Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:15:37.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic Theory and Second Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2010

Roumyana Slabakova
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article identifies four different types of meaning situated in different modules of language. Such a modular view of language architecture suggests that there may be differential difficulties of acquisition for the different modules. It is argued that second language (L2) acquisition of meaning involves acquiring interpretive mismatches at the first and second language (L1-L2) syntax-semantics interfaces. In acquiring meaning, learners face two types of learning situations. One situation where the sentence syntax presents less difficulty but different pieces of functional morphology subsume different primitives of meaning is dubbed simple syntax–complex semantics. Another type of learning situation is exemplified in less frequent, dispreferred, or syntactically complex sentences where the sentential semantics offers no mismatch; these are labeled complex syntax–simple semantics. Studies representative of these learning situations are reviewed. The issues of importance of explicit instruction with respect to interpretive properties and the effect of the native language are addressed. Studies looking at acquisition of language-specific discourse properties and universal pragmatics are also reviewed. These representative studies and numerous other studies on the L2 acquisition of meaning point to no visible barrier to ultimate success in the acquisition of semantics and pragmatics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 30 , March 2010 , pp. 231 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, M., & Partee, B. (1972). Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R., & Anderson, B. (1997). The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars. Language Acquisition, 6, 297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R., & Thyre, R. (1999/2000). The interpretation of quantification at a distance in English-French interlanguage: Domain-specificity and second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 8, 265–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Sprouse, R. (2001). Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research, 17, 1–35.Google Scholar
Gabriele, A. (2005). The acquisition of aspect in a second language: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2007). Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and processing (Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Netherlands). Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics (GRODIL), 65.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2003). Article semantics in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12, 3–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Maldonado, S. B. (2008). Sources of linguistic knowledge in the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118, 554–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanov, I. (2009, March). Pragmatic effects of clitic doubling in L2 Bulgarian: A test case for the Interface Hypothesis. Paper presented at the Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA) 10 conference, Urbana-Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2001). How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 335–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2002). Acquiring morphosyntactic and semantic properties of preterite and imperfect tenses in L2 Spanish. In Perez-Leroux, A-T. & Liceras, J. (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax: The L1-L2 connection (pp. 113–149). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research, 16, 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax-pragmatic interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2003). Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars. Second Language Research, 19, 42–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for the acquisition of semantics. Second Language Research, 22, 302–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (in press). Scalar implicatures in L2 acquisition. Lingua.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tryzna, M. (2009). Questioning the validity of the Article Choice Parameter and the Fluctuation Hypothesis: Evidence from L2 English article use by L1 Polish and L1 Mandarin Chinese Speakers. In García Mayo, M. del P. & Hawkins, R. (Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications (pp. 67–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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 annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, E. (2006). L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of Spanish CLLD constructions. In Slabakova, R., Montrul, S., & Prevost, P. (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development (pp. 283–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2005). Child L2, adult L2, child L1: Differences and similarities. A study on the acquisition of direct object scrambling in Dutch. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. Published by LOT, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
White, L. (2009). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition. Leeds, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar