Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-7lvjp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:13:42.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L2 AND DEAF LEARNERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF NUMERICALLY QUANTIFIED ENGLISH SENTENCES

Acquisitional Parallels at the Semantics/Discourse-Pragmatics Interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2012

Gerald P. Berent ,
Ronald R. Kelly  and
Tanya Schueler-Choukairi
Gerald P. Berent*
Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology
Ronald R. Kelly
Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology
Tanya Schueler-Choukairi
Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gerald P. Berent, Department of Research, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, 96 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623-5604. e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study assessed knowledge of numerically quantified English sentences in two learner populations—second language (L2) learners and deaf learners—whose acquisition of English occurs under conditions of restricted access to the target language input. Under the experimental test conditions, interlanguage parallels were predicted to arise from acquisitional pressures imposed by derivational economy on universal grammar (UG)–guided semantic interpretation. The results of a task in which participants matched sentences to multiple discourse depictions confirmed the predicted parallels. However, in matching underinformative sentences to depicted contexts, the L2 and deaf learner groups overactivated discourse-pragmatic knowledge. The restriction of indefinite noun phrases to singleton indefinites and the cancellation of scalar implicatures rendered sentences more informative in underinformative contexts, producing incorrect—although principled—interpretations. These results inform English acquisition at the interface of semantics and discourse pragmatics and provide further support that economy pressures yield L2 learner and deaf learner interlanguage parallels as observed, for instance, in learners’ interpretative knowledge of universally quantified English sentences.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 35 - 66
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.)

References

REFERENCES

Berent, G. P. (1996). The acquisition of English syntax by deaf learners. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 469–506). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Berent, G. P. (2009). The interlanguage development of deaf and hearing learners of L2 English: Parallelism via minimalism. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 523–543). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Berent, G. P., & Kelly, R. R. (2008). The efficacy of visual input enhancement in teaching deaf learners of L2 English. In Han, Z.-H. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 80–105). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. R., Albertini, J. A., & Toscano, R. M. (2010, March). Deaf students’ knowledge of English verbs’ argument and event properties. Paper presented at the annual convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. R., Porter, J. E., & Fonzi, J. (2008). Deaf learners’ knowledge of English universal quantifiers. Language Learning, 58, 401–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. R., & Schueler-Choukairi, T. (2009). Economy in the acquisition of English universal quantifier knowledge: Sentence interpretation by deaf and hearing students and L2 learners at the college level. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berent, G. P., & Samar, V. J. (1990). The psychological reality of the subset principle: Evidence from the governing categories of prelingually deaf adults. Language, 66, 714–741.Google Scholar
Bochner, J. H., & Bochner, A. M. (2009). A limitation on reading as a source of linguistic input: Evidence from deaf learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21, 143–158.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., & Sekerina, I. (2005/2006). Shortcuts to quantifier interpretation in children and adults. Language Acquisition, 13, 177–206.Google Scholar
Brosnan, M., Demetre, J., Hamill, S., Robson, K., Shepherd, H., & Cody, G. (2002). Executive functioning in adults and children with developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 40, 2144–2155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. (Ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality (pp. 155–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cone-Wesson, B. (2003). Screening and assessment of hearing loss in infants. In Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. E. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 420–433). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cuculick, J. A., & Kelly, R. R. (2003). Relating deaf students’ reading and language scores at college entry to their degree completion rates. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 279–286.Google Scholar
DelliCarpini, M. (2003). Developmental stages in the semantic acquisition of quantification by adult L2 learners of English: A pilot study. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 55–63). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. D., & van der Hulst, H. (2003). Sign language structures. In Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. E. (Eds.), The handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 319–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, D. (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 83–106). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature. In Shiffrin, D. (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kobuchi-Philip, M. (2007). Floating numerals and floating quantifiers. Lingua, 117, 814–831.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, H. (1989). Speech and hearing in communication. In Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice: Vol. 3. Low incidence conditions (pp. 23–46). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. (1993). Deaf readers and universal grammar. In Marschark, M. & Clark, M. D. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on deafness (pp. 311–337). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. (1998). The acquisition of English by deaf signers: Is universal grammar involved? In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O’Neil, W. (Eds.), The generative study of language acquisition (pp. 131–149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lucas, C., & Valli, C. (1992). Language contact in the American deaf community. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschark, M., Lang, H. G., & Albertini, J. A. (2002). Educating deaf students: From research to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2009). Distributive quantifier scope in English-Japanese and Korean-Japanese interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 16, 135–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
May, R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency. (2003). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, English Language Institute.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436–486). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2006). The syntax of quantification in SLA: An emergentist approach. In Grantham O’Brien, M., Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 98–113). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A., & Humphries, T. L. (2005). Inside deaf culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, P. V. (2001). Language and deafness (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Petronio, K. (1995). Bare noun phrases, verbs, and quantification in ASL. In Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., & Partee, B. H. (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 603–618). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Philip, W. (1995). Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9524738).Google Scholar
Rakhlin, N. (2007). A new pragmatic account of quantifier-spreading. In Takita, K., & Fuji, C. (Eds.), Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1 (pp. 239–282). Nagoya, Japan: Graduate School of Linguistic Science, Nanzan University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.). (2009). The new handbook of second language acquisition. Bingly, UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Samar, V. J., Parasnis, I., & Berent, G. P. (2002). Deaf poor readers’ pattern reversal visual evoked potentials suggest magnocellular system deficits: Implications for diagnostic neuroimaging of dyslexia in deaf individuals. Brain and Language, 80, 21–44.Google Scholar
Scheffé, H. (1953). A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance. Biometrika, 40, 87–104.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (2002). Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics, 19, 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2010). Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120, 2444–2462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Strong, M. (Ed.). (1988). Language learning and deafness. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swisher, M. V. (1989). The language learning situation of deaf students. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toscano, R. M., McKee, B., & Lepoutre, D. (2002). Success with academic English: Reflections of deaf college students. American Annals of the Deaf, 147, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (2009). On the nature of interlanguage representation: Universal grammar in the second language. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 19–42). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (2000). Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H. (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 215–244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yusa, N. (1998). A minimalist approach to second language acquisition. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O’Neil, W. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 215–238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar