Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:17:22.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plural marking in the second language: Atomicity, definiteness, and transfer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2021

Sea Hee Choi Open the ORCID record for Sea Hee Choi [Opens in a new window]  and
Tania Ionin
Sea Hee Choi*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Tania Ionin
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
*
*Corresponding author. Sea Hee Choi, 707 S. Mathews Ave., M/C 168, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines whether second language (L2)-English learners whose native languages (L1; Korean and Mandarin) lack obligatory plural marking transfer the properties of plural marking from their L1s, and whether transfer is manifested both offline (in a grammaticality judgment task) and online (in a self-paced reading task). The online task tests the predictions of the morphological congruency hypothesis (Jiang 2007), according to which L2 learners have particular difficulty automatically activating the meaning of L2 morphemes that are incongruent with their L1. Experiment 1 tests L2 learners’ sensitivity to errors of –s oversuppliance with mass nouns, while Experiment 2 tests their sensitivity to errors of –s omission with count nouns. The findings show that (a) L2 learners detect errors with nonatomic mass nouns (sunlights) but not atomic ones (furnitures), both offline and online; and (b) L1-Korean L2-English learners are more successful than L1-Mandarin L2-English learners in detecting missing –s with definite plurals (these boat), while the two groups behave similarly with indefinite plurals (many boat). Given that definite plurals require plural marking in Korean but not in Mandarin, the second finding is consistent with L1-transfer. Overall, the findings show that learners are able to overcome morphological incongruency and acquire novel uses of L2 morphemes.

Keywords

atomicitycount/mass distinctiondefinitenessfirst language transfergeneralized classifier language
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , May 2021 , pp. 549 - 578
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by 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

Baek, M. (2002). A study on Korean plural senses. Discourse and Cognition, 9, 59–78.Google Scholar
Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97, 41–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D. M., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 47.Google Scholar
Bunt, H. C. (1985). Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L. S., & Sybesma, R. (1998). Yi-wan tang, yi-ge tang: Classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, 28, 385–412.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L. S., & Sybesma, R. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic inquiry, 30, 509–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter.” In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 53–103). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese, 174, 99–149.10.1007/s11229-009-9686-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2015). How universal is the mass/count distinction? Three grammars of counting. In Li, A.., Simpson, A., & Tsai, D. (Eds). Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective (pp.147–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, S., & Ionin, T. (2017). Acquisition and processing of mass nouns in L2-English by L2-learners from generalized classifier languages: Evidence for the role of atomicity. In Scott, J. & Waughtal, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development . Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Choi, S. H., Ionin, T., & Zhu, Y. (2018). L1 Korean and L1 Mandarin L2 English learners’ acquisition of the count/mass distinction in English. Second Language Research, 34, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220. doi: 10.1017/S0142716410000342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17, 213–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender (Vol. 38). London: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A. (2008). Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 2865–2873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J. H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 30, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiki, M. (1990). The judgment of noun countability by Japanese college students: Where is the difficulty? JACET Bulletin, 21, 19–38.Google Scholar
Hiki, M. (1991). A study of learners’ judgment on noun countability. Unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. (2010). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 376–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hua, D., & Lee, T. H. T. (2005). Chinese ESL learners’ understanding of the English count-mass distinction. In Dekydtspotte, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Liljestrand, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 138–149). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Hwang, S., & Lardiere, D. (2013) Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second Language Research, 29, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iljic, R. (1994). Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: Two markers of plurality. Linguistics, 32, 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (2014). Syntax-semantics mappings as a source of difficulty in Japanese spearkers’ acquisition of the mass-count distinction in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 464–477.10.1017/S1366728913000540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S., & Barner, D. (2009) Countability in absence of count syntax: Evidence from Japanese quantity judgments. In Inagaki, S. et al. (Eds.), The 8th annual conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences (pp. 111–125). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Choi, S. H., & Liu, Q. (2019). Knowledge of indefinite articles in L2-English: Online vs. offline performance. Second Language Research. Advance online pubication.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., & Montrul, S. (2010). The role of L1 transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2 English. Language learning, 60, 877–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In Jegerski, J. & Van Pattern, B. (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 20–49). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jiang, L. J. (2017). Mandarin associative plural-men and NPs with-men. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 4, 191–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.10.1017/S0142716404001298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N., Hu, G., Chrabaszcz, A., & Ye, L. (2017). The activation of grammaticalized meaning in L2 processing: Toward an explanation of the morphological congruency effect. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21, 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K., & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61, 940–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, C. (2005). The Korean plural marker tul and its implications. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Kwon, S.-N., & Zribi-Hertz, A. (2004). Number from a syntactic perspective: Why plural- marking looks “truer” in French than in Korean. Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, 5, 133–58.Google Scholar
Lago, S., Shalom, D. E., Sigman, M., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2015). Agreement attraction in Spanish comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 133–149.10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, F. (1989). Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 559–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, F. (1991). Structures for Semantics, SLAP (Vol. 45). Kluwer: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford Scholarship Online. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H., & Helen, Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140). Mahwah NJ: 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
Lenth, R. (2018). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R Package, Version 1(2). http://github.com/rvlenth/emmeans Google Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Y. (1999). Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, D., & Carroll, S. E. (2018). Second-language processing of English mass-count nouns by native-speakers of Korean. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, R., Cornelius, E., & Washburn, G. (1991). American kernal lessons: Advanced students’ book. New York: Longman.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/ Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1994). Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar: Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW workshops (pp. 317–368). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snape, N. (2008). Resetting the nominal mapping parameter in L2 English: Definite article use and the count–mass distinction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stvan, L. S. (2009). Semantic incorporation as an account for some bare singular count noun uses in English. Lingua, 119, 314–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, W., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2019). Examining transfer in the acquisition of the count/mass distinction in L2 English. Paper presented at the 15th meeting of the Generative Approach to Second Language Acquisition Conference, Reno, NV.Google Scholar
Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, H., Boland, J. E., Brennan, J., Yuan, F., Wang, M., & Zhang, C. (2018). Lexicalized structural priming in second language online sentence comprehension. Second Language Research, 34, 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar