CHAPTER EIGHT
Meaning-Based Approaches
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Functional approaches have as their main interest the study of how language functions.
Functional approaches generally entail a consideration of multiple areas of language,
such as tense–aspect, which combines verb meanings, morphological form, and
phonology.
8.2 FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES
In Chapters 6 and 7 we considered ILs from the perspective of linguistic structures.
In this chapter we turn to how language is used for communication purposes, with an
emphasis on meaning. The major concern is how different forms are used to express
different functions, in other words, how form and function relate to one another.
Whereas in the preceding chapters we considered isolated parts of language (e.g.,
syntax, morphology), because functional approaches consider meaning as central,
many aspects of language, including pragmatics, semantics, syntax, morphology,
and the lexicon are taken into account simultaneously. Cooreman and Kilborn (1991,
p. 196) point out that, within functionalist approaches, “there is no formal separation of the traditionally recognized subcomponents in language, i.e., morphosyntax,
semantics, and pragmatics.”
8.2.1 The Relationship between Form and Function
In Chapter 2 we discussed data by Huebner, with regard to issues of methodology.
We return to Huebner’s (1983) classic study with a focus on his findings in which he
considers the development of different uses (functions) of a single form. His study
involved a 23-year-old male Hmong refugee (Ge) who was living in Hawai’i and
studying English naturalistically (i.e., not in a schooled setting). Data were gathered
over a one-year period of time, allowing Huebner to observe Ge’s development. As
215
A FOCU S ON M E AN I NG
Huebner points out, learners are faced with a number of issues regarding a form/
function relationship:
First, he/she must acquire the form. This is relatively straightforward. It can be said
that when the learner uses the form independently, that is to say in an environment other than simply repeating what has been said by someone else, the form
is acquired. Second, the learner must also acquire the function that the form has
in the target language. He/she must learn its distribution. This is a process which
is somewhat more complex and involves at least two steps. First, the learner must
learn where not to use the form. Second, he/she must learn where to use the form.
(Huebner, 1983, p. 93, emphasis in original)
Huebner traces the use of is and isa, which Huebner argues to be variants of the
same form, taken from the input is + a. Initially, the form appeared as a topic/comment
boundary, that is, in sentences in which the topic appears before what is being
commented on, as in example 8-1:
(8-1)
RESEARCHER:
G:
How many people were eating?
piipow n- ste’ -n- wer iiting, isa trii tawsan
“Three thousand people were eating.”
The next stage is a greatly reduced use of isa (essentially from English is and is a) both
in contexts where it should be used and where it should not be. This is followed by a
reinsertion of the form in correct environments (where the verb to be is generally used).
In other words, he overuses the form, he then comes close to eliminating the form,
and then begins to reinsert the form once he has begun to understand its appropriate
function.
A similar finding was observed with regard to the article system. Ge went through
a variety of stages as he attempted to sort out the form da (from the English definite
article). The changes in the use of the form are not random. Da was used in most
environments before it was gradually eliminated from contexts where it is not used in
standard English.
8.2.2 Concept-Oriented Approach
What was considered in the previous section in respect of Ge’s language development can be thought of as a form to function approach, whereby one looks at a form
and considers its functions (see Bardovi-Harlig, 2020). A different perspective is what
Bardovi-Harlig refers to as a function to form approach (see also Long & Sato, 1984),
also known as the concept-oriented approach.
The concept-oriented approach starts with the assumption that learners have the
need to express a given concept—for example, an event in the past—in which the
investigation begins with the identification of one function or concept or meaning and
follows the way it is expressed through development. Thus, basic to this approach is
2 16
M EA N IN G - BA SE D AP P R O A C H ES
the mapping of certain functions that the learner wants to express to the form that she
or he needs to express those functions. With adult learners, the function (i.e., concept)
is already known, as the relevant concepts are available through their L1. As with other
functional approaches, language is considered broadly and not just from the perspective syntax, or lexicon, or morphosyntax. Rather, what occurs is a multilevel analysis
which brings into the picture a combination of linguistic devices. Long and Sato put it
this way: “function-to-form analysis … automatically commits one to multi-level analysis, since the entire repertoire of strategies and devices used by the learner must be
examined” (1984, p. 271, emphasis in original).
Andersen (1984, 1990) refers to the one-to-one principle, which is essentially an
expression of one form/one meaning. He discusses the possibility of multifunctionality,
recognizing that there are times when a learner needs to “search” the input to understand additional meanings expressed in the input. An example might be the present
progressive, which can mean an act in the present (I am writing these words now) or
an act in the future (I am flying to Shanghai tomorrow):
(a) Where there is clear evidence in the input that more than one form marks the
meaning conveyed by only one form in the interlanguage, try to discover the distribution and additional meaning (if any) of the new form. (b) Where there is evidence in the input that an interlanguage form conveys only one of the meanings
that the same form has in the input, try to discover the additional meanings of the
form in the input.
(Andersen, 1990, p. 53)
Bardovi-Harlig (2020) provides an example from the acquisition of the expression of
futurity:
Learners begin to express the futurity with will, and only later, under certain
circumstances, expand their repertoire to include the going to future (BardoviHarlig, 2004b, 2005). Audiences often ask me why learners do not just use the
present progressive (e.g., I’m going to Chicago). The data show that the present
progressive is used in less than 2% of learner expressions of the future. The explanation is rather straightforward functionally. The present progressive has the primary
function of expressing ongoing action. In other words, it is involved in a one-toone relationship with another meaning in the interlanguage. With time, learners
do expand their systems beyond the initial stage described by the one-to-one principle and move into a stage characterized by multifunctionality, but at the outset
they begin with a transparent, invariant, and simple association of futurity and will.
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2020, pp. 43–44, emphasis in original)
A great deal of research within this analytical framework has been conducted by
Bardovi-Harlig, who has considered the acquisition of tense in numerous places (e.g.,
2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2007), as well as in work by the European Science Foundation
(e.g., Dietrich, Klein, & Noyau, 1995). Other topics investigated within this framework
217
A FOCU S ON M E AN I NG
are futurity (Bardovi-Harlig, 2004a, 2004b, 2005; Gudmestad & Geeslin, 2011,
2013; Howard, 2012; Kanwit, 2017; Moses, 2002; Solon & Kanwit, 2014; Kanwit &
Solon, 2013) and simultaneity (Aksu-Koç & von Stutterheim, 1994; Leclercq, 2009;
Schmiedtová, 2004).
8.3 TENSE AND ASPECT: THE ASPECT HYPOTHESIS
A major question asked by researchers studying tense and aspect is: How do learners
recognize what morphological markers (e.g., past tense, progressive) go with what
verbs? The Aspect Hypothesis, a form-to-function approach, addresses this
question.
As we showed earlier, the issue of the acquisition of morphological items has long
been a feature of L2 research. Earlier work looked at the actual morphemes and tried
to determine the order in which they are acquired. In the 1980s a more sophisticated
approach was taken to the L2 acquisition of tense–aspect morphology. The Aspect
Hypothesis claims that “first and second language learners will initially be influenced
by the inherent semantic aspect of verbs or predicates in the acquisition of tense
and aspect markers associated with or affixed to these verbs” (Andersen & Shirai,
1994, p. 133). This approach is semantic in nature and focuses on the influence of
lexical aspect in the SLA of tense–aspect morphology. The original impetus for the
hypothesis came from L1 acquisition studies, specifically Antinucci and Miller (1976),
who carried out a study of L1 acquisition of Italian and English (see critique by Weist,
Wysocka, Witkowska-Stadnik, Buczowska, & Konieczna, 1984). Andersen (1986,
1991) formulated the hypothesis in its present form, with a specific focus on SLA (see
also Andersen & Shirai, 1994; Bardovi-Harlig, 1994).
Andersen (1986, 1991) presented a study of two NSs of English—one child and
one adolescent—learning L2 Spanish. He noticed an interesting distinction in their
development of tense–aspect marking: the past tense (preterit) markers emerged
with punctual and achievement verbs, whereas the imperfect markers emerged with
verbs that indicate states. Punctual verbs, according to Andersen (1986, p. 311),
are “momentary in duration. They may be thought of as being reduced to a point.”
Bardovi-Harlig characterizes aspectual classes as follows:
States persist over time without change (e.g., seem, know, need, want, and be, as
in be tall, big, green). Activities have inherent duration in that they involve a span
of time, like sleep and snow. They have no specific endpoint as in I studied all
week and, thus, are atelic (e.g., rain, play, walk, and talk). Achievements capture
the beginning or the end of an action (Mourelatos, 1981) as in the race began or
the game ended and can be thought of as reduced to a point (Andersen, 1991).
Examples of achievement verbs include arrive, leave, notice, recognize, and fall
asleep. Accomplishments (e.g., build a house or paint a painting) are durative like
activities and have an endpoint like achievements.
(Bardovi-Harlig, 1999a, p. 358)
2 18
M EA N IN G - BA SE D AP P R O A C H ES
These verb types are illustrated in the following examples:
(8-2)
se partió (punctual)
it broke
(8-3)
enseñó (achievement)
s/he taught
(8-4)
tenía (state)
s/he had (imperfect form)
Based on his empirical results, Andersen postulated a sequence of developmental
stages. The development of the past tense seemed to spread from achievement verbs
to accomplishment verbs, to activities, and finally to states. The situation is different for
the imperfect, which appears later than the perfect. It spreads in the reverse order—
from states to activities, to accomplishments, and then to achievements. Thus,
Andersen argued that, when tense–aspect morphology emerged in the IL of these
two participants, it was constrained by lexical aspect in terms of the types of verbs
described above.
A similar phenomenon has been reported in a variety of L2 naturalistic and classroom settings (e.g., Kumpf, 1984; Kaplan, 1987; Flashner, 1989; Robison, 1990,
1995; Bardovi-Harlig, 1992a, 1992b; Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds, 1995; Hasbún,
1995; Shirai, 1995; Bardovi-Harlig & Bergström, 1996; Shirai & Kurono, 1998; Rocca,
2002; see also reviews by Andersen & Shirai, 1994, 1996 and Bardovi-Harlig, 1999a,
2000). Findings from research in a number of TLs generally show the following (see, in
particular, Andersen & Shirai, 1996, p. 533):
1.
2.
3.
Past/perfective morphology emerges with punctual verbs and verbs indicating
achievements and accomplishments. The morphology then gradually extends to
verbs expressing activities and states.
Imperfective morphology emerges with durative and/or stative verbs (i.e.,
activities and states), then gradually spreads to achievement/accomplishment
and punctual verbs.
Progressive morphology is strongly associated with durative and dynamic
verbs (i.e., activities).
Other studies are revealing in this regard. First, Housen (1995), over a three-year
period of time in a classroom setting, observed six learners of L2 English, whose
native languages were French and Dutch. Data from the children, 8 years old at the
beginning of the study, were longitudinally collected at six-month intervals. Housen’s
results were mixed; the influence of telicity on perfective morphology was not as
strong as predicted. The strongest support for the Aspect Hypothesis came from
the progressive marker, which was initially restricted to activities and then gradually
covered all aspectual classes. It even overextended to states. See examples 8-5 to
8-8 (Housen, 1995):
219
A FOCU S ON M E AN I NG
(8-5)
She dancing. (activity)
(8-6)
And then a man coming … (accomplishment)
(8-7)
Well, I was knowing that. (state)
(8-8)
Other boys were shouting “watch out!” (achievement)
The French learners were overall less proficient than the Dutch learners and never reached
the stage where they could use the regular-past morphology productively. Transfer factors
were also involved in that learners appeared to be predisposed by the basic distinctions
in their L1 tense–aspect system to look for similar distinctions in the L2 input, specifically
in the case of the past/nonpast distinction, where Dutch is closer to English. However, in
the progressive/nonprogressive distinction, where neither of the NLs obligatorily encodes
progressive aspect, the learners seemed to resort to universal conceptual prototypes and
appeared to interpret the progressive as a marker of inherent durativity.
In another study, Rohde (1996, 2002) analyzed naturalistic L2 data of four L1
German children learning English during a six-month stay in California. An analysis of
uninflected and other nontarget-like verb forms showed the following:
•
•
•
•
•
2 20
use of progressive with infinitive or first/third person plural function:
(8-9)
I can fishing.
(8-10)
They going all, all the fishes going round my eggs and they bite.
use of progressive in past contexts:
(8-11)
I think Birgit was kissing.
(8-12)
We was going up there.
omission of past inflections on irregular and unfamiliar verbs:
(8-13)
Tiff, I sleep yesterday outside.
(8-14)
I just kick him.
marking of future events with the construction I’m + verb:
(8-15)
I’m go home.
(8-16)
I’m get it for Tiff.
unsystematic use and nonuse of inflections:
(8-17)
What do your foot? [German: Was macht dein Fuss? = What does
your foot do?]
(8-18)
Hey Johnny is loving me.
M EA N IN G - BA SE D AP P R O A C H ES
As a result of these findings, Rohde maintains that the Aspect Hypothesis applies, with
an important caveat: The influence of lexical aspect is gradient and wanes according
to the learner’s age, the particular L1/L2s involved, and the length of TL exposure.
The Aspect Hypothesis is a rich hypothesis drawing upon many forms of linguistics. It is important to note that very early forms of temporal expression appear
without any overt linguistic marking. How then do learners express temporality?
Bardovi-Harlig (1999a) suggested four ways: (a) build on conversational partner’s discourse, (b) infer from context, (c) contrast events, and (d) follow chronological order in
narration. These are essentially pragmatic means for accomplishing what learners are
unable to accomplish within their linguistic means.
The next stage is the beginning of the learner’s use of language to express temporality. Predominant in this phase is the use of adverbials (e.g., yesterday, then, after,
often, twice). It is interesting that the ready availability and sufficiency of adverbials may
delay acquisition of temporality (Giacalone Ramat & Banfi, 1990). In fact, Dietrich et al.
(1995) suggest that some untutored learners may not progress past this stage (see
discussion of Kumpf’s work in Chapter 2).
TIME TO THINK …
In English or another language brainstorm a list of adverbials that learners
might use to express temporality. Think about whether the adverbials can
express past, present, future, progressive, and perfective meanings. Do you
think that reliance on these adverbials might delay acquisition of temporality?
In what ways have you used temporal adverbs to express time in your L2?
Wulff, Ellis, Römer, Bardovi-Harlig, and Leblanc (2009) considered different possibilities
to explain emergence of form. They did this through a triangulation of data, including
corpus data (L1 and L2) and judgments by native speakers as to prototypicality of
form. As with many aspects of L2 learning, they found no single factor responsible
for the emergence of form; rather, numerous factors together (including frequency
and prototypicality) drive learning. Added to this, one needs to consider L1 influence.
Izquierdo and Collins (2008) considered two groups of learners of French (Spanish L1
and English L1), finding that those with Spanish as an L1 (whose L1 is similar to the
L2 in the domain tested, namely the distinction between perfective and imperfective,
which exists in both) take advantage of the similarity, whereas English learners (whose
L1 differs from the L2 in that no distinction is made) rely more on verb semantics and
“partially understood pedagogical rules” (Izquierdo & Collins, 2008, p. 351). However,
the role of the L1 is not quite so straightforward. Gabriele (2009) investigated aspects
of learners of Japanese as an L2 (English L1) and English as an L2 (Japanese L1).
The specific area of study was the present progressive in English and an imperfective
marker in Japanese. She found that the learners of Japanese were better able to
acquire the Japanese imperfective marker than the learners of English were to acquire
the present progressive. In particular, they were able to understand the semantics
221
A FOCU S ON M E AN I NG
of the imperfective in the L2 and, importantly, were able to rule out interpretations
that would have been based on their L1. She proposed two possibilities to explain
this: grammatical complexity and features of the input.
Ayoun and Salaberry (2008) considered French learners of English with up to
seven years of study. They point to the fact that there is a task effect that comes into
play, suggesting a representation of language that is still fragile, even after numerous
years of study. They also point to the possibility of different stages of development,
with some learners in their study relying on the L1 and others showing only a limited
effect of the L1.
Another explanation comes from Slabakova (2002), who turned to Prototype
Theory, which attempts to explain how humans categorize—in this case, language.
Prototype Theory assumes that “there are good members (prototypes) and marginal
members of a category, the goodness being gradient and determined by the commonality with the central members (prototype of the category” (Andersen & Shirai,
1996, p. 555). Understanding this within a second language context, learners start
with what is prototypical within a category and extend outward.
Gass and Ard (1984) looked at prototypes produced by second language learners
with varying meanings of linguistic forms. They referred to universal foci of meaning
of linguistic forms, which is similar to the construct of prototypicality. As they noted,
“there is a basic sense of tense/aspect elements in all languages. Furthermore, when
different languages are compared, there is a germ of similarity in that elements can
be grouped so that the same basic situation is highlighted as prototypical for all these
languages” (Gass & Ard, 1984, p. 52). Their data came from Spanish and Japanese
learners of English. In general, when the progressive is used, sentences were more
acceptable when they referred to situations that describe an ongoing action than to
those that describe a future activity. Example 8-19 was more readily accepted than
8-20, despite the fact that both are acceptable and frequently used in English (Gass
& Ard, 1984, p. 54):
(8-19)
John is smoking American cigarettes now.
(8-20)
John is traveling to New York tomorrow.
Muñoz and Gilabert (2011) investigated use of progressive aspect (the use of -ing)
by beginning learners of English who were bilingual Spanish/Catalan and, like Ayoun
and Salaberry (2008), considered the role of tasks in understanding their results. In
Spanish and Catalan (unlike English), the progressive form is used for emphasis, that
is, to contrast with some other timeframe. This is exemplified in 8-21 and 8-22 (Muñoz
& Gilabert, 2011, p. 249):
(8-21)
Question:
Response:
Cat.:
Sp.:
2 22
What is your sister studying at UCLA? (in general over a
period of time)
Què estudia la teva germana a UCLA?
¿Qué estudia tu hermana en UCLA?
M EA N IN G - BA SE D AP P R O A C H ES
(8-22)
Question: What is your sister studying now? (at this particular time)
Response:
Cat.:
Què està estudiant / estudia la teva germana ara?
Sp.:
¿Qué está estudiando / estudia tu hermana ahora?
Their data came from 147 instructed learners of English and analysis of their performance in two tasks: an interview and a narrative based on a picture. The study
was cross-sectional in that there were four proficiency levels. They predicted that
the progressive aspect would be used first with activity verbs and then extend to
accomplishments and achievements. Stative verbs would be the last to be used
with the -ing form. Their results only partially confirmed the predictions of the Aspect
Hypothesis. Stative verbs were the last to be used, but in the case of other verb types,
the strongest initial association was between the progressive form and accomplishment verbs, and then by activity. With increased proficiency, activity verbs were more
closely associated with the progressive form than accomplishment verbs. The extension to achievement verbs was limited. The trends they noted were not significant.
However, what is noteworthy is the fact that, depending on the task, the results differ.
Accomplishment verbs were dominant in the picture description task, but not in the
interview task. For the interview task, activity verbs dominated at all proficiency levels.
McManus (2013) specifically investigated the role of semantic prototypes. In addition to an L1 control group, McManus’ participants were 75 learners of French (English
and German L1s). Two tasks were used: an oral description task and a sentence interpretation task in which participants judged the appropriateness of an L2 sentence
within an L1 context. Following the predictions of the Aspect Hypothesis, McManus
expected to find a linear route of development from prototypical to nonprototypical.
These predictions were not borne out with more advanced learners, who were
influenced more by prototypicality than were lower level students. One possibility, as
suggested by Salaberry (2008), is that the phenomenon witnessed in McManus’ work
is suggestive of U-shaped learning (see discussion in Chapter 11). Less proficient
learners are less impacted by prototypicality; the influence of prototypicality increases
with proficiency, but then nonprototypicality begins to play a role with increased proficiency. McManus suggests that his learners may have been “too proficient” for this
phenomenon to be apparent.
In sum, the area of research that deals with tense–aspect suggests a multiplicity
of factors at play in explaining variability in acquiring this central feature of language.
Thane (2018, p. 272), in a review of the Aspect Hypothesis, notes that it “is prone
to L1 influence, that it is less applicable at higher levels of acquisition, and that it is
plausibly not a factor in choosing aspectual morphemes for classroom learners at the
earliest stages of acquisition.” In addition to the review by Thane, Bardovi-Harlig, and
Comajoan-Colomé (in press) provide an important review of the Aspect Hypothesis
including expansion beyond its original intent. They review research dealing with the
role of the first language (with true beginners showing greater influence from the L1
than more advanced learners); they question the effects of proficiency and task effects,
223
A FOCU S ON M E AN I NG
looking at productive and non-productive tasks. They problematize the notion of task
by pointing out that some tasks have taken the acquisition of tense–aspect away from
its original base. In their review of the input to which learners are exposed, they note
that input in a classroom context often yields to simplified, if not impoverished, input.
Included in their review is an important discussion of research methodology and, in
particular, a discussion of the tasks that are used in tense–aspect research and issues
related to how data are analyzed.
8.4 THE DISCOURSE HYPOTHESIS
Another way of looking at the acquisition of tense–aspect is not to consider lexical meaning, as with the Aspect Hypothesis, but to look at the structure of the
discourse in which utterances appear. In general, there are two parts to discourse
structure: background and foreground. Foreground information is generally new
information that moves time forward. Background information is supporting information. Unlike foreground material, it does not provide new information, but might
serve the purpose of elaborating on the information revealed through the foreground
material. Within the context of the Discourse Hypothesis, another form-to-function
approach, it is claimed that “learners use emerging verbal morphology to distinguish
foreground from background in narratives” (Bardovi-Harlig, 1994, p. 43). An example
of how this might come about was seen in Chapter 2 in the discussion of data from
Kumpf (1984).
Jarvis (2002) investigated article use in English by L2 learners from the perspective of discourse universals. His data from Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking
learners of English were gathered from written narratives (in two parts) of a silent film.
The narratives were analyzed by isolating all referents to the film’s female protagonists
and categorizing these references as to the contextual category: (a) new topic, (b) new
comment, (c) current topic, (d) current comment, (e) known topic, and (f) known
comment. These were defined in the following way:
New topic
A previously unmentioned NP referent that serves as the subject … of the main
clause of a T-unit1 where no other NP referent has been mentioned previously.
New comment
A previously unmentioned NP referent that does not meet the criteria for a
new topic.
Current topic
A NP referent that was mentioned in the preceding T-unit or earlier in the current
T-unit and is the subject of the main clause of the current T-unit or as the only NP
referent in the main clause that was mentioned previously.
A NP referent in a subordinate clause—though not in reported speech—if it
is coreferential with the topic … of the main clause.
2 24
M EA N IN G - BA SE D AP P R O A C H ES
Current comment
A NP referent that was mentioned in the preceding T-unit or earlier in the current
T-unit but does not meet the criteria for current topic.
Known topic
A NP referent that was mentioned earlier in the text, but not in the preceding
T-unit or earlier in the current T-unit, and is the subject of the main clause or the
only NP referent in the main clause mentioned previously.
Known comment
A NP referent that was mentioned earlier in the text, but not in the preceding
T-unit or earlier in the current T-unit, and does not meet the criteria for known topic.
(Jarvis, 2002, p. 395)
The results show a complex interplay between the NL and discourse constraints,
suggesting that learners distinguish between new, current, and known NP referents,
although the NL does influence these choices. The distinction between topic and
comment is less straightforward, and Jarvis suggests that this may cast doubt on the
universality of this distinction, although he acknowledges that his learners were not at
the very early stages of acquisition. One interesting suggestion made is that learners
may simultaneously entertain multiple hypotheses regarding article use.
Bardovi-Harlig (2004a, 2004b, 2005) investigated learners of English, showing
that will emerges prior to going to as an expression of futurity. Bardovi-Harlig (2004a)
considers three explanations: (a) formal complexity, (b) will as a lexical marker, and
(c) the one-to-one principle. The one-to-one principle (discussed earlier) “is a principle of one form to one meaning” (Andersen, 1984, p.79, emphasis in original).
With regard to formal complexity (going to is more complex than will), BardoviHarlig argues that this might explain why will emerges first, but not why going to is
infrequently used.2
The second explanation that she explores is the possibility that learners perceive
will as a lexical rather than a grammatical marker. This fits in with the general observation that lexical marking often precedes grammatical or morphological marking in SLA.
In other words, learners use lexical items (e.g., tomorrow) before using grammatical
means to express future. This is made easier by the fact that it is a single word, and,
further, her data show only few instances of the reduced form (’ll). The third explanation relies on the one-to-one principle first articulated by Andersen (1984, p. 79): “an
IL should be constructed in such a way that an intended underlying meaning is
expressed with one clear invariant surface form (or construction).” This principle, he
claims, is a “first-step” in constructing an L2 grammar and guides learners as they
construct “a minimal but functional IL system” (1984, p. 79). Bardovi-Harlig argues
that will is the general future marker at the early stages. If the one-to-one principle is
valid, in order for going to to enter the system, learners have to assign a new meaning,
separate from the meaning of will. Following Dahl (1985, 2000), Bardovi-Harlig (2004a,
p. 133) makes the argument that going to has the meaning of “ ‘in preparation’ or
225
A FOCU S ON M E AN I NG
impending use. The concept of ‘immediacy’ may be built in to the meaning associated
with the form.”
Bardovi-Harlig (1998, p. 498), through data from L2 learners of English, finds
support for both the tense–aspect and discourse hypotheses. She comes to the
following conclusions:
1.
2.
3.
Achievements are the predicates most likely to be inflected for simple past,
regardless of grounding.
Accomplishments are the next most likely type of predicate to carry the simple
past. Foreground accomplishments show higher rates of use than background
accomplishments.
Activities are the least likely of all the dynamic verbs to carry simple past, but
foreground activities show higher rates of simple past inflection than background activities. Activities also show use of progressive, but this is limited to the
background.
These findings clearly show that lexical meaning (as seen by the distinction among
verb types) is one determinant of verbal morphology; discourse structure (as seen
by the differential use of morphology for foreground versus background material) is
another. Thus, both the Aspect Hypothesis and discourse structure work together to
account for the way tense–aspect morphology and meaning are acquired.
8.5 CONCLUSION
This chapter has concerned itself with functional approaches to language. The topics
discussed here deal with language as a communicative social system. This theme,
and a related topic—pragmatics—will be discussed in Chapter 12 when we turn to the
social environment of learning. In Chapter 9 we deal with an area of second language
learning that is central to many areas, that of vocabulary.
POINTS TO REMEMBER
2 26
●
Functional approaches refer to approaches to SLA that are concerned
with how the forms of language express different functions and consider meaning as central (above forms).
●
The form-to-function approach refers to when a learner acquires
a particular language form and then learns its different functions,
including when it can be used and when it cannot be used.
●
The concept-oriented approach, or the function-to-form approach,
starts with the functions to be learned in a language. The learner has
particular functions that he/she wants to express and learns to map
the appropriate forms onto those functions.
M EA N IN G - BA SE D AP P R O A C H ES
●
The Aspect Hypothesis claims that learners initially use the semantics
of a verb to know which tense and aspect markers to use with
that verb. Achievement and accomplishment verbs are associated
with past tense morphology, activities and states are associated
with imperfective morphology, and activities are associated with
progressive morphology.
●
Discourse structure, in terms of foreground and background, is another
means by which learners acquire verbal morphology. The Discourse
Hypothesis, also a form-to-function approach, claims that learners use
the structure of the discourse in which utterances occur, rather than
lexical meaning of verbs, to acquire tense and aspect.
NOTES
1 NP refers to noun phrase. T-units are defined as “one main clause plus any subordinate clause or nonclausal structure that is attached to or embedded in it” (Hunt,
1970, p. 4).
2 See Gass and Ard (1980) for an explanation based on prototypicality and core
meanings.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form,
meaning, and use. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Binnick, R. I. (2012). The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Dimroth, C., & Jordens, P. (Eds.). (2009). Functional categories in learner language.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Huebner, T., & Ferguson, C. (Eds.). (1991). Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Labeau, E. (2005). Beyond the aspect hypothesis: Tense–aspect development in
advanced L2 French. EUROSLA Yearbook, 5(1), 77–101.
Salaberry, R., & Comajoan, L. (Eds.). (2013). Research design and methodology in
studies on L2 tense and aspect. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Salaberry, R., & Shirai, Y. (Eds.). (2002). The L1 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, L. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language
development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
227
A FOCU S ON M E AN I NG
MORE TO DO AND MORE TO THINK ABOUT …
1.
Consider the following definitions for the basic meanings of the progressive/
present/future tenses in English:
(a) Progressive (to be + verb + -ing): ongoing witnessed activity that persists
for an extended period of time.
(b) Simple present (base verb): lawlike regular state or expected events
characteristic of their subject at the present time.
(c) Future (will + verb): states or events expected in the foreseeable future.
The data presented here are from Spanish and Japanese learners of English
(Gass & Ard, 1984). These learners had been asked to judge the acceptability
of the following sentences in English:
Spanish
Japanese
n = 52
n = 37
% acceptable responses
1. Dan sees better.
2. Dan is seeing better now.
3. Mary is being in Chicago now.
4. John is travelling to New York tomorrow.
5. The new bridge connects Detroit and Windsor.
6. The new bridge is connecting Detroit and
Windsor.
7. John travels to New York tomorrow.
8. John will travel to New York tomorrow.
9. John is smoking American cigarettes now.
10. The new bridge will connect Detroit and
Windsor.
11. Fred smokes American cigarettes now.
12. Mary will be in Chicago now.
13. John will smoke American cigarettes now.
14. Mary is in Chicago now.
65
81
8
8
79
46
43
19
5
32
73
24
8
86
88
67
19
81
76
87
56
10
10
88
51
14
3
92
Focus on the progressive, simple present, and future tenses. For each, order the
sentences from those most frequently judged acceptable to those least frequently
judged acceptable. Do this separately for each of the two language groups. Are
the two language groups comparable? What explanation can you give for the
different percentages of each of the two language groups? What explanation can
you give for the differential acceptability of the various uses of each tense by
both groups? In your answer you might want to consider the different semantic
concepts embodied in each of the verb tenses: completed action, incomplete
action, and action in progress.
2 28
M EA N IN G - BA SE D AP P R O A C H ES
What do these data suggest about the interaction between syntax and
semantics in SLA?
Consider sentences 4 and 7, the translation equivalents of which are possible
in Spanish. However, the acceptability of these sentences in English is low in the
Spanish speakers’ judgments. How can you account for this? What does this
suggest about the interaction of the NL and language universals?
What do these data suggest about the acquisition of tense–aspect systems in
an L2? Is acquisition gradual or is it an all or nothing phenomenon?
2.
The data below are from a native speaker of Arabic enrolled in an
intermediate level of an intensive English program. He had seen a movie
titled Little Man, Big City. The following is his oral account of that movie:
I saw today a movie about a man in a big city. I want to tell you about a
movie, my friend. The movie began with a man about forty years old or
forty-five in his apartment in the city and he was disturbed by alarm clock,
TV, and noisy outside the house or outside the apartment and he woke
up in a bad temper and he wanted a fresh air, he went when he opened
the window to get this fresh air, he found a smoke, smoke air, dirty air. The
movie also showed that the man not only disturbed in his special apartment
or special house, but in everything, in work, in street, in transportation, even
in the gardens and seashores. Man in the city has to wake up very early
to go to the work and he has to, as the movie shows, he has to use any
means of transportation, car, bus, bicycle and all the streets are crowded,
and he has no no choice or alternatively to use and he is busy day and
night. At day, he has to work hard among the machines, the typewriters and
among papers, pencils and offices in the city. And when he wanted to take
a rest in his house or outside his house in the garden or the seashore …
He can’t because the seats are crowded with people. When he wanted to
take a meal in restaurant, the restaurant is crowded, everything is crowded
in the city and very, very—it’s not good place or good atmosphere to to
live in. The movie showed that. And the man began to feel sick and thus
he wanted to consult the doctors to describe a medicine or anything for
for health, but the doctors also disagreed about his illness or they couldn’t
diagnose his illness correctly. This they show at first. Want to make us know
about the life in the city. The man began to think about to find a solution or
answer for this dilemma. OK dilemma? Dilemma. He thought that why not
to go to the open lands and to build houses and gardens and and to live in
this new fresh land with fresh air and fresh atmosphere and why don’t we
stop smoking in the factories by using filters, filters and stop smoking from
the cars and all industrial bad survivals or like smoking like dirty airs and
so on. The man also wanted to make kids or childrens in the houses not
to play or to use sports inside houses, but to go outside the houses in the
garden and to play with balls, basket anything. They like to play. And also
he wanted to live in a quiet and calm apartment. People inside houses must
229
A FOCU S ON M E AN I NG
not use TV in a bad way or a noisy way. Must use it in a calm way or in a
quiet way and that, I think, that is a good solution or a good answer for this
city dilemma.
Categorize the data by separating this speaker’s use of the present tense
from his use of the past tense. Focusing on tense shifts, from past to present
and vice versa, work out an IL generalization that might account for this shift.
3.
Below is a written version of the same movie by the same speaker:
I saw a movie about a man in a city (big city). I want to tell you what I saw
and what is my opinion. The movie began with a man about forty years old,
in his apartment in a big city. He was disturbed by many things like Alarm
O’Clock, T.V., Radio and noisy outside. He want a fresh air, but he could not
because the city is not a good place for fresh air. There are many factories
which fill the air with smoke. The movie showed the daily life of a man in
the city. He is very busy day and night. He had to go to his work early by
any means of transportation, car, bus, bicycle. The streets are crowded,
everything in the city is crowded with people, the houses, streets, factories,
institutions and even the seashores. Man in a big city lives a hard and
unhealthy life, noisy, dirt air, crowded houses and smoke are good factors
for sickness. The man in the big city tried to find answer to this dilemma.
Instead of living in crowded, unhealthy places, he wanted places that
must be used for living. People must live in good atmosphere climate and
land. Gardens, which are good places for sports, must surround houses.
My opinion is that man’s solution for the problem is good and acceptable
especially for health.
Categorize the data by separating the speaker’s use of the present tense
from his use of the past tense. Focusing on tense shifts, from past to present
and vice versa, work out an IL generalization that might account for this shift.
2 30