Navigation – Plan du site

Think of a number: conceptual transfer in the second language acquisition of English plural-marking

Helen Charters, Loan Dao & Louise Jansen

Résumés

Dao (2007) a constaté que les apprenants vietnamiens de l’anglais produisent des pluriels numériques (p.e., five books ‘cinq livres’) avant les pluriels lexicaux (p.e., books ‘des livres’). La Processability Theory (Pienemann 1998; 2005; 2007) prédit l’ordre inverse, eu égard à l’hypothèse que l’accord nécessite un processus d’unification qui implique la mise en mémoire d’informations, ce que n’exige pas la production d’un seul mot. Au moyen d’un modèle d’accès lexical, Weaver++ (Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer 1999), nous montrons (i) comment l’accord peut provenir d’une co-activation par laquelle deux mots répondent à un seul concept, et la mise en mémoire d’informations n’est donc pas nécessaire, et (ii) comment la production de pluriels numériques est facilitée par un transfert conceptuel (Jarvis 2011) pour les apprenants vietnamiens : en vietnamien, il existe une chaîne de liens conceptuels entre pluralité, numéraux et noms, mais pas de lien direct entre pluralité et noms, si bien que les numéraux facilitent l’usage des noms par les apprenants vietnamiens, qui doivent toutefois acquérir le lien direct entre noms et pluralité.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

1The question of how a known language (L1) can affect production of utterances in a language learned subsequently (L2) - commonly referred to as transfer - remains a vexed one. The seemingly reasonable assumption that it is easier to learn an L2 that is similar to your L1, than to learn one that is significantly different begs many questions: How do we measure similarity and difference between languages? Does transfer affect all aspects of language (phonology, syntactic organization, morphology, semantics) equally? Are the processes of transfer the same in all domains? Can it affect the route of acquisition or just the rate? And is difference, once assessed, necessarily a hindrance in all circumstances, or can it actually be a help? Can any theory of language processing and language acquisition afford an account not only of whether or when transfer will occur, but how?

2This paper has a bearing on all of these issues. First, it suggests we can assess cross-linguistic similarity in terms of whether two languages encode the same lexical concepts, and if so, whether they package those concepts together in comparable lexical items, or divvy them up in different ways. Second, it suggests that where languages do encode comparable concepts but in different lexical packages, this can have an effect on the route of acquisition by favouring productivity of a particular morpheme in some contexts, but not in others. For example, production of the English plural –s may be facilitated in contexts where the concept of plurality is made salient by the selection of a numeric quantifier. This then influences the context in which a morpheme first appears, i.e. in numeric expressions like five books rather than in unquantified NPs like books. Third, we question the limitations on syntactic transfer referred to in Processability Theory (PT) as developmentally moderated transfer (DMTH; Pienemann 1998; 2005; 2007) suggesting that conceptual transfer may affect not only the conceptual level of L2 processing but also the construction, in the early stages of acquisition, of the network that links grammatical representations of words -lemmas– to each other. Finally, we suggest that conceptual transfer can be effectively modeled with explanatory gains using an adaptation and extension of the Weaver ++ model of Speech production (Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer 1999).

3We address these issues with reference to a study of the production of English plural morphology by Vietnamese learners (Dao 2007). In this study, Dao found that, in the spontaneous English of school-aged Vietnamese learners, plural-marking emerged productively on nouns accompanied by numerals (numeric plurals, see (1) a, (1) b), before it emerged on nouns used alone (lexical plural, see (2) a, (2) b).

(1)

In responding to the game Spot the Difference

a.

"A cat, cat ... ... ... three cats ..." (XT, grade 7)

b.

"... three blackboards, three, three boards in the second ... and one board in the first ... (DP, grade 11)

(2)

In answering the Researcher's question, "Close your eyes, and tell me what you remember in this room (or picture)"

a.

"Um ... fan ... computer ... wall ... door ... window ... desk ..." (XT, grade 7)

b.

"... I remember ... onion ... tent ... book ... flower ..." (DP, grade 11)

4The target-like numeric expressions in (1) were produced in a session earlier than or at the same time as the non-target like nouns in (2) (where there were in fact many computers, doors, desks, books flowers etc). The (a) examples were produced by one learner and the (b) examples by another; while their use of numeric plurals was clearly productive, neither of them produced plural endings on a noun used alone with enough frequency or variation to qualify as productive use of plural –s in this context.

5Practitioners of PT generally assume that the agreement evident in numeric plurals involves unification (see for example Pienemann's discussion of two dogs (Pienemann 1998: 169-172; 2007:140). Unification is a process where two values of the same feature expressed by two separate words, are brought together in a single functional representation of the phrase to which they belong. In this representation or functional structure, each feature can appear only once with only one value: the two values originating in different words must share a single representation, or unify. This is only possible when the values are identical or compatible.  Since it involves feature transfer, comparison and storage (see pp. 14-15 for more detail), unification is more cognitively demanding than selection of a plural noun alone.

6Pienemann’s assumption is that the expression two dogs involves unification, since two and dogs each express a Number feature with the value plural. If so, we would expect the bare plurals to be cognitively simpler and so to emerge before properly formed numeric expressions.

7We suggest that two factors can account for Dao’s unexpected results: first, agreement may arise simply because two features are valued simultaneously by the same concept, and so inevitably agree; and second, conceptual transfer may facilitate the use of plural-marking in English, when numerals are involved, even though Vietnamese has no plural-marking on nouns at all. More specifically, as a classifier language, Vietnamese makes use of conceptual links between numeric concepts, countability, which is expressed by classifiers, and the entities they classify expressed by nouns. In English countability is expressed not by classifiers but by the plural-marker –s. Thus, the cognitive structure underlying Vietnamese quantification provides a scaffold that may facilitate the activation of plural-marking in English, when numerals are involved, but not when nouns are used alone. In doing so, it affects the route of acquisition of English plural-marking.

8The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 introduces the notion of conceptual transfer and explains the DMTH of PT. Section 3 presents results of previous studies of the acquisition of English plural-marking in a PT framework. Section 4 explains why the results of Dao's study (Dao 2007) are problematic for PT, and discusses some irregularities in PT's theoretical approach to the processing of agreement. In this section we explain the process of unification as implemented in Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG, Bresnan 1982; 2001) and Levelt et al.'s (1999) model of lexical access, WEAVER++, and argue that an extension of the latter provides an alternative and more appropriate model of agreement for early stages of acquisition. We also discuss the typological differences between English and Vietnamese and show how these can be captured in lexico-semantic terms, and represented in the Weaver++ model. In Section 5, we use the Weaver++ model to represent steps in the acquisition of English plural-marking by Vietnamese learners, clarifying the role played by conceptual transfer. We conclude with some comments in Section 6.

2. Conceptual Transfer

9One common view of transfer is that it may affect the rate of L2 development, but not the route (Wode 1978, Zobl 1982, Krashen 1985, Odlin 1989).  PT articulates a particularly strong version of this view in its Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis (DMTH) (Pienemann 1998; 2005; 2007) which states that transfer during acquisition is severely limited by the development of the L2 processing system. It may seem odd that the use of  L1 processing resources should be limited by L2 processing ability, but the logic of the DMTH is this: according to PT, a syntactic processing system (the processor) consists of a set of highly specialized and language-specific cognitive procedures — a distinct one for each word class (Noun, Verb, Adjective, Preposition, etc.), each phrasal category (NP, VP AdjP, PP, etc.), for a simple sentence, and for alternative types of embedded clauses (relative clause, complement clause, etc.). These represent the procedural knowledge or linguistic 'know-how' of the speaker. In the fluent speaker, both the initiation of these procedures and the language- and structure-specific tasks they perform are highly automated. These tasks include retrieval of diacritic feature values, like the plural value we are concerned with, assignment of word order, unification of features to ensure agreement, assignment of grammatical functions (Subject, Object, etc.), selection of appropriate morphosyntactic forms and delivery of output from one procedure to the next. Automation develops as a consequence of frequent productive use during acquisition, and entails a lack of flexibility – or conscious control - in the performance and sequencing of each procedure. In short, an L1 processor is like a highly specialized cognitive machine, tuned to perform L1-specific processes on L1-specific input to produce L1-specific morpho-syntactic structures. Given this, it is exceedingly unlikely that the same 'machine' will recognize L2 items as valid input, or be able to process them in L2 appropriate ways.

10Only if the L1 and L2 are extremely similar in their morphosyntactic structures, both in terms of the meanings expressed and the distribution of meanings across morphemes and lexical items, is the L1 processor likely to be of any use in processing the L2 in such a way as to accelerate production of L2 structures. And even then, in any processor, procedures for higher level more complex structures can only be initiated by delivery of output from the appropriate lower level procedure; a dependency which means the products of lower level procedures naturally emerge in a learner's spontaneous speech before the products of higher level procedures. So, use of an L1 processor cannot alter the route of acquisition – emergence order – only, at best, the rate.

11Though we take PT as our point of departure, and adopt most of its assumptions with respect to the way syntax is processed, there is one important way in which our assumptions differ significantly from PT's. Since the limitations imposed by the DMTH apply only to syntactic processing, it follows that the conceptual (pre-syntactic) structures of an L1 may, in principle, influence the development and use of a learner's emerging L2 conceptual system, and potentially, and this is the crucial point, the construction of the lemma system also, from the earliest stages of development. In other words, in our view, PT's DMTH does not exclude the possibility of conceptual transfer, or its effects on the most basic level of syntactic processing, lexical selection.

12Jarvis (2011: 3) identifies conceptual transfer as an approach to transfer that "focuses more on the effects of cognition on language use – particularly the effects of patterns of cognition acquired through one language on the receptive or productive use of another language" (e.g. Jarvis 1998, Pavlenko 2003, Cardierno 2008, Inagaki 2001). According to Jarvis (2011) most such studies in a cognitive linguistics framework have been grounded in theories of concepts or conceptualist semantics, especially Slobin’s (1993; 1996) notion of thinking-for-speaking.

13However, PT makes use of Levelt's (1989) psycholinguistic model of the conceptual-syntactic interface as its starting point, and we employ more recent work on lexical selection by Levelt et al. (1999) – a model known as Weaver ++. In both these models, lexical concepts, that is concepts which find expression in lexical items, exist as part of a neural network linked to each other in line with their semantic relations, and linked to word-forms via lemmas which represent grammatical constraints on, or requirements for the use of those word-forms. These lemmas form the most basic part of PT's syntactic processor; this is where values for language-specific features – the information atoms expressed by each inflection and function word - are stored. Activation of a lemma is seen as pre-syntactic processing, part of general cognitive abilities like classification and association, but selection of a diacritic feature value, such as singular or plural number, which can be added to a lemma, is viewed as syntactic processing of the simplest kind, and the comparison of such values expressed in different lemmas, as occurs in agreement, is syntactic processing of a more demanding kind. These distinctions underlie PT's first three stages of acquisition: (1) the most basic lemma stage, where learners can access single invariant words and formulae, (2) the lexical stage, where inflected word-forms can be selected but there is no exchange of information, and (3) the phrasal stage, where learners can compare information expressed by words within a phrase to produce agreement.

14To create the possibility of conceptual transfer having an impact on L2 development, it is necessary to assume that aspects of L1 processing closest to the conceptual interface, the levels of lexical concepts and lemmas, can be employed during L2 acquisition and processing. We see this as a largely common-sense account, based in part on the ready availability; indeed the automaticity of the concept-lemma links of the L1, and in part on readily observable evidence such as L1 influence on word retrieval. Just how the L1 systems may affect L2 processing will be made clear in the discussion below of the specific case of Vietnamese learners producing plural morphology.

3. Past studies of plural-marking in English second language acquisition

15We know of only two studies that have looked specifically at the second language acquisition (SLA) of number agreement in nominals in a PT framework. That framework requires the data to be unplanned speech, elicited in ways that favour the use of the target structures, and requires specific criteria to be applied in assessing emergence: to demonstrate a point prior to acquisition there must be cases where a structure should be used, but is not; then, to demonstrate productivity each new structure must be used at least twice with different lexical components; to prevent mimicry the data gatherer must avoid use of the target-structures, and any repetitions are removed from the data set.

16Using this methodology, Di Biase and Kawaguchi (2002) investigated the SLA of Italian, where number combines with gender in portmanteau affixes that attach to nouns, articles, quantifiers and adjectives, as in (3) (adapted from Di Biase and Kawaguchi 2002: 281).

(3)

Ho

tant-i

amic-i

Australian-i

Have.1-SING

many-MASC/PL

friend-MASC/PL

australian-MASC/PL

‘I have many Australian friends.’

17They looked at plurals in cross-sectional data from six instructed learners. Ignoring errors in gender agreement, they found that one learner produced no plural noun forms in any context (representing the stage before emergence) and that four learners produced lexical plurals and plural nouns with articles, adjectives numeric and non-numeric quantifiers (representing full emergence). One learner only produced lexical and numeric plurals. On this basis, they concluded that lexical and numeric plurals are acquired before non-numeric phrasal plurals, such as a combination of a determiner or adjective and a noun. Clearly, basing an emergence order on a contrast between just two learners is less than ideal, and their data could not establish whether lexical plurals are acquired before or after numeric plurals.

18The second study, by Dao (2007) sought to rectify this, and looked specifically at the use of lexical and numeric plurals elicited from Vietnamese learners of English. This study was also cross-sectional but involved a larger group of 36 teenaged school-based learners. The profile of these learners is outlined in Table 1 below. To determine acquisition in the PT framework, Dao (2007) adapted PT’s emergence criterion which requires, (i) a minimum of two lexical variations (one token each of two different lexemes, e.g. tables and chairs for lexical plurals or three tables and two chairs for numeric plurals), (ii) a minimum of one formal variation(contrasting form for at least one lexeme, e.g. tables or three tables and one table), and (iii) use in a minimum of five obligatory contexts (this number is high, making Dao’s data very robust).

Number of

Gender

Grade

Years studying

Number of

Learners

F

M

English

hours/weeks/year

6

3

3

7

1

5/40/year

6

3

3

8

2

5/40/year

6

3

3

9

3

5/40/year

6

3

3

10

4

5/40/year

6

3

3

11

5

5/40/year

6

3

3

12

6

5/40/year

Table 1. Learners’ profile

19In this larger sample, there were only four learners who produced no plural-marking and twenty four who produced both lexical and numeric plurals. Of the remaining eight learners, two produced lexical plurals only, but six produced numeric plurals only. Table 2 summarises these distribution patterns.

Lexical Plural

Numeric Plural

Numeric Singular

Number of Learners

Group 1

book

five book

one book

4

Group 2

book

five books

one book

6

Group 3

books

five books

one book

2

Group 4

books

five books

one book

24

Table 2. Distribution patterns in plural-marking produced by learners.

20These mixed results could be taken to suggest that the emergence order of lexical and numeric plurals relative to each other is free, and that both belong to a single acquisitional stage. However, statistical analysis suggests otherwise. According to Hatch and Lazaraton (1991), an implicational hierarchy indicating emergence order is statistically significant if its coefficient of reproducibility is greater than 0.9, and its coefficient of scalability is greater than 0.6; coefficients for the hierarchy where numeric plurals emerged before lexical plurals were .945 and .753 respectively.  In other words, statistically, it is more probable that Vietnamese learners acquire numeric plurals before lexical plurals, than the other way around (Dao 2007).

21This poses a problem for PT, if we accept the standard assumption that numeric plurals involve the same process of syntactic unification a whic. Cleaals eme lgrea07).

h1"0" dir="ltr" iheacord4ltra href="#toced f1n4ltr" itocto1n4l>4. Pe proccatiAntoses a

whiinng>foicatimutrasti ioquire, a'exc, tmer'ion in tof syntactpe procoriseschy indiuirebovfreem>ole of hisstlly significafynterroneprocctdicatiinng>foicatiexc, tmeers ic unificat,ses a process values a pummaatig> whiu>Geneiossyntoses aion in tPT framewber of lexicFun-sectionGT fal- (LFG007)oadapted PT07).

b + ooks whien ioyosesowesnation LHowlt'ston 89)fisdelder of lexicacproc,sesisiin invosses a procehy whea of lexicey cacceBOOK yntavateh as ar53 rooucatirobma ;">b, oks whibecatiidequantiduch as of , hch asdiace cactng>Numbf grurfiht g> wh,ion inisiinhe sce,ses d plurvaluesmutrastim;pidu(cf. Figurfi2e 1 be)isCnstiticallinisi d plurvalues a eh e" onld fres aey caccele pd pluailiyntavatedia belons wiin tBOOK ey cacc,io.wises aey cacceisstllfoicat, esls y in tdeis iination ey cacculurinng>foicatiinto in tof syntactpe procorree, asooth belsing or's of lexical stag7).

es ed bothbmarals adelrvequirht > (oe, and the sam e prdurfion in tof syntactpe procoris Butng> thexa ondorisesisi e prdurfido?aPT rd asesded thy, i sammicienatic unificati a proceas ey cacculuizlined LFGc(Bquin h2"0" dir="ltr" iheacord5ltra href="#toced f2n1ltr" itocto2n1l>4.1 Uc unificatied LFG div

ul

litr">1Thef grurfi instru53 als asan imntid: LEXCAT = of lexicndiugory; DET = Deixed rer; DEIXIS,the st ra href="#ftn1l>(...) ulttr>

1 whiin ter w-ng fo;">bo oks1foltf grurfo: [LEXCAT DET; DEF +; DEIXIS +; LOC PROXIMATE]lem fed boe) ans wi[NUM SG]oe) a[NUM PL]753 respective7).

/div

bo oksbo oks div

AgrcoucrOrigition(prd,i24k)

auc unificatimeatsasenecination in tymmonslustrvelem meisadelaye auctil in t of sisaseneciuire, auc unificatiisi e pr sap0.9, andeisandisadelay g> whiisasaiirht sti ooymmcoucatits for tnovic ted e t , puticatip yntoses al thor's le acquisitionSl st 307).

Genfce;vaon circumhe sce obabsoenecinatsswnde givolve tappu="paceser yntoses a agiinouthve tnee ang>aUc unificat? A) and thhapputernn in yido?a7).

h2"0" dir="ltr" iheacord6ltra href="#toced f2n2ltr" itocto2n2l>4.2 Weaowe ++

19Weaowe ++ (LHowlt ethel. n 99991)o is LHowlt’s Cleiordisdel, in tfitionoenecination aaer w ornf grurfivalueideieouneatilHowlsion ontavatcatied theccumulste a)o linkceem meitiatne plurnetamewb(see Figurfi2,ibasedere LHowlt ethel. n 99: 13, Figurfi7 Pg> whiof r s(nes ontavatcation in ter w ng fo;">books div

AgrcoucrOrigition(prd,i8,6k)

20foicatiaocotittedins wi d speci of lexicey cacco e) anr w ng fsder isoqui,iht variousilHowlsi(nr w,fis pnemn,asylliobaree, aphonemn)ins wse inng fo ingrumishmesdiace cactf grurfouse invoined yntoses al s asubsidiaryeeddrisaocotittedins wiatrobmaag7).

21foicatiin pt trobma e) ang>fo ingra on WEAVER++nly, bediu in tyiace cactf grurfoulocotittedins wiin t;">b oks (ong>alf lexicndiugoryrens wi> (ovalue; ana em faranum,ins wii, twooccobabvalue . Id LFG,se, thers could b, tse dinctalf lexicng fsden pt tro leat, to eapxedans alyulocotittedins wi> (ois numbvaluess for ta . Ndiu alsooin thve t d plurvalueson in t s numbrobma in WEAVER++ isior <;">

4.3 Smmcotactentoses al niney-yntavatcat

1 (o babsl tmu st:hg>es ic quantiduns wiin tat nulura‘2ers, ‘3ersora‘4ers, in toemcotaclu onmarrulin t of s;"><;">

2

2

es d plural-markiappu="ceee at tne;b inisiin indiusand thve tne;b'shat numervaluesssaseneciuiree at tnaalyssfiin t;"><;">fiveen f arouon Dutc,, F eqc,, Sp tish,l ninItal-fia(see VigliocpA, Bu patworn & Garqutt n 96, VigliocpA, Bu patworn & Sses za n 95, VigliocpA, H eieui t , Jahe r & Kolk n 96)ishmesfioucatents fof Englkawheofoc c. Cl-cut. Bock & Miicurton (1991),d VigliocpA, Bu patworn & Garqutt (n 96) f arounohobabseff sits fof Engl,tpe ssumatiVigliocpA, H eieui t , Jahe r & Kolk (n 96) en to suggest that tls relatcalimpoowengluirentoses alal-markisfiof Englkmakesande a pumrelatcalins(nsielative noisitionis numage. Howevese incahefuu ondely suirexpwenes a aHumphreys & Bock (2005) hyve ingdiu and teff ree ne;b s number ub m nsilikei'or whics gre inbiasihtwandsiaese distribvfim f allecibvfiontsr r eficat753 respectiv, e) angu, and thly signific onms mord plur(o.wis'u>gT faltisti')tne;b ng fsdoccu redins wi ub sifavourcatiaese distriidu(noisitio onrd plu)nconsurulurs, thns wiins p favourcatiae allecibvfi(noisitio only Singu)nconsuruluishmealconclucedied th" ubtbabvariainatsson in tnoisitionis number (nerncfi ub siifiaeff rne;b entoses alon of Englishmio fioucat an imusand thve ti sammiciatcatssfine;b is numbentoses alosiinnluenoducedtere onby in tgT faltisticis numbpe pe;vee aon ub of sly, balsooby in tis numbpe pe;vee aon in tis axictoft equs on ub of -m ns." (Humphreys & Bock 2005: 694)g7).

19Ine niexr sams, in toemcotactnaalysfm fentoses alosire onevidantobe ausu nde a ciaggesns wiate"fft equee, atxpeciuirof syntacio onld specedivalue,ics grcatior <;"><;"> lfion p yntoses a, n toeyr,ionng>foicatiisiade delrvequirht in t e prdurfitd frey cacculur instru53 att> (oeimtoe, anee andtesti ioquirfm fesilstr. Sincfi emcotactoub erne;b entoses alalsoomakesa ioq stounneprocarally, hs couls eme se ie acquisitals befoof syntactentoses a. Ms moowevein in tinng>foicatich requirfm fp yntoses alosiade availiobaalta> (oeimt Pg>y hs couin a singey caccendteentavate iwoathbmarasimule seously? Bye7)oadcationeeLFGcap e o eaht ic unificat,sPienemcoaton (8;Dao 5) synialyulocasesded thynng>foicatiifiastidelrvequirht > lyuonnglfbma,sts otherwauc unificatiws couediuld ls requiag7).

h2"0" dir="ltr" iheacord8ltra href="#toced f2n4ltr" itocto2n4l>4.4 Typologlexice"fft eqce

21es coyt of sdanotcatiae auciiobaaequailirs isap0.in tic quailion in thequailimutrasti y salap0.in ediuly in tiof , inenuly in tchoic tm febseaceser deixed rer (a;verbareymmonslustrve,oic quantir, Htc.)iacpAm

div

ul

litr">19 ra href="#ftn2l>(...) ulttr>

1a> (Doetjuicn 96)isNof slfade rsto en cltsceeieouarkit:ig> whic. clantir in liseneci (AĭknenvaldDao 3007).

/div

2

cuốn">2

2

2

2

2

1

19 h1"0" dir="ltr" iheacord9ltra href="#toced f1n5ltr" itocto1n5">5. DHowlopis axicacpAuci h2"0" dir="ltr" iheacord10ltra href="#toced f2n5ltr" itocto2n5">5.1 Hyrooymlie, aCn clantirs is Weaowe++ div

ul

litr">191a>e uperimposiination in tls reriner wouor /div

div

AgrcoucrOrigition(prd,i6,4k)

21es in tey cacce“CHAIR”hys actrve,oontavatcatif beenng nd tehaim lfbma e) ang nd tey cacco on iara uperoccorateiFURNITURE0.9, andshco-hyrooyms,ilikeiBED. Antavatcatind naf beentd fres iBEDrey cacceht at tnedeofbma,se, atd fres i uperoccorateiht al andshhyrooyms,ie) anic towesaishmus ch a caccedi onantavateh id iown ofbma.9, anndi onantavateh pt trobmao on iara uperoccoratei niney-hyrooyms. Eo ealink y ds ontavatcatieodin tnetamewbeo g> whiirastlstrs. So ininkarkiebout co-hyrooymsssimule seouslyuinc53ases ontavatcation in t uperoccorate07).

or <ốngsbo (or ssi say UNIT offnecinatieyuciiolabilrein tey cacceinatouenresiade an clantirsree, ato eald speci e. clantirkhch aslfbma e) aatey cacceinatowd ietn aftothin te. clantir ts miin yiantavate. Athve tey cacculur ingrumrdto eald speci e. clantirkey cacceisklinkedseodtoweytIn ot, e) ang nd tisre gleweadcey cacceUNIT;ald speci e. clantirsiarfind naeff latcalco-hyrooymsson UNITagInfm;paicat,sto eald speci e. clantirkys alsoolinkedseodnd tey cacco on in tequaimusann lie. clanve7).

div

AgrcoucrOrigition(prd,i18k)

5.2 Stepo in Ae acquisit

AgrcoucrOrigition(prd,i7,1k)

folHowl;hve wheisanotor whiin rd plur odesifiastilinked,uas hswn in Figurfi60g7).

div

AgrcoucrOrigition(prd,i7,4k)

AgrcoucrOrigition(prd,i9,5k)

21es at nulusiarfien invoiveinisa inde nee andtech requtsf syntactuc unificat. As lstrl)o in yiarfiantavatedialstrlns winoutsson 53 roose to in the sa a cacculurof r s(neficat, at nulusinee aha>finoeseace cactf grurfeem faranum;iin unacprpiiolabil on or h1"0" dir="ltr" iheacord12ltra href="#toced f1n6ltr" itocto1n6be6. Conclusnato

whils emlrdiL2 thbmaraifiastiontsgepard, wu ha>fing vida aatrdausioba,sin oqutaclu ongrgu, a aacpAucient nd tlar ones emencfisfiaranumeric plueon in tESL sf Vi Vietnamese learsisTt tmodellnt hypooymlipe posediis Weaowe++aifiastiap imudaeff latcalto en clantirr ystems.9, ang prodsoontsre intr hypoin seshns wiregandsito in tt"pasiinatifd frgererdur s numito gT faltisticis numben SLA.  7).

/div<ra an clasgoing-" href="#a;verba-611ltHaut ed page h2"

Biobiogrcphier19 ediv

p> /p>

Aĭkhenvald, A. 2003. Classifiers: a typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23: 45-93.

Bresnan, J. (ed.) 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: The MIT Press.

Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical Functional Syntax. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.

Cadierno, T. 2008. Learning to talk about Motion in a foreign language. In: P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 239–275. London: Routledge.

Charters, A. H., Dao, L. & Jansen, L. (2011). Reassessing the application of ProcessabilityTheory: The case of nominal plural. Second Language Research, 27 (4), 509-533.

Corbett, G. 2000. Number.Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Corbett, G. 2006. Agreement.Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Dao, L. 2007. Foreign Language Acquisition: Processes and Constraints. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: The Australian National University.

Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. 2002. Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 18: 274–302.

Doetjes, J. 1996.Mass and count: Syntax or Semantics? Paper presented at the Proceedings of Meaning on the HIL, HIL/Leiden University.

Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. 1991. The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Humphreys, K. R. & Bock, K. 2005. Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(4): 689-695.

Inagaki, S. 2001. Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23: 153–170.

Jarvis, S. 2011. Cross-Linguistic Influence in Bi-lingual's concepts and conceptualizations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,14: 1-8.

Jarvis, S. 1998. Conceptual transfer in the interlingual lexicon. Bloomington, IN: IULC Publications.

Krashen, S. 1985 The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman.

Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levelt, W., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A. S. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,22:1-75.

Odlin, T. 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Pavlenko, A. 2003. Eyewitness memory in late bilinguals: Evidence for discursive relativity. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7: 257–281.

Pienemann, M. 1998. Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pienemann, M. (ed.) 2005. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. 2005. Extending processability theory. In: M. Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory, 199-251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pienemann, M. 2007. Processability Theory. In: Van Patten, B. and J. Williams (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 37-154. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Roelofs, A. 1992a. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42: 107–142.

Roelofs, A. 1992b. Lemma retrieval in speaking: A theory, computer simulations, and empirical data. Doctoral dissertation, NICI Technical Report 92–08, University of Nijmegen.

Slobin, D. I. 1993. Adult language acquisition: A view from child language study. In: C. Perdue (ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic Perspectives, 239–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Slobin, D. I. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In: J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. & Garrett, M. F. 1996. Subject–verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61: 261-298.

Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. & Semenza, C. 1995. Constructing subject–verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory & Language, 34: 186-215.

Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., Jarema, G. & Kolk, H. H. J. 1996. One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language & Cognitive Processes, 11: 407-442.

Wode, H. 1978. Developmental sequences in naturalistic SLA. In: E. Hatch (ed.), Readings in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Zobl, H. 1982. A direction for contrastive analysis: the comparative study of developmental sequences.TESOL Quarterly, 16/2: 169-83.

Haut de page

Notes

1 These feature structures are simplified: LEXCAT = Lexical category; DET = Determiner; DEIXIS, stands in for features that would limit the use of the form to contexts with a retrievable antecedent; LOC stands for Locative, and PROXIMATE, is intended as a value that contrasts with a counterpart in that and those.

2 English has a few words of a similar type, like the inherently singular and non-inflecting head which selects an inherently plural noun as in ten head of cattle, but most English measure words are simply count nouns that can quantify mass nouns, like slice in ten slices of bread.

3 Experiments show that a distracter that is also a potential target has an inhibitory rather than facilitative effect, see Levelt et al. (1999: 10ff) for discussion.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Légende Figure 1. Unification of these and books in an LFG f-structure.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/docannexe/image/611/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 24k
Légende Figure 2. Production of the English expression books in Weaver++ (cf. Levelt et al. 1999: 13, Figure 7).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/docannexe/image/611/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 8,6k
Légende Figure 3. Facilitation in hyponymous networks in WEAVER++ (based on Levelt et al. 1999: 11, Fig. 5)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/docannexe/image/611/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 6,4k
Légende Figure 4. Relations between UNIT, CLASSIFIER, ENTITY, and NUMERIC concepts in Vietnamese.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/docannexe/image/611/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 18k
Légende Figure 5. Loss of indirect connection between UNIT and ENTITY concepts.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/docannexe/image/611/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 7,1k
Légende Figure 6. Numerals facilitate activation of plural node.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/docannexe/image/611/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 7,4k
Légende Figure 7. Target-like plural-marking in L2 English.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/docannexe/image/611/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 9,5k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Helen Charters, Loan Dao & Louise Jansen, « Think of a number: conceptual transfer in the second language acquisition of English plural-marking », CogniTextes [En ligne], Volume 8 | 2012, mis en ligne le 28 décembre 2012, consulté le 17 décembre 2017. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/611 ; DOI : 10.4000/cognitextes.611

Haut de page

Auteurs

Helen Charters

University of Auckland, ARTS 1, 14A Symonds St, Auckland NZ-1010, New Zealand

Loan Dao

Australian National University, Acton ACT AU-2601, Australia

Louise Jansen

Australian National University, Acton ACT AU-2601, Australia

Haut de page
  • Logo DOAJ – Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Logo ERIH PLUS | NSD
  • Logo AFLiCo – Association française de linguistique cognitive
  • OpenEdition Journals