Heather Marsden

Universal grammar and the second language classroom

Acknowledgements .- 1. Introduction: Generative second language acquisition and language pedagogy by Melinda Whong, Kook-Hee Gil and Heather Marsden .- Part I: GenSLA Applied to the Classroom . 2. What research can tell us about teaching: The case of pronouns and clitics by Joyce Bruhn de Garavito .- 3. L2 Acquisition of null subjects in Japanese: A new generative perspective and its pedagogical implications byMika Kizu .- 4. Verb movement in generative SLA and the teaching of word order patterns by Tom Rankin .- 5. Modifying the teaching of modifiers: A lesson from Universal Grammar by David Stringer .- 6. The syntax-discourse interface and the interface between generative theory and pedagogical approaches to SLA by Elena Valenzuela and Bede McCormack .- Part II: GenSLA and Classroom Research . 7. Alternations and argument structure in second language English: Knowledge of two types of intransitive verbs by Makiko Hirakawa .- 8. Quantifiers: form and meaning in second language development by Kook-Hee Gil, Heather Marsden, and Melinda Whong .- 9. Explicit article instruction in definiteness, specificity, genericity and perception by Neal Snape and Noriaki Yusa .- Part III: GenSLA, the Language Classroom, and Beyond .- 10. Whether to teach and how to teach complex linguistic structures in a second language by Roumyana Slabakova and Maria del Pilar Garcia Mayo .- 11. Great expectations in phonology: Second language acquisition research and its relation to the teaching of older and younger learners by Martha Young-Scholten .- 12. Applied Generative SLA: The need for an agenda and a methodology by Melinda Whong .- Subject index

Distributive Quantifier Scope in English-Japanese and Korean-Japanese Interlanguage

This article reports on an experimental investigation of knowledge of distributivity in nonnative (L2) Japanese learners whose first language (L1) is English or Korean. The availability of distributive scope in Japanese is modulated by word order and the semantic features of quantifiers. For English-speaking learners, these subtle interpretive phenomena are underdetermined in both the input and the L1. However, for Korean speakers, target-like knowledge could arise via L1 transfer. The results yield clear evidence of distinct developmental paths in the two L1 groups, testifying to L1 influence on the syntax-semantics interface. Nonetheless, some English-speaking learners exhibit target-like distributive readings despite the lack of direct evidence. This development of target-like knowledge in the absence of evidence is accounted for by integrating Sprouses (2006) lexical transfer account of L2 acquisition and a Universal Grammar model (Beghelli 1995) of distributive scope.

Pair-list readings in Korean-Japanese, Chinese-Japanese and English-Japanese interlanguage

In English and Chinese, questions with a wh-object and a universally quantified subject (e.g.What did everyone buy?) allow an individual answer (Everyone bought apples.) and a pair-list answer (Sam bought apples, Jo bought bananas, Sally bought...). By contrast, the pair-list answer is reportedly unavailable in Japanese and Korean. This article documents an experimental investigation of the interpretation of such questions in non-native Japanese by learners whose first languages (Lls) are Korean, Chinese or English. The results show that, regardless of L1, only a minority of advanced second language (L2) Japanese learners demonstrate knowledge of the absence of pair-list readings in Japanese. In English-Japanese and Chinese-Japanese interlanguage, L1 transfer readily accounts for this finding: the L1 grammar, which allows pair-list readings, may obstruct acquisition of the more restrictive Japanese grammar. But in Korean-Japanese interlanguage, L1 transfer predicts rejection of pair-list answers. However, in a Korean version of the experimental task, a native Korean control group robustly accepts pair-list readings, contra expectations. A proposal to account for this finding is put forward, under which the Korean-Japanese interlanguage data become compatible with an L1-transfer-based model of L2 acquisition. Moreover, the native-like rejection of pair-list readings by some advanced learners of all three L1 backgrounds is argued to imply that UG constraints operate at the L2 syntax-semantics interface.

Beyond paradigm: The ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of classroom research

This article reviews studies in second language classroom research from a cross-theoretic perspective, arguing that the classroom holds the potential for bringing together researchers from opposing theoretical orientations. It shows how generative and general cognitive approaches share a view of language that implicates both implicit and explicit knowledge, and that holds a bias towards implicit knowledge. Arguing that it is implicit knowledge that should be the object of research, it proposes that classroom research would benefit from incorporating insights from a generative understanding of language. Specifically, there is a need for a more nuanced view of the complexity of language in terms of linguistic domain, and the interaction between those domains. Generative second language acquisition research that shows developmental differences in terms of both linguistic domain and interface is reviewed. The core argument is a call for more attention to the ‘what’ of language development in classroom research and, by implication, teaching practice. As such, the language classroom is seen to offer potential for research that goes beyond paradigm to address both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of language development.

Introduction: Generative Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy

For the uninitiated, it might seem quite obvious that research in second language acquisition is of relevance to the profession of language teaching. Yet in reality this relationship is not very clear, especially in terms of more formal approaches to second language acquisition and Chomskyan generative second language acquisition (henceforth GenSLA), in particular. From the point of view of language pedagogy, the question of what role theory should play in practice is one of continuous debate. This is not a trivial question; researchers need to isolate variables in order to investigate phenomena. In doing so, the complexity of reality is immediately compromised. Teachers, by contrast, must contend with reality in all of its complexity whether an explanation exists or not. Nevertheless, assuming that being able to explain phenomena means having a better understanding, we take the view that the more classroom instruction is underpinned by an understanding of theoretical principles, the more effective it will be. Accepting, then, that there is a role for theory, there is the added question of which theories. As noted some time ago by Stern (1983), the practice of language teaching implicates assumptions from a number of areas of inquiry ranging from language to learning, to education and to society. Clearly, even if we limit ourselves to language and learning, this still leaves us with a broad arena of research as the range of subfields within these two subjects is as diverse as it is wide.

Grammatical meaning and the second language classroom: Introduction:

This special issue assembles empirical work on second language teaching and learning from a generative linguistic perspective. The focus is on properties that constitute grammar–meaning interaction that differ in the native and target language grammars, and that have not been highlighted in the pedagogical literature so far. Common topics address whether and how learners acquire grammatical meanings in the second language, including difficult misalignments between native and target-language constructions and functional morphemes. We propose that teaching and learning a second language can be enhanced by focusing on the relationship between grammatical forms and their meanings, as elucidated by contemporary linguistic theory.

The meaning of negation in the second language classroom: Evidence from ‘any’:

This article brings together an experimental study involving L2 knowledge of negation in English and an analysis of how English language textbooks treat negation, in order to consider whether textbook explanations of negation could better exploit linguistic insights into negation. We focus on the English negative polarity item any, whose distribution is contingent on negation, whether through the explicit negator not or through lexical semantic negators (e.g. hardly). Our experiment compares Chinese-speaking learners with existing data from Arabic-speaking learners, finding lower accuracy on any with lexical semantic negators in both groups. Our textbook analysis reveals an approach to negation that is limited to form, focusing on the explicit negator not without explicit treatment of other types of negation. We propose that emphasizing the meaning of negation, with explicit treatment of the full range of negative forms could facilitate more complete acquisition across a range of grammatical properties where negation plays a role.

Quantifiers: Form and Meaning in Second Language Development

Research into the second language acquisition of quantifiers (every, any, some, etc.) sheds light on the L2 development of form and meaning in an area of language that is not usually a key focus of the language classroom. This chapter begins with an overview of some existing studies of L2 acquisition of quantifiers, the majority of which investigate phenomena that are not only absent from classroom instruction but are also not directly deducible from the input: “poverty of the stimulus” phenomena. The findings show that subtle properties of quantifiers are difficult to acquire—particularly if they involve the syntax-pragmatics interface—but they often emerge in advanced learners, even without teaching or direct evidence in the input. The chapter then explores how language teaching might accelerate acquisition of such late-emerging aspects of the L2. We report the findings of a pilot study (Gil K-H, Marsden H, Whong M. Can explicit grammar instruction serve as evidence for L2 grammar restructuring? In: Stavrakaki S, Konstantinopoulou P, Lalioti M (eds) Proceedings of GALA 2011. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, to appear) on the effect of providing focus on form instruction about the English quantifier any. Though inconclusive, the findings raise new research questions that are of interest to both generative L2 acquisition researchers and classroom researchers. We conclude that collaborative research will enrich both fields.

What's in the Textbook and What's in the Mind: Polarity Item "Any" in Learner English.

This paper presents an experimental study of the rarely explored question of how input through instruction interacts with L2 acquisition at the level of modular linguistic knowledge. The investigation focuses on L2 knowledge of the English polarity item any, whose properties are only partially covered by typical language-teaching materials. We investigate Najdi-Saudi Arabic-speaking learners’ knowledge of the distribution of any in contexts that are taught, contexts that are not taught but may be observable in the input, and contexts that are neither taught nor observable. We further test whether conscious awareness of instructed rules about any correlates with performance. Our findings suggest a role for instruction and for internal, UG-constrained acquisition, and that these two paths interact. We explore our findings in terms of Sharwood Smith and Truscott’s (2014a, 2014b) framework of modular online growth and use of language, in which cognitive development is driven by processing.

Polarity-item anything in L3 English: Where does transfer come from when the L1 is Catalan and the L2 is Spanish?:

This study explores the source of transfer in third language (L3) English by two distinct groups of Catalan–Spanish bilinguals, simultaneous bilinguals and late bilinguals. Our study addresses two research questions: (1) Does transfer come from the first language (L1), the second language (L2), or both? and (2) Does age of acquisition of the L2 affect how transfer occurs? We compare beginner and advanced English speakers from both L3 groups with beginner and advanced L1-Spanish L2-English speakers, and find that, on an acceptablity judgment task that investigates knowledge of the distribution of polarity item anything, the two L3 groups demonstrate a different response pattern from the L2 group. The results suggest that both L3 groups transfer from Catalan, and not from their L2, Spanish. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the study shows that negative transfer from the initial stages of acquisition is overcome to different extents by the L3 vs. the L2 groups. We conclude that the results show strong evidence against the L2 status factor (Bardel and Falk, 2007, 2012) and the cumulative enhancement (Flynn et al., 2004) models of L3 acquisition, while they can be accounted for by the typological primacy model (Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2015), although other models that predict L1 transfer in L3 acquisition are not ruled out. Further, our findings show no effect of age of acquisition of the L2 on L3 development.