Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:17:04.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological insensitivity in second language processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

NAN JIANG
NAN JIANG
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two competing explanations exist regarding the nature of morphological difficulty in adult second language acquisition: competence deficit versus performance deficiency. This study tested these explanations by examining English as a second language (ESL) learners' morphological performance in reading comprehension tasks. Chinese ESL speakers were asked to read English sentences for comprehension in three self-paced word by word reading experiments. Their reading times were measured to determine if they were sensitive to idiosyncrasies/disagreement in sentences that do and do not involve the number morpheme. The results show that they are not sensitive to number disagreement, but sensitive to other idiosyncrasies tested. This insensitivity to the number morpheme suggests that their morphological knowledge is not an integrated part of their automatic second language competence.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , October 2004 , pp. 603 - 634
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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

Aaronson D., & Ferres S. 1987. “The impact of language differences on language processing: An example from Chinese-English bilingualism,” in P. Homet, M. Palij, & D. Aaronson (Eds.), Childhood bilingualism: Aspects of linguistic, cognitive, and social development (pp. 75– 119). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bailey N., Madden C., & Krashen S. D. 1974. Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235– 243.Google Scholar
Beck M.-L. 1999. L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of German and the local impairment hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 311– 348.Google Scholar
Bialystok E. 1978. A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69– 84.Google Scholar
Bialystok E. 1990. The competence of processing: Classifying theories of second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 635– 648.Google Scholar
Bialystok E., & Sharwood Smith M. 1985. Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101– 117.Google Scholar
Bock K., & Cutting J. C. 1992. Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99– 127.Google Scholar
Bock K., & Eberhard K. M. 1993. Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57– 99.Google Scholar
Bock K., & Miller C. A. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45– 93.Google Scholar
Chomsky N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crystal D. 2000. On competence and performance and related notions. In F. Brown, K. Malmkjaer, & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and competence in second language acquisition (pp. 11– 34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis R. 1984. Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ellis R. 1987. Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1– 20.Google Scholar
Ellis R. 1988. The effects of linguistic environment on the second language acquisition of grammatical rules. Applied Linguistics, 9, 257– 274.Google Scholar
Favreau M., & Segalowitz N. S. 1983. Automatic and controlled processes in the first- and second-language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 11, 565– 574.Google Scholar
Forster K. I., & Chambers S. 1973. Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627– 635.Google Scholar
Frederikson J. R., & Kroll J. F. 1976. Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 361– 379.Google Scholar
Green P. S., & Hecht K. 1992. Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 168– 184.Google Scholar
Hale K. 1988. Linguistic theory: Generative grammar. In S. Flynn & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 26– 33). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Haznedar B., & Schwartz B. 1997. Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In E. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 257– 268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Hu G. 2002. Metalinguistic knowledge at work: The case of written production by Chinese learners of English. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 5– 44.Google Scholar
Hulstijn J. H. 1990. A comparison between the information-processing and the analysis/control approaches to language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 30– 45.Google Scholar
Hulstijn J. H., & Hulstijn W. 1984. Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23– 43.Google Scholar
Jared D., & Kroll J. F. 2001. Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 2– 31.Google Scholar
Jiang N. 2000. Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 47– 77.Google Scholar
Johnson J. S. 1992. Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning, 42, 217– 248.Google Scholar
Johnson J. S., & Newport E. L. 1989. Critical period effects in second language learning: The influences of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60– 99.Google Scholar
Johnson J. S., Shenkman K. D., Newport E. L., & Medin D. 1996. Indeterminacy in the grammar of adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 335– 352.Google Scholar
Juffs A. 1998. Main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107– 147.Google Scholar
Juffs A., & Harrington M. 1996. Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 46, 283– 326.Google Scholar
Krashen S. D. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen S. D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen S. D., Houck N., Guunchi P., Bode S., Birnbaum R., & Strei J. 1977. Difficulty order for grammatical morphemes for adult second language performers using free speech. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 338– 341.Google Scholar
Krashen S. D., & Pon P. 1975. An error analysis of an advanced learner of ESL: The importance of the monitor. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 7, 125– 129.Google Scholar
Lardiere D. 1998. Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1– 26.Google Scholar
Lee C. H., & Cochran M. F. 2000. Controlling two confounding variables in word length: “Vanished word-length effect.” Reading Psychology, 21, 57– 66.Google Scholar
Long M. 1997, October. Fossilization: Rigor mortis in living linguistic systems? Paper presented at SLRF '97, East Lansing, MI.
McLeod B., & McLaughlin B. 1986. Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a second language. Language Learning, 36, 109– 123.Google Scholar
Murphy V. 1997. The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgment task. Second Language Research, 13, 34– 65.Google Scholar
Newport E. L. 1988. Constraints on learning and their role in language acquisition: Studies of the acquisition of American Sign Language. Language Sciences, 10, 14– 17.Google Scholar
Newport E. L. 1990. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11– 28.Google Scholar
Nicol J. L, Forster K. I, & Veres C. 1997. Subject–verb agreement in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569– 587.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter N. J, Garnsey S. M, & Bock K. 1999. Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427– 456.Google Scholar
Perkins K., & Larsen–Freeman D. 1975. The effect of formal language instruction on the order of morpheme acquisition. Language Learning, 25, 237– 243.Google Scholar
Prévost P., & White L. 2000. Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103– 133.Google Scholar
Rosansky E. J. 1976. Methods and morphemes in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 26, 409– 425.Google Scholar
Salaberry M. R. 2000. The acquisition of English past tense in an instructional setting. System, 28, 135– 152.Google Scholar
Schmidt R. W. 1983. Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson & J. Manes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 137– 174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt R. 1992. Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357– 385.Google Scholar
Shapira R. G. 1978. The non-learning of English: Case study of an adult. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 246– 255). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sharwood Smith M. 1986. The competence/control model, crosslinguistic influence and the creation of new grammars. In E. Kellerman & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 10– 20). New York: Pergamon Press.
Sorace A. 1985. Metalinguistic knowledge and language use in acquisition-poor environments. Applied Linguistics, 6, 239– 254.Google Scholar
Stroop J. R. 1935. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 643– 662.Google Scholar
Swinney D. A. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 645– 659.Google Scholar
Vigliocco G., Butterworth B., & Garrett M. F. 1996. Subject–verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61, 261– 298.Google Scholar
Vigliocco G., Butterworth B., & Semenza C. 1995. Constructing subject–verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186– 215.Google Scholar
Vigliocco G., Hartsuiker R. J., Jarema G., & Kolk H. H. J. 1996. One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 407– 442.Google Scholar
Wei L. 2000. Unequal election of morphemes in adult second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 21, 106– 140.Google Scholar
Wong W. 2001. Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345– 368.Google Scholar