Tla syntax

573 views
473 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
573
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tla syntax

  1. 1. TLA: SYNTAX
  2. 2. THE BEGINNINGearly 1990s Vogel 1992: one of the first studies on the topic
  3. 3. VOGEL (1992) L1 Mandarin / L2 English speaker, acquiring German as an L3Chinese and German: verb final languages (V fin) English is not (V nonfin )
  4. 4. VOGEL (1992): FINDINGS one of first studies to identify syntactic transfer from a non-native language onto an L3evidence of L2 English influence on the acquisition of L3 German: the subject in the study produced [SV fin V nonfin O] structures
  5. 5. ZOBL (1992)One of the first studies to investigate multilingualism from a generative perspective.MAIN QUESTION:Does prior linguistic knowledge lead to the creation of more or less conservative grammars in multilinguals?
  6. 6. GENERAL ASSUMPTION AT THE TIME ZOBL (1992)wide grammarsmultilinguals tend to overgeneralize hypothesis about the language and therefore have a higher acceptance rate with respect to ungrammatical sentences
  7. 7. ZOBL (1992)based on various judgment testsResults:multilinguals are in fact, less restrictive in a new language (than monolinguals)multilinguals seem to create less conservative and therefore more powerful grammars
  8. 8. KLEIN (1995)further investigates whether multilingual grammars are in fact different from those of monolingualsTHE STUDYacquisition of verbs and their prepositional elements particularly the case of preposition fronting and stranding
  9. 9. KLEIN (1995)English allows two options: the preposition is stranded and fronted Eg: [At what i] are you looking [ PP t i]?] the preposition is stranded and only the object is extracted and fronted Eg: [What i] are you looking [ PPat [ti]]?
  10. 10. KLEIN (1995)HYPOTHESISmultilinguals would show an advantage over monolinguals in the acquisition of preposition stranding
  11. 11. KLEIN (1995): FINDINGSmultilinguals acquired this specific characteristic of English faster than monolinguals did, even though they had not previously acquired a language with this structure
  12. 12. KLEIN (1995): CONCLUSIONSmultilinguals benefit from higher multilingual awarenessMultilinguals follow a less “conservative” learning process (confirming Zobl, 1992)
  13. 13. MILESTONE IN L3 SYNTAX STUDIESthe 2001 conference on multilingualism that took place in the NetherlandsFour key papers:Bardel 2002;Leung 2002;Sjorgen 2002 Vinnitskaya et al. 2002
  14. 14. VINNITSKAYA ET AL. (2002)the acquisition of the English Complementizer Phrase (CP) by three different groups of learners: 1.L1 Kazakh and L2 Russian, 2.L1 Spanish 3.L1 Japanese
  15. 15. VINNITSKAYA ET AL. (2002)The structure of the CP is dependent on the head directionality of a languageEnglish, Spanish and Russian are head- initial languages and Kazakh and Japanese are head-final languages.
  16. 16. VINNITSKAYA ET AL. (2002) FINDINGSGroups (1) and (2) behaved in a similar wayGroup (3) behaved in a very different way
  17. 17. VINNITSKAYA ET AL. (2002) CONCLUSIONthis difference was due to the fact that the L1Japanese group had not yet acquired the head-initial parameter whereas the first two groups had done so either in their L1 or their L2.
  18. 18. GENERATIVE L3: LEUNG (2002, 2005)addressed the question of UG access and transfer of morphosynax in L3 acquisition by studying features associated with the Number and the Determiner Phrase
  19. 19. LEUNG (2005)continuation of the 2002 study with two groups of learners of French: 1.One L1 Cantonese/L2 English group 2.one L1 Vietnamese with no L2 group
  20. 20. LEUNG (2005): RESULTStransfer from both the L1 and the L2 in L3 syntax
  21. 21. LEUNG (2006)further extended the 2005 study to include the acquisition of tense and agreement featuresTESTEDFull Transfer Full Access (FTFA) hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1996)
  22. 22. LEUNG (2006): FINDINGSthere is a difference between acquiring French as a second language and acquiring it as a third one. found transfer from L2 English into L3 French, but not transfer from L1 Cantonese onto L2 French
  23. 23. LEUNG (2006): CONCLUSIONSthis difference is due to typological proximity between one of the background languages and the target language.HOWEVER, if there is no evidence in the input of a specific feature, it will not be transferred from any background language.
  24. 24. NA RANONG AND LEUNG (2009)challenge the findings of Leung (2006) by looking at two different groups of speakers: L1 Thai, L2 English and L3 Chinese L1 English and L2 Chinese.
  25. 25. NA RANONG AND LEUNG (2009): FINDINGSno clear instance of L2 transferCONCLUSIONL1 plays a privileged role in both L2 and L3 acquisition of syntaxit might be the case that transfer from the language that is typologically closer to the target language is favoured
  26. 26. NA RANONG AND LEUNG (2009): NOTEfindings from this study are in contradiction with those by Leung (2005, 2006) where the author found no preference for L1 transfer.

×