Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:44:00.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2012

PEDRO GUIJARRO-FUENTES
PEDRO GUIJARRO-FUENTES*
Affiliation:
University of Plymouth
*
Address for correspondence: Languages Subject Group, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the acquisition of interpretable features in English second language (L2) learners of Spanish by investigating the personal preposition a in Spanish. The distribution of a in direct object NPs relates to the animacy/specificity of the NP, the animacy/agentivity of the subject, and the semantics of the predicate (Torrego, 1998; Zagona, 2002); i.e., personal a is conditioned by the interpretability of semantic features. Forty-nine English L2 learners of Spanish of three different proficiency levels, and 16 Spanish controls took part in a Completion Task and an Acceptability Judgement Task. These revealed that L2 learners of Spanish of all proficiency levels behaved differently from native speakers of Spanish. The L2 learners appear to have acquired some of the interpretable features (i.e., [±animate]), but show delays with others. Nonetheless, our data show partial convergence by advanced learners with the native speakers: some features are acquirable, while others may be less accessible and subject to developmental processes. In explaining our data we appeal to Lardiere's (2008, 2009) Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, but assess it critically and aim to develop it further by considering the complexity constraints in terms of the number of features involved and their configuration.

Keywords

interpretable featurespersonal aL2 Spanish
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 701 - 720
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank the Bilingualism: Language and Cognition reviewers for their constructive and acute observations and suggestions for improvement as well as the editor for her generous help and guidance during the publication process. Research related to this paper has been previously presented at various international forums, and so I would like to take this opportunity to thank colleagues at these meetings for their invaluable comments and critiques. I also wish to express my gratitude to Theo Marinis, who has helped me with the statistical analyses. Any and all errors and oversights remain entirely my own.

References

Aissen, J. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1993). Four operating principles and input distribution as explanation for underdeveloped and mature morphological systems. In Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg, A. (eds.), Progression and regression in language: Sociocultural, neuropsychological and linguistic perspectives, pp. 309–339. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2007). One functional approach to SLA: The concept-oriented approach. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories to second language acquisition: An introduction, pp. 97–113. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowles, M., & Montrul, S. (2008). The role of explicit instruction in the L2 acquisition of the a-personal. In Bruhn de Garavito, J. & Valenzuela, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, pp. 25–35. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). References to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2007). Of minds and language. Biolinguistics, 1, 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of syntactic gender. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (to appear). A bidirectional study: Is there any role for transfer? In Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Schmitz, K. & Müller, N. (eds.), Acquisition of French in its different constellations. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Larrañaga, P. (2011). Evidence of V to I raising in L2 Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 486–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Franceschina, F. (2004). Explaining the acquisition and non-acquisition of determiner–noun concord in French and Spanish. In Prévost, P. & Paradis, J. (eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories, pp. 175–205. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (2005). Some note on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Cinque, G. & Kayne, R. S. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, pp. 3–69. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H. & Goodluck, H. (eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition, pp. 106–140. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2008). Specificity in Clitic Doubling and in Differential Object Marking. Probus, 20, 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Savoia, L. M. (2007). A unification of morphology and syntax. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of Differential Object Marking in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2008). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, L. (2006). Kechwa and Spanish bilingual grammars: Testing hypotheses on functional interference and convergence. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (2002). Aspect in the prepositional system of Romance. In Satterfield, T., Tortora, C-M. & Cresti, D. (eds.), Current issues in Romance languages, pp. 337–357. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–169.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax–semantics and syntax–discourse phenomena. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T. & Zaller, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 653–664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. (2002). The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar