Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T15:42:27.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 29 - Second Language Acquisition of Germanic Languages

from Part V - Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Carrie Jackson
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

Second language acquisition research focuses on how people acquire and use a second language (L2), and the underlying mechanisms that support these processes. Key issues include the nature of learners’ L2 linguistic representations, how such representations develop from the L2 input learners receive, and the ways in which features from learners’ two languages interact to influence L2 acquisition and use. These issues address larger debates concerning the extent to which L2 learners <spaced en> and especially adult learners<spaced en>can acquire nativelike L2 proficiency, and whether L1 and L2 acquisition rely on the same underlying mechanisms, or whether fundamentally different mechanisms and strategies are involved. For over 40 years, Germanic languages, especially German and Dutch, have played a central role in L2 acquisition research. The present chapter reviews selected findings from this research and discusses how these findings contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms that drive L2 acquisition and use.

Keywords

second language acquisitionlearner varietiessentence processingpsycholinguisticsword ordercase markinggrammatical genderGermanDutch
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 689 - 713
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bader, M. and Meng, M. 1999. “Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28: 121–143.Google Scholar
Baten, K. 2011. “Processability Theory and German case acquisition,” Language Learning 61: 405–455.Google Scholar
Becker, A. and Carroll, M. 1997. The Acquisition of Spatial Relations in a Second Language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bergen, G. van and Flecken, M. 2017. “Putting things in new places: Linguistic experience modulates the predictive power of placement verb semantics,” Journal of Memory and Language 92: 26–42.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. 1992. “Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition,” Language 68: 706–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. “The logical problem of foreign language learning,” Linguistic Analysis 20: 3–49.Google Scholar
Blom, E. 2010. “Effects of input on the early grammatical development of bilingual children,” International Journal of Bilingualism 14: 442–446.Google Scholar
Bobb, S., Kroll, J., and Jackson, C. 2015. “Lexical constraints in second language learning: Evidence on grammatical gender in German,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18: 502–523.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U. 2006. “When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2,” Second Language Research 22: 443–486.Google Scholar
Bongaerts, T., Mennen, S., and van der Slik, F. 2000. “Authenticity of pronunciation in naturalistic second language acquisition: The case of very advanced learners of Dutch as a second language,” Studia Linguistica 545: 298–308.Google Scholar
Bordag, D., Opitz, A. and Pechmann, T. 2006. “Gender processing in L1 and L2: The role of noun termination,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32: 1090–1101.Google Scholar
Bordag, D. and Pechmann, T. 2007. “Factors influencing L2 gender processing,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10: 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordag, D. and Pechmann, T. 2018. “Genuserwerb und -verarbeitung in einer L2.” In Schimke, S. and Hopp, H. (eds.), Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitspracherwerb. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 75–92.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1990. “The comparative study of first and second language development,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12: 135–153.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. and Felser, C. 2006. “Grammatical processing in language learners,” Applied Psycholinguistics 27: 3–42.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., and Pienemann, M. 1983. Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. and Muysken, P. 1986. “The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners – a study of the acquisition of German word order,” Second Language Research 2: 93–118.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. and Penke, M. 1992. “The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the Simone-corpus.” In Meisel, J. (ed.), The Acquisition of Verb Placement. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 181–223.Google Scholar
Chilla, S., Rothweiler, M., and Babur, E. 2010. Kindliche Mehrsprachigkeit. Grundlagen, Störungen, Diagnostik. Munich: Reinhardt.Google Scholar
Craats, I. van de 2009. “The role of is in the acquisition of finiteness by adult Turkish learners of Dutch,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 59–92.Google Scholar
Craats, I. van de and van Hoet, R. 2010. “Dummy auxiliaries in the second language acquisition of Moroccan learners of Dutch: Form and function,” Second Language Research 26: 473–500.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. 2017. “Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20: 659–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B., and Sprouse, R. 2006. “The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research.” In O’Brien, M., Shea, C., and Archibald, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project: 33–40.Google Scholar
Dell, G. and Chang, F. 2014. “The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 369: 20120394. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0394.Google Scholar
Diehl, E., Christen, H., and Leuenberger, S. 2000. Grammatikunterricht: Alles für der Katz? Untersuchungen zum Zweitsprachenerwerb Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dietrich, R., Klein, W., and Noyau, C. 1995. The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dimroth, C. 2013. “Learner varieties.” In A. Carol (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. DOI:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0673.Google Scholar
Dimroth, C. and Starren, M. (eds.) 2003. Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J., Schramm, K., and Tschirner, E. 2009. “Review of recent research (2002–2008) on applied linguistics and language teaching with specific reference to L2 German (part 1),” Language Teaching 42: 41–66.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. 2017. Cross-language Interaction During Language Production among L1 German-L2 Italian Bilinguals. Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 2013. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I. and Tracy, R. 1996. “Bilingual bootstrapping,” Linguistics 34: 901–926.Google Scholar
Gerth, S., Otto, C., Felser, C., and Nam, Y. 2017. “Strength of garden-path effects in native and non-native speakers’ processing of object-subject ambiguities,” International Journal of Bilingualism 21: 125–144.Google Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., and Lund, K. 2001. “Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23: 389–416.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. 1989. “Neurolinguists beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person,” Brain and Language 36: 3–15.Google Scholar
Gut, U. 2009. Non-Native Speech: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Phonetic and Phonological Properties of L2 English and L2 German. New York and Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Haberzettl, S. 2005. Der Erwerb der Verbstellungsregeln in der Zweitsprache Deutsch durch Kinder mit russischer und türkischer Muttersprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. and Norrby, C. 2010. “Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish,” Language Learning 60: 628–650.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., and Sayehli, S. 2002. “Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing,” Second Language Research 18: 250–273.Google Scholar
Havik, E., Roberts, L., van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., and Haverkort, M. 2009. “Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch,” Language Learning 59: 73–112.Google Scholar
Hendricks, H. (ed.) 2005. The Structure of Learner Varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Henry, N. 2015. Morphosyntactic Processing, Cue Interaction, and the Effects of Instruction: An Investigation of Processing Instruction and the Acquisition of Case Marking in L2 German. Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Henry, N., Culman, H., and van Patten, B. 2009. “More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. 2006. “Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing,” Second Language Research 22: 369–397.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. 2009. “The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and online performance,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 463–483.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. 2010. “Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers,” Lingua 120: 901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. 2013. “Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability,” Second Language Research 29: 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. 2015. “Semantics and morphosyntax in L2 predictive sentence processing,” International Review of Applied Linguistics 53: 277–306.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. 2016. “Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender processing in second language acquisition,” Second Language Research 32: 277–307.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. 2018. “Kasus- und Genusverarbeitung des Deutschen im Satzkontext.” In Schimke, S. and Hopp, H. (eds.), Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitspracherwerb. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 141–168.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. and Lemmerth, N. 2016. “Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictive gender processing,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1017/S0272263116000437.Google Scholar
Huettig, F. 2015. “Four central questions about prediction in language processing,” Brain Research 1626: 118–135.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. 2007. “The use and non-use of semantic information, word order, and case markings during comprehension by L2 learners of German,” Modern Language Journal 91: 418–432.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. 2008. “Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing,” Language Learning 58: 875–909.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. and Bobb, S. 2009. “The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among second language speakers of German,” Applied Psycholinguistics 30: 630–636.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. and Dussias, P. 2009. “Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C., Dussias, P., and Hristova, A. 2012. “Using eye-tracking to study on-line processing among intermediate L2 learners of German,” International Review of Applied Linguistics 50: 101–33.Google Scholar
Jackson, C., Johnson-Fowler, C., Gavin, B., and Henry, N. 2018. “Zusammenhänge zwischen der Sprachverarbeitung und dem Erwerb neuer Strukturen bei erwachsenen L2-Lernern.” In Schimke, S. and Hopp, H. (eds.), Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitspracherwerb. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 299–324.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. and Roberts, L. 2010. “Animacy affects the processing of subject-object ambiguities in the second language: Evidence from self-paced reading with German second language learners of Dutch,” Applied Psycholinguistics 31: 671–691.Google Scholar
Jansen, L. 2008. “Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross-sectional study in a wider theoretical context,” Language Learning 58: 185–231.Google Scholar
Jordens, P. 2001. “Constraints on the shape of second language learner varieties,” International Review of Applied Linguistics 39: 51–74.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. and Rodriguez, G. 2015. Second Language Sentence Processing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. 2014. “Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different?” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4: 257–282.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. and Bresnan, J. 1982. “Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation.” In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 173–281.Google Scholar
Kempe, V. and MacWhinney, B. 1998. “The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 543–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempen, G. and Hoenkamp, E. 1987. “An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation,” Cognitive Science 11: 201–258.Google Scholar
Klassen, R. 2016. “The representation of asymmetric grammatical gender systems in the bilingual mental lexicon,” Probus 28: 9–28.Google Scholar
Klein, W. and Dittmar, N. 1979. Developing Grammars: The Acquisition of German Syntax by Foreign Workers. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Klein, W. and Dimroth, C. 2009. “Untutored second language acquisition.” In Bhatia, T. and Ritchie, W. (eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Bingley: Emerald: 503–522.Google Scholar
Klein, W. and Perdue, C. 1992. Utterance Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klein, W. and Perdue, C. 1997. “The Basic Variety (or couldn’t natural languages be simpler?)” Second Language Research 13: 301–347.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. and Zubin, D. 1984. “Sechs Prinzipien für die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur natürlichen Klassifikation,” Linguistische Berichte 93: 26–50.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Schriefers, H., and Indefrey, P. 2014. “Idiosyncratic genders: Syntactic processing in second language comprehension uses subjective feature representations,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26: 1428–1444.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Spalek, K., and Schriefers, H. 2008. “Cross-language effects on grammatical gender in bilingual word recognition and production,” Journal of Memory and Language 59: 312–330.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W., Roelofs, A., and Meyer, A. 1999. “A theory of lexical access in speech production,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 1–75.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2008. “A unified model.” In Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge: 341–371.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. 1987. “Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch,” Applied Psycholinguistics 4: 379–413.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. 1997. “The L2 Basic Variety as an I language,” Second Language Research 13: 374–385.Google Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., and Pienemann, M. 1981. “On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3: 109–135.Google Scholar
Meulman, N., Stowe, L., Sprenger, S., Bresser, M., and Schmid, M. 2014. “An ERP study on L2 syntax processing: When do learners fail?” Frontiers in Psychology 55: 1072.Google Scholar
Meulman, N., Wieling, M., Sprenger, S., Stowe, L., and Schmid, M. 2015. “Age effects in L2 grammar processing as revealed by ERPs and how (not) to study them,” PlosONE 10: e0143328.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., and Marsden, E. 2013. Second Language Learning Theories. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K. 2014. “Electrophysiological approaches to studying second language acquisition: A field reaching its potential,” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 34: 15–36.Google Scholar
Moyer, A. 2004. Age, Accent and Experience in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Müller, N., Kupisch, T., Schmitz, K., and Cantone, K. 2009. Einführung in die Mehrsprachigkeitsforschung: Deutsch, Französisch, Italienisch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. G. 2004. “Pronunciation Matters,” Die Unterrichtspraxis 37: 1–9.Google Scholar
Parodi, T. 2000. “Finiteness and verb placement in second language acquisition,” Second Language Research 16: 355–381.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. and Ehrenhofer, E. 2015. “The role of language processing in language acquisition,” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5: 409–453.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. 1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (ed.) 2005. Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. and Håkansson, G. 2007. “Full transfer vs. developmentally moderated transfer: A reply to Bohnacker,” Second Language Research 23: 485–493.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. and Roberts, I. 1989. “Complex inversion in French,” Probus 1: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabourin, L. and Stowe, L. 2008. “Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly?” Second Language Research 24: 397–430.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., Stowe, L., and de Haan, G. 2006. “Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical gender system,” Second Language Research 22: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamoura, A. and Williams, J. 2007. “The representation of grammatical gender in the bilingual lexicon: Evidence from Greek and German,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10: 257–275.Google Scholar
Scherag, A., Demuth, L., Rösler, F., Neville, H., and Röder, B. 2004. “The effects of late acquisition of L2 and the consequences of immigration on L1 for semantic and morpho-syntactic language aspects,” Cognition 93: B97–B108.Google Scholar
Schimke, S. 2011. “Variable verb-placement in second language German and French: Evidence from production and elicited imitation of finite and nonfinite negated sentences,” Applied Psycholinguistics 32: 635–685.Google Scholar
Schimke, S. and Hopp, H. (eds.) 2018. Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitspracherwerb. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., and Krems, J. 2000. “The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German.” In Hemforth, B. and Konieczny, L. (eds.), German Sentence Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 65–93.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. and Kühn, K. 1995. “The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German,” Journal of Memory and Language 34: 499–520.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. and Sprouse, R. 1994. “Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage.” In Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B. (eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 317–368.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. and Sprouse, R. 1996. “L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model,” Second Language Research 12: 40–72.Google Scholar
Szagun, G., Stumper, B., Sondag, N., and Franik, M. 2007. “The acquisition of gender marking by young German-speaking children: Evidence for learning guided by phonological regularities,” Journal of Child Language 34: 445–471.Google Scholar
Ullmann, M. 2005. “A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model.” In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Methods, Theory, and Practice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press: 141–178.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. 2016. “Early child L2 acquisition: Age or input effects? Neither, or both?” Journal of Child Language 43: 603–634.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. and Young-Scholten, M. 1996a. “The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers,” Second Language Research 12: 140–176.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. and Young-Scholten, M. 1996b. “Gradual development of L2 phrase structure,” Second Language Research 12: 7–39.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. and Young-Scholten, M. 2011. The Acquisition of German: Introducing Organic Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Verhagen, J. 2011. “Verb placement in second language acquisition: Experimental evidence for the different behavior of auxiliary and lexical verbs,” Applied Psycholinguistics 32: 821–858.Google Scholar
Wegener, H. 2000. “German gender in children’s second language acquisition.” In Unterbeck, B., Rissanen, M., Nevalainen, T., and Saari, M. (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 511–544.Google Scholar
White, L. 2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×