2016) and for L2L (e.g., Amenós-Pons et al., 2019;Borgonovo et al., 2015;Gudmestad, 2014;Iverson et al., 2008;Kanwit & Geeslin, 2018; see Collentine, 2013 for a discussion). ...
In this paper, we address a lack of assessments of partner language development in dual language immersion (DLI) programs. We propose several important considerations that are necessary for the creation of research-based assessments of partner language development in DLI programs, focusing on Spanish as an example. We first discuss what these assessments need to test, concentrating on different areas of language that have proven to be challenging for heritage speakers and second language learners of Spanish, both of whom are students in these immersion programs. Next, we discuss how to assess these students through the use of implicit and explicit tasks and by measuring production and comprehension separately. We also advocate for embracing students’ translanguaging practices. Finally, we discuss why we need to assess partner language development. We propose that designing assessments that are simple to interpret will allow teachers, linguists, and policymakers to benefit from the data that they provide. For example, assessments of partner language development can contribute to assessment literacy and the creation of learning standards for bilingual schools. We argue that these considerations are essential for bringing DLI education to where we ought to be in the 21st century.
... There is evidence that oral production improves with immersion experience (Isabelli & Nishida, 2005;Lubbers Quesada, 1998). Studies in the generative framework have found that performance on interpretation and judgment measures can be high or even nativelike among adult learners with a very high level of L2 proficiency, for trigger contexts such as volitional predicates (Borgonovo et al., 2005;Iverson et al., 2008;Massery, 2009) and negated epistemic and perception predicates (Borgonovo & Prévost, 2003;Iverson et al., 2008). Variationist work has observed that the oral production patterns of high-proficiency L2 learners can closely resemble those of native speakers in terms of frequency and contextual factors that shape variation; the only point of divergence was with the discourse pragmatic variable of hypotheticality (Gudmestad, 2012a). ...
... There is evidence that oral production improves with immersion experience (Isabelli & Nishida, 2005;Lubbers Quesada, 1998). Studies in the generative framework have found that performance on interpretation and judgment measures can be high or even nativelike among adult learners with a very high level of L2 proficiency, for trigger contexts such as volitional predicates (Borgonovo et al., 2005;Iverson et al., 2008;Massery, 2009) and negated epistemic and perception predicates (Borgonovo & Prévost, 2003;Iverson et al., 2008). Variationist work has observed that the oral production patterns of high-proficiency L2 learners can closely resemble those of native speakers in terms of frequency and contextual factors that shape variation; the only point of divergence was with the discourse pragmatic variable of hypotheticality (Gudmestad, 2012a). ...
The present study investigated the second language processing of grammatical mood in Spanish. Eye-movement data from a group of advanced proficiency second language users revealed nativelike processing with irregular verb stimuli but not with regular verb stimuli. A comparison group of native speakers showed the expected effect with both types of stimuli, but these were slightly more robust with irregular verbs than with regular verbs. We propose that the role of verb form regularity was due to the greater visual salience of Spanish subjunctive forms with irregular verbs versus regular verbs and possibly also due to less efficient processing of rule-based regular inflectional morphology versus whole irregular word forms. In any case, the results suggest that what appeared to be difficulty with sentence processing could be traced back to word-level processes, which appeared to be the primary area of difficulty. This outcome seems to go against theories that suggest that L2 sentence processing is shallow.
... So far, numerous studies have validated the vulnerability of interfaces across different acquisitional contexts including the HL context (Antonova-Unlu, 2015, Antonova-Unlu & Li Wei, 2020, Arslan et. al., 2014Cuza et al., 2013;Iverson et al., 2008 among others). Therefore, it seems possible to suggest that if there are any domains in the HL that would stay obstinate to complete (re-)activation after return to the country of origin, interface structures involving the pragmatics interface are expected to be among them. ...
... However, the possibility of incomplete/imperfect acquisition of the HL structures should not be excluded and, therefore, '(re-)activation' of the HL may mean learning anew of, at least, some domains in an immersion environment. In the 'new' learning after the onset of puberty, interface domains are expected to be difficult to learn as it is predicted by the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace & Filiaci, 2006) and demonstrated by numerous studies validating it (Antonova-Unlu, 2015, Antonova-Unlu & Li Wei, 2020, Cuza et al., 2013;Iverson et al., 2008;Massery & Fuentes, 2017). Therefore, we hypothesize that among all the domains, interfaces will be a strong candidate for susceptibility to (re-)activation in the HL. ...
Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions
The aim of this study is to examine whether the complete (re-)activation of interface domains in the heritage language (HL) is possible or whether interfaces are likely to preserve features typical for the HL even after many years of residing in the country of origin.
Design/methodology/approach
We present the group analysis of direct object marking in Turkish, which is a morphology-syntax-pragmatics interface, of Turkish-German returnees, who returned to Turkey after puberty and have been residing in the country for a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 34 years, and compare them with the control group consisting of Turkish speakers who have been living in Turkey all their lives.
Data and analysis
The data were collected using a narrative task, a completion task and a grammaticality judgement task, and analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Findings/conclusions
The analysis of the narrative task revealed that the returnee participants used case-marking on direct objects productively depending on the discourse and syntactic position of the direct object in their heritage Turkish. However, their performance on the completion and grammaticality judgement tasks diverged from those of the control group. These findings can be considered as a piece of evidence that interface domains stay obstinate to complete (re-)activation and may preserve features typical for the HL many years after the return to the country of origin.
Originality
The study suggests relevance of the Interface Hypothesis to the process of HL (re-)activation.
Significance/implications
The study contributes to the research on the HL development of returnees after their return to the country of origin.
... Importantly, Giancaspro found that the earlier heritage speakers had acquired English, the more variable their knowledge of the subjunctive was. Moreover, knowledge of subjunctive selection with infrequent verbs also tended to be more variable regardless of age of acquisition (for similar results see: Giancaspro, 2019, andIverson, et al., 2008). Both Perez-Cortes and Giancaspro used traditional off-line methods, however, there exists the possibility that using online, psycholinguistic methods may provide further insights into the richness of heritage speakers' linguistic knowledge. ...
... The SLA literature has mostly examined production and interpretation of mood in advanced and native-like L2 learners. Despite this, studies have yielded contradicting results: while some have reported that, even after being immersed in the L2, the subjunctive remained a difficult structure for learners to use in a native-like way (Cheng & Mojica-Diaz, 2006;Bonilla, 2015;Isabelli & Nishida, 2005), a few others have provided evidence that learners can indeed acquire mood selection across the same contexts as monolingual speakers (Iverson et al., 2008). Importantly, however, L2 learners' performance is overall better in obligatory than in optional contexts. ...
... Research on the acquisition of the subjunctive in monolingual and bilingual populations has shown that it is first learned in "obligatory" contexts of use, (i.e., intensional subjunctive, deontic predicates, Non-variable governors) and then in "optional" contexts of use (i.e., polarity subjunctive, epistemic/epistemological predicates, variable governors; Anderson, 1999Anderson, , 2001Blake, 1983;Hernandez Pina, 1984;Merino, 1983;Naharro, 1996;Lozano, 1974;Papafragou, 1998;Perez-Cortes, 2016;Silva-Corvalán, 2014). It has been hypothesized that maturational constraints mediate the acquisition of the subjunctive in different contexts (de Villiers & de Villiers, 2010;Perez-Leroux, 1998); for instance, Perez-Leroux (1998) Numerous empirical studies have shown that both monolinguals and bilinguals are more accurate in their interpretation and use of mood in obligatory contexts of use than in optional contexts of use (Ahearn et al., 2014;Blake, 19983;Echeverría, 1978;Gallo-Valdivieso, 1994;Geeslin, 2014;Iverson et al., 2008;Kanwitt &;Montrul, 2007Montrul, , 2009Padilla, 1990;Perez-Cortes, 2016 Considering the distribution of these conditioning factors in the input heritage speakers receive is essential for understanding how they acquire and process mood. ...
ABSTRACT
Studies assessing the grammatical knowledge of speakers of Spanish as a heritage language have largely focused on the Spanish subjunctive mood and have concluded,
almost unanimously, that heritage speakers’ knowledge of the Spanish subjunctive is non-native-like and subject to incomplete acquisition. However, there is also evidence
that while different, heritage speakers’ linguistic knowledge is by no means deficient. The goal of the present dissertation is to achieve a holistic understanding of the nature of
grammars of heritage speakers and to contribute to a theory of processing in heritage language contexts that has greater explanatory adequacy. To this end, this dissertation examines knowledge of the Spanish subjunctive in heritage speakers who live in a long-standing bilingual community in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in comparison to a group of Spanish-dominant bilinguals born in Mexico. The dissertation sets out to provide (1) an evidence-based characterization of heritage speakers by using a sociolinguistic questionnaire which, along with PCA, examined the language-experience related factors that best explain the variability in the processing of the subjunctive mood in this population; and (2) an examination of heritage speakers’ and Spanish-dominant bilinguals’ processing of the Spanish subjunctive during online comprehension and production by means of psycholinguistic experiments that integrated corpus data into their design. Results indicated that, both in comprehension and production, the current group of heritage speakers was sensitive to the lexical and structural conditioning of mood selection, and that the performance of heritage speakers and Spanish-dominant bilinguals converged on the same results and trends. All participants showed nuanced knowledge of the morphosyntactic factors that modulate the conditioning of mood
selection, as suggested by the fact that linguistic factors such as frequency and proficiency also modulated their sensitivity. In addition, based on the PCA conducted, the role of three sociolinguistic variables was examined: use of the heritage language, language entropy, and identification with the heritage language. As predicted, results indicated that sensitivity to the lexical and structural conditioning of mood selection was greater for heritage speakers who: (1) used the heritage language more often on average, (2) used the heritage language in more diverse contexts, and (3) felt more identified with the heritage language. The findings highlight that factors such as the community examined and the ecological validity of the materials used are crucial. In addition, they underscore the importance of triangulating both comprehension and production experimental data, and employing multiple explanatory variables for a more comprehensive approach to complex and highly variable systems such as heritage grammars.
... (10) *What the professors want is James to present the paper. Iverson et al. (2008) have, therefore, argued that the infinitival complementiser, for, should be analysed as a marker of intensional modality, whereby it joins the syntax as the head of FinP in the left periphery. Such an analysis is schematised in Figure 2 below. ...
Extensive research has shown that second language (L2) learners find it difficult to apply grammatical knowledge during real-time processing, especially when differences exist between the first (L1) and L2. The current study examines the extent to which British English-speaking learners of French can apply their grammatical knowledge of the French subjunctive during real-time processing, and whether this ability is modulated by the properties of the L1 grammar, and/or proficiency. Data from an acceptability judgment task and an eye-tracking during reading experiment revealed that L2 learners had knowledge of the subjunctive, but were unable to apply this knowledge when reading for comprehension. Such findings therefore suggest that L2 knowledge of the subjunctive, at least at the proficiency levels tested in this study, is largely metalinguistic (explicit) in nature and that reduced lexical access and/or limited computational resources (e.g., working memory) prevented learners from fully utilising their grammatical representations during real-time processing.
... While there have been abundant studies on the acquisition of L2 moods (e.g., Gudmestad, 2012;Iverson et al., 2008), limited studies have assessed the acquisition of the realis/irrealis features through a feature-based approach. One such research is Ahern et al.'s (2014) study on the interpretation of Spanish mood choice in if-conditional constructions (factual conditionals vs. irrealis conditionals) by L1-English and L1-French learners. ...
The present study investigates the acquisition of the [±realis] features encoded in Chinese negation by L1-English and L1-Korean learners through the framework of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. Two modes of grammaticality judgment tests (written and aural) were administered to 90 L1-English and 92 L1-Korean learners ranging from elementary to advanced Chinese proficiency levels, along with 15 native controls. Our study's findings in general support the proposals of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. The results indicate that L2 learners with lower Chinese proficiency tend to correspond their L1 features encoded in negation with similar L2 items, leading to target-deviant performances at the early stages of learning. L1-English and L1-Korean learners with increased Chinese proficiency assemble the [+realis] and [−realis] features with mei and bu, respectively. However, they face difficulties in identifying the [±realis] features represented in certain licensing contexts. Based on the results, we argue that the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis is strengthened when variables that constrain feature detectability and reassembly, such as L1 influence, L2 proficiency, input frequency and consistency, and task modality, are considered.
