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-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:41:12.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Second Language Acquisition

The Acquisition of Aspect in a Second Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2020

Stefano Rastelli

Summary

The acquisition of the aspect is a central area in Second Language Acquisition research, the subject of hundreds of papers and dozens of edited volumes, monographs and special issues. This introduction provides the reader not only with a concise and plain presentation of the main hypotheses advanced in the past, but also with an overview of contemporary research. Stefano Rastelli shows how comparison of behavioural (production-comprehension), processing and statistical data is improving - and partially changing - our understanding of how learners acquire the aspectual distinctions of the target-language.
Get access

Keywords

aspectsecond language acquisitionlexical aspect hypothesis
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Second Language Acquisition
Online ISBN: 9781108903455
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 03 December 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

Andersen, R. W. (1984). Second language: A cross-linguistic perspective, Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1993). Four operating principles and input distribution as explanations for underdeveloped and mature morphological systems. In Hyltenstam, K. and Viberg, Å., eds., Progression and regression in language: Sociocultural, neuropsychological and linguistic perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 309–339.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (2002). The dimension of “Pastness.” In Salaberry, R. & Y. Shirai, Y. , eds., The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. W. & Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive operating principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. W. & Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin/creole connection. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K., eds., Handbook of second language acquisition, New York: Academic Press, pp. 527–570.Google Scholar
Antinucci, F. & Miller, R. (1976). How children talk about what happened. Journal of Child Language, 3(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoun, D. & Rothman, J. (2013). Generative approaches to the L2 acquisition of temporal-aspectual-mood systems. In Salaberry, R. & Comajoan, L., eds., Research design and methodology in studies on L2 tense and aspect, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 119–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2010). Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 436–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggio, G., van Lambalgen, M. & Hagoort, P. (2008). Computing and recomputing discourse models: An ERP study. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 36–53.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The telling of a tale: Discourse structure and tense use in learner’s narratives. In Bouton, L. F. & Kachru, Y., eds., Pragmatics and language learning. Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, pp. 144–161.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1994). Anecdote or evidence? Evaluating support for hypotheses concerning the development of tense and aspect. In Tarone, E., Gass, S. M. & Cohen, A. D., eds., Research methodology in second language acquisition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 41–60.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995). A narrative perspective on the development of the tense/aspect system in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). Analyzing aspect. In Salaberry, R. & Shirai, Y., eds., The L2 acquisition of tense–aspect morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Second language acquisition. In Binnick, R., ed., The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: http://10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0016Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Comajoan-Colomé, L. (2020). The aspect hypothesis and the acquisition of L2 past morphology in the last 20 years. A state-of-the-scholarship review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckers, T., De Houwer, J. & Matute, H. (2007). Editorial: Human contingency learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(3), 289–290.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. & Partee, B. (2004). Towards the logic of tense and aspect in English. In Partee, B., ed., Compositionality in Formal Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470751305.ch4Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. (1986). Tempo, Aspetto e Azione nel verbo italiano: il sistema dell’indicativo (Tense, aspect and actionality in the Italian verb: The indicative system). Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. (2001). On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal-aspectual domain: The “perfective-telic” confusion. In Cecchetto, C., Chierchia, G. & Guasti, M. T., eds., Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora, and aspect, Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 177–210.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M & Delfitto, D. (2000). Aspect vs actionality: Why they should be kept apart. In Dahl, Ö., ed., Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–225.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. & Noccetti, S. (2006). Prolegomena to ATAM acquisition. Theoretical premises and corpus labeling. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica della SNS (7): http://linguistica.sns.it/QLL/QLL06/Bertinetto_Noccetti.PDFGoogle Scholar
Binnick, R. (1991). Time and the verb. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lifter, K. & Hafitz, J. (1980). Semantics of verbs and the development of verb inflection in child language. Language, 66(2), 386–412.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (2004). The grammar machine. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M., eds., The unaccusativity puzzle, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 288–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borik, O., González, P. & Verkuyl, H. (2003). Comparing tense systems: The primacy of the Pres/Past opposition. Nordlyd, 31(1), 13–29.Google Scholar
Botne, R. (2003). To die across languages: Toward a typology of achievement verbs. Linguistic Typology 7(2), 75–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champollion, L. & Krifka, M. (2016). Mereology. In Dekker, P. & Aloni, M., eds., Cambridge handbook of formal semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 513–541.Google Scholar
Chao, W. & Bach, E. (2009). On semantic universals and typology. In Collins, C., Christiansen, M. & Edelman, S., eds., Language Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–173.Google Scholar
Comajoan, L. (2006). The aspect hypothesis: Development of morphology and appropriateness of use. Language Learning, 56(2), 201–268.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, R. T. & Tonhauser, J. (2015). Theories of meaning in the field: Temporal and aspectual reference. In Bochnak, R. & Matthewson, L., eds., Methodologies in Semantic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 306–350.Google Scholar
Cruse, A. (1997). Lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Depraetere, I. (1995). On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Swart, H. (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 347–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaubalik, T. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2019). The strength of L1 effects on tense and aspect: How German learners of L2 Spanish deal with acquisitional problems. Language acquisition, 26(3), 282–301. DOI: http://10.1080/10489223.2018.1554663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, L., Bel, A. & Bekiou, K. (2007). Interpretable and uninterpretable features in the acquisition of Spanish past tenses. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H. & Goodluck, H., eds., The role of formal features in second language acquisition. Mhawah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 485–511.Google Scholar
Dietrich, R., Klein, W. & Noyau, C. (1995). The acquisition of temporality in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. & Slabakova, R. (2005). Quantification and aspect. In Verkuyl, H., De Swart, H. & van Hout, A., eds., Perspectives on aspect. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. & Haspelmath, M. (eds.). (2013). The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, http://wals.infoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, K. (1995). Ambiguous perfect-progressive forms across languages. In Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Dahl, Ö. & Squartini, M., eds., Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, vol. 2. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2016). Cognition, corpora, and computing: Triangulating research in usage-based language learning. Language Learning, 67(51), 40–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Ferreira-Junior, F. G. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filip, H. (2004). The telicity parameter revisited. In Young, R., ed., Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) XIV. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Department of Linguistics, Cornell University, pp 92–109.Google Scholar
Filip, H. (2011). Aspectual class and Aktionsart. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. & Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1186–1217.Google Scholar
Filip, H. (2012). Lexical aspect. In Binnik, R., ed., The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 721–751.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gabriele, A., Martohardjono, G. & McClure, W. (2003). Why swimming is just as difficult as dying for Japanese learners of English. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 29, 85–103.Google Scholar
Gabriele, A. & McClure, W. (2011). Why some imperfectives are interpreted imperfectly: A study of Chinese learners of Japanese. Language Acquisition, 18(1), 39–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garey, H. B. (1957). Verbal aspects in French. Language, 33(2), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Behney, J. & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition. An introductory course. New York/London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. (1995). Tense and aspect in learner Italian. In Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Dahl, O. & Squartini, M., eds., Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, vol. 2. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 289–307.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. & Rastelli, S. (2013). The qualitative analysis of actionality in learner language. In Salaberry, R. and Comajoan, L., eds., Research design and methodology in studies on L2 tense and aspect. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 391–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A. & Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
González, P. (2013). Research design. A two-way predicational system is better than a four-way approach. In Salaberry, R. & Shirai, Y., eds., The L2 acquisition of tense–aspect morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 159–186Google Scholar
González, P. & Quintana-Hernández, L. (2018). Inherent aspect and L1 transfer in the L2 acquisition of Spanish grammatical aspect. Modern Language Journal, 102(3), 611–625. DOI: 10.1111/modl.12502Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2018). Mechanistic formal approaches to language acquisition. Yes, but at the right level(s) of resolution. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 733–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06griGoogle Scholar
Gvozdanović, J. (2012). Perfective and imperfective aspect. In Binnick, R., ed., The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: http://10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0027Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2001). The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. & Raible, W., eds., Language typology and language universals. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1492–1510.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Givón, T., ed., Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 213–241.Google Scholar
Housen, A. (2000). Verb semantics and the acquisition of tense-aspect in L2 English. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00064Google Scholar
Housen, A. (2002).The development of tense–aspect in English as a second language and the variable influence of inherent aspect. In Salaberry, R. & Shirai, Y., eds., The L2 acquisition of tense–aspect morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 155–197.Google Scholar
Huang, P. Y. (2008). The Aspect Hypothesis and L2 learners’ awareness of lexical aspect. Poster presented in The acquisition of tense, aspect and mood in L1 and L2 Conference. Birmingham: Aston University.Google Scholar
Izquierdo, J. & Collins, L. (2008). The facilitative role of L1 influence in tense–aspect marking: A comparison of hispanophone and anglophone learners of French. Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 350–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & Rohrer, C. (1983). Tense in text. In von Stechow, A., ed., Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin/New York: Mouton – De Gruyter, pp. 250–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazanina, N. & Phillips, C. (2003). Temporal reference frames and the imperfective paradox. In Garding, G. & Tsujimura, M., eds., Proceedings of WCCFL 22. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, pp. 287–300.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N. & Phillips, C. (2007). A developmental perspective on the imperfective paradox. Cognition, 105(1), pp. 65–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenny, A. (1963). Action, emotion and will. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klein, W., Li, P. & Hendriks, H. (2000). Aspect and assertion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 723–770. http://doi18.723-770.10.1023/A:1006411825993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. (1992). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 1. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 127–158.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In Rothstein, S., ed., Events and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 197–235.Google Scholar
Labeau, E. (2005). Beyond the aspect hypothesis. Tense–aspect development in advanced L2 French. Oxford/Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. & Selinker, L. (2001). Analysing interlanguage: How do we know what learners know? Second Language Research, 17, 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, F. (1992). The progressive. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2003). The comparative fallacy revisited: A reply to Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001). Second Language Research, 19, 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. H. & Kim, H. Y. (2007). On cross-linguistic variations in imperfective aspect: The case of L2 Korean. Language Learning, 57(4), 651–685. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00431.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenci, A. & Zarcone, A. (2009). Un modello stocastico della classificazione azionale. (A stocastic model of actional classification) In Ferrari, G., Benatti, R. & Mosca, M., eds., Atti del XL congresso internazionale della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Roma: Bulzoni, pp. 125–148.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappoport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. & Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect in a self-organizing feature-map model. In Gleitman, L. & Aravind, J., eds., Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 304–309.Google Scholar
Li, P. (2002). Emergent semantic structure and language acquisition: A dynamic perspective. In Leong, C.-K., Ding-Guo, G. & Kao, H., eds., Cognitive neuroscience studies of the Chinese language. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University Press, pp. 79–98.Google Scholar
Li, P. & Bowerman, M. (1998). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect in Chinese. First Language, 18(54), 311–350. DOI: 10.1177/014272379801805404Google Scholar
Li, P. & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B. & Weber-Fox, C. (2009). ERP evidence for telicity effects on syntactic processing in garden-path sentences. Brain and Language, 108(3), 145–158.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2013). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McClure, W. (2003). Change of state syntax. Unpublished paper. New York: The Queens College and Graduate Center, CUNY.Google Scholar
McManus, K. (2013). Prototypical influence in second language acquisition: What now for the Aspect Hypothesis. IRAL, 51(3), 299–322.Google Scholar
McManus, K. (2015). L1–L2 differences in the acquisition of form–meaning pairings: A comparison of English and German learners of French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71(2), 155–181.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in cosntruction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual cohercion. Cognitive Linguistics. DOI: http://10.1515/cogl.2004.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mlynarczyk, A. K. (2004). Aspectual Pairing in Polish. PhD dissertation. Utrecht: Utrecht University Repository.Google Scholar
Moens, M. & Steedman, M. (2005). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. In Mani, I., Pusteiovskj, J. & Gaizauskas, R., eds., The language of time: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(1), 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2009) Knowledge of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. & Perpiñán, S. (2011). Assessing differences and similarities between instructed heritage language learners and L2 learners in their knowledge of Spanish tense-aspect and mood (TAM) morphology. Heritage Language Journal, 8(1), 90–133.Google 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(3), 351–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K. & Ullman, M.T. (2011). The neurocognition of second language. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S., eds., The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London: Routledge, pp. 282–299.Google Scholar
Mueller, C. M. (2018). Initial acquisition of tense aspect morphology in an artificial language. Second Language Research. DOI: http://10.1177/0267658317750219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nossalik, L. (2007). Slavic perfective prefixes: Are they telicity markers? In Radišić, M., ed., Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2007/Nossalik.pdfGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkänen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C. & Molinaro, N. (2006). Novice learners, longitudinal designs and event-related potentials: A means for exploring the neurocognition of second language processing. In Indefrey, P. & Gullberg, M., eds., The cognitive neuroscience of second language acquisition. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 199–230.Google Scholar
Pace, A., Levine, D. F., Golinkoff, R. M., Carver, L. J. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2020). Keeping the end in mind: Preliminary brain and behavioral evidence for broad attention to endpoints in pre-linguistic infants. Infant Behavior and Development. DOI:http://10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1989). The progressive in English: Events, states and processes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 213–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41(1), 47–81. DOI: http://10.1016/0010-0277(91)90032-YCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rastelli, S. (2008). A compositional account of L2 verb actionality and the aspect hypothesis. Lingue e Linguaggio, 7(2), 261–289.Google Scholar
Rastelli, S. (2009). Lexical aspect too is learned: Data from Italian learner corpora. In Saxena, A. & Viberg, A., eds., Multilingualism. Uppsala: Edita Astra Varos, pp. 272–282.Google Scholar
Rastelli, S. (2019). The imperfective paradox in a second language: A dynamic completion-entailment test. Lingua. 231, 102709. DOI: http://10.1016/j.lingua.2019.06.0100024–3841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastelli, S. (2020). Contingency learning and the emergence of the perfective in L2 Italian: a study on lexeme–morpheme associations with ΔP. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2019–0071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastelli, S. & Vernice, M. (2013). Developing actional competence and the building blocks of telicity in L2 Italian. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51(1), 55–75.Google Scholar
Reeder, P. A., Newport, E. L. & Aslin, R. N. (2010). Novel words in novel contexts: The role of distributional information in form-class category learning. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2063–2068.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. & Liszka, S.A. (2013). Processing tense/aspect agreement violations online in the second language: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 29(4) 413–439.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. & Liszka, S.A. (2019). Grammatical aspect and L2 learners’ online processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences in English: A self-paced reading study with German, Dutch and French L2 learners. Second Language Research. DOI: http://10.1177/0267658319895551.Google Scholar
Rohde, A. (2002). The aspect hypothesis in naturalistic L2 acquisition: What uninflected and non-target-like verb forms in early interlanguage tells us. In Salaberry, R. & Shirai, Y., eds., The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romagno, D., Rota, G., Ricciardi, E. & Pietrini, P. (2012). Where the brain appreciates the final state of an event: The neural correlates of telicity, 123(1), 68–74. Brain and Language http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosch, E, (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
Ryu, J.-Y., Horie, K. & Shirai, Y. (2015). Acquisition of the Korean imperfective aspect markers –ko iss– and –a iss– by Japanese learners: A multiple-factor account. Language Learning, 65(4), 791–823.Google Scholar
Salaberry, M. R. (2008). Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical model. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Salaberry, M. R. (2011) Assessing the effect of lexical aspect and grounding on the acquisition of L2 Spanish past tense morphology among L1 English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14 (2), 184–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salaberry, M. R., Comajoan, L. & González, P. (2013). Integrating the analyses of tense and aspect across research and methodological frameworks. In Salaberry, R. & Comajoan, L., eds., Research design and methodology in studies on L2 tense and aspect. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 423–450.Google Scholar
Salaberry, M. R. & Martins, C. (2014). Cross-linguistic transfer of core aspectual conceptualizations in Portuguese and Spanish Theoretical and methodological factors. In Amaral, P. & Carvalho, A. M., eds., Portuguese-Spanish interfaces: Diachrony, synchrony, and contact. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 335–355.Google Scholar
Salaberry, R. & Shirai, Y. (2002) (eds.). The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirai, Y. (2002). The prototype hypothesis of tense-aspect acquisition in second language. In Salaberry, R. & Shirai, Y., eds., The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 455–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirai, Y. (2007). The aspect hypothesis, the comparative fallacy, and the validity of obligatory context analysis: A reply to Lardiere (2003). Second Language Research, 23, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirai, Y. (2013). Defining and coding data: Lexical aspect in L2 studies. In Salaberry, R. & Comajoan, L., eds., Research design and methodology in studies on L2 tense and aspect. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 271–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirai, Y. (2016). The current state of the Aspect Hypothesis: Exceptions that prove the rule. Plenary presentation at Tense Aspect Mood in Second Languages (TAML2) VII. University of York, June 16, 2016.Google Scholar
Shirai, Y. & Andersen, R. W. (1995). The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language 71(4), 743–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2000). L1 transfer revisited: The L2 acquisition of telicity marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers. Linguistics, 38(368), DOI: http://10.1515/ling.2000.004Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2001). Telicity in the second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research, 22(3), 302–338.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. & Montrul, S. (2000). Acquiring semantic-properties of preterite and imperfect tenses in L2 Spanish. In Howell, S. C., Fish, S. A. & Keith-Lucas, T., eds., Proceedings of the 24th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, pp. 534–545.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. & Montrul, S. (2002). On viewpoint aspect interpretation and its L2 acquisition: A UG perspective. In Salaberry, R. and Shirai, Y., eds., The L2 acquisition of tense–aspect morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 363–395.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. & Montrul, S. (2007). L2 acquisition at the grammar–discourse interface: Aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H. & Goodluck, H., eds., Formal features in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 452–483.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1979). Psycholinguistics. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Smollet, R. (2005). Quantized direct objects don’t delimit after all. In Verkuyl, H., de Swart, H. & van Hout, A., eds., Perspectives on Aspect. Springer: Dordrecht, pp. 41–60.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2004). Gradience at the lexico–syntax interface: Evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M., eds., The unaccusativity puzzle. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatevosov, S. (2002). The parameter of actionality. Linguistic Typology, 6(3), 317–401.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tong, X. & Shirai, Y. (2016). L2 acquisition of Mandarin zai and –le. Chinese as Second Language Acquisition Research (CASLAR), 5(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N. & Cuesta Medina, J. A. (2018). Can native-speaker corpora help explain L2 acquisition of tense and aspect? A study of the “input”. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 4(2), 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, deMena L. (1994). Event Phrase and a theory of functional categories. In Koskinen, P., ed., Proceedings of the 1994 Canadian Linguistic Association meeting at the University of Calgary. Toronto: Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 559–570.Google Scholar
Travis, deMena L. (2010). Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hout, A. (2004). Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, Martin, eds., The unaccusativity puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 60–83.Google Scholar
van Hout, A. (2008a). Acquiring telicity crosslinguistically: On the acquisition of telicity entailments associated with transitivity. In Bowermann, M. & Brown, P., eds., Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure. New York/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 255–278.Google Scholar
Van Hout, A. (2008b). Acquiring perfectivity and telicity in Dutch, Italian and Polish. Lingua, 118(11), 1740–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hout, A., de Swart, H. & Verkuyl, H. (2005). Introducing perspectives on aspect. In Verkuyl, H., de Swart, H. & van Hout, A., eds., Perspectives on aspect. Springer: Dordrecht, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Keating, G. & Leeser, M. (2012). Missing verbal inflections as a representational problem: Evidence from on-line methodology. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(2), 109–140.Google Scholar
van Valin, R. D. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language, 66(2), 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Valin, R. D (2005). Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 56(2), 143–160. Reprinted in Z. Vendler (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J. (1993). A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J. (1999). Aspectual issues: Studies on time and quantity. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J. (2005). Aspectual composition: surveying the ingredients. In Verkuyl, H. J., de Swart, H. & van Hout, A., eds, Perspectives on aspect. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. (2015). Aspectual composition and aspectual classes: What did Aristotle really say to Ryle, Kenny and Vendler? Unpublished article, UIL OTS, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å. (2002). Basic verbs in lexical progression and regression. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T. & Rohde, Andreas, eds., An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode. Wissenschaftlicher: Verlag Trier, pp. 109–134.Google Scholar
Vikner, C. & Vikner, S. (1997). The aspectual complexity of the simple past in English. A comparison with French and Danish. In Bache, C. & Klinge, A., eds., Sounds, structures and senses: Essays presented to Niels Davidsen-Nielsen on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Odense: Odense University Press, pp. 267–284.Google Scholar
Vogel, E. K. (2017). Native vs. non-native processing of Spanish: The role of lexical and grammatical aspect. Unpublished PhD Thesis, retrieved from http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_2017SP_Vogel_fsu_0071E_13727Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C. & Klein, W. (1989). Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. In Dietrich, R. & Graumann, C. F., eds., Language processing in social context. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 39–76.Google Scholar
Wagner, L. (2001). Aspectual influences on early tense comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 28(3), 661–681.Google Scholar
Wagner, L. (2002). Understanding completion entailment in the absence of agency cues. Journal of Child Language, 29(1), 109–125.Google Scholar
Weist, R. (2002). The first language acquisition of tense and aspect: A review. In Salaberry, R. and Shirai, Y., eds., The L2 acquisition of tense–aspect morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 21–78.Google Scholar
Weist, R., Wysocka, H., Witkowska-Stadnik, K., Buczowska, E. & Konieczna, E. (1984). The defective tense hypothesis: On the emergence of tense and aspect in child Polish. Journal of Child Language, 11(2), 347–374.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Ellis, N., Bardovi-Harlig, K., Leblanc, C. J. & Römer, U. (2009). The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora and telicity ratings. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 354–369. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00895.xGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X. & Li, P. (2009). Acquisition of aspect in self-organizing connectionist models. Linguistics 47(5), 1075–1112.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element 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.

The Acquisition of Aspect in a Second Language
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

The Acquisition of Aspect in a Second Language
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

The Acquisition of Aspect in a Second Language
Available formats
×