What is easy and what is hard to acquire in a second language

In looking at differential difficulties at the different linguistic modules and interfaces, this paper argues for the Bottleneck Hypothesis (Slabakova 2008). It is argued that narrow syntactic knowledge comes before accurate knowledge of morphology in production and comprehension of a second language. Functional morphology is uniformly hard: it is harder for low-educated native speakers than for non-native speakers. In processing complex syntax, low-educated native speakers who have had little exposure to complex constructions may be at a disadvantage compared to non-native speakers. It is also argued that once the inflectional morphology is learned, learners are aware of all its semantic consequences, taught and untaught. Even at the syntax-discourse interface, acquisition of properties unavailable from the L1 is possible. At the semantics-pragmatics interface, L2 learners transfer universal properties like Gricean maxims. The rationale of the Bottleneck Hypothesis is as follows: (1) inflectional morphology reflects syntactic and semantic differences between languages; (2) narrow syntactic operations and meaning calculation are universal; (3) in order to acquire syntax and meaning in a second language, the learner has to go through the inflectional morphology; (4) hence, morphology is the bottleneck of acquisition.

[1]  Andrew Lian,et al.  Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice , 1985 .

[2]  Andrew Radford,et al.  Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The Nature of Early Child Grammars of English , 1990 .

[3]  Elena Valenzuela,et al.  L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of Spanish CLLD constructions , 2005 .

[4]  Jason Rothman,et al.  Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface , 2009 .

[5]  C. Doughty Cognitive Underpinnings of Focus on Form , 1999 .

[6]  C. Felser,et al.  Grammatical processing in language learners , 2006, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[7]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[8]  Bill VanPatten,et al.  Processing instruction: An update , 2002 .

[9]  R. Dekeyser,et al.  BEYOND EXPLICIT RULE LEARNING , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

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

[11]  M. Swain,et al.  THEORETICAL BASES OF COMMUNICATIVE APPROACHES TO SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING AND TESTING , 1980 .

[12]  Vivian Cook,et al.  Second language learning and language teaching , 1991 .

[13]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of Language , 1940 .

[14]  Belma Haznedar,et al.  THE ACQUISITION OF THE IP SYSTEM IN CHILD L2 ENGLISH , 2001, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[15]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Is there a critical period for semantics? , 2006 .

[16]  B. Vanpatten,et al.  Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research , 1998 .

[17]  A. Sorace,et al.  Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian , 2007 .

[18]  E. Dąbrowska,et al.  Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers , 2006 .

[19]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of language , 1941 .

[20]  Tania Ionin,et al.  Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘-s’?: acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English , 2002 .

[21]  Fabio Pianesi,et al.  Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax , 1997 .

[22]  Donna Lardiere,et al.  Feature-Assembly in Second Language Acquisition * , 2008 .

[23]  Ngoni Chipere Understanding Complex Sentences: Native Speaker Variation in Syntactic Competence , 2003 .

[24]  Tej K. Bhatia,et al.  The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition , 2009 .

[25]  Robert M. Dekeyser,et al.  Cognition and Second Language Instruction: Automaticity and automatization , 2001 .

[26]  Donna Lardiere,et al.  On Morphological Competence , 2005 .

[27]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension , 2002 .

[28]  A. Avramides Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[29]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Scalar implicatures in L2 acquisition , 2007 .

[30]  Rex A. Sprouse,et al.  The Interpretation of Quantification at a Distance in English-French Interlanguage: Domain Specificity and Second-Language Acquisition , 2000 .

[31]  How is inflectional morphology learned , 2009 .

[32]  Catherine Doughty,et al.  Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. , 1998 .

[33]  Roumyana Slabakova Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars , 2003 .

[34]  Harald Clahsen,et al.  Functional Categories in Early Child German , 1993 .

[35]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Meaning in the second language , 2008 .

[36]  E. Dąbrowska The LAD goes to school: a cautionary tale for nativists , 1997 .

[37]  C. McCarthy,et al.  Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: an argument for representation over computation , 2008 .

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

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

[40]  B. Vanpatten Processing the Content of Input–Processing and Processing Instruction Research: A Response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington , 2002 .

[41]  Lydia White,et al.  GRAMMATICAL THEORY, INTERFACES AND L2 KNOWLEDGE , 2007 .