Second Language Research

There is growing interest in learners’ cognitive capacities to process a second language (L2) at first exposure to the target language. Evidence suggests that L2 learners are capable of processing novel words by exploiting phonological information from their first language (L1). Hearing adult learners of a sign language, however, cannot fall back on their L1 to process novel signs because the modality differences between speech (aural–oral) and sign (visual-manual) do not allow for direct cross-linguistic influence. Sign language learners might use alternative strategies to process input expressed in the manual channel. Learners may rely on iconicity, the direct relationship between a sign and its referent. Evidence up to now has shown that iconicity facilitates learning in non-signers, but it is unclear whether it also facilitates sign production. In order to fill this gap, the present study investigated how iconicity influenced articulation of the phonological components of signs. In Study 1, hearing non-signers viewed a set of iconic and arbitrary signs along with their English translations and repeated the signs as accurately as possible immediately after. The results show that participants imitated iconic signs significantly less accurately than arbitrary signs. In Study 2, a second group of hearing non-signers imitated the same set of signs but without the accompanying English translations. The same lower accuracy for iconic signs was observed. We argue that learners rely on iconicity to process manual input because it brings familiarity to the target (sign) language. However, this reliance comes at a cost as it leads to a more superficial processing of the signs’ full phonetic form. The present findings add to our understanding of learners’ cognitive capacities at first exposure to a signed L2, and raises new theoretical questions in the field of second language acquisition.

We investigated the second language (L2) acquisition of pragmatic categories that are not as consistently and frequently encoded in the L2 than in the first language (L1). Experiment 1 showed that Italian speakers linguistically highlighted affirmative polarity contrast (e.g. The child ate the candies following after The child did not eat the candies) in 34.3% of the cases, by producing a nuclear pitch accent on the finite verb (i.e. verum focus accent). Experiment 2 revealed that high-proficient German and Dutch non-native speakers of Italian linguistically encoded polarity contrast more frequently, either using a verum focus accent (German) or lexical markers (Dutch). This corresponds closely to the patterns preferred in their native languages. Our results show L1 transfer on three levels: (1) the relevance of the pragmatic category (i.e. marking polarity contrast on the assertion component), (2) the linguistic markers to encode polarity contrast and (3) the phonetic implementation of the intonational marking. These three levels of transfer have implications for how non-native speakers acquire the L2 discourse organizational principles and the linguistic markers to encode them.

So far, the comprehension and production language modes have typically been studied separately in generative second language acquisition research, with the focus shifting from one to the other. This article revisits the asymmetric relationship between comprehension and production by examining the second language (L2) acquisition of the noun phrase in Bulgarian by speakers of English. Drawing on data from a forced choice comprehension task and elicited production task, I show that in some cases production of certain grammatical features may precede the full comprehension of their relevance to the morpho-syntax of the target language. An explanation is sought based on (1) Jackendoff’s (2002) parallel architecture of the linguistics modules, and (2) feature differentiation based on their relevance to syntax proper and semantics. Structural features with no semantic bearing (e.g. [gender]) are argued to be overlooked by the parser in comprehension. Conversely, features with a semantic load (e.g. [number]) are argued to cause an overload in the semantic tier in production. This, in turn, prevents their overt realization. This study sets the stage for future investigations into the phenomenon exploiting more refined methodology, which will allow for teasing apart the theoretical proposal from task effects.

This study takes a new look at the topic of developmental stages in the second language (L2) acquisition of morphosyntax by analysing receptive learner data, a language mode that has hitherto received very little attention within this strand of research (for a recent and rare study, see Spinner, 2013). Looking at both the receptive and productive side of grammar acquisition, however, is necessary for a better understanding of developmental systematicity and of the relationship between receptive and productive grammar acquisition more widely, as well as for the construction of a comprehensive theory of second language acquisition (SLA). In the present exploratory study, the receptive acquisition of L2 English grammar knowledge is studied cross-sectionally within a Processability Theory (PT) framework (Pienemann, 1998, 2005b), a theory of L2 grammar acquisition which makes explicit predictions about the order in which L2 learners learn to productively process different morphosyntactic phenomena. Participants are 72 francophone beginning child L2 learners (age 6–9) acquiring English in an immersion program. The learners’ ability to process six morphosyntactic phenomena situated at extreme ends of the developmental hierarchy proposed by PT was tested by means of the ELIAS Grammar Test, a picture selection task. Overall, the developmental orders obtained through implicational scaling for the six target phenomena agreed with PT’s predictions, suggesting that similar mechanisms underlie the acquisition of receptive and productive L2 grammar processing skills.

Three profoundly deaf individuals undertook a low-frequency backward lexical translation task (French/English), where morphological structure was manipulated and orthographic distance between test items was measured. Conditions included monomorphemic items (simplex), polymorphemic items (complex), items whose French morphological structure exceeded their English counterpart (mismatch), and a control. Order of translation success was uniform: control > mismatch > simplex > complex, as was order for false-cognate errors: complex > simplex > mismatch, patterning precisely with hearing participants (Janke and Kolokonte, 2014). We discuss how these results highlight a route for future studies to disentangle phonology and orthography further from morphology in first-language interference.

This exploratory study investigated whether joint attention through eye gaze was predictive of second language (L2) speakers’ responses to recasts. L2 English learners (N = 20) carried out communicative tasks with research assistants who provided feedback in response to non-targetlike (non-TL) forms. Their interaction was audio-recorded and their eye gaze behavior was tracked simultaneously using the faceLAB system. Transcripts were coded for characteristics of the feedback episodes (linguistic target, feedback type, intonation, prosody) and types of response (no opportunity, no reformulation, non-TL response, TL response). Eye gaze length for the researcher (when producing the feedback move) and the L2 speaker (when responding to feedback) were obtained in seconds using Captiv software. Following data pruning to reduce the data set to clausal recasts in response to grammatical errors, a logistic regression model revealed that both L2 speaker and mutual eye gaze were predictive of TL responses. Methodological issues for eye-tracking research during L2 interaction are provided, and suggestions for future research are discussed.