What is so difficult about telicity marking in L2 Russian

Two major mechanisms of encoding telicity across languages are either marking the object as exhaustively countable or measurable, or utilizing a specific prefix on the verbal form. English predominantly uses the first mechanism, while Russian mostly utilizes the second. The learning task of an English speaker acquiring Russian, then, is two-fold: to learn each individual verb with its subset of perfective prefixes, and to acquire knowledge of the fact that most prefixed verbs denote telic events. Sixty-six English-speaking learners of Russian as well as 45 controls took an on-line test of semantic interpretation. Results indicate that some low intermediate learners, and the majority of high intermediate and advanced learners are highly accurate in interpreting Russian telicity marking. It is argued that the difficulty in acquiring Russian aspect lies in learning the lexical items signaling telicity, but crucially NOT in learning the grammatical mechanism for telicity marking.

[1]  Ken Hale,et al.  On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations , 1993 .

[2]  Lydia White,et al.  THE “PRO-DROP” PARAMETER IN ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 1985 .

[3]  H. Verkuyl.  A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure , 1996 .

[4]  Henk J. Verkuyl,et al.  On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects , 1972 .

[5]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Telicity in the second language , 2001 .

[6]  Zeno Vendler,et al.  Verbs and Times , 1957, The Language of Time - A Reader.

[7]  Östen Dahl,et al.  Tense and aspect systems , 1985 .

[8]  Rex A. Sprouse,et al.  L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model , 1996 .

[9]  Donna Lardiere,et al.  Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar , 1998 .

[10]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The syntax of event structure , 1991, Cognition.

[11]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Knowledge and Obedience: The Developmental Status of the Binding Theory , 1990 .

[12]  H. Verkuyl.  Tense, Aspect, and Aspectual Composition , 1999 .

[13]  Larry E. Travis,et al.  Derived objects, inner aspect and the structure of VP , 1991 .

[14]  Rex A. Sprouse,et al.  Word Order and Nominative Case in Non-Native Language Acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German Interlanguage , 1994 .

[15]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics , 1989 .

[16]  Cecilia Yuet Hung Chan,et al.  The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: the ‘failed functional features hypothesis’ , 1997 .

[17]  B. D. Schwartz,et al.  Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar , 1994 .

[18]  S. Montrul.  The L2 acquisition of dative experiencer subjects , 1998 .

[19]  Olga Borik,et al.  Aspect and reference time , 2002 .

[20]  Yukio Oba,et al.  ON THE DOUBLE OBJECT CONSTRUCTION , 1993 .

[21]  David R. Dowty.  Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[22]  Carol Lee Tenny,et al.  Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface , 1994 .

[23]  J. M. Peirce.  Aspect , 1871, Nature.

[24]  Cristina Job Schmitt,et al.  Aspect and the syntax of noun phrases , 1996 .

[25]  Robert W. Bley-Vroman.  THE COMPARATIVE FALLACY IN INTERLANGUAGE STUDIES: THE CASE OF SYSTEMATICITY1 , 1983 .

[26]  William C. Ritchie,et al.  Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition , 1983 .

[27]  Lydia White,et al.  Missing Surface Inflection or Impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement , 2000 .

[28]  Ianthi Maria Tsimpli,et al.  The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity. , 1997 .

[29]  Suzanne Flynn,et al.  A Parameter-Setting Approach to Second Language Acquisition , 1996 .

[30]  J. Zwart.  The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[31]  Kevin R. Gregg.  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR , 2004, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[32]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  L1 transfer revisited: the L2 acquisition of telicity marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers , 2000 .

[33]  B. Mayo.  ACTION, EMOTION AND WILL , 1963 .

[34]  Hanna Filip,et al.  Nominal and verbal semantic structure: analogies and interactions , 2001 .

[35]  M. Krifka.  The Origins of Telicity , 1998 .

[36]  Olga Babko-Malaya,et al.  ZERO MORPHOLOGY: A STUDY OF ASPECT, ARGUMENT STRUCTURE AND CASE , 1999 .

[37]  Cynthia A. Brown,et al.  The role of the L1 grammar in the L2 acquisition of segmental structure , 1998 .

[38]  Gita Martohardjono,et al.  Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[39]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Quantification and aspect , 2005 .

[40]  Donna Lardiere.  Case and Tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state , 1998 .

[41]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Bulgarian preverbs: aspect in phrase structure , 1997 .

[42]  Lydia White,et al.  Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology , 2003, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[43]  Hana Filip,et al.  Aspect and the Semantics of Noun Phrases , 1994 .

[44]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution , 1992 .

[45]  Carlota S. Smith,et al.  The Parameter of Aspect , 1991 .